< Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 03:42, 19 March 2022 view sourceEEng (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors98,002 edits OneClickArchiver adding Invasion and resistance← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 January 2025 view source Wizmut (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,938 edits balance topics between archivesTag: Disambiguation links added
(142 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-protected|reason=Persistent ]|small=yes}}
	{{Automatic archive navigator}}
			{{Talk archive}}
	==16,000 foreign volunteers==		== Crimea ==
	Better is Mercenaries, they fight for money.
			:I assume that the article describes Crimea as part of Russia. The infobox does not mention Crimea, but the lead says "the two occupied territories of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbas)". Some unification would be useful.
	] (]) 07:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Some Tatars do not want to be conscripted https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3441479-crimean-tatar-leader-appeals-to-people-in-crimea-to-dodge-russian-army-draft.html
	:It is difficult to distinguish a volunteer from a mercenary. Many of them may be motivated both ideologically (here, I am using the word "ideologically" not as a dysphemism but as a simple descriptor) and financially. ] (]) 07:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
			Conscription of inhabitants of occupied areas is, as far as I know, illegal. The same in occupied Eastern Ukraine.] (]) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
	: That is mixing up two things. The article mentions Ukraine’s international legion, and if you pay attention you’ll see that is not the same as the mercenaries the article is about. —''] ].'' 20:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
	: All mercenaries are volunteers, technically. ] (]) 05:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			It is ] (]) 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			==Page protection==
			I have now requested page protection, enough is enough. ] (]) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			:Supporting. ] (]) 17:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			== Elements of "proxy war"? ==
			Hello everyone, I'd like to bring up something that I think this article lacks, and that is the issue of this being a "proxy war". I've identified some sources that seem to describe this as a proxy war in some way:
			https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-long-holy-war-behind-putins-political-war-in-ukraine
			https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-arming-insurgency-ukraine-mean
			https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-25/nato-us-in-proxy-war-with-russia-biden-next-move-crucial/100937196
			The definition of "proxy war": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proxy-war
			"a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers..."
			Clearly, with NATO/US steadfast refusal to engage directly and materiel support for Ukraine, it's a proxy on some level. On the Russian end, it's less clear--Russia has historically been considered more of the "military superpower" over China, but with their (alleged) underperformance, and with the potential of becoming economically dependent on China in the face of Western sanctions, perhaps they are the ones fighting the proxy on behalf of the superpower? This article does not mention "proxy" anywhere. Allegedly, the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles...but let's not pretend that Western-made Javelins weren't crucial to many Ukraine successes. How would this get added? Also, I can't seem to edit the page. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:The idea of this being a "proxy war" is part of the Russian propaganda and represents a strong POV. Perhaps a mention of it could be made when describing Russian propaganda efforts, but certainly not claiming in Wikivoice that Russia's brutal aggression on a neighbour is a proxy war. ] (]) 22:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
			Oh, I wouldn’t advocate for calling it that, because it isn’t one. I was wondering if it would be helpful to discuss the debate over whether this is a proxy war. Lawfare is a far cry from Russian propaganda, and they’re game for at least discussing the idea. We haven’t even sold them MIGs (alternatively, they may be paperweights) due to fears of over-involvement. Providing small arms to the underdog defending themselves against a Goliath does not suggest nefarious proxy war geopoliticking, quite the contrary. Mentioning a proxy war in the way I envision would involve mostly saying why it isn’t one, per the sources. If you omit discussing this out of fear of parroting Russian propaganda, you risk creating a “forbidden fruit”. ] (]) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
			Its not a proxy was, as far as I am aware no RS has called it proxy war. ] (]) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
			::that isn't what was proposed ] (]) 21:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			== Structure for sections based on chronological periods, as per previous ] ==
			Hi. Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine, we will move ahead soon to create a new section for the current time period, based upon viewing this as a new chronological period of the conflict. This is based upon a consensus to structure the article sections on the conflict, based on chronological periods, as per previous ]. You can click the link to view the full discussion, which has now been archived. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course. thanks. --] (]) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
			:The previous discussion spoke of the ] needing to come to a conclusion before discussing options, however, the siege has not come to an end. Your link above does not link to anything, and its not clear what you mean since the siege of Mariupol is still in progress. ] (]) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
			::hi. I revised the link, in order to point to the correct section on the archived talk page. Actually, the talk page discussion related to the start of the Russian offensive in the east of Ukraine. I do appreciate your thoughtful reply on this. --] (]) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::You have just restored that missing link. The discussion there spoke of the advantages of waiting for the siege of Mariupol to be resolved, and the forces are still continuing the siege as of this morning in the linked Misplaced Pages article for the siege. The main editing for the new "eastern" offensive to which you refer has moved to the new article for ] were the details of this second phase of the invasion are being dealt with, and which I linked this morning. Since Misplaced Pages now has the new article for the War in Donbas, then most of the questions you previously asked seem to have been redirected there for current updates. The article here currently links the War in Donbas article as a continuation of the Invasion of the Southeastern front where you can find the link. ] (]) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
			*That Mariupol remains under siege is not an insurmountable problem and probably not a problem at all (IMHO). Looking at the article there, ] fairly closely aligns in time with the broader change in tempo of a chronological "second phase" and could easily be massaged into a new section here. ] (]) 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:@], thanks. yes, I agree. I am also going to ping @], and @], as they provided some very helpful input in the previous talk page discussion. if you could each please reiterate or indicate your opinions on this proposal for the article, as discussed in the previsous archived discussion, I would appreciate it. thanks!! --] (]) 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
			*"Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine". What new offensive? I see only a continuation of the existing offensive. ] (]) 14:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:as per the comment above, some individuals are asking {{tq|"what new offensive?"}} I think this illustrates the need to structure this aerticle to delineate the curent new phase of this conflict.
			*:if you would like to have some references, no problem, here they are.
			*:# , NBC News
			*:#, politico
			*:#, axios
			*:#. UK Guardian.
			*:#, April 19, 2022. NPR.
			*:#. UK Guardian
			:thanks. ] (]) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
			* All three editors seem in agreement that the siege of Mariupol should not hinder the refactoring of the section for the Second phase of the invasion. The appropriate start date for this appears to be the day 8 April that the combined forces were put under the change os a single general for the first time in the campaign, under General Dvornikov. Starting to refactor Invasion section according to agreement of all three editors. ] (]) 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
			Ok that sounds good. Thanks for your work on that, @ErnestKrause. ] (]) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
			==Support==
			{{Archive top
			|result = See open central discussion at ] ] (]) 00:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			|status = none }}
			Can these all be merged into one thread, it's getting very hard to follow all these separate questions on the same thing? ] (]) 17:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022 ==
			{{Archive top
			|result = See open central discussion at ] ] (]) 00:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			|status = none }}
	{{Clear}}
	==Russian losses update==
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}		{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
			] (]) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	An update to Russian losses is available at:
			Nato and Australia and New Zealand Sweden Finland should be put as support for ukraine
			:This is already being discussed above, please comment there. ] (]) 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			:{{not done}}, see FAQ #2. <span style="font-family:monospace;padding:3px 5px;background:#eee;color:black">>>>&nbsp;].]();</span> 17:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
	https://kyivindependent.com/uncategorized/ukraines-military-over-12000-russian-troops-have-been-killed-since-feb-24/
			== Support of Ukraine? ==
	] (]) 08:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Thanks for sharing, but please read Q3 of the FAQs at the top of this page. ] (]) 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=See FAQ #2, countries sending weapons to Ukraine should not be listed in the infobox. <span style="font-family:monospace;padding:3px 5px;background:#eee;color:black">>>>&nbsp;].]();</span> 13:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)}}
	{{Clear}}
	== Foreign casualties of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine table ==
	I would suggest stating whether the fatalities are civilians or military. The table above shows both and it is unclear in the referred to table. ] (]) 15:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)		How are there no countries listed as supporting Ukraine? At least every country that has reportedly supplied weapons to the Ukraine should be listed there, shouldn't it? ] (]) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			:Not necessarily. The infobox is only meant to summarize the key aspects of the article, not to be all-encompassing (]). So, whether support is included in the infobox is an editorial matter. There was an ] that failed to reach a consensus, with opponents arguing it would make the infobox too large and would unduly imply too much involvement on the part of other countries. ―&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 06:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			::Why not do it like the ]? It indicates that the Ukraine recieves massive support and you can inform yourself about what countries are supporting UKR without making the infobox too large. ] (]) 06:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	:I would support the suggestion, do you have a source that specifies that? ] (]) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::The reason why other nations are not included in the Belligerents section is because current consensus is against doing so. This has been discussed multiple times previously. ] (]) 07:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			::You can add a single name in a single line in the infobox instead of dozens: '''NATO'''. But no, you shills adding Belarus for the lulz. ] (]) 11:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			We do not need 15 threads asking the same question. ] (]) 09:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== Foreign volunteer count? ==
			{{abot}}
	The article currently says 16,000 volunteers, while the ] article states over 20,000. Both are sourced. Anyway, just wanting to make the infobox accurate. Thanks.--<span style='color: darkblue;text-shadow:gray 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml'>Surv1v4l1st</span> <sup><span style="font-size:7px">╠]║]╣</span></sup> 17:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
	:I think the numbers are a bit weird because there seems to be a blending between those who volunteer, and those who fight. Anyone, including you and I, can volunteer but that doesn't make us combatants, to my mind to be a combatant you have to show up to Ukraine, get an AK and go fight. So I see some sources that say physically present, and others that say 'volunteer'. Beyond that I think it needs better attribution, because all the attributions so far are according to the foreign ministry. But 16,000-20,000 troops is a lot, it's 10%-15% of Russia's invasion force so you'd think that they'd be a little more visible to foreign correspondents. ] (]) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Maybe it's 16,000 accepted volunteers? I don't imagine volunteers from the US or UK have had time to arrive at the frontlines. ] (]) 05:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Post-invasion phase ==
	:16000 was the latest (claimed) addition of volunteers as it was at that date. It never really represented the total number of volunteers present in the Ukraine as there were people there long before this. (All the way back to 2014) Now, the supposed addition might be closer to 20000 yes though the total number of volunteers is still effectively unknown - as is how many of these are actually volunteering as fighters. And obviously, the number can grow or shrink suddenly (from new ones arriving to many going home) There really shouldn't have been an attempt at listing a given number of volunteer fighters in the infobox, it was always going to be wrong in one way or another. ] (]) 20:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			So now that the Russian military objective has shifted towards consolidating gains made in Donbass and the south, should we keep limit the scope of this article to be just about the initial invasion and put the rest of it on ] or should we keep adding to this article? ] (]) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:Just a comment that two articles, ] & ] were created to contain some of that information. ] (]) 04:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022 (2) ==
			:Have they, they still seem to be attacking. ] (]) 10:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
			::International press seems fairly committed to reporting this as a first phase of the invasion followed by a second phase of the invasion. ] (]) 14:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::But not "post-invasion". ] (]) 14:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::Not 'post-invasion'. The langauge in the international press is all talking about the start of the second phase of the invasion which is expanding at this time. ] (]) 14:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	] (]) 15:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			==Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version==
	Title should also be referred to as “Putins’ War”
	:Sources? ] (]) 15:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{Archive top
	==Add image of Kyiv TV Tower bombardment to infobox?==
			|result = This is a procedural close on the basis of the clear consensus to adopt option 1 in the discussion below (]) as the preferred colourblind-friendly version of the map. The consensus below makes this discussion redundent. ] (]) 12:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	<gallery>
			|status = none }}
	Житловий будинок на вул. Лобановського, 6-А після обстрілу.jpg|Destroyed homes in Kyiv
	Russian bombardment of telecommunications antennas in Kiev.jpg|Bombardment of the Kyiv TV Tower
			I would like to propose that the main map shown in the infobox be changed to the colourblind-friendly version.
	File:Apartment block in Kharkiv damaged during Russian invasion.jpg|Destroyed homes in Kharkiv
			<gallery align="left" mode="packed" heights="220px">
			File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg|Current map
			File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine colorblind friendly.svg|Proposed replacement
	</gallery>		</gallery>
			The current map (on the left above) does not offer sufficient contrast for individuals diagnosed with ].<br>
	I think it might be a good idea to replace the destroyed Kyiv apartment building infobox image with the bombardment of the Kyiv TV Tower on 1 March, because then the images will show the Russian attempts to disrupt communication along with how they have destroyed civilian homes in Ukraine. I initially thought about replacing the destroyed homes Kharkiv image with it, but then I think that would make the infobox only feature Kyiv-specific images. ] (]) 03:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			Although tritanopia incidence rate is about 1%, this , which means that we have likely served this map to individuals diagnosed with ] more than 54 000 times. Of course, this number will only go up.<br>
	:How about some dead children? That would be more to the point. ]] 07:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			Per ], accessibility is a core WMF policy, and it {{tq|"may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project"}}. Based on this, I think we have a clear case for action to switch to the colourblind-friendly map.
	::fair point ] (]) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	:mmm I do not know. so far it appears that only that transmitter has been attacked. it seems that communications (TV, radio, telephone, internet, etc.) continue to function even in the disputed or occupied territories. correct me if i'm wrong.
	:Now, about the image of the infobox, comparing the images on the infobox of the articles "Iraq War" and "2003 invasion of Iraq", and the one used in this article, it seems to be an intention in the selected images to concentrate in drama, when these mentioned were superior in this aspect and the images mostly show combat operations or related. ] (]) 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Yeah I realize that now, I think the infobox should probably be left as is. ] (]) 00:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			Simulations of tritanopia:<br>
	== Infobox - Casualties and losses ==
			<br>
			Please be patient as the tool loads, it may take a few seconds to be ready. ] 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
	Acc. to Western officials (3 March):
	Acc. to United States (8 March):
			:'''Strong support''' - No love lost for a map with new colour schemes. The proposal works perfectly for everyone, a genuinely good change. ] (]) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
	Isn't the United States technically speaking a Western Country? It's like saying the European Union said whatever then France or Spain said whatever else. Shouldn't it just be Western Officials, like merge US with Western Officials? Not questioning the numbers of casualties and losses...just how it is presented.
			::'''Support with suggestion'''. This replacement looks a lot better. '''My suggestion''' is that there needs to be '''better contrast''' between "'''troop movement arrows'''" and the background colors, otherwise it is hard to see. If troop movements were, for example, '''black''' that would make them a lot easier to see. '''Another alternative''' might be to "'''outline'''" (any colored troop movement arrows) '''in clear black lines''' so you can really see these movement arrows. '''Or alternately still''', '''just experiment with other ''"arrow colors"''''', but always strive for '''strong contrast'''. ] (]) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' IMO the new one looks a lot better, since there's a larger contrast between the occupied/non-occupied territories. <span style="font-family:monospace;padding:3px 5px;background:#eee;color:black">>>>&nbsp;].]();</span> 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' Looks a lot clearer to me (average sighted?) ] (]) 14:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' I hate the yellow on yellow. Hard to see, if not impossible, on mobile devices.--] ] 16:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
			::'''Comment''', yes but I would also mention that the '''"grey" troop movement arrows''' are '''also hard to see.''' Better contrast there is still needed. ] (]) 18:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
			:IIRC this was discussed on Commons after the first overwrite (]), and editors decided to keep copy A. Some colourblind people commented there saying the one on the right wasn't actually easier to see. ] (]) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''', I do think its a good idea to have the advances/movements of forces in different colours, so readers can tell the forces apart, maybe not have red arrows on orange for the Russians and maybe blue instead of unclear Grey for the Ukrainians. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''<s>Support</s>''' per ] though contrast in the movement arrows should be increased. ] (]) 23:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
	I have no idea how to merge things on here so hence I am asking.
			::There appears to be a better option (option 1) per discussion below - ]. ] (]) 09:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Weak support''' The gray arrows on cream background for Ukraine are much clearer than the current version, but are hard to tell apart from the borders on the map for people with normal color vision, as is the new icon assigned to the older bombardments. The new contrast choice for the Russian troops and Russian-controlled territory is also somewhat worse than the original for viewers with ] or ]. –] (]]) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Strong Support''' for ], plus as someone with a type of colourblindness that doesn't affect the colours on the current map, I find the new clearer to read. --] (]) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
	] (]) 17:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Object''' One can discern the differences in gradient in the simulation of tritanopia version. It does not affect the viewing of the image. The orange subtlely resembles the color of the ], a Russian military symbol thus it would bring to the map a layer of unwanted meaning. ] (]) 18:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' I've seen better suggestions, such as a light blue and red one or a white(ish) and black one. This suggestion sure is better than the green and orange one but I am not convinced that this is the best possible version we can come out with and approving this version already could make people stop proposing alternatives. ] ] ] 09:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Strong Oppose''' It gives passive colors to Ukraine while making Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant. The current file is accessible to 99 % of the readers and the color blind accessible version already in the file page. ] (]) 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Very Strongly Oppose''' – The proposed colorblind map colors aren't intuitive, and for normal color vision people, the contrasting is just terrible in some areas (such as grey arrows on a light background). The colors are jarring and even a little confusing, as some of the colors are too close to others, while the proposed colors make it appear as if Ukraine doesn't even hold any territory. The grey colors for cities is also terrible and difficult to distinguish against the background. Not only that, but the colors don't mesh well together and don't look nice. If we implement a colorblind-friendly version, I prefer a version that is close to the current version of the map. As a matter of fact, I would strongly oppose any proposed color scheme that bears little to no resemblance to the current colors. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
			: Also '''Very Strongly Oppose''', LightandDark2000 has described the situation well. --] <small>(])</small> 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
			:* There is on some proposals to use a similar coloring scheme to the current colors that is also workable for colorblind individuals. Please also have a look at that discussion. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
			::{{ping|LightandDark2000}} My proposal is to improve the ] now with what we currently have ready, not to select 'one final map to rule them all that nobody will ever be able to change'. If this proposal was to be implemented, it would be a step towards a better accessibility, and we can take that step now. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of better.<br>The community has been struggling to agree on a proper colour scheme that works for everyone, and in the meanwhile colourblind users suffer. Per ], accessibility is not optional, and since there is ] our colourblind users may be left in Misplaced Pages census process purgatory for weeks or months. I would see no reason why we can't implement this now, and then when the discussion yields the final set of colours, implement those.<br> Could you attempt to justify a 'very strong oppose' in the context of our ] obligations and the reality that your discussion may not yield result anytime soon? ] 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::I know that this is irrelevant now, given that the second, later discussion has clearly concluded in favor of one of the proposals there over this particular proposal...But...Let me ask this: ''Why'' should we do this? Why should we rush a discussion, when the policy you yourself cited, ], states that there is no deadline for Misplaced Pages editors to complete an article or implement a change? Why should we prejudge the results of an open discussion when there is no way of knowing for certain exactly how it will end? And most importantly, why should we rush ahead with a controversial change that has divided the participants and attracted significant opposition, especially ''while the said discussion is still ongoing?'' If this doesn't breach ], or at least the soul of the policy, I don't know what does. I will say that rushing ahead with a proposal with this much opposition would generate significant backlash, both on Misplaced Pages and on other sites that view our maps (such as Twitter and Facebook). I've seen color changes hastily implemented before on other, unrelated projects on Misplaced Pages in the past, in the name of ]. While I will not explicitly say which projects are involved for those, let me just say that those attempts did not end well. They attracted significant backlash and opposition, both on Misplaced Pages and on social media. And there were even attempts to revert those changes outright on Misplaced Pages. If we move forward in such a hasty, ill-thought manner, as you are suggesting here, you will provoke widespread backlash over a map that's literally viewed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people each day. The fact that there is already significant opposition here to the proposal here means that it should ''not'' be implemented immediately, especially not with the discussion still in progress. I think that as Wikipedians, we have a responsibility to see a discussion through to the end before implementing a controversial or disputed change, based on the results of that discussion. We also have a responsibility, as editors of these articles, to ensure that while our articles are accessible, that the graphics and charts we use are also acceptable to most of our readers. WP:ACCESS is important, but equally important are the views of our readers with normal vision. You cannot stomp over the opinions of normal vision readers here in the name of WP:ACCESS, especially when there are better alternatives available. Both discrimination and reverse discrimination are equivalent evils that should not be entertained. Lastly, I will note that the proposals discussed in the second option below are significantly more popular than the proposal being discussed here, as the latter discussion ended in a ]. I think that the best course of action is to defer to the results of that discussion, rather than trying to overturn consensus or start more ]. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 01:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
			* {{Ping|Greyshark09|Spesh531|Kwamikagami|Dawsongfg|RobiH|Outth|Eoiuaa|Kippenvlees1|Symmachus Auxiliarus|Fogener Haus|Physeters|Lx 121|Berrely|HurricaneEdgar|MarioJump83|Tradedia|Ermanarich|Brobt|CentreLeftRight|Wiz9999|Borysk5|Oganesson007|Nate Hooper|Rob984|Ceha|AlphaMikeOmega|WeifengYang|PutItOnAMap|TheNavigatrr|Beshogur|AntonSamuel|Paolowalter|Emk9|EkoGraf|Rr016|Tan Khaerr|Kami888||MrPenguin20}} I'd like to hear the opinions of other users who work on these maps, the map modules, or have participated in the map color discussions on Commons, as I think they should have a say in the matter as well. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:'''Neither of the two'''. There are more color options being discussed on commons. ] (]) 21:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''', as there's already a more or less uniform design for conflict maps on Misplaced Pages which people recognize, at it's viewed by literally Millions. However, I agree that a change to a more colorblind-friendly version should be made, as has been suggested in another discussion below.--] (]) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''weak support'''. I see merits for accommodation, though I think the replacement proposed is not the best. Though it would be helpful if the color scheme matches with other[REDACTED] war maps, for almost all other war maps, government forces are actually red, and rebel forces green. One can argue how applicable this is here, as Russian invading forces are in fact not rebels, and red is almost universally denoted across as representing Russian occupation (Liveuamap, military.net, etc.). Hence we might actually we might need other arrangements for this, one that may very well be used for precedence in mapping interstate wars (which in terms of[REDACTED] live mapping we don't have much historic precedence), which of course means that when we are literally establishing precedence, one that would be great to be accommodating. However, many above have pointed out the problem with the proposed alternative. Perhaps when a better alternative is proposed we should support it. ] (]) 04:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' As a color-blind person I concur with {{ping|LightandDark2000}}. ] (]) 22:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Strong Support''' WP:ACCESSIBILITY is important for a global encyclopaedia. ] (]) ] (]) 21:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''support'''. I don't have anything particularly profound to say, other than that I think the new map looks nice and pretty. ] (]) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Weak Oppose''' We don't really need it. The current map works fine, there's no need change it. Its an unnecessary change. ] (]) 12:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
			Hi. I'm kindly requesting for an '''uninvolved''' editor to review this discussion, and implement the proposal at ]. ] 07:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
			*In the discussion at ], there is a very strong consensus there for implementing option 1 as the preferred colourblind friendly version of the map. The consensus there would appear to make this discussion redundent? ] (]) 02:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	:Western officials also includes Western Europe. I think it's fine.] (]) 18:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
			:* I agree. The ] consensus at makes this discussion obsolete, since they're literally discussing the same issue (but with different proposals). Also, it's very improper to request the implementation of a controversial proposal when there's clearly strong opposition or division regarding the idea, as I am seeing here. Such action directly undermines ], if not the very heart and soul of the policy. People should not be trying to overturn consensus, just because ] how the discussion turned out. I agree that this discussion should be closed, as it has basically become redundant and has been superceded by the outcome of the second discussion below. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 01:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	::Like KD0710, Western officials includes Western Europe as well (Central as well at this point), so distinctive from an exclusively US claim and should stay as it is for now. But the figure, compared to new ones presented by the US, is starting to seem an overestimation and also slowly becoming out-of-date. At one point, in a week perhaps, it should be removed since we can expect newer figures will be readily available. ] (]) 20:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::I would not imply any impropriety but the two discussions have occurred in near parallel and, the outcome below does have a clear implication to this discussion - that it has become redundant. I was simply giving notice that that there should be a "procedural close" of this discussion in favour of the discussion below. The topic may be controversial but I don't think that the close here would be, given the circumstances and how closely the page is watched. ] (])
	:::I think it should stay at least for now. I think the only people who have a solid grasp on Russian dead are Russia's military leadership, past that we see a range of estimates. We also don't know the criteria that goes in to these estimates, it could very well be that the US' recent ones are conservative like the UN has been doing for civilian dead. I did see an independent came out today that was published in the New York Times which places material losses for the Russians at 980 Armored Vehicles including over 140 tanks, which is pretty much in line with Ukrainian estimates. ] (]) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
			::::I was referring to the edit request just above an earlier comment of yours here, not your comment in the closure for the second discussion below. My apologies, if you thought otherwise. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
	:The most recent statement from the Ukrainian MoD also states they killed 12000 soldiers, not that there were 12000 casualties as the Infobox says. Important distinction considering casualties include a lot more than just killed soldiers. Should be changed to 12000 killed to more accurately reflect the post by the Ukrainian MoD. ] (]) 03:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
	How about Equipment losses acc. to Russia .. ? Is there a more recent figure? I don't think that has been updated since the very first days of the conflict. Do Russia not claim any more equipment losses than this (which seems kind of unlikely seeing as these were early losses) or have they simply not bothered to present any new figures at all? ] (]) 20:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			== External links ==
	== Represent deaths per UN as a minimum ==
			The external links to CNN, Reuters, etc seem excessive and UNDUE. Anyone can google to find these and they are not encyclopedic. Focus on the more necessary ones and try to cut the list to 3 or so. ] and ] both apply. I would be bold and remove, but I am not a regular editor and thought this might have been discussed? ] (]) 10:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	In the casualties section, the row for civilian deaths as per the UN is represented as a flat number, whereas the UN documents that appear to be the source (such as ) make it fairly clear that the UN believes there have likely been many more civilian deaths, and the number they give is only the number of deaths that they have been able to corroborate. The page should probably list the number (as I'm writing this, it's 516) as a minimum, e.g. "516+". <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:It's a bit unclear what changes you want done. Do you mean unproperly cited references that contain only external links? If so, you can always just use a citation template to properly format them. Also, those sources you mentioned are reliable, per consensus. The list of frequently discussed sources pertaining to reliability, and the consensus of those, are at ]. You also shouldn't try to "cut the list" like that and delete them, as ] is needed for veritability. However, you can ] (or see ]). — ] <sup>(] &#124;])</sup> 18:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (3) ==
			== Edit ==
	{{Edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Please add into ''See also'' in the subsection "Censorship and propaganda" the link to the article ]. ] (]) 17:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
			There is a typo in the section Second phase: Southeastern offensive (8 April to present) where it says As of 30 April, an NATO official... instead of As of 30 April, a NATO official has described...
	:Personally not sure this adds more value. We already link to ], and more specific articles like ]. We already have too many see also links in this article IMO. ] (]) 18:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	::] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 15:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			--] (]) 10:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:{{fixed}}, thanks — ''']''' 10:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Addition to war crimes ==
			== Nato support Ukraine ==
	https://fox8.com/news/us-embassy-calls-russias-power-plant-attack-a-war-crime/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20a%20war%20crime%20to%20attack%20a,and%20briefly%20raised%20fears%20of%20a%20nuclear%20disaster.
	Might be a little biased but it conveys the information. (But than again, who isn’t on this matter?) ] (]) 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Sadly, we can't call it a war crime unless RS do. ] (]) 10:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=See FAQ #2. <span style="font-family:monospace;padding:3px 5px;background:#eee;color:black">>>>&nbsp;].]();</span> 21:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)}}
	{{Clear}}
	==Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022 ==
	{{Edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1501824458608230400/photo/1 ] (]) 14:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Please read the FAQ.] (]) 14:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			In the section "belligerents" it should be showed that Ukraine is supported from NATO ] (]) 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022 (3) ==
			{{abot}}
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Add Ukraine supported by nato to the belligerents graph. ] (]) 17:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Belarus is a belligerent ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Russian authorities disagree with Russian authorities ==
			{{atop
	Do we have any mainstream media reports on which of ] or ] will be sent to Siberia? Having Lavrov confirm the bombing of a hospital (claiming a rather dubious military justification, which local residents will be able to respond to quickly) and Konashenkov deny it on the same day - see ] - is not the best way to keep Putin happy. My guess is that this may become notable quickly, though I haven't seen mainstream media sources yet on Putin's reaction on how to solve the dilemma of "yes = no". Any sources? ] (]) 18:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			| status =
	: They do not care and they do not consider this as a contradiction. Both perfectly know they are lying. I do not expect any consequences for them.--] (]) 18:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			| result = According to my dictionary, this is all ]/]. This discussion is thus fatally flawed and a waste of everyone's time. Unless there are sources which specifically describe Belarus as a belligerent in the present context (I guess? there probably might be, but none have been presented here); but the absence of them here means that it would probably be more worthwhile to start a new discussion on this. ] (] / ]) 00:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	::Quite. I heard this on the news today and my immediate reaction was that this simply adds to the ], which is a military objective to keep the other side guessing. ] (]) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			}}
	This is not the place for speculation. ] (]) 18:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			According to ], the Definition of Aggression, Article 3:
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2022 (4) ==
			: Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: . . . (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	"… on 24 February 2022, in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014 following Russia's annexation of Ukraine. It is the largest conventional military attack in Europe since World War II excluding ]." ] (]) 18:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 18:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			The reference to Article 2 means it is aggression '']'', that is, it is legally aggression unless and until proven otherwise, and “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply.
	That’s very likely wrong. About 31,500 invaded Hungary (the UN estimated 75,000–200,000), while around 175,000–190,000 are estimated to have entered Ukraine, so far (not to mention tens of thousands of Russian military already in Crimea and the eastern Donbas). However, the much larger ] is a potential candidate.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:The claim for "largest conventional military attack since WW2" seems to originate with the USG. Perhaps they didn't consider the invasion of Czechoslovakia an attack/invasion in the "proper" sense (whatever that might be) as I understand there was little fighting (in fact, that article is interesting reading because the way that was done sounds a lot like the attack on Ukraine except Ukraine defended itself), which of course would be a bit odd. Perhaps we ought to change it to "largest conventional war" for accuracy.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
	:: Good point. I see two of the cited references refer to the biggest “ground war” and “military assault,” which do not exactly describe the invasion of Czechoslovakia. (Just compare the losses in the respective infoboxes.)&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			By allowing the Russian Federation to use Belarusian territory to launch missile attacks and an invasion by its troops over the last two months, Belarus has committed an act of international aggression against Ukraine. As an aggressor state, Belarus should be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, not merely a supporter. To minimize its aggression with the restrictive label “supported by” is to reflect the non-neutral ] of the Lukashenka régime. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			: Belarus is still a ] state, as long as its military doesn't participate in the actual fighting. Compare with WWII era ] in Irish airspace. "Legally agressor" and "belligerent" are not necessary the same thing. Bests, --] (]) 16:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	== INFOBOX overhaul/improve readabilty ==
			::"The framework for the Union of Russia and Belarus was set out in the Treaty on the Formation of a Community of Russia and Belarus (1996), the Treaty on Russia-Belarus Union, the Union Charter (1997), and the Treaty of the Formation of a Union State (1999). The integration treaties contained commitments to monetary union, equal rights, single citizenship, and a common defence and foreign policy." ] (]) 16:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			::: Agree with Seryo93, Belarus is not a belligerent. Otherwise, we would have to list Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then of being direct belligerents on the side of the US-led Coalition during the Iraq War since the invasion was staged from those countries. And we did not even list them under "Supported by". Because that label has for the most part been reserved in WP infoboxes for countries that provide arms support to one belligerent with the intent of defeating the other one. ] (]) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::I don’t know whether the Iraq War case is the same or not.
			::::But Belarus committed an act of aggression violating the “sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State” in a “war of aggression” which “gives rise to international responsibility.” According to my dictionary, a ''belligerent'' is “engaged in a war or conflict according to international law.” It is literally and precisely what it is.
			::::If we are using some other definition of ''belligerent'', then please show your work.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 02:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::The key fact is that Belarusian military is, indeed, NOT engaged in hostilities. See also OSCE report, which, in this aspect, basically concurs with my point: Bests, ] (]) 07:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::: The field is “belligerents,” not “direct participants in hostilities.”&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::Belligerent means "''engaged'' in war", i.e. fighting, which is precisely what Belarus does NOT. ] (]) 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::My dictionary says ''belligerent'': “engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.” This precisely supports my argument.
			::::::::I also looked up ''engage'', and only one of five senses mentions combat, but it only applies when an enemy is the grammatical object (e.g., “engage the enemy”), so that sense is not in use in that definition. “Engaged in war” simply means involved in the war. Anyway, Russian combat units are invading directly out of Belarus, firing weapons out of and over Belarus’s territory, and retreating behind the defences of its troops on the border, so it is engaged in war tangibly as well as intangibly.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::::Belarus still falls under dictionary definition of ], (emphasis mine). ] (]) 19:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::::: That’s just playing with the words in a definition that is too vague to resolve the question. Allowing its territory for direct attacks is direct participation. It’s just one more way of saying “Belarus is not a belligerent because Belarus is not a belligerent.”
			:::::::::: Since Belarus allowed Russian jets to operate from its airstrips to launch cruise-missile attacks across the border into Ukrainian territory to bomb Ukrainian cities, Ukraine is within its rights to defend itself by attacking those jets in Belarus, by attacking the airstrips and hangars in Belarus. Since Belarus allowed Russian mechanized forces to invade across its border and then to retreat behind Belarusian border defences, Ukraine is within its legal rights to pursue retreating Russians into Belarusian territory to destroy them, to bomb the Russian trains carrying Russian forces on Belarusian railways to their marshalling points behind the Belarusian border. Ukraine has a right to defend itself by destroying fuel depots and ammo dumps strategic to the Russian attack in the territory of Belarus. Belarus is party to the conflict.
			:::::::::: Ask yourself: if Poland allowed Ukraine to fly its MiGs out of Polish bases to bomb Kaliningrad, would you insist Poland is not a party to the conflict? If Estonia said “hey Ukraine: please loiter your Bayraktar TB2 drones over Estonia all day long and lob missiles at St. Petersburg,” would you insist Estonia is a third party not involved? I hope not. So why do you defend war criminal Lukashenka’s enabling of war criminal Putin’s aggression against Ukraine? Belarus is a legal aggressor. Belarus is the origination of attacks against Ukraine. It is a belligerent in both intangible and tangible terms.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:Regardless, removing the "supported by" label provides the possibility that readers will have a mistaken impression of the facts, and that presentation may suggest Belarus is contributing troops, which it obviously isn't. Information is not contextualised in the infobox, owing to limited space, so there should be extra care to avoid giving possible misleading impressions. ] (]) 18:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			::Agree. ] (]) 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::'''Disagree'''
			:::I think the best we to make an impartial decision on that would be by looking at other conflicts. Specifically the ], Kuwait, which was use to launch an invasion, and Turkey, they are not included as belligerents. Making an exception for Ukraine would just show further bias. ] (]) 22:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::What makes this article the exception and not that one? Please discuss this case on its merits, because I have no intention of researching the rationale of the infobox labels in another war’s article right now.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 02:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you. First, I think that comparing this war to the 2003 Iraq invasion is relevant because one nation launched a war into another nation from the territory of a third. That is a similar event and Misplaced Pages never listed Kuwait as a belligerent, it is historical precedent. In fact Kuwait is not even listed as a nation that supported the US-led Coalition in 2003 like Belarus is.
			:::::I think someone else pointed out that there are two definitions, one refers to being engaged militarily and the other being an aggressor. Latin: "Bellum Gerere" defined as "To wage war".
			:::::The Latin term makes more sense because numerous Misplaced Pages page about war lists groups that are not legally considered as belligerents as belligerents to the conflict.
			:::::We cannot change things so drastically because it aligns with people's political views. ] (]) 10:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::So add a note that defines “belligerent.” In fact, we should define it now, for the purposes of this discussion, because we don’t seem to agree on it.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 02:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::No need for a note, Misplaced Pages's guideline has been clearly defined ] for well over a decade and {{U|Seryo93}}, {{U|ProcrastinatingReader}} and {{U|Ahm1453}} have all said it quite well. ] (]) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Yup. And the field is defined as “parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; . . .” Being a legal aggressor state is participating. Providing railway transport of combat units, providing airstrips for attack operations, providing safe territory and airspace for missile launches, providing border passage and hospital services for retreating units, providing a defended border to secure the retreat, and providing territory and border passage for invading forces is participating.
			:::::If that’s not clear enough, then let’s change the documentation.
			:::::In the meantime, no need for a note indeed. Just the need to include the participants as recommended.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::::Except for the fact that this approach contradicts RS cited right above, which says that Belarus isn't a party to this IAC. Bests, ] (]) 18:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes, Belarus hasn't taken part in the conflict itself. ] (]) 18:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::Now you appear to be talking about a legal definition of ''parties to an international armed conflict''. If Belarus is a legal aggressor state then it is a legal party to the conflict.
			:::::::If you mean in more concrete terms: the conflict was conducted in part across the Belarus–Ukraine border, and attacks against Ukraine originated in the territory of Belarus. With the permission of Belarus, not against its will. So it is willing party to the conflict.
			:::::::(I don’t know which RS you cite, so I can’t respond specifically.)&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::I talk about . ] (]) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::: I see. But please don’t ignore Ukraine’s dispute of the OSCE’s claim about Belarus in the same document. OSCE is using this definition for the purposes of applying international humanitarian law. The document mentions aggression, but in this statement it strangely ignores Belarus’s action which I think we agree falls within the UN’s Definition of Aggression—perhaps the OSCE is only interested in direct Russian IHL violations, which Belarus is not committing? In citing aggression, it does refer on page 1 to the UN resolution on , which states in point no. 10 that Belarus is involved. Anyway, I can’t explain the disputed apparent inconsistency.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 20:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*I would '''agree''' with Michael Z. How can a country that committed an act of unprovoked aggression (per ]) not be a belligerent? The Union of Russia and Belarus (including their joint "defense") only enforces this point. On a practice, Russian forces are using the Belarus territory as a "safe heaven". It appears that Ukrainian forces now occasionally target military installations on the Russian territory (although this is not officially admitted), but afraid to target any Russian military installations at the Belarus territory. ] (]) 18:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Disagree''' According to my dictionary (the Macquarie) A belligerent (in this context) is {{tq|a state or nation at war, or a member of the military forces of such a state}}. An aggressor is defined by virtue of UN resolution. While the two terms may be similar, they do not have identical meanings and, while Belarus is clearly an aggressor (having committed an act of aggression) it is not "at war" with Ukraine. It is clearly supporting Russia by its actions but its actions do not rise to being a beligerant. ] (]) 00:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	:RFC/REVIEW ]
			{{abot}}
			== Start date should be February 22, 2022 ==
	Please consider these numerous format changes to to the '''info-box''' as it is currently difficult to follow on a small screen and I currently can't test this on fullsize desktop
			According to the article introduction, this is the day the Duma authorized military action against Ukraine and when Russia openly sent troops into the DPR and LPR. Both are and were internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:]<sup>]</sup> 19:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::It's too wide on desktop. Do you have a list of changes you've made? This would make it easier to review. ] (]) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)		:On 24 February, Putin announced that he had made the decision to launch a "special military operation" in eastern Ukraine. ] (]) 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			== China's Nuclear Guarantee ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Reduction of the amount of see also/further info links ==
			The introduction mentions the Budapest memorandum, which is potentially pertinent to the section on the use of low-yield nuclear weapons - i.e. the potential use of "tactical" nukes which is currently getting press coverage.
	There seems to be an exorbitant of see also and further information links. It really clogs up the article. Obviously, some are needed, but I would suggest slimming it down.
			What is not mentioned on this page is the Dec 2013 guarantee which China provided, as reported by the , the pertinent text of which seems to be: "China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,”. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I suggest removing:
			:That's a somewhat dated newspaper link you are presenting. China's position at present seems to be to decline making ciritical statements about the Russian invasion. ] (]) 15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	*] - Covered in Orange Revolution Link
	*] - Clearly covered in the other article listed under see also
	*] - remove from Invasion and resistance, Already listed in the propaganda section below
	*] - This is covered in the War Crimes article
	*] Remove from Russian accusations and demands as it is under the Media depiction section
	--] (]) 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. As the nom points out, all are redundant. '']'' ] (]) 23:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose removal of ]'''. This is one of the primary reasons why Putin invaded Ukraine. Should be given more prominance. Note that yesterday I included it in the sub-title as the last paragraph explains the issue, but someone reversed it ] (]) 00:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Semi-Oppose'''. This is an extraordinarily large and complex topic which has a large number of accompanying articles, with this article (as well as the Russo-Ukrainian war article) serving as an overview/hub article. Linking to these related articles is one of the main reasons for having this article. A link should not be removed only because it is repeated on an article that's also linked from here. That being said, I'd say Colour revolution can go and the Z (military symbol) link could reasonably only retained in the propaganda section. The Russian nationalism link should be kept, as well as the Disinformation link. I'm on the fence regarding the ICC link, as the war crimes article is relatively long and it only appears fairly far down in it. It depends on how important the ICC investigation is, I suppose. ] (]) 10:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Apparently false claims about Ukrainian comments regarding Transnistria. ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Censorship and propaganda ==
			The article claims, that ''On 27 April, Ukraine stated it could "take control" of Transnistria should the Moldovan government request.''. As source, it gives an article from the 23rd of April in which neither Transnistria, nor Moldova are even mentioned. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible, but I'm not allowed to edit the article.] (]) 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	This whole section is one sided and shows the Western narrative. Can you please add the followings and please ad them as first paragraph (I hope you don't mind about this)
			Not a false claim. I simply forgot to add the source. The source that you mentioned has nothing to do with it - it refers to the previous sentence. Simply clumsly editing on my part.
	Western machine spread pro Ukrainian propaganda. On February 24, a story started to circulate online, telling of an encounter between 13 Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island in the Black Sea and Russian warships. According to the story, part of which was captured in an audio recording, the Russians demanded that the Ukrainians surrender. Then, one of the Ukrainians told the Russian making the announcement to “go fuck yourself,” after which the Russians allegedly killed all of the Ukrainians. However, the story was wrong: the Ukrainians surrendered, and they were taken as prisoners by the Russians, not killed.
			] (]) 12:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	Another example of Western propaganda is the "Ghost of Kiev". According to one widely circulated post, the Ghost of Kyiv supposedly shot down four Russian fighter jets — two Su-35 Flankers, one Su-27 Flanker and one MiG-29 Fulcrum — as well as two ground-attack aircraft, so-called Su-25 Frogfoots. But the "Ghost of Kyiv" is very likely not real, but instead an imaginary hero designed to bolster Ukrainians' morale in the face of the Russian invasion. There is zero evidence the "Ghost of Kyiv" exists with Ukrainian authorities not confirming their existence. In reality the computer-generated footage of the Ghost of Kyiv winning a dogfight was made using the 2013 video game Digital Combat Simulator and uploaded by a YouTube user.
			:I've just added the most recent reports on Transnitria involving explosions destroying broadast towers there. ] (]) 15:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			== Russian military occupation articles ==
			Alerting editors that, as of this note, four of these articles have been created. Improvement is needed for all of them, and if needed, they should be linked into this main article’s text. I will be creating more for the other affected Oblasts, but for now, these 4 exist.
			* ]
	https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/technology/ukraine-war-misinfo.html
			* ]
	https://readpassage.com/canadian-media-is-spreading-pro-ukraine-propaganda/
			* ]
	https://nypost.com/2022/02/25/who-is-the-ghost-of-kyiv-story-of-ukrainian-ace-pilot-goes-viral/
			* ]
	https://www.newsweek.com/who-ghost-kyiv-ukraine-fighter-pilot-mig-29-russian-fighter-jets-combat-1682651
			] (]) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	] (]) 00:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)		:They are now linked. ] (]) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			== Foreign support of Ukraine ==
	Censorship and propaganda are government initiated. If you can provide RS for any western government report that is contrary to what RS reports, then you may have a cases. ] (]) 01:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{Archive top
	:What is RS? ] (]) 01:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::] &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 01:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)		|result = See open central discussion at ] ] (]) 00:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			|status = none }}
			It is absolute nonsense that we still have only Ukraine in the box. There is a massive ammount of foreing help coming from the west, both weapons and military intelligence. We should vote for this issue again, or change all the infoboxes of other conflicts.
	Your definition of what is propaganda is not correct. Propaganda is not only government initiated. This is your definition.
			--] (]) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	Can you please add the 2 paragraphs above. Nowhere have found your definition. If you still want to believe your definition then please add as first paragraph:
	On February 24, a story started to circulate online, which was widely reported by the Western media telling of an encounter between 13 Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island in the Black Sea and Russian warships. According to the story, part of which was captured in an audio recording, the Russians demanded that the Ukrainians surrender. Then, one of the Ukrainians told the Russian making the announcement to “go fuck yourself,” after which the Russians allegedly killed all of the Ukrainians. All 13 Ukrainian defenders were killed in a Russian bombardment Thursday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said.
	"All border guards died heroically but did not give up. They will be awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine posthumously," Zelensky said. However, the story was wrong: the Ukrainians surrendered, and they were taken as prisoners by the Russians, not killed.
			:The section you are apparently referencing in the infobox is called "Belligerents". The definition of a belligerent according to Merriam-Webster is "belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war". From what reliable sources tell us, the nations at war are Russia and Ukraine, which also include pro-Russian separatists, Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR, along with support from Belarus (from which Russia invaded northern Ukraine). ] (]) 08:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/ukraine-russia-snake-island-attack-intl-hnk-ml/index.html
			::The publicly sending of weapons, secured from the governments of countries is clearly military support. If Belarus let russian troops to staged and cross the border but no intervened with it´s own military, is at the same level at western countries that deplete their own arsenals to transfer hot weapons to be used by Ukraine.
	https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/technology/ukraine-war-misinfo.html
			::The list if only indicates "suport" to Belarus, is far away from the real word. ] (]) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	https://readpassage.com/canadian-media-is-spreading-pro-ukraine-propaganda/
			:::No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	] (]) 02:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Please refer to Frequently Asked Questions #2: "Can you add X country to the infobox because it is sending weapons to Ukraine?" Or the discussion The topic has already been discussed numerous times. ] (]) 14:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	Clearly the section is talking about a major undertaking of censorship and propaganda by the Russian government. That is notable. There is no proven undertaking to purposely mislead by any other nation (or publication) at this point. At best, the minor instances you mentioned would be in the misinformation section. ] (]) 03:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Should we add a "Supported by" section to the Ukrainian side? Looking at ] I see that we include countries like Mexico in that. ] (]) 22:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	:{{u|HelenHIL}}, both of the instances of incorrect information that you mention were promptly corrected by the reliable sources that made errors early on during the fog of war. Nobody in the Western media is trying to perpetuate or defend this incorrect reporting and these reliable media outlets are issuing corrections and clarifications constantly. The willingness to correct errors is a hallmark of truly ]. This is in stark contrast to the state-controlled Russian media, which is perpetuating a cloud cukooland version of reality, where it is now a criminal offense to call a war a war, and to call an invasion an invasion. ] (]) 03:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::What constitutes cukooland version of reality is a matter of interpretation. The willingness to correct errors doesn't negate the propaganda. Maybe this is your cukooland version of reality. Simply you don't wish to acknowledge that in reality we are the "Russians" who live in a distorted world... ] (]) 04:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)		::While it is true the ] article has "Supported By" in its Belligerent section, current consensus on this article is to not include other nations in there. See ]. ] (]) 01:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	:::Yes, the willingness to correct errors is a very strong indication of a broader willingness to keep propaganda to a minimum, and report the facts. Do you support the Russian decrees that criminalize the use of words like "war" and "invasion"? Does Russian state media currently show any willingness to correct fundamental errors? If so, please provide examples. Otherwise, your comments amount to false equivalency. ] (]) 04:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Can you please add the paragraphs. They show examples of Western propaganda. Be objective. ] (]) 04:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::] even has its own article and is also a section in the disinfo article. The Snake Island back-and-forth is explained in detail in ] and mentioned in some other related places. The former could be a suitable example for inclusion in the main article, the latter is not. Your proposed changes are unsuitable for direct inclusion due to ]. ] (]) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::OK fair enough. My problem is that only the Western narrative is shown. Somehow only the Russians are doing propaganda and are censoring the media but somehow Western governments are not capable of doing the same when clearly they do. This is not an objective article. ] (]) 15:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Russian minister Lavrov just said today that Russia did not attack Ukraine. Given that the Russian narrative is disconnected from reality (and that gap seems to be just widening), what narrative are you expecting? --] (]) 15:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Or, name a western nation hat has passed censorship laws over this, or has cut off internet services, or has jailed anyone for not towing the state-sanctioned line? ] (]) 15:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::<small>FTR, the idiom is ''toe the line''. -- ]</small>
	:::In this case it is obvious that the Russian official version about the entire war is cukooland version of reality ] (]) 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Definitely not. This section is for Censorship and propaganda from both sides. You are making your own definitions. You have done it twice. Please add the paragraphs. ] (]) 03:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
	Please also add:
			== Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine ==
	Elon Musk claims that he has resisted demands from several Western countries to censor Russian news sites from his Starlink internet satellites amid the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. “Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources,” the world’s richest man tweeted over the weekend.
	“We will not do so unless at gunpoint.” Musk added: “Sorry to be a free speech absolutist.” The European Union forced Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and TikTok to censor Russia's RT — and its channels in English, Spanish, French and German — off their platforms
			{{Archive top
	https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-rt-media-telegram-ukraine/
			|result = See open central discussion at ] ] (]) 00:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	https://nypost.com/2022/03/07/elon-musk-refuses-to-block-russian-news-sites-from-starlink/
			|status = none }}
	https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-03-04/card/elon-musk-says-spacex-s-satellite-service-won-t-block-russian-news-sources-3m0EdxXmbUTtBOb4Mrhe <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	] (]) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine, like is put in all other[REDACTED] pages on wars and conflicts. There are lots of them that are sending weapons, instructors, food, rations, blocking russian sales, etc. All of this is publicly known, verified by press reports of both sides of the conflict. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Not to sound dismissive but the of the and in is so as to make this . I see nothing remotely comparable about Ukraine. I move that the request be closed. ] (]) 15:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:I think your opinions go against neutral point of view policy of Misplaced Pages. I will push you to include how the West conducts it's propaganda. Please include the 2 paragraphs ] (]) 21:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)		:If you mean the list of combatants, only those parties actually using weapons/fighting are listed. This has been discussed many times already.] (]) 19:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
			::That is not true. We put the list of supporting countries in the "]" article and there are plenty of other precedents Please note that we clearly label "Supported by:".
	::Christ, will you give it a rest? You've got 13 article edits in total and obviously have no clue about applicable policies and guidelines (witness your asking, above, what an RS is). You're beginning to sound like a crackpot, what with treating errors and propaganda as the same thing and so on. This is the wrong article for you to use as a vehicle for learning the baby steps of editing. ]] 06:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			::I think it's time to put it here too: 1) the Western support with weapons is substantial (especially as heavy weapons are now being supplied); 2) it is notable (]) and there are plenty of WP:RS about the subject. ] (]) 20:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::I support adding them as well. ] ] ] 21:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::"Supported by" is included under the belligerents section of many wars. See Nigerian Civil War for a clear example. The page for the Syrian civil war also includes this information. Not including it here is strange. ] (]) 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::I agree, countries that provide full diplomatic support or send heavy weapons must be in the list. If not, the info is biased. ] (]) 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
			:See ]. The consensus was that countries supplying material or diplomatic support to Ukraine did not meet the threshold to be included in the infobox as "supported by", whereas, the direct access for conduct of the invasion provided by Belarus crossed this threshold. Countries supporting Ukraine is discussed at ] and ]. There is too much detail for this to be "summarised" and consequently, its inclusion in the infobox would fail ]. ] (]) 01:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			::This is clearly inconsistent with a wide variety of other Misplaced Pages articles on wars, and additionally whether the countries that would be in the infobox support Ukraine with lethal or non-lethal aid could be disclosed using parentheses. ] (]) 04:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	== discrepanc y ies ==
			:::It is nonetheless the consensus here, arrived at after extensive discussions. ] is not a mandate. ] (]) 04:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::That is a dated discussion and a new consensus can overturn it. ] (]) 05:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::It is, but the discussion needs to be aware of the status quo and how the status quo was arrived at. Further, since it was the result of an RfC, any proposal to overturn the consensus should probably be made as an RfC. ] (]) 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
			{{u|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, {{u|Slatersteven}}, {{u|Cinderella157}}, {{u|Cinderella157}}: So, do we have a consensus on adding "Supported by" for Ukraine? The Western military support for Ukraine has ramped up to the point where it's becoming a game-changer . Or, any volunteers to start RfC? --] (]) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	difference s with russian lang page info <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:I have no issue with including it. It helps the reader to understand just how isolated Russia is. ] (]) 15:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			::I also support including it, specially now per the two citations provided by Mindaur. ] ] ] 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			:{{u|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, {{u|Slatersteven}}, {{u|Cinderella157}}, {{u|Cinderella157}}, {{u|Viewsridge}}: I created ]. Somebody should close all other sections as it's getting indeed confusing. ] (]) 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
	for objectivity <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			==supporting country ?==
	:Please identify particular passages not backed up by ], otherwise this isn't actionable at all. ] (]) 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:To clarify, the English language Misplaced Pages doesn't control what is written on the Russian language one. ] (]) 21:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{Archive top
	possibly contribute toward common ground <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			|result = See open central discussion at ] ] (]) 00:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			|status = none }}
			In the table of the parties to the conflict there is Belarus as a supporting country, should the countries providing material support, including military support to Ukraine, not be included ? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
	: Please adhere to ] and propose specific changes or additions instead of sweeping generalized statements. ] ] 02:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			:sign your posts with four consecutive tildas ( ~ ) ] (]) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
	:Different wiki projects have differing rules and standards. Thus it is not unuseral to see differences (the English Wiki tends to be a lot harsher with enforcement of polices like ] and ]. ] (]) 09:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			::I agree with the proposal above, all countries provividing weapons to Ukraine should be considered as supporting countries --] (]) 17:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
	un
			== War spreading ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Russian Statistics ? ==
			After many ukrainian or supposed false flag attacks on Russian territory, should we add '''Russia'''/names of western Russian regions into the location of the infobox? We should also add transnistria as a spillover in the infobox after the past few attacks there. ] (]) 13:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	Just a query...(and this may already have been brought up)... but is there a reason why the Russian casualty statistics are seldomly updated? The Death Toll has been stuck at 498 for a while...
			:Yes, as long as RS say they are part of the conflict and not (for examp] (]) 13:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			::Don't add Transnistria yet. It's clear it's a Russian false-flag attack, but it seems too much to just call it like spillover this soon. ] ] ] 13:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			== Prisoners of war ==
	I’ve read somewhere that the reason could be that the Russian Defence Ministry only updates on these figures intermittently... on a monthly basis as was the case I believe in the old Soviet days...
			I would suggest to remove the opening sentence: "Over a thousand prisoners of war have been captured", as by now, by combining the claims of both sides (see the POW section in ]), the prisoners are supposedly a few thousands. --] (]) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	Can anyone shed any light? ] (]) 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			==Issue at Russo-Ukrainian War==
	:That’s the last update they gave. ] (]) 00:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
	:priorities
	:not score keep ] (]) 01:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::there are daily youtube summaries from ru and by ] (]) 01:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Refugees section - forced relocation ==
	:::Such as? And are they ]? ] ] 02:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			The text in the refugees section currently says:
	{{Clear}}
	== ADD THE “Supported By” FOR UKRAINE ==
			Thousands of refugees arriving in Russia appeared to have been ] using 'filtration centers', evoking the memory of ] and prior Russian use of such centers in the ] to suppress evidence of war crimes.<ref>{{cite news |date=27 March 2022 |title=Russia transfers thousands of Mariupol civilians to its territory |first=Laurence |last=Peter |work=] |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60894142 |access-date=1 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="Mackintosh-2022-04-08">{{cite web |last1=Mackintosh |first1=Eliza |last2=Ochman |first2=Oleksandra |last3=Mezzofiore |first3=Gianluca |last4=Polglase |first4=Katie |last5=Rebane |first5=Teele |last6=Graham-Yooll |first6=Anastasia |title=Russia or die: After weeks under Putin's bombs, these Ukrainians were given only one way out |date=8 April 2022 |website=] |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/07/europe/ukraine-mariupol-russia-deportation-cmd-intl/index.html |access-date=9 April 2022}}</ref> As of 8 April, Russia evacuated approximately 121,000 Mariupol residents to Russia, with some allegedly having been sent to work there.<ref name="Mackintosh-2022-04-08" /> RIA Novosti and Ukrainian officials stated that thousands were dispatched to various filtration centers in both Russian and Russian-occupied Ukrainian cities,<ref>
	Ukraine for example is receiving state of the art anti air defense systems from the UK, and funds from across Europe / The West, very important info to understand the conflict ] (]) 01:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			*{{cite news |url=https://life.nv.ua/socium/deportaciya-ukraincev-v-rossiyu-kak-eto-proishodit-i-kak-vernutsya-v-ukrainu-50233912.html |title=В духе Сталина. Фильтрационные лагеря, допросы и вывоз в глушь — как Москва насильно депортирует украинцев Донбасса |language=ru |first=Максим |last=Бутченко |work=NV.ua |date=15 April 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}
			*{{cite news |url=https://www.segodnya.ua/strana/podrobnosti/denisova-okkupanty-derzhat-v-filtracionnyh-lageryah-rf-bolee-20-000-mariupolcev-1615773.html |title=Денисова: оккупанты держат в фильтрационных лагерях РФ более 20 000 мариупольцев |language=ru |first=Валентина |last=Шаповал |work=] |date=18 April 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}
			*{{cite news |url=https://www.currenttime.tv/a/razdevali-tatushki-moi-smotreli-artem/31797135.html |title="Раздевали, татушки мои смотрели". Артем уехал из Мариуполя в "ДНР", а потом и из России. Он рассказывает о том, что происходило на границах |language=ru |first1=Юлия |last1=Горичева |first2=Анна |last2=Тохмахчи |work=] |date=11 April 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}
			*{{cite news |url=https://news.obozrevatel.com/vojna-v-ukraine/okkupantyi-sozdali-v-rossii-lager-dlya-deportirovannyih-iz-ukrainyi-tam-soderzhat-bolee-400-chelovek.htm |title=Оккупанты создали в России лагерь для депортированных из Украины: там содержат более 400 человек |language=ru |first=Ольга |last=Ганюкова |work=] |date=10 April 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}
			*{{cite news |url=https://tsn.ua/ru/ukrayina/ne-bylo-odezhdy-edy-i-predmetov-gigieny-v-rossii-obnaruzhili-tri-lagerya-dlya-deportirovannyh-mariupolcev-2039359.html |title="Не имели одежды, еды и предметов гигиены": в России обнаружили три лагеря для депортированных мариупольцев |language=ru |first=Татьяна |last=Курпита |work=] |date=17 April 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}
			*{{cite news |url=https://news.liga.net/politics/news/rossiya-sozdala-bliz-donetska-filtratsionnyy-lager-dlya-ukraintsev-razvedka |title=Россия создала близ Донецка фильтрационный лагерь для украинцев – разведка |language=ru |first=Евгений |last=Пилипенко |work=LIGA.net |date=24 March 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}
			*{{cite news |url=https://nv.ua/kharkiv/okkupanty-sozdayut-filtracionnye-lagerya-dlya-perepravki-lyudey-v-rf-novosti-harkova-50231325.html |title=В Харьковской области оккупанты создают фильтрационные лагеря — Денисова |language=ru |first=Александр |last=Климов |work=NV.ua |date=5 April 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}
			*{{cite news |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-ukraine-art-school-mariupol-6fprjwq0t |title=Ukraine accuses Russia of killing 56 care home residents in Luhansk |first=Tom |last=Ball |work=] |publisher=] |date=20 March 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}
			*{{cite news |url=https://sport.ua/news/578396-foto-okkupanty-stroyat-filtratsionnye-lagerya-dlya-ukraintsev |title=ФОТО. Оккупанты строят фильтрационные лагеря для украинцев |language=ru |website=sport.ua |date=28 March 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}</ref> from which people were redirected to economically depressed regions of Russia.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://1plus1.ua/ru/novyny/filtracijni-tabori-ta-pracevlastuvanna-na-sahalini-ukrainciv-z-okupovanih-mist-primusovo-vidpravlaut-do-rosii |title=Фильтрационные лагеря и трудоустройство на Сахалине: украинцев из оккупированных городов принудительно отправляют в россию |language=ru |trans-title=Filtration camps and employment on Sakhalin: Ukrainians from occupied cities are forcibly sent to Russia |first=Ольга |last=Куприянова |work=] |date=24 March 2022 |access-date=20 April 2022}}</ref>
			{{reflisttalk}}
			A great deal of this should be "Ukrainian accuses" rather than WP:VOICE, while other parts don't appear to be in the sources/and or are editorialising ''(covering war crimes?)''. I can't read many of the Ru and Ukr sources so cannot fix. A similar text was copied to the Refugee crisis page, but much of it removed as ] while other parts were altereed to Ukr claims. ] (]) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
			:], thank you for sharing your point of view. However, changing the article to "Ukrainian accuses" doesn't seem to resolve the issue and seems to violate ]. Perhaps in place of "Ukrainian accuses" we could use "it has been reported" which takes a neutral point of view in place of using the word "accuses" which is a lot more polarizing. This issue is difficult because there are a lot of strong opinions on both sides of this issue, it is an ongoing current event and it is polarizing. However, I believe we need to take a neutral approach in our editing. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. ] (]) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
	: Please see Q2 in the FAQ section at the top of the talk page, and the ] pertaining to it. ] ] 02:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			::No objection to "has been reported", "Ukraine accuses", was merely meant to make the point that at present it is almost impossible for any news source to verify many of these claims. ] (]) 10:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			:Don't you think these are refugee camps? Why are all these sources non English, and the two that there are are BBC and CNN. They have not exactly demonstrated themselves as the most honest recently or in the past. ] (]) 22:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			== Spelling mistake ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Supported by... ==
			In the first sentence of the last paragraph in the 'Refugees' section, the word 'about' has been misspelled as 'aboit'. 04:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	The same as the Russian part includes "supported by: Belarus", shoudn't be added to the Ukrainian part " Supported by the EU (or at least a number of countries that are sending weapons)? ] (]) 05:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:See first section on this page.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 05:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{done}} ] (]) 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 ==
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2022 ==
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}		{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
			Belligerent is highly subjective ] (]) 08:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	Grammar error.
			:{{notdone}} No specific change suggested. — ''']''' 08:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	Change the following sentence:
			:no, it is not - not at all - see a dictionary ] (]) 17:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Request typo fix in quick info box ==
	"Although there would still be limited accessibility to ensure the continued ability to pay for gas shipments."
			Quick post, shouldn't "Reports vary widely" be "reports vary ''Wildly''?"--] (]) 02:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	to
	"However, there would still be limited accessibility to ensure the continued ability to pay for gas shipments." ] (]) 06:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)		{{not done}} ] (]) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Edit request ==
	: {{done}} slightly differently, but with the same effect: "The sanctions included cutting off major Russia banks from ], the global messaging network for international payments, although there would still be limited accessibility to ensure the continued ability to pay for gas shipments." ] ] 06:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			Please add russia or the western regions recently bombed into the infobox as ukraine occasionally bombs them now ] (]) 12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== 'Boats' or 'naval vessels' ==
			:You can make an edit request using <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> if you wish. That'll put it in the list of requested edits. ] ] ] 20:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
	Per Ukraine, their armed forces have destroyed the ]. I believe that this is included in the infobox, in the '3 boats destroyed' row, however, as 'boat' generally refers to smaller-sized vessels, and the patrol ship has a tonnage of 1,700 tonnes, should that row be changed to separately reflect the size of the ship? Changing it to something such as '3 naval vessels' per the 'Ukranian losses claimed by Russia' infobox section seems reasonable. Asking for additional input/row name options on this. ] (]) 12:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			::Actually, use of edit-request templates on a page like this is counterproductive. All that does is summon some random patroller, unfamiliar with the article, who will ritually tell the requester to get consensus first. On a page with many active watchers, simply stating what's requested or proposed, as the OP has done, is better; either someone will do it immediately, or discussion will ensue. ]] 16:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			==No fly zone==
	:Sounds right.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 21:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			Should we change "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine as this would risk a larger-scale war, a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement" to "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine , or to establish a no fly-zone, as this would risk a larger-scale war, a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement.", as it is sourced already. ] (]) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
	::The uses "vessels" so I changed it. --] 22:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			:+1. Reason: The "no-fly zone" request is prominently in the first sentence at ], so mentioning it here is good. --] 14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			:+1. I agree with Harald's reasoning. ] (]) 14:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'No boots on the ground' and 'no planes in the air' is the consistent policy adopted throughout the invasion by supporting foreign governments. ] (]) 17:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			I'll give till tomorrow if there are no obejcti0js I will make the change. ] (]) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
			:Has tomorrow come yet? ]] 16:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			::Its been done. ] (]) 16:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2022 ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Nearly Duplicate Sections: "Popular resistance" and "Protests: Civil resistance in Ukraine" ==
			{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	There are currently what are essentially duplicate sections one is: and the other is . What they have written is slightly different but both deal with essentially the same subject which is average Ukrainian Resistance to Russian rule/invasion. I propose that the two sections be collapsed in to one. Given that the Russian reaction to popular resistance is becoming brutal, and the popular resistance ranges from non-violent civil disobedience to the making of molotov cocktails, and tank traps I propose that the collapsed section be included under "Invasion and Resistance" where Popular resistance is currently housed. ] (]) 14:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			] signs to Russian sailors well versed in the ways of the sea.]]
			typo: prupose → purpose ] (]) 23:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			:Could you point out where specifically? Definitely makes it easier for editors with permissions to implement your request. Thanks. ] ] ] 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Given the reasons above. We need to condense where it's appropriate to reduce/control the size of this page.--] (]) 16:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			::This section: ]. ] (]) 23:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			:: tbh you could have very easily found it yourself using the ] function in your browser, or Misplaced Pages's own "find and replace" tool. ] (]) 23:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::To be honest you could've read the instructions on the template telling you to specify where it is... It's not that I don't know how or where to find it, it's that I'm advising you, friendly at first and assuming good faith, to include it in your request so others don't ''have'' to do something you should've done in the first place. I'll re-open the edit request so someone can implement it. ] ] ] 23:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			::::No, the instructions don't say to specify where it is, only that the request needs to be in a specific "change x to y" format. There's only one instance of the misspelling, so there was no ambiguity in my request (and if there were more than one you'd want to fix them anyway). If you're not even familiar with the most basic of tools then ]. ] (]) 23:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Alright man good luck finding someone who'll change your edit requests, have a good day. Unsubscribed and off my watchlist! ] ] ] 23:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			Ama was trying to assist. This image is currently used on the Dutch Interwiki version of this article. Should it be used in the English version of this article? ] (]) 00:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			== War crimes and human rights violations ==
	:I agree with your proposal; the difference between the two sections is very slim ] (]) 15:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:{{done}} {{u|Kober}} was ] and this appears to have been . Thanks Kober! --] 22:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			Evidence of Russian war atrocities and human rights violations, from forced removals of Ukrainians to Russia, to executions and tortures of Ukrainians in Bucha, Irpin and numerous other locations, to mass graves in Mariupol, Bucha and other locations, must be included. I am appalled that they are not and that they don't have their own section. ] (]) 04:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (3) ==
			:They have better than their own section, they have ]. ] (]) 05:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Please add Tulsi Gabbard's statement from source.- ] (]) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)		::War crimes? What war crimes? Where are your sources, IP? ] (]) 06:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> Why? Is there significant coverage of it, showing that it's ]? ] (]) 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Why?] (]) 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:: It is a notable point of view and deserves a mention.-] (]) 18:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Is it? She has no authority, and is just another talking head. She is not (as far as I know) a world respected pollical or defence analyst. ] (]) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::If it all, it should go into ]. Notability and due weight are debatable at first glance, even for that article. ] (]) 19:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Ukraine not Anti-Semetic ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (4) ==
			Russia falsely accused Ukraine of being na*i. I just wanted someone to use this source, according to pew research statistically in 2019 only 11% of Ukrainians had negative views on Jews, while '''83% had positive views'''. That is '''higher than most European countries'''.<ref>https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/minority-groups/</ref>
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
			I added this ''' help combat misinformation'''. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	cbt ] (]) 19:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:You do have to tell us what you want done. ] (]) 19:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::This is a troll request. Ignore it. ] ] ] 20:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}		{{talk-refs}}
	== Shouldn't countries supporting Ukraine with weapons and medical supplies be added in "belligerents"? ==
			== Putin ill ==
	Shouldn't countries supporting Ukraine with weapons and medical supplies be added in "belligerents"? like for example:
	Supported by:
	Germany
	France
	Etc ] (]) 10:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:See talk above, talk achieve and the RFC. ] (]) 10:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			Vladimir Putin has been diagnosed with cancer and will soon be undergoing an operation.<ref>Spanish television channel ]; 02/05/2022</ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022 (3) ==
			:That is not a reliable source. In fact it's not even a source at all, just an unconfirmable broadcast on a news channel we don't even know exists ] ] 08:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
	Infobox's numbers on internally displaced people are horribly inaccurate. According to the UN, there are now at least 1.85 million internally displaced people. The infobox lists only 160,000+. I would also add that 12.65 million people are directly affected by the conflict. .
			::<small>{{ping|Immanuelle}} Please change the colours of your signature, it's nigh unreadable on a white background (which is what almost everyone has)</small>
			::Googling yields a few reliable sources, ex. or ; however both of these seem to cite rumours or unsubstantiated claims by a "former Russian intelligence officer"; so this would fall squarely under ] (being unconfirmed speculation). It doesn't help that the other sources I could find reporting this include the ever reliable Daily Fail or its cousin the Sun... ] (] / ]) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::@] do you feel this is better? I'll definitely change it more to make it prettier though <span style="border:solid 1px; border-radius:7px;background:#226;border-color:#338">]</span> 💗 ] 20:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::{{ping|Immanuelle}} Yes, although the talk page link will need the same correction :) ] (] / ]) 20:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			Whether this information should be included is also being discussed at ]. I would suggest trying to get consensus there before discussing whether it is appropriate for this article. ] (]) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
	] (]) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Putin appears to be due for oncological surgery with 2-3 days recovery time in hospital according to multiple sources with his security council advisor Patrushev to tamporarily take office during the recovery time. ] (]) 18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			{{Reflist-talk}}
	:{{done}} added
			== Belarus is a belligerent, continued ==
	] (])
			The previous discussion (]) was closed after a brief period with reference to an unnamed dictionary, and with a suggestion to start a new discussion with sources. So below are some articles by legal scholars. {{ping|Seryo93|ErnestKrause|EkoGraf|ProcrastinatingReader|Ahm1453|My very best wishes|Cinderella157}}
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022 ==
			As pointed out above, the OSCE’s legal advice determined that by not sending forces into Ukraine Belarus is not a direct party to the international armed conflict, and therefore is not liable for Russian violations of international human-rights law in Ukraine. The OSCE’s report also included Ukraine’s response which points to the UN’s definition of aggression.
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Mention the Day of Unity/Unity Day declared by Zelensky for February 16th, in the '''Prelude''' section:
			But at the same time, by facilitating Russia’s war and allowing unlawful invasion and direct attacks into Ukraine directly from its territory and airspace it bears state responsibility by violating the UN Charter’s Ch. I, Art. 2(4) prohibition on ''the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state'', and is also guilty of ''aggression'', according to the UN’s definition (and Ukraine’s response on the latter point was valid).
	:Ukrainian President Zelensky declared that 16 February, a speculated date for the invasion, would be a "Day of Unity". Ukrainians were encouraged to "hang our national flags, put on blue and yellow ribbons, and show our unity to the whole world", as well as to sing the national anthem in public spaces at 10 am.<ref>{{cite web |title=Ukrainians Display Patriotism On First Day Of Unity Amid Uncertainty About Russian Invasion |url=https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-president-unity-day/31706342.html |website=RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty |access-date=12 March 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Hendrix |first1=Steve |last2=Khurshudyan |first2=Isabelle |title=With solidarity, apathy and a few songs, Ukraine’s Unity Day reflects a weary nation |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/16/ukraine-russia-unity-kyiv/ |access-date=12 March 2022 |work=Washington Post}}</ref> ] (]) 02:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:{{done}} I have added this. ] (]) 10:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			I’ll reiterate Oxford dictionaries’ definition of a “belligerent,” verbatim: “Engaged in a war or conflict, as recognized by international law.” There is no more definitive legal source on war than the UN Charter’s article 2(4).
	{{reftalk}}
			Belarus is guilty of unlawful use of force or threat of force and international aggression in this war against Ukraine. If we want to clarify what acts it did and did not commit, that is fine and right. But it should be listed as a belligerent for its illegal participation in use of force and aggression.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:What dictionaries and UN documents define as being a "belligerent" is entirely irrelevant, per ], if there is no source specifically saying "Belarus meets this definition". The only sources above which are not dictionaries or legal definitions are (which states that "However, the lack of neutrality does not mean participation in an armed conflict."), (which is a summary of the previous) and (which is one person's opinion, and which does not use the term "belligerent" anyways). So these sources are very far from sufficient to support such an inclusion, no matter what the Oxford dictionary might say. Basing an assertion on whether something meets a given dictionary definition, without a reliable source explicitly saying it does meet such a definition, is a textbook example of ], and matches very closely with the final example of that section. ] (] / ]) 19:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	== peace ==
			:: No. The term “belligerent” comes to us from a conventional label in a Misplaced Pages infobox. Its meaning to the editors and readers can only be determined by the template’s documentation, by broad consensus recorded in a discussion, or, failing that, by a dictionary definition.
			:: By the way, if that is a hard requirement, I don’t see any sources that use the precise term “belligerent” for the Russian Federation, Donetsk People’s Republic, Luhansk People’s Republic, and Ukraine: so far their inclusion is also SYNTH. The OSCE source that some are relying on and cited above states that the D/LNR are “proxies” and “are under overall control of Russia,” and, passim, implies they are not co-belligerents of Russia (direct quotation is “this would anyway also be the case if those ‘republics’ were actually independent States, as Russia claims, and simply co-belligerents of Russia”), as part of the same legal argument used to exclude Belarus.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Template documentation is not policy. ] is. ] (] / ]) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			:I think you made the substantially the same argument in the previous discussion and the consensus was pretty clear. I don't think there's anything here that would change it. ] (]) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Exactly. Furthermore, on non-belligerency: (emphasis mine). Pretty much the situation with Belarusian involvement in this conflict: it allows its territory to be used by the Russian military units involved in the hostilities, but doesn't send its own military in support of the Russian effort. Bests, ] (]) 19:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Per RandomCanadian, ProcrastinatingReader and Seryo93, everything has already been said. Unless you can provide a source explicitly stating Belarus is directly participating in the conflict, anything else is ] and ]. Also I don't think reopening the discussion one day after it was closed is really per WP guidelines. ] (]) 20:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Okay, that is pretty specific, including resupply and landing. Excellent. But the quotation doesn’t include allowing direct cross-border invasion and cross-border firing attacks, both of which Belarus has facilitated. Does it get explicit about that? (Unfortunately, Google Books is not letting me view the content of that source.)&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 21:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::I do see that citations provide for aerial attack from a non-belligerent territory (essentially, "or allowing belligerent aircraft to <...> take off from its territory" is not much different from Belarusian allowance for Russia to send its forces to Ukraine from Belarusian territory), which, after all, is still an attack by belligerent force. Furthermore, "the non-belligerent is entitled to aid the belligerent, bar armed intervention at its side " still applies fully to Belarus. It avoids direct intervention by its own military, but assists Russia in other ways, including territorially. ] (]) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Have you seen any quotations that say that a state can allow cross-border invasion or shelling from its own territory by a belligerent and still remain a non-belligerent. This is still not covered by the sources mentioned.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::::If it's not covered by the sources, then it fails ], and doesn't get included. As simple as that. ] (] / ]) 23:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			:]
			:Quote:
			::''No need for a note, Misplaced Pages's guideline has been clearly defined ] for well over a decade and ], ] and ] have all said it quite well. ] (]) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)''
			:The topic was closed because there is really nothing to argue. The article is already Ukrainian biased in my opinion. It does not even mention any western nations as Supporting states.
			:I can under that this is an on going issue and people are personally affected by this conflict so I do not want to harm their feelings, but it is important to remember that '''Misplaced Pages''' is '''not''' a '''propaganda''' source.
			:] (]) 23:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			*Well, according to Lukashenko, the Belarus army plays an active role by preventing any attack on Russian forces from the rear . Furthermore, he claimed to intercept missiles sent by Ukrainian forces . I think that does constitutes a direct involvement to the military campaign. So yes, a belligerent. I am not sure if Lukashenko was telling the truth. However, if that was true (the Ukrainian forces do seem to strike already Russian territory ), i.e. the Ukrainian forces were sending missiles, and Belorussian forces intercepted them, that immediately makes Belarus a belligerent. ] (]) 01:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	https://www.rt.com/russia/551816-russia-ukraine-negotiations-progress/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			'''Comment''' Referring to my previous and the reasons given for the close. That ''we'' are arguing semanitics of definitions here clearly makes the assertion a matter of ]/]. It is clearly contentious and not a matter of ]. Per ] we need ]s to support such a claim. However, it can (given the contention) be viewed as a ] claim that would require exceptional sources. Sources would need to specifically state that Belarus is a belligerent. Per ] (and the template documentation), we would require a clear consensus of sources before we might add such a claim to the infobox as a ''summary'' of the article and ]. We are far from anywhere near this. ] (]) 11:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	:RT is absolutely not a reliable source. — ''']''' 20:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			===Legal status of Belarus===
	{{Clear}}
	== Danger of repeating propaganda without checking against reality ==
			::::Mzajac has just added the narrative form of his Belarus edit into the Legality section of this article. At the same time, User:Cinderella is discussing size issues of this article in the new section above on this Talk page, and the possibility of moving those sections into their already existing sibling articles on Misplaced Pages. Would that work for all the editors involved here? ] (]) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	I'm a bit concerned that in some places, we have "Ukrainian government claimed X, Russian government claimed Y", and it's entirely possible that the Ukraine claim was accurate and the Russians are just playing the game of throwing the same accusations back at the accusers to obscure the truth for the general public. The opposite is also possible, but in particular it sounds like the Russians may be intentionally agreeing to ceasefires and breaking them by shelling the evacuees over and over, just to mess with and demoralized Ukraine, and then adding a slap in the face by blaming Ukraine for breaking the ceasefire. But the problem with repeating spurious denials or spurious claims could easily show up with other issues as well. Ukraine also has every incentive to exaggerate or try to present only certain facts for propaganda purposes, so I'm not saying we should accept all of its claims at face value, either. But I can't help but notice that some recent Russian propaganda is wildly and blatantly untrue, seriously undermining the credibility of that government as a source. I'm not saying Russian claims should be dismissed out of hand, either; that could easily lead to inappropriate imbalance. I expect that within a few days of these incidents, more objective and independent or at least detailed information will become available, though it may require some deep digging and possibly looking into non-English sources. What I'm hoping is that with a bit of time we can replace the "one side said, other side said" coverage with something more concrete that lets readers better discern which side, if any, is being truthful in any given case. The idea of repeating untrue (especially verifiably untrue) propaganda from either side is a bit disturbing, and given this article is being written and read in real time, it could actually affect the course of the war. -- ] (]) 08:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::::I've removed it; because it appears UNDUE in that specific section (there are plenty of sources discussing the issue of Russia's crime of aggression and of further war crimes; however including Belarus in that would be unwarranted in an article which is supposed to be a summary of the topic - of course, outside of the specific legal issues, mention of Belarus is appropriate in other places and in other contexts). No objection to this kind of content being split out to appropriate sub-pages where it can be discussed with sufficient depth and detail to allow for proper emphasis of the more significant elements. ] (] / ]) 21:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	:All very true, which is why we should really wait until this is all over, as "inaccuracies" creep into all live news story articles I have edited. I would suggest we hold off, we are not a ] service. ] (]) 10:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{ping|RandomCanadian}}, so you my verbatim inclusion of conclusions from sources due to reasons: “A single opinion post, even by a PhD, is not enough to justify this kind of content in a Misplaced Pages article; per the WP:OR issues already explained at sufficient depth on talk page and also per WP:UNDUE,” which I do not understand. Other editors disputed the application of the term “belligerent,” which this does not address, and you closed the discussion as an uninvolved editor, asking for sources. So I found sources, and now you dispute these sources, including the ones previously used by advocates of opposing views, without any sources that contradict them. This is not right.
	::For the day of the incident and a couple of days later, we have no option but to use "He says / she says" sources. Later we'll use third parties and delete the first set of sources.. ] (]) 11:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::We do have another option. That is to stop trying to be a news service (as ]) and to not cover a subject until secondary sources are published. ] (]) 12:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	: Cross-posting myself from ]: Just to give an example from my watchlist: is what I had to do in order to make the article compliant with our policies. The information is arguably credible (I did not attempt to look for more sources), but the two sources added to the article are (i) partisan from the same side and (ii) do not even make an attempt to verify the info, instead citing social media belonging to some newsmakers. Note that at least one of the sources is RS, and the second one looks more or less fine. I could have reverted, I have chosen to attribute the opinions instead. This is now massively happening across hundreds of articles. There is probably very little we can do about it, since Russian reporting is clearly just a lie and should not be added in any case, and people take Ukrainian reporting subcritically and still want to add into into articles. But it is something to have in mind, that we are now full of badly sourced partisan info. As I said elsewhere, the Russian invasion should motivate us to add high-quality info to our articles but is not an excuse to lowering our standards.--] (]) 13:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Agreed. ] (]) 13:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	{{hat|Unhelpful, unproductive. ] (]) 21:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)}}
			What I included is balanced and broadly and accurately represents sources without contradicting those that argued against labelling Belarus as a “belligerent” in the infobox.
	:I'm very surprised that you consider that the Russians have the incentive of agreeing to ceasefires and breaking them. How is this possible when by evacuating a city will give them the green light to heavily bomb them. Especially in the case of Mariupol where the majority of the population is Russian speaking. Why would they want to harm their people? The destruction of bridges is clearly done by the Ukrainians to stop Russian advancing not the opposite. Clearly the Ukrainians are using civilians as shields. Clearly the Ukrainians are fighting from schools and hospitals to force Russians to hit them and portrait them as bad. ] (]) 13:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Oi vey! ] (]) 13:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:: I suggest you stop this fucking propaganda or face an immediate block.--] (]) 13:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::: And the block will be per ]--] (]) 13:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::You are not allowed to make this kind of commends. I will report you. ] (]) 14:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Seriously? Take a chill pill. ] is breaking NOTFORUM at the worst. ] (]) 13:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::At worst? At best perhaps. ] ] ] 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	Can we please not comment on users here, take it to their talk page. ] (]) 13:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
			Also, when reverting, please do the courtesy of using the “revert” function or pinging us in your edit summary.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:You are well aware of the issues with the sources, as I've explained to you very clearly above (19:15, 1 May 2022), and in the edit summary (opinion posts by a PhD are still opinion posts and should not be used to make claims in Wiki-voice). The point about UNDUE is self-explanatory (it brings undue weight to focus on Belarus in that particular section) and similarly also explained (21:21, 1 May 2022). The ] is for you to get consensus for inclusion (or, as others have suggested, to include this material in sub-pages which can afford to cover the topic with more details). Me being previously uninvolved does not mean I have to stay uninvolved forever. ] (] / ]) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	== "Russian Fiasco" listed at ] ==
	]
	An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 10:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			== 2022 Perm factory explosion and fire ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Correct identification of "Blinken" ==
			An article has been made for the ]. The sources I can access allege that this might be sabotage, but since newsweek is pretty dubious, I don't want to put anything that isn't directly stated as fact into the article. I'd like some help in building the article. ]] 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
	Suggest that first (and currently only) mention of "Blinken" be revised to "US Secretary of State Antony Blinken" and hyperlinked to article at <https://en.wikipedia.org/Antony_Blinken>. This applies to the section "Foreign military support to Ukraine" here; see also the proper treatment at <https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War>. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:Maybe the scope could be expanded to cover all sabotage attacks in Russia. I've heard a lot in the news, and in cities like St. Petersburg and even Moscow. Not sure if that event alone is notable by itself. ] ] ] 17:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
	:Done, seems reasonable. ] (]) 10:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			::I would, but I really have no idea where to start, especially since the Perm explosion isn't stated to be sabotage by any source I can find. ]] 17:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			::@] There is now a draft page for ]. Hopefully this blooms into another good page shooting off from the main article. ]] 17:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::The fear with sabotage like this is suddenly everything that goes wrong in Russia is because of sabotage. Fire? Sabotage. Explosion? Sabotage. Bridge collapse? Sabotage. ] Sabotage. I'm not saying that it's not occurring but I think stuff like this has the ability to quickly become a bit paranoid especially in a country that has had something of a reputation for strange and bizarre events. ] (]) 22:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::reminder that the TP's are NOT a forum - your post is 100% discussing the topic instead of bringing a RS to improve the article ] (]) 17:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
			: Append it to ], which looks like it’s being expanded and renamed (see its talk page) to include all suspicious attacks, fires, and explosions in the Russian Federation.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 23:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			:just FYI, if you struggle to find sources but find one that DOES state something as fact, best bet is to use ] attribution such as "According to (whoever),.... blah blah blah". See also ] ] (]) 09:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
			== The map should respect that Transnistria= Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Belarus map ==
			The neutral point of view is clearly violated because in truth Transnistria is Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia. This is a fact, not an opinion. The map does not respect this, therefore I suggest changing this so that the neutral point of view is not violated. ] (]) 08:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
	Is someone going to mention this
	https://www.thedailybeast.com/belarusian-president-alexander-lukashenko-blatantly-rolls-out-invasion-map-as-troops-enter-ukraine ] (]) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)		:In what way? ] (]) 08:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:Refer to wikipedia's page on ]. ] (]) 11:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Yes. If the map shows something else, this needs to be addressed ] (]) 21:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
			== War crimes, lead section and article. Informal request for comments ==
	{{Clear}}
	== HELP : in finding a source with photos of the Kyiv Aircraft Factory Destroyed ==
	{{hat
	| status =
	| result = ]
	}}
			As this article's ] used to be identical to the lead section of ], I'd welcome if all interested editors could help us reach a consensus (or at least an orderly discussion) on that article's talk page. We are reaching the brink of another edit war there. The main controversial changes recently made to the lead section of that article are the following ones:
			* Removed from the lead any references to mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters: {{tq|The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: alleged marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence...}}; plus, removed ] on the same topic from the article.
			* Removed from the lead any references to torture and killing of Russian prisoners of war (POW) ({{tq|... and Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution. }}) and replaced them with references to allegations of ill-treatment of Russian POW ({{tq|The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine. }}).
			* Added to the lead {{tq|Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.}}
			* Added to the lead {{tq| Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war", possibly with tacit approval from their superiors. In March 2022 the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressed the heightened risks of sexual violence and the risk of under-reporting by victims in the country. After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv, according to The Guardian, there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians, including gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children}}
			* Removed from the article any references to allegations by Russia over Ukraine using citizens as human shields.
			You can confront with . This is {{Diff|War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|1085336259|1084742664|the ''diff'' between the two versions}}.
			These changes were made by ] and ] against the opposition of ] and myself. As the latter editors have been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting facts to push a POV, I ] and leave it to all interested editors to restore the balance or find a new one on the article. ] (]) (]) 11:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			:You are still listed by Wikitools as #9 for authorship of this article out of over 1000 editors of the page. What do you state by using the word 'disengage'? Does it mean no more editing on the main page or no more editing on the Talk page here? User:Cinderella in the section directly above seems to have some similar comments on the article. Is that a 'disengage' in the narrow sense or the broad sense of the phase? ] (]) 14:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			::By "disengage" I only meant that I'm abandoning an editorial conflict that has become unpleasant to me. I've invited you to join that discussion but I haven't implied anything about my future editing - although perhaps the time has come for me to take a break from ]. Broader participation is necessary: 2 editors against 2 editors is not a majority, let alone a consensus, and that article is too important to be neglected (apart from the fact that, as User:Cindarella157 rightly pointed out here above, we'd achieved some sort of coordination between the main article's and that article's editing processes). ] (]) (]) 17:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			*Well, that was definitely an improvement by users you complain about. They ''fixed'' the bias and made this text more focused on more significant war crimes, such as rapes, etc.] (]) 22:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	hi guys... do not go to read those immense texts ... because everyone knows Putinitler made a war to Ukraine ... this is clear to whole planet
	however read today at G1 Globo, the Russia attacked an aircraft factory at Kyiv... do not know where to find pictures to suggest Aviation Safety Database
	--] (]) 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:please read ], as to what I think your question is, please read ], you need to provide a source for this claim. ] (]) 14:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Do you mean ]? ] (]) 14:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::yeah... it can be those versions A. PUTINITLER B. PUTLER C. PUTANLER (when the Portuguese word for Prostitute makes a play, Puta, fdp or so) but has also the BOLSONATLER, who met him ! ] (]) 16:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Much bias?'''
	Putino & Putiler in Ukranussia... Você está Emputinado ? É putinização ou patinização ou putanização 😂 Sim, putinado Bolsonarismo e 'ucranização' - 'putinização'. Estamos Putinizados ou Ucranizados 😂
			:I notice that everything that happened to Russians is "alleged" according to you. While everything that happened to Ukrainians is fact. Despite the fact that there are video and photographic evidence that prove Ukrainian guilty and also Russian guilt atleast prima facie. ] (]) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
	pics https://ibb.co/f0Q9txj https://ibb.co/VHMPgtn https://ibb.co/c3pb61s https://ibb.co/1Gjktqk https://ibb.co/vXfXCsB https://ibb.co/4T8ypk6 https://ibb.co/hMGYyBZ https://ibb.co/vhcpZrM --] (]) 16:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			::'''Much bias? 2.0'''
			::Removal of Russian allegations, removal of any evidence suggesting that Ukraine is also committing war crimes. Remember Misplaced Pages is NOT a PROPAGANDA source for Ukraine. ] (]) 23:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::::or Russia. We should do our best not to repeat any propaganda. But as well. just because there is video, doesn't make it so ] (]) 00:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			== War/invasion ==
	THis article is not about Putin, or his nicknames, so please do not turn this into a ] about him. ] (]) 16:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:it is all only about him... the whole world is seeing what he started !!! ] (]) 16:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		Change invasion to war ] (]) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	::THis article is not about him, and this is not the place to discuss this that would be at ]. Can this be closed as off topic? ] (]) 16:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		:We have an article on the wider war, this is about this specific operation/invasion. ] (]) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			::That article is a large bunch of OR and an issue of design-by-committee, where it gradually morphed , to an article basically on Ukraine and Russia's interactions since 2014. It's most obvious in the lead, which focuses on 2014 events, then jumps to 2019 providing just one sentence on current status, and then discusses the 2022 invasion. It labels 2015-2022 as a "frozen conflict phase (2015-2022)". In reality, it is talking about two disparate issues that occurred in 2014 and then in 2022, and decided to pop them all into one article under an OR heading of "Russo-Ukrainian War", solidified by a . That article has no clear scope.
	{{hab}}
			::::I don't have strong feelings either way about whether this article should be called "invasion" or "war", but I do want to point out that there are a LOT of sources that call 2014 to 2022 a frozen conflict, including the monitors of the Minsk agreement. It is however true that the article clearly hasn't been worked on much since about 2015. But that could be remedied. ] (]) 00:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::The “frozen conflict” stage of the war didn’t begin until February 2015, but I think you’ll find many sources that say the Russians were trying to establish a frozen conflict during this “trench warfare” period. In fact, more than half of the pre-February 2022 casualties were incurred after the end of the 2014-15 “hot war” or “active” phase.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 03:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			::The IP editor's suggestion is fair. I think the COMMONNAME is still invasion, but where sources refer to a war, they're referring to this 2022 event. ] (]) 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::We have eight years of sources referring to the war before that. &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 03:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 03:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			:I think invasion is fair to use because it really is in every way an invasion. Misplaced Pages lists ] and ] as invasions, not Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. ] (]) 11:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			== Why is Chechnya not listed under the belligerents? ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (3) ==
			They were sent to Ukraine by order of their president, so they clearly should be listed. ] (]) 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Please change where it says Amnesty International to link to the Amnesty International wiki page. ] (]) 18:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	: {{Done}}. ] (] &#8226; ]) 19:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Chechnya isn't an independent state or breakaway region like the DPR and LPR; the Chechen Republic is a constituent part of the Russian Federation. ] (]) 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			::As per Guettarda, also discussed once more before. ] (]) 22:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
	== Problem with the 'prelude' section ==
			:Chechnya is not an independent state. It would be like complaining that Texas is not listed as a belligerent in a US war. ] (]) 22:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			::Or Canada. ]] 16:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			:::bad joke ] (]) 07:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			== information that could be added ==
	At the moment, the 'prelude' section of this article is longer than the section actually describing the events in scope of this page. This makes no sense, not least of all because we have ], most likely soon to be renamed ]. It would be appreciated if we could remove most of the prelude content to the other article, if it isn't there already, and create a small 'summary' here. This will go a long way toward making the size of this article more manageable. ] — ] 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	:The invasion parts did used to be longer before they were trimmed down, and I think they're currently out of date so may get longer. Plus, the ramifications are events within the scope of this page, too. The prelude section is not that large. I've trimmed a bit of fluff out of it, and someone with a bit more chutzpah than I could go further, but I think it's largely acceptable right now. ] (]) 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Some chutzpah applied. More may follow, depending on the blow back. ] (]) 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::And a little more. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::My work here is now complete. ''Au revoir''. ] (]) 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::{{re|Gog the Mild}} Mind taking a look at "Foreign military support to Ukraine" as well? Bit of a ] issue, plus it seems like an overdetailed dump of numbers. It can probably be skimmed down to a few paragraphs. ] (]) 12:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Done. Yep, it seems to have been a dumping ground for fluff and trivia. Let me know if you think that I have cut back too far. "The US vowed not to send ground troops into Ukraine to defend the country." either didn't have a clear source or it got lost amidst a lot of additions. So I have stuck a "citation needed" on it, but I assume that that can be readily provided? ] (]) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			As for war crimes go Russia has been seen and filmed using cluster bombs which are illegal to use against civilians, and even placed many many land mines around bridges. Another incident is the train station bombing that killed 50-100 people or the mass graves found. lastly jailed 15-20K protesters banned Facebook IG and news stations for calling it a war/invasion and anyone could be jailed for calling it so for 15 years. ] (]) 09:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	==Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022 (2)==
			{{not done}} This article is a ''summary'' of the invasion as a whole. The section on war crimes herein is the lead of the main article on this specific topic - ]. The lead of that aricle is a summary of that article. Specific details should be added to that article if not already there. Cluster munitions are already mentioned in this article, as is deliberate killing of civilians and censorship is dealt with in another section of this article. ] (]) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Please update the infobox with Ukraine's claimed inflicted losses: https://twitter.com/MFA_Ukraine/status/1502228138885099522/photo/1 ] (]) 12:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:FAQ at the top of the page:
	Q3: Please update the losses claimed by Russia / Ukraine
	A3: This generally happens quickly after they are published, please don't make an edit request. ] (]) 12:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Notes on English-language idiom ==
	:To be fair, the edit request was made 2 hours after release of data. I'm not sure I agree with FAQ #3 personally; at current rate it's just a few more edit requests daily, which we're getting anyway but not actioning. ] (]) 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::And ] is a policy, we do not need live updates, and in fact, I think we would be better off waiting until losses are conformed, rather than repeating each side's propaganda. ] (]) 12:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Due consideration needs to be given to the fact that this is an ''online'' encyclopaedia and people are turning to it for information on an ongoing event of signifiance. About data specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic our statistics were often more recent than news sites, since editors used a broad range of direct sources. Things like infobox data are generally in-demand by readers, and expected to be quite up-to-date. For as long as our practice remains to provide data from both sides without confirmation, we should keep that up to date (as ] says: {{tq|Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage}}). Besides, accurate and independent confirmation may not follow until quite some time after the events end. ] (]) 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::And it will be done, someone will add it. But we do not need it to be (in effect) a live news feed. We can wait hours or even days with no loss of information, after all none of this may turn out to be true. If it's not (and let's face it in war both sides lie) then we are not giving anyone the best information, we are giving them factually incorrect information. Which is not what an Enclopdoda should be doing. Thus I support FAQ Q 3 and ask editors to stop making requests to add information that will inevitably be added. ] (]) 13:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think this makes sense. If an ECP editor who is able to directly edit the page adds it, it's fine and a legitimate update. But if a non-ECP editor requests an update on a source, it supposedly violates ] and should not be requested? ] (]) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			A lot of editors here and on other Ukrainian pages seem to have English as a second or third language. Nothing wrong with that of course, but a couple of points that I keep correcting over and over again:
	{{Clear}}
			*An "amount" is for fungible things, that you might weigh, for example. If it is something you can count (even if you haven't) you probably mean "many" rather than "a large amount", or perhaps "a large number". "Some" is acceptable both for number and amount, btw.
	== Talks that happened in Antalya should be added to the Peace Efforts section ==
			*I keep seeing language that somebody "began to" do something when the meaning seems to clearly be that they "did" something. I suspect this is idiom from some language that I don't speak, but in English this really emphasizes the "begin" part, and unless the point really is that this is a change and this is when it happened, you're just eating up bandwidth to add in extra words that make your sentence confusing.
			Thank you everybody for your attention to these matters. ] (]) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			Another point I keep seeing that isn't *wrong* but isn't quite English somehow: In constructions like "], the managing director of the ]", that "the" is not normally used in the first mention. If you are going to mention her again after a fairly long intervening text, and the reader might have forgotten who she is, however, the proper format would be "Georgieva, the IMF managing director". In this case you are reminding the reader; don't ask me to explain why this is not done in first mentions, but it isn't. This is also my notification to the group that I am making these copyedits, btw. Feel free to object that I am imposing my own dialect or whatever if that seems appropriate ;) ] (]) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
	Foreign Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Dmytro Kuleba met for talks in Antalya, Turkey with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu as mediator in the first high-level contact between the two sides since the beginning of the invasion. Ukraine had attempted to negotiate a 24-hour ceasefire to provide aid and evacuation to civilians, especially in Mariupol. After two hours of talks, no agreement was made. Airstrikes on the port city continued.
			* Also a hold-out is the person or thing that holds out. The hyphenated word is a noun not a verb. This one comes up quite a bit also. If we could stop reproducing it this would make me happy Thanks 08:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
	"'No progress' as top Russia, Ukraine diplomats talk in Turkey". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-03-11.
	"Ukraine war: No progress on ceasefire after Kyiv-Moscow talks". BBC News. 2022-03-10. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
	Ellyatt, Holly (2022-03-10). "Russia-Ukraine talks fail with no progress on cease-fire, safe passage for civilians". CNBC. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
	Archive, View Author; feed, Get author RSS (2022-03-10). "Ukraine-Russia peace talks fail to make progress as airstrikes continue on Mariupol". New York Post. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
			== Potential NATO enlargement as a reaction/impact ==
	<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Xsign -->
			One of the knock-on effects has been that NATO enlargement is on the agenda in a very big way in Finland and Sweden (see ] for Finnish sources to choose from with some in English, and there's incidental stuff for Sweden there too, but probably better Swedish sources exist). Specifically, there's been a _massive_ shift in public opinion, and it's now being worked through in parliament in Finland, and, though neither country's officially come out and said as much yet, it looks like both countries will be submitting applications. I'm pretty sure this should be mentioned somewhere in the article-plex covering the war, but I can't quite figure out the best place to put it. Main article? Maybe marginally not noteworthy enough - but a short sentence might be a good amount of weight; even if it does go in to the main article, it should also go into one of the specific reactions articles. ]? Well, it's not governmental yet! ]? Maybe - but I can't see any other examples of big public opinion shifts mentioned in there, and it's likely to become governmental in a few weeks. I also slightly quibble about this being a 'reaction' - if NATO does expand due to the war, it seems pretty impactful! Ideas, anyone? ] (]) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:Lets leave it until it enlarges. ] (]) 10:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Russian intelligence officers responsible for Ukraine are under criminal investigation ==
			:: I think it's probably fair to not touch the top-level article until there's some kind of official movement. But I do also think that waiting until NATO officially expands will be way too late: the best guess is it's six to eighteen months away, depending on diplomacy and just how much of a hurry everyone's in but that they'll be accepted, and will have NATO-equivalent security guarantees in the meantime. This is a significant consequence even while it's in progress and readers will want to know about it, and we'd be doing them a disservice by leaving it out until the final accession is agreed months later. Maybe when they formally apply and begin negotiations will be the right moment to warrant a mention in the top-level article? (Still not sure whether it ultimately belongs in the 'Sanctions and ramifications' section or the 'Reactions' section, but, upon further reflection, I'm not sure that that division is very natural anyway. But that's a different discussion!)
			:: I've gone and added a little description of the polling to ] in a new section as a bold edit - the polling shift has already happened so there's not even a technical element of speculation there and, even after there's an official application to go in the governmental reactions article, that'll make sense. Like I said, even with a mention in the top-level article, this should be mentioned in the specific reactions article(s) because of summary style. ] (]) 16:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::NATO membership application, or an official confirmation of intent to apply, would be an appropriate point for addition here.--] (]) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Considering that Putin cites growing NATO membership as a reason for thinking that Russia's security interests are in play, I agree. ] (]) 09:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Content issue for discussion ==
	Journalist and security services investigator Alexei Soldatov reports that Sergey Beseda, the head of 5th service of the Russian Federal Security Service, and his deputy Anatoliy Bolyuh were put under house arrest for the duration of criminal investigation. They are suspected of embezzling money allotted for undercover work and subversive activities in Ukraine what caused the incorrect assessment of political situation in Ukraine and its armed forces condition and resulted in Russian blitzkrieg failure.<ref>{{cite news|title=Исследователь спецслужб Солдатов сообщил о деле против сотрудников ФСБ, отвечавших за разведку в Украине|language=ru|date=11 March 2022|magazine=]|url=https://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=622B646F9F467}}</ref>
			The Background section says "During the election campaign, the pro-] opposition candidate ] was ] by ]; he later implicated Russian involvement." I believe the intended meaning of "implicated" here is "accused" but that fails verification also, since what he actually does, according to the source at the end of the sentence, is accuse Russia of refusing to make witnesses (suspects?) available. Needs a better source and possibly a rewrite ] (]) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
	You know, I'm not surprised. ] (]) 18:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			::well. let me amend that. The source is fine but doesn't support the text in front of it, so one or the other should change.] (]) 09:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Size split ==
	:Russian blitzkrieg failure? Is that not a bit premature to add here?-] (]) 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Not really as this is the talk page, but it could not be used in the article. ] (]) 18:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::It will be useful in the future. Save it for the section "Analysis". ] (]) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Not premature. Probably dozens of articles have put forward evidence that the RF expected to seize Kyiv with an airborne assault in about two days, and there is a document attesting it expected to occupy most of Ukraine in fifteen days. This is the “blitzkrieg” that has certainly failed.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 21:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:kasparov ] (]) 22:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			At 85kb of readable prose, this article is already in "probably should be split" territory, and heading towards "almost certainly should be split". We should start a discussion to see in what manner this article should be split, since as time goes on, and the war goes on, it's likely to continue getting bigger. One possibility is the sections "First phase..." and "Casualties...", each of which is around 45kb (raw), and which could be summarized, with content moved into a new article. See ]. ] (]) 08:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	] says that these officers reported only an information what Putin wanted to hear, just because they were afraid he would be angry. That was the reason of wrong analysis of the situation.<ref>{{cite news|title=Путин начал репрессии против 5-й службы ФСБ. Именно она накануне войны обеспечивала президента России данными о политической ситуации в Украине|language=ru|date=11 March 2022|magazine=]|url=https://meduza.io/feature/2022/03/11/putin-nachal-repressii-protiv-5-y-sluzhby-fsb-imenno-ona-nakanune-voyny-obespechivala-prezidenta-rossii-dannymi-o-politicheskoy-situatsii-v-ukraine}}</ref>
			:In most cases, sections of the article already have child articles that align to the sections (more or less). It is more a case of now being ruthless in culling and more effectively summarising detail best covered in the child articles. In the case of ], that subsection was culled by replacing it with the lead at ]. There was a discussion leading to this which was pretty smooth and the lead from the child article dovetailed very neatly into this article. Reasonably, the whole section, ] could have been replaced except that: ] did not cover all of the content in the man section (even though it might reasonably do so; and, there are other daughter articles (such as ] that don't follow a clear hierarchy. I think that this experience indicates a course of action, addressing sections or subsections here as a concerted plan for each section or subsection. It should draw on why that experience worked and how it could be improved upon. It would require a mutually aligned concerted effort between an identified section/subsection and the primary child page. It would require cross-alignment from here to there; a good succinct lead; and, sourcing in that lead, even though that is not a normal requirement of a lead. My thoughts, ] (]) 10:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
	It clearly illustrates the degradation of public administration in autocratic countries. ] (]) 18:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			::The other approach for that section would be to first move or split the material to the sibling pages which you mention. Then you would have more room to bulk down that section to a short summary alone, with all redirects moved to the top of the section similar to what {{u|Boud}} and {{u|elinruby}} did for the Media section and other sections previously. ] (]) 14:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			::: If people were happy with what I did with the media section, I am willing to do another move in a day or two. Right now I am re-reading the article and doing a cautious copy-edit, reducing size where this seems like an improvement anyway. I am not removing any content at this time, just tightening up the language a bit. (and documenting kinda precisely) ] (]) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::Supporting on this. Time frame you mention is also good. ] (]) 15:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Problem with strength figures in infobox ==
	However I feel now I need to remind users of ] and ]. Let us not speculate, let RS do that. ] (]) 18:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}
			There is a fairly obvious issue with infobox strength figures. Russian army is shown only as its initial force, and separatist armies are shown at their peacetime size. On other hand for Ukraine both standing army and reservists are shown. Basically Russia + separatists are shown at their initial frontline strength, while Ukraine is shown at full theoretical potential. This is highly misleading, while Ukraine is mobilizing, this is not an instant process. Additionally separatist republics are also mobilizing and in fact started mobilizing earlier than Ukraine. Also, while Russia itself is not officially mobilizing, it has sent additional reinforcements from other regions to Ukraine.--] (]) 19:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== War machine casualties nearly bogus ==
			:{{U|Staberinde}}, the only "reliable" figures we have for a particular point in time (or there abouts) is at the start of the invasion. The infobox specifically notes it is as at the start. Do you have a particular suggestion and sources to support same? ] (]) 09:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
	Russia claim in Ukraine war machine casualties mostly already exceed Ukraine pre war inventory including tanks and armored, combat aircraft, helicopter, drones (Ukraine only had some 50 but Russia claim already shooted more than 100 drones). 1 week ago Russia claim in Misplaced Pages for Ukraine loses : 7 combat aircraft, 69 aircraft in the ground (mostly civilian) but now Russia claimed all of them as combat aircraft. Ukraine didnt had combat aircraft as much as Russia claimed. Ukraine in the position of defensive so they cant uses war machine in large number including tanks, helicopter, aircraft etc. Onl invader or aggressor use war machine in large number. Please put Orxyspioenkop analyse for war machine casualties. They using real picture. Russia loses more than 1000 war marchine including 500 tanks and armored also 27 aircraft. Ukraine loses more than 300 war machine including 160 tanks and armored also 10 aircraft. ] (]) 09:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:We go with what both sides say. ] (]) 11:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)		::{{U|Cinderella157}} Ukraine definitely didn't have 900,000 reservists under arms at the start of invasion, so quite clearly those should be removed from infobox.--] (]) 12:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::The 900,000 appears to be reliably sourced to ]. Do you have a source that states otherwise? ] (]) 19:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
	:surely they also count the reserves and stored equipment of the Ukrainian army that have been occupied or destroyed, everything they take from the bases (one thing is the active units, and another are the reserves, for example, lets say Russia may have committed 1000 tanks of different types, models and upgrades levels, but has another 20000 in reserve). This means that, for example, of the real losses of the Ukraine, at least in equipment, real number are not really known, because as the Russian army advances, it occupies what is possible and little can be confirmed. I have seen at least one video of the Russian army emptying some of the Ukrainian military bases they have occupied, taking all the vehicles, weapons and ammunition that were there. It must also be taken into account what a "total loss" is, since many of the vehicles that are disabled or abandoned but not destroyed, can be recovered, repaired and reactivated by both parties, as the ukrainian army has been seen doing with some russian vehicles, you can count on the russians doing the same, it is one of the situations that are created when much of the equipment of both sides is the same or similar. Numbers closest to reality, in all points and aspects, may be known when, hopefully, everything ends and settles down, one way or another. Right now everything is estimated numbers, and/or as always, inflated and/or deflated numbers, with bias and skew, for everything and everyone. ] (]) 14:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	::MAybe, but we do not do ]. ] (]) 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)		::::] does not claim 900,000 Ukrainian reservists were mobilized and combat ready on 24 February 2022. Do you have source stating that they were?--] (]) 19:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			:I'm seeing the opposite is true in regard to Russian troop numbers which are down not up: "Russia is beginning this offensive with a depleted army. American officials say that it retains only 75% of the combat power, across ground and air forces, that it had at the start of the war. Russia originally amassed 120 or so battalion tactical groups (BTGs), formations of around 700 soldiers. Dozens of these are no longer battle-worthy after suffering heavy losses of men and equipment. The Pentagon reckons that there are 78 BTGs in Ukraine presently; Ukrainian officials put the figure at 87." Furthermore monitoring and tallying troop movements from various sources would be ], so we have initial numbers, and have left them. That they are initial is clearly marked in the text. Plus that all aside it's an infobox not a scoreboard. ] (]) 19:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Resistance in the lead ==
			Hi! It seems to me that the article lacks a mention to the role of the Ukrainian resistance in the lead and focuses almost exclusively on the Russian action. If I well remember it once said something like "Russian troops met stiff resistance and logistical problems that hampered their progress," is there a reason behind its removal?
			] (''']''') 00:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
			:International press has been covering this as a Russian invasion with Ukraine applying a strategy of bunker defenses, siege defenses, and trench warfare defensive tactics to impede Russian advances. The Russian actions are usually documented first since they are the ones determining where the invasion is expanding the military front of Russia's attacks. ] (]) 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
			== US assessment of nuclear weapons ==
			The US stated last week that it does not believe Russia will use nuclear weapons or attack NATO territory, in spite of Russian statements. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sees-no-threat-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-despite-rhetoric-official-2022-04-29/
			Possibly applicable to the nuclear weapons use section. ] (]) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Article section seems to have moved forward to May references rather than the April reference which you link. ] (]) 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Leaders in infobox ==
			I recall that in the early days of the war, the 'leaders' portion of the infobox included more than just Putin and Zelenskyy. Somewhere in March other figures like Mishustin, Shoigu etc were removed. Obviously not every general of politician should be included, but why the change? I haven't seen any infobox show just the heads of state before ] (]) 15:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Per ], the infobox is a summary of key points of the ''article'' - ie it is supported by text in the body of the article. Any ''commanders'' with no mention or only a passing mention in the body of the article are not ''prominent'' in the context of the article and are not included for that reason. ] (]) 23:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Whether or not they're discussed at length in the articles, they're still prominent in the context of the invasion. I am not saying this infobox should include the unimportant low-ranking politicians or commanders, but it should include the figures who do have important roles in this war (like Shoigu, Gerasimov, Dvornikov, Kadyrov, Zaluzhniy, Reznikov). As is standard in most other infoboxes such as this. It just seems odd to only list Putin and Zelenskyy (and even if it's only supposed to be heads of state, it ignores Pushilin and Pasechnik)<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:::See infoboxes at ], ], etc. I was able to locate Gerasimov and Zaluzhniy displayed under "leaders" there and I expect the other leaders are similarly covered where relevant. Per Cinderella157, this is just organization and appropriate summary technique to parallel the article prose. --] 20:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Ukraine all alone ==
			{{Archive top
			|result = There is an open RfC on this issue at ] (above). Constructive comments on that issue should be made there rather than opening multiple threads. On the other hand, international "support" for Ukraine is covered in the body of the article. ] (]) 01:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
			|status = none }}
			The fact that this page still does not show that Ukraine is supported by other countries is so fricking ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to push an agenda. I mean it is not even a matter of denial of support, Ukraine is openly supported by western allies with weapons, training, and intelligence. Why is it even up for debate whether they should be shown as supporting or not? It is plainly misleading and dishonest to show it as it is. ] (]) 06:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
	Please put Oryxspioenkop analyse for war machine casualties. It include list and picture of that war machine being damaged, destroyed or captured. According to picture Russia loses 600 tanks, 27 aircraft and Ukraine loses 160 tanks, 10 aircraft. I think thats more realistic. How can Russia claimed destroyed more than 100 drone, more than 150 aircraft and more than 1000 tanks if Ukraine pre war inventory not even close that number. Ukraine dont even have 100 combat aircraft in their inventory. Ukraine only defensive so they cant move their war machine in large number. Only invader/attacker can move large number of their war machine.
			:Please see A2 in the FAQ at the top of the page; a discussion already took place regarding this. — ''']''' 08:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:Misplaced Pages has long become a monument for editor biases and double standards. ] (]) 21:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Censorship ==
			::Single purpose account. See Czello above. ] (]) 23:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{archive top|result=], unless you're suggesting concrete changes to the article, the discussion doesn't belong here <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)}}
	It's gemrwat that you added the sectipn on russian censorship, but unless you add the section about western censorship, you're just propaganda ] (]) 13:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Can you provide an example of Western countries laws prohibiting the use of non-official sources of the information about the war, similar to laws promulgated by Russian Government? ] (]) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	The simplest exmple is the removal of the 'ukraine on fire documentary' but personally the denial of US backed biolabs in ukraine is right now the most damning. Then you have the removal of channels, etc. Only a naive peraon who hasn't been paying attention for the last 60+ years would immediatley assume that the nato countries are telling 100% the truth and not taking advante/provoking <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Youtube is not a Western government. ] (]) 15:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	What Ruwiki admin Q bit array damage & wandalism? ] (]) 13:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:What? ] (]) 13:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	: Who removed the Stone–Russia propaganda film from what? YouTube only added a click-through warning. Denial of disinformation is not censorship either. Russian state propaganda channels featuring disinformation, like RT, have been banned, and the article already mentions this.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 22:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}		{{archive bottom}}
			== Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Russians blamed for genocide ==
	Russia was blamed for genocide by the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a speach when they had bombed a child hospital. Weren't the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagazaki part of wiping out the Japanese people in order to achieve peace a genocide? --] (]) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			In the "Foreign military sales and aid" section, there is a mention of Slovakia having SU-25s with which it could supply Ukraine. However, that source is incorrect, Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s since ~2002 and sold most of them to Armenia in ~2004. Here's a detailing every Slovak SU-25s and what happened to them (though it is only in Slovak). There's also a ] ] (]) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
	What, if anything would you like to see changed in this article? ] (]) 02:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			::er. I don't suppose you have handy a reference for the sale? I did notice this mention earlier, and didn't question it to go look at the reference, but if you're right this should be fixed. ] (]) 00:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
	:I should have had written a children's hospital? --] (]) 02:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::Source for the mention of SU-25s is "{{cite web |last=Weber |first=Peter |title=EU nations intend to supply Ukraine with fighter jets, foreign policy chief says |url=https://news.yahoo.com/eu-nations-intend-supply-ukraine-053017275.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220301/https://news.yahoo.com/eu-nations-intend-supply-ukraine-053017275.html |archive-date=1 March 2022 |website=] |access-date=28 February 2022 |date=28 February 2022}}"; The Week is a decent source but I am waaay outside my scope of knowledge. Is there somebody who speaks Slovak that could look at this? {{u|Standa-SK}}, is the statement on the Slovak Misplaced Pages referenced? And if so by whom? 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::Best I could find is from the Slovak Ministry of Defense or from SME. At least one of the SU-25s sold to Armenia was during the ]. As for the statements in the Slovak Misplaced Pages article, they are all sourced to valka.cz. ] (]) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::::mmm well that valka forum won’t fly as a reliable source, I don’t think. I do see that the list of Sukoi operators does not include Slovakia, but again, that’s not an RS. On the other hand, while your MOD and SME articles both go to the same news agency article, it does look reliable, although, again, we are way outside any area where I can claim expertise. So I might be willing to believe that Slovakia sold 10 of these jets to Albania but do we know how many they had to begin with? Still, Slovakia’s participation, or not, is fairly peripheral in this article. It might be best to just remove that part of the sentence, on the principle of first do no harm. Anyone else have an opinion? ] (]) 01:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::{{U|Elinruby}}, the section reads: {{tq|EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the EU intended to supply Ukraine with fighter jets. Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had MiG-29s, and Slovakia also had Su-25s, aircraft which Ukraine already flew and which could be transferred without pilot training. However, the planes' owners were reluctant to donate weapons critical for their own territorial defences, and feared that Russia could view it as an act of war if jets fly from their air bases to fight over Ukraine.}} This section is describing an "intention". It fails ] and ]. As to the more specific question (questionable clam re Slovakia), the is ]. Strike the lot IMHO. ] (]) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC) {{done}} ] (]) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::ok thanks] (]) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Mearsheimer ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (2) ==
			Not a word about on the conflict?
	{{edit extended-protected|Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox|answered=yes}}
			] (]) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	A recent edit removed the definition of the reference <code>CNN invasion routes</code>, but it is still used elsewhere, in the footnote for "Supported by: Belarus", leading to an error. So I suggest changing
			:We do not mention all kinds of peoples take on it, why should we include his? ] (]) 16:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	<syntaxhighlight>
			::Because it's opposite to most ad it has had quite a wide .
	Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory.<ref name="CNN invasion routes"/>
			:That probably belongs to page ], not to this page. ] (]) 16:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	</syntaxhighlight>
			::Yeah, good idea. Put it there. ] (]) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	to
			:View that PDF and scroll down to the chart that shows most experts disagree with Mearsheimer. Maybe that’s why. Although he is an important scholar, his views on Ukraine do not represent the academic consensus. Russian propaganda has really been pushing Mearsheimer videos and interviews on social media because they serve its purposes when sound bites are presented without context. (But it counts on you not reading very much of that PDF, because Mearsheimer keeps repeating that the Russian Federation is a declining power that will keep getting weaker.)
	<syntaxhighlight>
			:Here’s a couple of critiques of Mearsheimer: &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 16:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory.<ref name="CNN invasion routes">{{cite news |last1=Lister |first1=Tim |last2=Kesa |first2=Julia |title=Ukraine says it was attacked through Russian, Belarus and Crimea borders |url=https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-23-22/h_82bf44af2f01ad57f81c0760c6cb697c |access-date=24 February 2022 |agency=] |date=24 February 2022 |location=] |archive-date=24 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224071121/https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-23-22/h_82bf44af2f01ad57f81c0760c6cb697c |url-status=live }}</ref>
			::Yes, just as they say, the article by Mearsheimer is full of contradictions, and he just repeats some "arguments" by Putin. Of course one could criticize Western countries (and especially Germany), but that would be not for expanding NATO, but for supporting in many ways the regime in Russia before the invasion. Putin is exactly same man as he was in 2000, and he was preparing this invasion since 2014 or possibly earlier. ] (]) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
	</syntaxhighlight> ] (]) 14:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::There are a lot of contradictions around the topic, if something was said by Putin it doesn't make it the exact opposite of truth. What about "assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed"? US National Security Archive begs to differ: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early ] (]) 12:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> This source, along with other material, . – ] (]) 16:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Intel ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 ==
			Please add:
	{{edit extended-protected|Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox|answered=yes}}
			"The CIA provided intelligence that helped Ukrainian forces locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The targeting help, which contributed to the eventual sinking of the Moskva, is part of a continuing classified effort by the Biden administration to provide real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine."
	There are two references for the refugee count by the UN, and the second one has a technical error with <code>archive-url</code> and also the wrong title. So I propose to change
	<syntaxhighlight><ref>{{cite news |title=Refugee arrivals from Ukraine (since 24 February 2022)* |url= https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |access-date=12 March 2022 |publisher=] |date=11 March 2022 |archive-date=11 March 2022 |archive-url= https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |url-status=live }}</ref></syntaxhighlight>
	to
	<syntaxhighlight><ref>{{cite news |title=UNHCR scales up for those displaced by war in Ukraine, deploys cash assistance |url= https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |access-date=12 March 2022 |publisher=] |date=11 March 2022 |archive-date=11 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220312225445/https://www.unhcr.org/ua/en/43027-unhcr-scales-up-for-those-displaced-by-war-in-ukraine-deploys-cash-assistance.html |url-status=live }}</ref></syntaxhighlight>
	I also made this change in the sandbox . ] (]) 14:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/05/us-intelligence-ukraine-moskva-sinking --] (]) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Thanks for pointing this out. However, the infobox was updated and that portion was removed from there. ] (]) 16:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Russia launching nukes? ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Change Introduction ==
			Can someone, anyone, explain the point of ]? It's a long section devoid of any substance at all. A bunch of speculation about whether Russia will use nuclear weapons, most recently a denial from Russia, mixed in with extended (yet predictable) quotes from Zelensky about the suitability of Russia as a responsible nuclear weapons state due to apparent contamination concerns (which–if actual–should come from scientists if anything, not from politicians). ] (]) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
			:There are too many comments from multiple world leaders fully cited in that section. Its not just Zelenskyy, and it looks like William Burns of the CIA has commented, Sergei Lavrov has commented for Russia, Antony Blinken for the State Department, John Kirby for the Pentagon, and others. Each of these names has a Misplaced Pages article for their biographies, and it seems to be a non-trivial discussion involving Russia as a nuclear power. That seems to be more than "predictable quotes from Zelenskyy". ] (]) 14:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
	Change the introduction to "On the 24th of February 2022" from "On 24 February 2022" ] (]) 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> {{re|Andrwejo}} "On 24 February 2022" is correct per ]. —''']''' (]) 22:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		::But it still is all just speculation, maybe one paragraph, but that is it. ] (]) 15:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
			::World leaders have made a million comments on a million issues since Feb. If Russia doesn't use nukes, this stuff will be a footnote in 10 years time. If nukes are used, then it will be significant. So far, no nukes are used, and there's no realistic prospect of them being used. We write articles for the long term, we aren't a news ticker. ] (]) 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::They have used nukes though. Nuclear weapons have two uses, one is destruction, and the other use is the threat of destruction. Every time Russia threatens to go nuclear it is using the weapons, this is one of their main uses. It also has fundamentally re-calibrated the conflict, western nations are obsessed with the threat and go to pain staking lengths to avoid escalation; such caution was in short supply when NATO helped end the Serbian genocide in Bosnia. I also disagree with the idea that this will be a footnote, Russia's using of nuclear weapons to create an umbrella around the Ukrainian conflict is noticed world wide and has smashed nuclear non-proliferation. ] (]) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Equipment Losses should be listed as clearly as possible ==
	== Article for the diplomatic problem of NATO's eastward expansion ==
			Why are there no[REDACTED] articles detailing equipment losses?
	I think that the question of whether the 1990 (I think) informal verbal assurance that NATO wouldn't expand eastward after the German unification matters or not is notable enough for an article. There's already one about this in Russian Misplaced Pages . I'm proposing this idea in case anyone is interested in creating an article for this. ] ] ] 20:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:''If'' it is it should go in the ], not here. ] (]) 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::{{re|Gog the Mild}} That's still too detailed. It should go in ], ], ], or a child of one of those articles. ] (]) 23:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	: Sure it is: there’s an important book on the very subject, Sarotte (2021), ''Not One Inch'', and numerous articles. Obviously it can be mentioned wherever Russian justifications for the aggression against Ukraine are discussed.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 21:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:] might be a good starting point. --] 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:It should be mentioned here but don't think it deserves whole article. ] (]) 23:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
			Numbers can never be 100% accurate, but for instance there's been 7 provable downings of a TB-2 Bayraktar Drone used by the UA Air Force occuring as late as early May - However, Russia claimed that they've successfuly downed all operational drones since early on in the war. These two discrepencies could be easily rectified with a list detailing confirmed equipment losses to give a more complete picture of the war <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Map delay ==
			== Typos ==
	Is there any reason that the map on the page is very delayed? I often see towns and cities being shown only captured on both sides days after it happened. Examples: Russian capture of Konotop, Russian capture of Volnovakha now, Ukrainian counter-advances in Chernihiv oblast, the constantly changing situation in Kyiv oblast. It should be updated more often judging by the importance of the subject at hand ] (]) 02:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages is ]. Nor is the map hosted on en.wiki. Take it up with the commons. ] (]) 02:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:In addition, please see ], specifically Q4. ] 13:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			Section "Russian accusations and demands": "repressng" should be "repressing" ] (]) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2022 (2) ==
			{{done}} ] (]) 06:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2022 (typo fix) ==
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}		{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
			In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead section ('The invasion was internationally condemned as '''an war''' of aggression.') please fix 'an war' to 'a war'. ] (]) 03:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
	Add to ]:
			:{{done}} <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 03:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
	:On 7 March, in Vietnam, ]'s education authority issued an official dispatch titled "orienting, propagating, monitoring and capturing public opinion on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine." Previously, Haiphong Party Committee, the ]'s highest organ in the city, issued a written request to the entire political system, media agencies, and contingents of public opinion members to participate in propaganda about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The official dispatch issued by the Municipal Party Committee consists of three points, in which it asks people to not criticise, one-sided criticise; to praise the Communist Party of Vietnam's way, and responds to comments criticising the communist party.
			== Spelling error ==
	Source: https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/news/vietnamnews/hai-phong-city-education-service-asked-for-centralized-propaganda-about-ukraine-situation-03102022074144.html (in Vietnamese) ] (]) 04:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Why what relevance does it have? ] (]) 10:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:]&nbsp;'''Not done for now:''' It is not clear what the requested text is saying or why it is relevant. ] (]) 10:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Could have a place in ] ] (]) 11:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			In the section "Alleged clashes (17–21 February 2022)" there is a spelling mistake: "the another" instead of just "another" or "the other". Please change this to one of the two suggestions. Thanks.
	Re-phrasing (also adding to) the original requested text (the news article isn't seem available on RFA English):
	:On 7 March, ] (Vietnam)'s Department of Education and Training issued an official letter titled "orienting, propagating, monitoring and capturing public opinions on the Russia-Ukraine crisis". This letter is said to "deal" with the fact that news about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is being spread in a "pro-Western direction", and along with anti-Communist Party of Vietnam comments on social media. Previously, Communist Party Committee of Haiphong, the ]'s highest organ in the city, issued a written request to the entire political system, media agencies, and polemics of the city to propaganda about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The official letter asks citizens to not criticise or one-sided criticise; to praise the Communist Party of Vietnam's way, and respond to anti-communist comments.
			In the same section there is a dot in the middle of the sentence about russian videos after the word "amateurish".<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 6:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)</span>
	Adding to the above (also partially translated from the source given):
	:The city's Department of Education and Training also asked any educational institutions in the city to report any "violations". Mr. Tran Tien Chinh, Chief of Office of the Haiphong Department of Education and Training, confirmed. In addition, pro-Vietnamese government pages on social networks have also actively subjected to propaganda of the claims made by Russia since the beginning of the invasion.
	I can't find the official translation of this.
			{{done}} both. ] (]) 07:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
	Also, not sure if this would be appropriate for ] or ].
	] (]) 14:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Yes it would. ] (]) 14:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2022 ==
	== Should the "Countries' responses" have been deleted completely or restored (or maybe modified/condensed)? ==
			{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	The removal started . A few other major conflicts that have a similar format are the ], ], ], and maybe even the ]. In response to Beshogur, just lookup 'India Russia ally'& 'China Russia ally' for the evidence. A before the invasion confirms it as well. Maybe the heading could be changed to 'Countries close to Russia'? (Side note: yes, I also know I added a duplicate image by accident, won't happen again). ] (]) 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
			In the "Second phase — Siege of Mariupol" section, please change "Reports of dissent within the Ukrainian troops at Azovstal were reported by Ukraienskaya Pravda on 8 May indicating that the commander of the Ukrainian Marines assigned to defend the Azovstal bunkers made an unauthorized acquisition of tanks, munitions and personnel to make a breakout from the entrenched position there in order to '''flea''' from the city" to "in order to ''flee'' the city. These are two different words. Plus, please fix the typo in the same sentence: Ukraienskaya to Ukrainskaya. Thank you. ] (]) 06:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
			{{done}} both. ] (]) 07:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
	:There may be certain specific national reactions which have been uniquely notable in some way that would deserve a mention in this article. I expect {{u|Beshogur}} was just cleaning up in an effort to resolve the maint. tag listed on the "Reactions" section. The edit summary seems to invite exactly this question. If individual countries' reactions are restored, I recommend that the prose clearly indicate the nature of their notability, rather than stating a reaction without context. --] 20:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Look at ], there are no single reaction, it just redirects there. Why are those 4 countries randomly chosen? Because the editor thought those 4 were Russia's allies. Thus a WP:OR in this case. Also similar to the religious heads, this is just duplicate from the reaction article. Doesn't help the article except making it larger and unreadable. ] (]) 21:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Germany is not a Russian ally. The point was presumably to include substantive country reactions that aren't cookie-cutter condemnations which are either a) covered elsewhere in the article; b) redundant to the map of the UN vote; c) don't add anything to the article except repeat the same thing in different words. These reactions are interesting IMO because they show:
	:::# The response by another UNSC permanent member, China, traditionally allied with Russia.
	:::# The response by Germany, a Western nation, individually, reversing its long-standing approach to defence policy.
	:::# India, a major world trader and a country campaigning for a spot on the UN Security Council, allegedly working to undermine Western sanctions.
	:::On the contrary, the bulk of the Western response can (and is) best summarised collectively or in "ramifications". We don't need to write that the UK or France or US individually condemned it, it adds nothing, whereas the above do. The actions of China and India, at least, cannot accurately be described as "ramifications".
	:::(note that I did not add this section, but I support its inclusion in some shape or form, at least of the China/India/Germany portions.). ] (]) 23:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::As the editor who added Germany and China I didn't do it because I viewed them as Russia's allies, I chose them because I viewed them as countries who have a realistic impact upon the invasion, which is why I was trying to stay away from empty platitudes of foreign ministers and stick to concrete actions that they have taken that have impacted the conflict. China for instance arguably is the one who chose the invasion date; Germany's rejection of Russia and realignment of its security interests has completely reshaped European foreign policy, and energy policy. I didn't add Kazakhstan but I didn't delete it either because I thought it was worth mentioning the reaction of another former Soviet Republic to the invasion, and their relationship with Russia, particularly in Central Asia. I did originally have a good deal more about China, detailing how their response to the war has changed, and was adding China's potential economic lifelines but it got cut by another editor. I also originally listed France because of Macron's efforts both to continue creating a EU wide defense based in Europe not Washington, and to keep dialogue open to Putin to allow for diplomatic solutions but it got cut as well. But once again the idea being countries that have had concrete impacts upon the situation in Ukraine. Sorry, I'm very tired, so I'm not sure if this response was rambling. There is an argument that this is analysis, and I suppose that WP:OR could be said. There's alot to be said about France for instance but it quickly becomes WP:Synth which is why France stayed light. ] (]) 00:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	::There appears to not be much consensus. I did not add any countries to the section, but I think some countries not aligned with NATO should be included. Or else the only reactions shown will just be from Western-allied countries, which goes against ] (and WP:GLOBAL has been made an official supplement to policy on the ). For me I wouldn't mind if the heading is changed to 'Countries close to Russia' (geographically CN, IN, & KZ are close) or 'Non-Western Countries'/'Countries not in NATO'. ] (]) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Still don't get the importance of those five "individual countries" there. Look at the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh article, there was no exception, and all were moved to the separate article. Those five are not special and have no place there. ] (]) 13:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::There are probably a litany of different ways to present the same information. For instance, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict you say doesn't have a reactions section, but Russia is mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 150 times in the article and Turkey is also mentioned 4 times in the lede and about 100 times in the article so I think it's just different ways to display the same information yes there isn't a "reactions section" but the information is still there. We could decentralize the information like the Nagorno-Karabakh article does and speak about China under all the sections where it's pertinent such as Economic Repercussions and the like. ] (]) 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Agree with Alcibiades on the pertinence of information presented. A page split for this section is also another option. If the information is not closely related to the already existing main sections of this article then it may be better to have a separate page for that information. Otherwise, the pertinent information should go into the pertinent sections of the already existing main sections of this article. ] (]) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::The more that I look at it the more I agree with Beshogur: the section should be deleted. Honestly China and India have done next to nothing so why bother mentioning them? Germany has but it gets talked about under NATO and EU, then beyond that the section seems to be a magnet for filling up with Foreign Minister of X country said Y which is bloat and is covered in its own dedicated reactions page. The "Russian Allies" idea fails because the only allies that are supporting Russia are Belarus and Syria, Belarus is already discussed at length and at some point the article will probably mention Syrian mercenaries. ] (]) 00:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Agree with Beshogur and Alcibiades. Pull out any pertinent sentences with cites and place it into the pertinent section in the article. Then either split the section off into a new article or delete it. ] (]) 01:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Traditionally, Russia's political allies include China, India, Vietnam, Serbia, Armenia, & numerous Central Asian countries. Just because they don't explicitly support Russia's invasion like Belarus & Syria does not mean their reactions are the same as NATO countries. Even being neutral in the conflict can be noteworthy if you look at the criticism from some Western commentators towards India's stance. ] (]) 04:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Are you stating that you would prefer to split that section off as a new article rather than deleting it? ] (]) 16:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Section already has been split off as a new article here: ] ] (]) 16:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Normally the section split would mean that a short summary would be retained in the main article with a link to the split page. Suggest that whoever did the split to go ahead and summarize that section concisely, and then remove the redundant part which already appears in the split article. ] (]) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Hm, the thing is the India & Kazakhstan sections are already quite concise compared to their sections in the new article. The China section here also doesn't exactly match the one on the new article either. I'm fine with Germany's part being moved up & added to the NATO section since it seems to fit there better (if one wants to keep it). The other 3 countries should be kept I think (esp China & India as they are major players & the most populous countries). Maybe someone can trim down the China section if they are concerned about length. ] (]) 07:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::I keep trying to whittle down the China section and it keeps getting reverted which is quite frustrating. ] (]) 01:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{u|Gog the Mild}} From your trims to this article yesterday to control the size of this article. It looks like there was an article split for the Responses section on this article, however, it has not been edited and kept up to date. It seems like merging the information which has accumulated here in the Responses section to the newly split Responses article (separate article now) would make sense and save alot of space. Maybe keep one or two sentences in the section on China and India as a short summary. Could you see if you can do a further trim of this article by moving much of Responses material here in this article to the split article for "Responses" which has already been created? ] (]) 15:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			== "Invasion" word is misused ==
	== Urgent interim measures carried out by European Court of Human Rights (Censorship in Russia) ==
	] and its editor-in-chief ], ] and its CEO ] filed an application against Russia (№11884/22) with the ]. On 3 March 2022, ] requested urgent interim measures, namely, to indicate to the Russian Government not to interfere with lawful activity of Russian mass media, including Novaya Gazeta, covering the armed conflict on the territory of Ukraine, in particular, to refrain from blocking information items and materials containing opinions different from the official point of view of the Russian authorities; and to abstain from full blocking and termination of the activity of Russian mass media, including Novaya Gazeta. On 8 March 2022, the ] indicated to the ] to abstain until further notice from actions and decisions aimed at full blocking and termination of the activities of ], and from other actions that in the current circumstances could deprive ] of the enjoyment of its rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the ].<ref>{{cite web|title=Urgent interim measure in the case of the Russian daily newspaper Novaya Gazeta|date=10 March 2022|language=en|publisher=]|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-7282927-9922567}}</ref> ] (]) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{Archive top
	{{reflist-talk}}
			|result = ] ] (]) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
			|status = not done }}
			This is not a invasion. President Putin's statement says that it's a "special operations in Ukraine". There was no formal declaration of war on former state of Soviet Union "Ukraine". Please change the title of the page to "2022 Russia's Special Operation in Ukraine" as Russia haven't declared war on Ukraine. I believe Misplaced Pages should see sources from both sides instead of relying entirely on Western Sources. ] (]) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Urgent interim measures carried out by European Court of Human Rights (humanitarian aspect) ==
			:We don't repeat Kremlin propaganda. — ''']''' 09:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
	On 28 February 2022 the ] received a request from the Ukrainian Government to indicate urgent interim measures to the Government of the Russian Federation, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court2, in relation to "massive human rights violations being committed by the Russian troops in the course of the military aggression against the sovereign territory of Ukraine". On 1 March 2022, the ] has decided to indicate to the ] to refrain from military attacks against civilians and civilian objects, including residential premises, emergency vehicles and other specially protected civilian objects such as schools and hospitals, and to ensure immediately the safety of the medical establishments, personnel and emergency vehicles within the territory under attack or siege by Russian troops.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Court grants urgent interim measures in application concerning Russian military operations on Ukrainian territory|date=1 March 2022|language=en|publisher=]|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-7272764-9905947}}</ref> On 4 March 2022, the ] additionally moreover decided to indicate to the ], they should ensure unimpeded access of the civilian population to safe evacuation routes, healthcare, food and other essential supplies, rapid and unconstrained passage of humanitarian aid and movement of humanitarian workers.<ref>{{cite web|title=Decision of the Court on requests for interim measures in individual applications concerning Russian military operations on Ukrainian territory|date=4 March 2022|language=en|publisher=]|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-7277548-9913621}}</ref> ] (]) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:
			:invasion
			:/ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/
			:noun
	{{reflist-talk}}
			:an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
			:Nope seems to me what Russia is doing fits this definition precisely. ] (]) 10:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
	== List of commanders, territorial changes ==
			:Multiple independent reliable sources refer to this as an "invasion" (per ). ] (]) 10:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{ping|Cinderella157}} claims those commanders shouldn't be listed according to ], however I can not see anything about that. Similar to other wars, commanders should be listed. So I propose that commanders listed here on ] should be included to the infobox. {{ping|EkoGraf}} I see you're editing here as well, what do you think? You're experienced from Syrian conflict articles. ] (]) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Cinderella was correct in their expression of which commanders should be included in the infobox. ] (]) 22:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:] guides us on how to populate the infobox. If particular commanders are to populate the infobox, their entries should be supported by the prose in the body of the article (and not just a passing mention). ] (]) 22:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)		:{{not done}} ] (]) 10:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Dignifying this obvious troll with a response is counterproductive. If they want to indulge in a dystopian alternate reality, there are plenty of other sites offering that. ―&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 10:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
	::Obviously some of them are mentioned in the main article like Shoigu, or breakaway states' leaders. This argument is not valid. Secondly, others are mentioned at order of battle article, which makes them notable as well. For last see infobox template about conflicts, ] doesn't tell that it's explicitly about conflicts, otherwise, none conflict should mention commanders more than one.
	::{{tq|commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted.}}] (]) 00:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Reverted as this was discussed here before being implemented. As of time of writing, none of the Russian or Ukrainian commanders (except the Presidents) are mentioned ''in the prose'' of ''this article''. Shoygu receives a single mention in an image caption, so your statement that {{tq|obviously some of them are mentioned in the main article like Shoigu}} is false. ] (]) 01:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Can you link me the previous discussion? {{tq|is false}} well, open it and do a quick ctrl+f. ] (]) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::] though I recall this was discussed multiple times - try the archive search at the top of the talk page. ] (]) 11:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Is this even a consensus? I see 3 users. ] (]) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Doing a search for "Shoigu" using ctrl+f returns one hit to a caption for an image. There is no mention of him ''in the prose'' of ''this article''. ] (]) 12:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Have you even read the infobox template about conflicts? Are you sure that ] should be implemented here? It doesn't even make mention of conflicts. If that was right, we should place only single leader for every conflict or battle. ] (]) 12:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Besides obviously the belligerent's presidents, top military commanders should also be listed, like the Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff. ] (]) 17:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
	:::::::I am very familiar with the documentation for ]. ] is the guideline that represents the broad community consensus about infoboxes in general. The template documentation does not over-ride ]. If anything, it is the other way around. The two bits of advice are not incompatible either. The key point to take from ] is that we don't write the article in the infobox. Material in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article and the infobox should not be so bloated as to defeat its purpose of being an at-a-glance summary. ] (]) 23:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Very long sentence ==
	===Territorial changes===
			In the section "Impact on agriculture and food suppies" there is a very long sentence relying on a single source:
	I'm going to piggyback on this thread to ask about the "territorial changes" item of the infobox. On the template page it says: "any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict". Does this mean it should be filled in only after the conflict has concluded and a result is established? Or is it meant to be a updated on the go? ] (]) 21:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), further to causing the loss of lives and increasing humanitarian needs, the likely disruptions caused by the Russian invasion to Ukraine's grain and oilseed sectors, combined with potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions, could jeopardise the food security of many countries, especially those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.
	:Not every parameter in the infobox has to be used and the documentation makes this clear. How the infobox is populated (and how much detail) should not be at odds with ]. An intricate list of territorial changes would be at odds with this. At present, we have a map in the infobox showing territorial changes and under "status", we have a link to an article that provides detail on territorial changes. These more than adequately deal with the matter of territorial changes, while being consistent whith the primary purpose of the infobox: to provide an at-a-glance summary. ] (]) 23:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			I suggest breaking this sentence up, perhaps like so:
	'''Remove''': The following text keeps getting moved in and out of the territory parameter either being deleted or placed under the "status" heading:
			Due to the Russian invasion, disruptions to the grain and oilseed sectors of Ukraine are likely. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), this would cause further loss of life and increase humanitarian needs. In addition, potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions could jeopardise the food security of many countries. Particularily vulnerable are those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.
	:{{tq|*Russia ], one of the 22 ].}}
			(However, feel free to change it as you like.)
	I have (07:18, 12 March 2022) with the edit summary: {{tq|Redundent inforation. Map shows territorial changes and there is link to control of cities}}. It has been with this edit summary: {{tq|obviously not "Redundent inforation". there's territory section on the infobox template for a purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Infobox_military_conflict}}. I was not specifically aware that this had been moved in and out of either the territory or status sections a couple of times already. The infobox documentation would state this:
			This would mean repeating the source after each full stop, but would make it much easier to read.--] (]) 17:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
	:{{tq|'''territory''' – optional – any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement.}}
			:The edit looks good; feel free to make it, keeping in mind spelling errors and the English style guide (I believe this article uses American English, though feel free to correct me). ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 18:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
			::{{u|Ribidag}} I see now that the page is EC-protected; I'll make the changes then. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 18:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Thank you. (This article is written in British English). ] (]) 18:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
			{{done}} by {{noping|Iseult}} <small>] (]) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)</small>
	I would state that this should not be in the infobox for the following reasons:
			== NATO RESPONSE/INVOLVEMENT ==
	*Territory is an optional parameter. It doesn't have to be populated.
	*This entry is misleading since it would suggest to readers that this is the only territorial change that has occurred and/or the most significant change. There have been significant Russian advances on several fronts.
	*Expanding this section to be "more complete" would be overly lengthy. The infobox documentation specifically warns against that. It would also be contrary to ], since a lengthy description could not satisfy being an "at-a-glance" summary. Such detailed information would also need to be detailed elsewhere in the body of the article in order to be considered a summary of the article's content.
	*Per my edit summary, the information is redundant. since an image in the infobox shows the territorial changes and the status section has a link to ].
	*Territorial changes are in a state of flux and if anything, it should be dealt with under "status", where the present population of the territory parameter is not too problematic (not easily summarised and ongoing).
			I believe that NATO involvement in the war has helped Ukraine get an upper hand, and I think it should be mentioned. Here are some sources to back up my point:
	For the preceding reasons, I believe we should remove the present text under territorial changes and refrain from its use for the present. ] (]) 02:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			https://www.msn.com/en-xl/europe/europe-top-stories/russia-plays-down-nuclear-war-talk-after-us-ambassador-chides-nato/ar-AAWZk6M?ocid=BingNewsSearch
	== Splitting human and equipment losses? ==
			https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/after-nato-weapons-u-s-intelligence-shines-for-ukraine/ar-AAWZKc3?ocid=BingNewsSearch
	I find the infobox to start being overcrowded with reported men killed by multiple factions and particularly when the extensive detailing of equipment type losses are shown. I suggest using horizontal lines (particularly for the US who isn't even a participating faction) and to have a different section for Human casualties and Equipment losses. ] (]) 21:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-ambassador-to-u-s-says-nato-not-taking-nuclear-war-threat-seriously/ar-AAWXLkL?ocid=BingNewsSearch
	The infobox is overwhelming. I personally feel equipment losses should be removed given the extent of the war. Also, let’s not bog down the casualty toll with so many sources. I suggest a range or a neutral party as the source. ] (]) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sweden-and-finland-nato-membership-could-be-approved-in-just-2-weeks-e2-80-94report/ar-AAWUFoQ?ocid=BingNewsSearch
	:Consolidate casualty details and refs into {{tl|efn}} and just show min-max range? Fine with removing equipment losses given that notable exceptions (if any?) can be added in prose as appropriate. --] 00:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:I think we should keep the equipment losses somewhere on the page for 3 reasons:
	:* We don't have specific numbers for the individual battles list.
	:* The amount of equipment lost give a decent indicator of the scale of the fighting and forces committed. Something human casualties doesn't always translate.
	:* The volume, pace and technological level of those losses hasn't been matched by any other conflict since the Gulf War. And if we consider both sides losing a lot of equipment quickly, this is unprecedented since the end of the Korean War. ] (]) 03:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			Please excuse my bad citing, I am still working on it. BadKarma22 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
	::I think that’s what is preferable. Giving a range is much more readable than what is there now, yet still encompasses all the sides presently reporting casualties. Also, at this point naming all non-human loses is superfluous information. --] (])
			Also, what section would this be added under? BadKarma22 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC) ] (]) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Ukraine lacks of a 'supported by' list in the 'Belligerents' section ==
			:NATO has taken the position of 'no boots on the ground' and 'no planes in the air' to support Ukraine. ] (]) 18:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
	NATO, Australia, Turkey, Japan, and South Corea have supplied military systems to Ukraine according to Misplaced Pages map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Countries_supplying_weapons_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg/1920px-Countries_supplying_weapons_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg.png
			:There is already a section for this. See ] ] (]) 18:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
			::NATO, as an organisation, has provided very little in the way of direct support to Ukraine and is mainly focused preventing an escalation by bolstering the defence in neighboring countries. It is NATO countries, not NATO as an organization, that are supplying arms and other support to Ukraine. ] (]) 10:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
			I originally intended to add this to the Russo-Ukraine War page and didn't check this article. I apologize. However, I think we could still mention the US intelligence contribution. ] (]) 01:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
	See Q2. ] (]) 02:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			I was also using NATO as an umbrella term. ] (]) 01:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
	:I agree. ], ], ] and ] should be added in the Belligerents section under the heading support. These nations have not only supplied weapons to ] but also sanctioned ]. ] (]) 05:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			I would add to the page the ramification of the conflict in terms of the change in the geopolitical situation in the scandinavian peninsula, today the uk and finland signed a mutual security agreement to protect eachother, quite a strong sign that finland is almost certainly going to join nato. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	See ]. ] (]) 05:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Strange grammar ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Ruwiki user arrested for editing the article in Russian ==
			In the section "Prisoners of War", it says that over a thousand prisoners ''were'' captured. Seeing as though the conflict is still ongoing and more are likely to be captured, I suggest changing this to ''have been'' captured.--] (]) 15:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
	Today Belarusian political police ] arrested user of ] from ] who was working on the article about the invasion accusing him of the "spread of anti-Russian materials" . Should we mention this unprecedented case or is it necessary to wait for additional details? — ] (]). 12:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Depends on whether "Mark Bernstein" is actually a Wiki editor, has been arrested, etc. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:No, why is this relevant to the war? ] (]) 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Why is this relevant to the war??? Um, hmmmm, let me think... No, complete coincidence. Nothing to see here. ]] 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::It is not relevant to the war, as it has no impact on it, our understanding of it, or it's progress. ] (]) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::I think you need to give your imagination freer rein. If his arrest has anything to do with ruwiki's covereage of the war, then it's certainly relevant. ]] 06:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I did not say his arrest was not, I said I do not see why it is relevaslt to an article about the war (and not say its social impacts). ] (]) 10:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Yes it should. ] ] ] 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Should we make separate article? For example, "List of persecuted Wikipedians" or something else? ] (]) 17:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::No. We do not need a new article for every minor news story. ] (]) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Seems more closely related to topics like ], ], etc. even perhaps ]. Interesting story but tangential to the topic of invasion. --] 22:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
	::{{re|KUrban (WMF)}} This issue is already public - see above. Any public comments from WMF that could count as WP:RS? ] (]) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::I believe there is a comment on ] from the the WMF. ] (]) 09:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:: links to which says an indefinite global block was applied "До выяснения обстоятельств" ("until we know what's going on"). I assume it's to reduce the probability of him being tortured and made to edit ]. ] (]) 01:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::The sources link ]'s arrest with his editing of ] related Misplaced Pages pages, so it seems relevant. ] (]) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Who made an article? ] exists for a reason. ] (]) 03:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Boud created it with total disregard for notability and BLP. And now we have to have a week long protracted discussion via AfD on what to do with it. FFS. ] (]) 03:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Known for over a decade as a major Misplaced Pages editor; international coverage from the US and Belarus; multiple independent sources. ] (]) 04:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Oh, come off it. ]: {{tq|Misplaced Pages considers the '''enduring notability''' of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, '''most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion''' and Misplaced Pages is not written in news style}}. Furthermore ]: {{tq|Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article}}. The three conditions being 1) single event (check), 2) otherwise a low profile individual (check), 3) the event is not significant (check,this routine in Belarussia and Russia). Being in the news for five minutes does not constitute notability. ] (]) 05:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::At least add it as a trivia knowledge. ] (]) 21:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:It's strange that a prisoner would be captured, no? Makes more sense that a soldier would be captured and then become a prisoner. ] (]) 16:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			::Good point. Then perhaps it ought to be "Over a thousand combatants have been captured". Then again, it might be best to just remove that sentence since it is bound to be outdated. Any thoughts? ] (]) 16:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Addition of Syria as Belligerent on Russian side ==
			:::Rewrite lead sentence of Prisoners section to deal with reliability/unreliability issues of statistics generated during the invasion by different sources. ] (]) 18:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::Good idea. I think the sentence could be split in two. I suppose one could also argue that any information regarding casualty counts ought to be limited to the dedicated casualties section above, so a rewrite could be:
			::::Reliable statistics concerning prisoners of war resulting from the invasion have been disputed in the international press. Both underestimates and overestimates of prisoner counts are apparent depending on the source of the statistics.
			::::Also, the first sentence seems to say that the international press has disputed ''reliable'' statistics, which is odd. I suppose the intended message is that the international press has disputed whether or not it is possible to make reliable statistics. If that is the case, I feel that it should be clarified. ] (]) 20:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Never mind, it was changed as I wrote this. ] (]) 20:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
			== ] to Mr. Biden ==
	Russia is recruiting Syrian troops and sending them to Russia to fight the war. Also, the Syrian president ] has backed the Russian invasion. Then Syria should be added to the Belligerent list along with Belarus under the heading '''support'''. Can this edit be made?
	Citations:
			{{hattop|Impenetrable conversation, not going anywhere. — ''']''' 13:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)}}
	] (]) 05:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			NATO Casualties : The Russians have got WARD recently ... Do YOU know who was JW Clark ? Is he a hero from the USA or just one "white mercenary" ? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:I am not quite sure that I understand your post. Could you please be more specific? ] (]) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	:Don't write the article in the infobox (per ]. This is not mentioned in the body of the article. Please write the article first. Then the infobox can reflect and summarise the body of the article. This must also be a specific action by the state of Syria. ] (]) 08:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:As the article says, "volunteers", these are not official Syrian troops. ] (]) 11:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			The Russian TV often shows dead americans ... Can you mention their names in the table "NATO Casualties" ? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	{{Clear}}
	==Braindrain==
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Can someone include - in the economic impact section - the potential brain-drain the war & sanctions are causing for Russia? Some reliable sources about this topic: BBC , WSJ , FT ] (]) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Please be more specific and change above to "no" ] (]) 19:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)		:No, as Kremlin propaganda isn't a ]. — ''']''' 09:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			BUT they showed PASSPORT CARDS of killed young men ... IGNORE THOSE FACTS in en-wiki ? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Infobox belligerents ==
			:Again, we don't consider Russian state TV to be a ]. If there has been significant coverage in sources we deem reliable there may be justification for inclusion. — ''']''' 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	Shouldn't we add the countries that support Ukraine to the Infobox? ] (]) 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:See FAQ Q2. ] (]) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)		:Which can be faked, sorry we do not use Russian state propaganda. But even if it were true, so? Russia is using Mercenaries, why not Ukraine? ] (]) 11:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	::So, on this note, the RfC specifically suggests reopening it with a more narrowly focused question. Could we mock up a full example of what the infobox would look like with the "Supported By" field included (but not in the belligerents section, as consensus is against that), and then open a new RfC with that specific proposal? I feel like it's time to try again. ] (]) 23:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			YOU don't trust RU-WIKI ? NO NATO casualties ? ] ] (]) 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOTHING TO TRANSLATE
	:::The closer would assume that the infobox has the feature to support such a distinction. I don't believe it does. Furthermore, there is the consideration of the infobox size wrt ]. The infobox should be an at-a-glance summary and therefore not excessively long. One should note that mobile devices do not support drop-downs. The infobox is reported herein to already be about 8 screens long on a mobile device. That is already way too long without adding more intricate detail that would make it even longer. ] (]) 02:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:We do not trust En-wiki, wiki's are not ]. ] (]) 12:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::Bigger....longer the info box is the more readers will not read the article <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 02:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:And what the hell does Domestic terrorism have to do with the possibility that some Americans might be fighting in Ukraine? ] (]) 12:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			DOMESTIC ? it's an INTERNATIONAL CASE of ] ! ] (]) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOW i wonder are you for or against ] in KIEV ?
	== time magazine article talking about hate towards Russians ==
			:Then why are you linking to an article about domestic terrorism? ] (]) 12:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			Because IT IS ME who translated THE THEME for Ru-Wiki ! ] (]) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOT ]
	https://time.com/6156582/ukraine-anti-russian-hate/ ] (]) 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:So? What relevance does this have to this topic? All it does is confuse this issue as people will go there assuming it has some relevance, thus you are just wasting user's time with that link. ] (]) 12:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			PLEASE ... USE your own links: ] after new ] ] (]) 12:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	:There seems to be a scattering of these articles, and maybe the issue should be discussed ''somewhere'', but I don't see the sources showing this is prevalent enough for it to be included in ''this'' article. It seems to be mostly localised phenomena. ] (]) 04:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:What are you talking about? Sorry but what has this to do with the topic? ] (]) 13:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::We have the opposite view as well that could be mentioned.... that is... Sympathy for the Russian citizens... like our fellow Misplaced Pages editor that got arrested .<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 05:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::], perhaps? What is the link about? –] (]]) 05:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::About balance ].<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			WE were talking about NATO CASUALTIES : AMERICAN ... NOT BRITISH ! That is my address was '''TO Mr.Biden''' ]
	{{Clear}}
	== 6 peace efforts (section ==
			IP comes back to Rostelcom (Russian telecom), ] actually, to nobody's surprise I am sure ] (]) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	should be 1 (first <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Why? ] (]) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::I don't think it's one, but there are some peace talks that are continuations of others. But... I do believe that each talk should be listed separately. ] (]) 14:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			(]) 13:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			{{hatbottom}}
	== "Western front" ==
			== Lead not chronological ==
	Is it really accurate to describe the recent air and long-range missile attacks on Western Ukraine as a "Western front"? There's no one on the ground there and similar attacks began on the first day of the invasion. – ] (] / ]) ] 15:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Not a front yet. There were several cruise missiles attack from Russian ships in Black and Azov seas. But this is a notable escalation. I would suggest just to change the title to something like "Cruise missile attacks close to Lviv". ] (]) 15:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Done. Somebody has already changed the section heading to "Missile attacks in Western Ukraine". <span style="color:Green; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::OK. According to ], that attack was not so significant, and "the Russians are about ten days away from what is called the ], when they just no longer have the ammunition nor the manpower to keep up their assault" .] (]) 18:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			The second paragraph of the lead (first big paragraph), begins in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, then progresses to a build-up in 2021. Then comes Putin's "special operations" speech on the 24:th of February. After this we jump back one day to the 23:d of February to say that Russian officials denied plans to invade up to and including that day, which I suppose is fine as a look-back after the invasion has started.
	{{Clear}}
	== Infobox asymmetry (reserves) ==
			In the next paragraph we are suddenly back on the 21:st of February, the invasion hasn'st started yet, and instead Russia recognizes the two self-proclaimed statelets. Then the invasion begins on the 24:th again, with Putin again announcing a "special military operation". We then hear a little about what happened shortly thereafter, with missile strikes and general mobilization.
	In the infobox Ukraine has reserves, Russia has not (it sould be 2,000,000) --] (]) 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			I was a little confused reading this and the first time I did, I thought the first speech mentioned was different from the second, when they are in fact the same. This is because the first time it is mentioned no date is given. It just says "shortly before the invasion" which really means 10:s of minutes before, but with how the lead jumps in time makes you think it is a few days before, somewhere before the 23:d of February, which is the next actually given date.
	Russia’s reserves aren’t actively participating in the invasion, thus not included. Only active participants are included, including Russia’s military. ] (]) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			More nitpicky is that the fourth paragraph begins with "As the invasion began on 24 February 2022" and then goes into fronts and such. This again gives a feel of "restarting" after just having heard what happend as the invasion began: missile strikes and general mobilization. Some way to show these happened simultaneously might tie it together better.
	:Also, difference with Ukraine's reserves is that there was general mobilisation, whereas IIRC Putin said there would be no conscription or calling up of Russian reservists to fight in Ukraine. So the former are technically participants, or potential participants, in the military conflict, whereas the latter are not. ] (]) 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::To tell the truth, Putin lies, as always. Conscripts were used in combat actions in Ukraine, some of them were killed, wounded or captured. And this information was confirmed by Russian Ministry of Defense on 10 March 2022.
			I think it could be an improvement to make the lead more chronological.--] (]) 05:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
	::In addition, some of Russian military units involved in combat actions manned by voluntary reservists (Russian military human reserve - part-time military service).
	::Moreover, on 18 February 2022, Putin signed the decree on call-up for military training among persons who are demobbed from active duty service but are not in voluntary reserve service; quantity of persons who are subject of this decree is classified; this mandatory "military training" can last for 2 months. On the use of this persons for combat actions, I have no information. ] (]) 09:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)		:I'm not saying that I believe that this is the best or clearest lead that might be written. However, on the particular issues that you would raise, I am not seeing that there is a particular issue and that the chronology of events is reasonably clear even if the lead does not follow a strict chronological order. ] (]) 09:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Sabotage ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Denied ==
	Is it forbidden to stand on the Russian side and take part of the wiki talk? --] (]) 03:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			Hello, I am slightly surprised that I can't see any mention of alleged 'attacks' inside Russia and Belarus. Belarus has just legislated against sabotage with the death penalty because of the extent. A military facility in the far east of Russia suffered an explosion reported today: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/12/1-dead-7-injured-in-russia-military-base-explosion-a77650 many others I am sure editors will know about. There are good RSS but I could understand a reason why sabotage is left out of the article. However the situation in Belarus is now cited as being partly the cause of Russia's withdrawal from the north. It's part of Ukrainian solidarity and strategically, militarily significant. I thought worth a discussion maybe. ] (]) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
	:If ] information supports the Russian position, it should be included in the discussion. ] (]) 04:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:NO, but we do expect reliable sources. ] (]) 10:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)		:] and ] are already included and linked in the article, as well as the destruction of communication towers in Moldavia. ] (]) 22:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Where did the "current event" box at the top of the page go? ==
	{{Clear}}
	== The article should mention NATO support for Ukraine in the infobox. ==
			I mean, it's still going on, and probably will be for several years, right? ] (]) 10:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
	Due to NATO or NATO countries giving Ukraine many weapon donations. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:] ] (]) 20:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)		:It is presently displayed in the Invasion section. ] (]) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
			== US financial support ==
	{{Clear}}
	== The invasion began on 2-22-2022 ==
			How about add this, on place of Ukrainian side
	The date on your wiki page is incorrect. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Source? ] (]) 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)		Im talking about us financial supporting Ukraine with Lend lease, so ] (]) 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
	:Putin authorized the invasion on the 22nd, but it did not begin until 2-24-22 ---] (]) 16:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)		:We do in Foreign military sales and aid. ] (]) 15:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
	::You need to cite a newspaper article or other source that supports what you're saying. See the "References" at the bottom of the article. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)		::Also in this article: ]. ] (]) 15:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::https://www.rt.com/russia/552015-italian-flights-ukraine-weapons-aid/ ] (]) 22:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Please present a ]. RT is not reliable as a state-run outlet. See ] for more detail. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::And by the way, that source doesn't say that the war began on 22 February... ] (]) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::I was going off of the dates given in the prelude section of the article ---] (]) 11:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			== cluster munitions ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Infobox wrong on civilian deaths in Mariupol ==
			These aren't really '''prohibited'''; many countries have signed a ] agreeing not to use them. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among them. However, using cluster munitions against civilians is most likely a war crime. but that would fall under different international laws. Struggling to find a concise way to express this. I have been changing "prohibited" to "banned" on this and the applicable subpages, but that is only slightly less wrong. Anyone have any thoughts? ] (]) 04:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
	The reference isn't specific, and 20,000 people haven't been killed; 20,000 have been evacuated. ] (]) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			::currently going with "repudiated by many countries", open to other ideas. ] (]) 11:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Supporting this. ] (]) 13:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
			== About the map ==
	:Infobox reports "2,300–2,857 civilians killed", not 20,000... ] (]) 10:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			Comprehensive map key of the invasion says about 'Ukrainian advances'. Even if we do not take into account that in most northern areas Russian forces just withdrew because they could not do anything, maybe the correct term would be 'Ukrainian counter-offensive' as these moves are entirely in Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian army held those before the current war?] (]) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:Why? "Advances" does not mean "invasion". ] (]) 10:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (4) ==
			::Advance implies going forward when actually Ukrainian troops return at that place. I don't know it sounds to me that counter-offensive is a better term. ] (]) 17:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Advances in this context means that they are counteracting against Russian forces. ] (]) 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Alright, if it is just me just ignore my comment. ] (]) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Russian casualties ==
			UK has now stated that Russia lost 1/3 of its ground invasion force from February, 24. (KIA, MIA, WIA, POWs included I suppose.)
			https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525762560888344577?s=20&t=5bifi3vtZs7vfcseRrzzPA <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2022 ==
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}		{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
			I want to add a section explaining how the invasion caused Finland (a non-NATO country), to join NATO. Source:
			<ref name="?" group="?">{{cite web |last1=Stashevskyi |first1=Oleksandr |title=Russian Threats Push Finland Toward Joining NATO Alliance |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-threats-push-finland-toward-joining-nato-alliance/ar-AAXd4lL?ocid=BingNewsSearch |website=MSN.com |publisher=MSN |access-date=5/13/2022 |ref=?}}</ref> ] (]) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
	Please replace the "Wenclass Square" ref in the section ] (after "In Prague, about 80,000 people protested in ]") with {{tag|ref|content=<nowiki>{{cite news |last=Muller |first=Robert |title=Czech PM recalls 1968 Soviet invasion at Prague anti-war protests |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-czech-protests-idAFL8N2V20Z3 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220301/https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-czech-protests-idAFL8N2V20Z3 |archive-date=1 March 2022 |website=] |date=27 February 2022 |access-date=28 February 2022}}</nowiki>}}
			:That should be its own article @] ] (]) 12:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
	The ref ], but was defined as it can be seen at ].
			:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ]] 03:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
	] (]) 12:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
			== Can we clean up the line thickness of the "Casualties" table? It's confusing ==
	:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 13:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			The causalities table is quite confusing - it's very hard to quickly see what casualties relate to what party because of inconsistent use of line thickness. For example, the Russian and Allied forces, the line between US and UK estimates is thick, despite both being estimates for the Russian and Allied forces. However, the line between Luhansk and Russian and Allied forces is thin despite between different parties.
	{{Clear}}
	== Editor of Russian Misplaced Pages pages detained ==
			Thick line should be used to separate different categories, while thin lines should be used to separate the different estimates within that same category imho. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	"," Yahoo.
			:I think the thinner lines are meant to indicate that the groups are part of one force, while thicker lines imply different belligerents or neutral groups ]] 11:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
	"Authorities in Belarus have arrested and detained ... one of the top editors of Russian Misplaced Pages.... Bernstein was reportedly accused of violating the "fake news" law Russia passed in early March by editing the Misplaced Pages article about the invasion of Ukraine. Under the new law, anybody found guilty of what the country deems as false information about the Ukraine invasion — remember, the Kremlin calls it a "special military operation" — could be imprisoned for up to 15 years." --] (]) 06:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	{{See also|Misplaced Pages coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine}}		== Composite images of Russian high command ==
	] has been tagged. ---] <sub>(])</sub> 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{multiple image
	{{Clear}}
	== Foreign casualties ==
	"Excluding the Russian soldiers, at least 23 people from eight countries besides Ukraine died because of the war" - This phrase needed to be updated. There are at least 25 people who died because of war (not 23) from ten countries (not eight)
	Also, there are some sources about a belarusian volunteer fighting for Ukraine, Aliaksej Skoblia, who was killed in battle near Kyiv yesterday: https://twitter.com/franakviacorka/status/1503134196763668481 or https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1503151077897785350 ] (]) 18:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			|total_width=440
	{{Clear}}
			|align=right
	== Equipment Losses should be listed as clearly as possible ==
			|image1=Командующий войсками Южного военного округа Герой РФ Генерал армии Дворников А.В.jpg
			|image2=Official portrait of Sergey Shoigu.jpg
			|image3=Alexander Zhuravlyov (2019).jpg
			|footer='''Left to right:''' ] (Commander of Field Operations), ] (Defense Minister) and ] (previous Commander of Field Operations, reassigned under Dvornikov after 8 April 2022)
	Potentially a different section detailing what types of losses differentiating between ground, naval, and air equipment.
			}}
	Russia has been losing a significant amount of equipment to "farmers" since near the start of the invasion and should be mentioned since civilians capturing large amounts of tracked armor is highly unusual. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			The high command for the Russian invasion is now known, should the image be added somewhere in the article? ] (]) 01:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
			:See ]: {{tq|Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding.}} See also ]. Images support the text of the article - don't write the article with images or in image caption. It is a case of showing that the proposal meets the ]. ] (]) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (4) ==
			::Information is verified and accurate of current high command for Russian invasion. Caption can be adjusted as needed. Editors can comment if the composite images are "significant and relevant" for the article. ] (]) 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Change Zalensky to Zelenskyy ] (]) 21:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] 21:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Grain war ==
	{{Clear}}
	== Causalities ==
			The subject is covered, perhaps the sources may be used.
	The following collapsed discussion has been moved to ] to centralise discussion. Please continue discussion there. ] (]) 03:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			:https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/14/ukraine-war-grain-exports-blocked-by-russia-threaten-to-bring-hunger-and-famine-g7-warns
			:https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germany-accuses-russia-of-waging-grain-war/2588110
			:https://radioopensource.org/grain-war/
			:https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/05/12/war-in-ukraine-threatens-the-world-s-breadbasket_5983258_19.html ] (]) 10:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Grain silos are overfilled in Ukraine and Ukraine does not have safe access to transport grain using their seaports by Odessa. The topic of general hostility in this region appears to be covered in the article in the Odessa front section and in the Navy section. ] (]) 13:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Requested move 17 May 2022 ==
	{{collapse top|warning=true}}
	What happened to the Ukraine report of 12,000 Russian causalities in the infobox? It was showing up a few days ago and now it’s not showing up. Looked through the edit history form the last four days and no where does it show when it has been changed, but I know for sure two days ago I saw the Ukrainian report of number of Russian causalities. ] (]) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	It was removed from the info box to reduce the size. It was agreed upon earlier today. Each side has the self reported casualties and a third party which is the US at this time. ] (]) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
			The result of the move request was: '''Further recognition ]'''. ] ] ] 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	:The infobox has been moved to its own separate template ] which given the frenetic editing of the article is probably for the best. You can re-add the estimates there. ] (]) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			----
			] → {{no redirect|Special military operation in Ukraine}} – For an invasion to occur, the following criteria must be met: the objective of a third country must be the seizure of the country and its annexation. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has declared that his goal is solely the de-Nazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.. ] (]) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	::As KD0710 said, after a discussion today it was agreed so to cut back on the size of the infobox, we only leave self-reported fatalities or numbers claimed by a third-party source. All Ukrainian claims of Russian losses and vice-versa are talked about in the main body of the article in the casualties section (where you can update the figures), and we left a link in the infobox to that section so readers can see the other claimed casualty estimates. ] (]) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Strongest oppose''' The invasion occurred when Russia invaded Ukraine. Misplaced Pages is not going to mainstream Putin propaganda. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Strongly oppose'''. Russian media's POV. ] (<small>I&nbsp;made&nbsp;a&nbsp;mistake?</small> ''']'''&nbsp;&#8226; ]) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	Why not report ]’ estimates instead of self-reported? Russian casualties are estimated to be 5,000–6,000 by independent experts. The Russian state report is inaccurate and outdated.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 23:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Strongest oppose''' this is simply propaganda invasions frequently occur with no intent of annexation anyways, and we have no evidence against the idea annexation is the end goal. ] 💗 ] 19:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	:At the moment its been agreed we include both (self-reported and 3rd party RS) in the infobox. If we remove Russian self-reported figures we would need to remove the Ukrainian as well. Agree Russian figure is highly outdated but its the only thing we have at the moment. Hoping they give an updated figure soon. It took the Ukrainians more than two weeks to give an update. ] (]) 23:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Speedy close''' For self-evident reasons. ] (]) 19:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	::@], @], Was there also an earlier discussion about this? If the only agreement so far is from today's discussion (]) I think it's fair to say that discussion is still open for additional comments (partly because I added one). --] 02:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::@], @] There was a discussion and consensus to that effect back in 2014 when the War in Donbass started, when it was agreed upon to include in that conflict's infobox and the casualties article's table only self-reported and 3rd party figures, while moving belligerent claims of enemies dead to the casualties section text due to potential propaganda inflation and unreliability. So I think that represents a nice model on which we can build upon in this article as well. I also saw your comments in the above discussion and you can take my reply here to be the same there as well. In essence I agree Russian and Ukrainian self-admitted casualty figures also run the possibility of being de-flated and their inclusion in the infobox should be up for debate, although I am not entirely sure... undecided. ] (]) 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
	{{Clear}}
			</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (2) ==
			== Rename to Russo-Ukrainian War ==
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	The number of fatalities listed for "UAF, NGU, and volunteer forces" is listed as between "5,000 - 6,000" however the source cited (291) specifically says that the fatalities for this group are between "2,000 - 4,000." The number currently quoted is for the Russian Armed Forces, not Ukrainian. It was misquoted from this article. ] (]) 04:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:EEp --> Somebody already updated the value as requested. Thank you for pointing this out. ] (]) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{archivetop|Four responding editors finding four opposes. Closing according the WP:SNOW. ] (]) 13:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)}}
	{{Clear}}
			"2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian War". Also "Annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation" and "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be removed from "Russo-Ukrainian War" and it should be renamed to something else as technically "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" is the actual war between the two parties and the "Russo-Ukrainian War" page is actually referring to the series of conflicts, disputes and clashes since 2014. ] (]) 06:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Equipment ==
			::Dear Editor, you are completely new here, please learn.] (]) 06:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. The "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is by far the most common name for this stage of the conflict, yielding far more Google search results than "Russo-Ukrainian War" (2.54 million vs 635,000 with quotation marks, 540 million vs 22.3 million without); you can be certain the former only refers to this invasion while the latter was also used prior. ] (]) 06:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' (A) Since there is no article ] the proposal to rename the non-existent article makes no sense. (B) If it means ''this'' article (2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) still oppose because this article is a necessary sub article of ] (C) the proposal to split other articles doesn't belong here. (D) the articles under discussion need to have the appropriate rename/split/merge tags so that more editors are aware of the proposed changes. ] (]) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			What's with these nonsense proposals lately? ] ] ] 13:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
	Please change it back to the estimated losses for each piece kf equipment, i.e. 80 helicopters 350 tanks etc. It's much less informative to just say 2700 pieces of equipment ] (]) 04:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
			== Ukrainian side of the war ==
	:The infobox is a summary of an article which is also a summary. The source gives details. ] (]) 06:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Indeed, you can also refer to the body of the article. If the breakdowns aren't in the body then someone could add them there. ] (]) 16:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			It should add nato and the listings of nato countries in the support part of Ukraine ] (]) 23:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:'This IP address is currently partially blocked'] (]) 06:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Compare Russian TOC to English TOC on Inter-Wiki ==
			::Well, the whole range is under a partial block, not just the IP. ] (]) 07:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
	Is there anything useful is comparing the differences between the approaches taken by the Russian version of this same article? ] (]) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Issue of support by troops, or support by piloted jets, or support by military equipment provided is currently discussed in the section above. ] (]) 00:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			::There are no troops nor piloted jets in Ukraine. Russia uses French and German military technology delivered after 2014, I am for listing the two countries as supporters of Russia.] (]) 08:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::See RFC in progress above. ] (]) 13:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022 ==
	<small>
	TOC (paraphrase of the Russian main section titles only)
			{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	1. Terminology: "Special military operation"
			I need to update the infrmation ] (]) 20:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) I just need to update this information
			:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> -- ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			== "The Chinese military also allegedly conducted a massive cyberwarfare espionage effort on the eve of the invasion, including on nuclear infrastructure, pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge." ==
	2. Pre-history
			As posted before but was ignored, the Security Service of Ukraine officially denied a Chinese cyber attack took place or have any evidence of such attack.
	3. The speech of the Russian president
			From their official Twitter, posted on 2 April: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793
	4. Relative size of strength for invasion (3 subsections)
			"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."
	5. Military actions (2 subsections)
			I would suggest adding keeping the allegation while adding this, and remove "pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge" because it is not NPOV.
	6. Nonviolent Ukrainian opposition
			] (]) 07:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Individual country responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine are dealt with on the sibling pages. China is usually mentioned as somewhat acquescing to Russia regarding the invasion as a recurrent point coction I am vered in the international media. ] (]) 13:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
			::this is already in the article, though. I wondered myself about the advanced Chinese knowledge, which is a strange phrasing. Chinese military of course have advanced knowledge of cyberwarfare; does this mean of Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure? Yet no damage was done? And the SBU specifically denies either leaking the information or being able to confirm it -- which is odd coming from a country that has recruited hackers. Naturally they might deny it, but they would know about it, and it is also true that this could be Russian FUD. The thing about advanced knowledge should be cited and clarified if kept; I can't remember, was any of this cited at all? How well? ]) 15:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::::sourcing is pretty good, and this is also mentioned in technical literature however, a couple of things: the person who wrote that meant *advance* knowledge. But this is a conclusion which is cited to anonymous intelligence officials, so I would support deleting the phrase. I am also not sure whether the cyberattacks should be mentioned here or elsewhere, and in how much depth. There is also ]. But I am tired and going away and somebody else can make the call. I find all that highly notable but I am a geek and this is a top-level article. That is what I know ] (]) 15:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Hearing no objection I have deleted the "advance knowledge" part and will incorporate the SBU denial into the sentence now. ] (]) 05:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::might be good to cite the twitter post as well ] (]) 07:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Finnish NATO membership ==
	7. Negotiations
			{{edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}
	8. Casualties and other losses (3 subsections)
			A few days ago, I sounded out adding the potential Finnish/Swedish NATO applications to the article in ], and there was a rough consensus for adding it once there was official movement. Today, the Finnish President and PM made a joint declaration saying that "Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay", which looks like it meets the threshold of officiality to me. I can't add this myself, but here's some proposed text for the 'Reactions' section:
			:On 12 May, ] ] and ] ] issued a joint declaration that ].<ref>{{ cite news | url = https://yle.fi/news/3-12442140 | title = Finnish leaders confirm support for Nato application | work = ] | date = 12 May 2022 | accessdate = 12 May 2022 }}</ref>
	9. Accusations of war crimes
			There might be room for some further elaboration on this (e.g., discussing just how badly the idea of invading a neighbour to keep NATO away from Russia has backfired on Putin here), but the article's pretty dense already. Maybe when there's some more heavy-weight analysis to cite on this point?
	10. Situation in Ukraine (3 subsections)
			I haven't tried to describe the likely next steps, but they'll happen shortly, it's expected, and I don't think that the precise procedural details matter as much as the declared intention. This means that the information we put in will get stale quite quickly, but that's okay - it's a wiki and nothing's set in stone, and especially not on a highly-active article like this one. ] (]) 10:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
	11. Actions of Ukrainian leadership (4 subsections)
			{{Reflist talk}}
			:I think we can wait until its a done deal. ] (]) 11:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			:: That'll take months, as I said last time. This is an official declaration of the intent to apply and the consequent geopolitical shift. Everything from here is formality and hoop-jumping, more or less. ] (]) 11:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::And? we can wait months or years, we are not a newspaper. Ohh and an "offical declaration if intent" is not doing it or succeeding. Anything can happen, including a Russian invasion top stop it. ] (]) 11:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Putin has cited the ] as being one of the main reasons for this war; the evolution of ] on NATO membership is relevant to this article no matter where this goes. I think this is definitely worth a mention. ] (]) 12:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Both Finland and Sweden have been expressing similar concerns; should the article leave out Sweden? ] (]) 14:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Sweden will announce it's membership application on Sunday. ] (]) 14:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::So will Finland. ] (]) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			::: I think it's sensible to wait on Sweden until we get a definite official signal like we did today from Finland - e.g., the PM declaring they'll apply, or the government laying a proposal before parliament; currently it's all still technically innuendo there. Not that I don't think it will happen (it's basically locked in), but this article's already really hefty and consequently we have to be very picky about what goes in and is worthy of mention - an official movement seems to me to be a pretty good prima facie boundary. ] (]) 14:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Just a comment: If Finland and Sweden will join NATO, then I would argue that we should also include this into the "Result" section in the infobox. It would be a direct consequence of this war (even if it's not between the belligerents). --] (]) 22:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
	12. Actions of Russian leadership (5 subsections)
			On 18/05/2022 Finland, together with Sweden, officially applied to join NATO, although Turkey raised some objections to this.<ref>] television channel; 18/05/2022</ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	13. Foreign military aid
			Finland and Sweden on Wednesday morning (18 May 2022) simultaneously handed in their official letters of application to join NATO . IP-Editor; May 19, 2022.
	14. Effects on Russian infra-structure (4 subsections)
			:Turkey has stated they will challenge application, where unanimity is required for approval. ] (]) 13:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Does It matter? This is already an official request by two important countries closely involved in the conflict and It is clearly a consequence of this conflict. The reaction section should include Finland and Sweden application to Nato and eventually the possible rejection by Turkey. I think this is relevant information and certainly more relevant than what Pope Francis thinks about the conflict. 11:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small>
			] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> I am marking this edit request as answered procedurally as it is an ongoing discussion as to whether or not the requested edit should be included at this time, per the template instructions. Cheers! —](]) 05:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
	15. Reaction within Russia (4 subsections)
			==Reference for introduction: "false" mistreatment claims in Donbas==
	16. Reactions in general and globally (6 subsections)
			At the moment, the article introduction says the following ''"'''falsely''' accused Ukraine of being governed by neo-Nazis who persecute the ethnic Russian minority."''
	17. Effect on Global Markets
	</small>
			This reads like politicised editorialising. Our reference for the "falsely" part is ]. What a strange choice for a source on such a major issue, a journal of a random American Jewish community? Is the word "falsely" needed at all here? Can we categorically say there was no mistreatment of ethnic Russians in the Donbas and none of that mistreatment was associated with Azov or other groups which have some kind of neo-Nazi connection?
	The 2 article versions are roughly the same size at about 350Kb, though the TOC outlines look different. Can the current English version be enhanced in any way? ] (]) 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)		Maybe we could say the Russian claim is ''exaggerated'', but even that may be editorialising. To categorically say "false" seems misleading. ] (])
	:NO as they have different rules (and I suspect now are subject to different laws). ] (]) 11:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)		:Possibly look at the section titled "Russian accusations and demands". ] (]) 17:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
			:This has been discussed thoroughly on numerous threads on numerous parts of wiki all of which I'm too lazy to link to. Be that as it may, the consensus was that the edit you're proposing lacks consensus, so it stays. ] (]) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== NPOV in the lead section? Putin "falsely" accused Ukraine of being dominated by Nazis ==
			: You want this article to leave open the possibility that Putin’s hate speech might all be true because you’re unhappy with a single source that says it’s not true? There are thousands of sources that say it’s not true. Take your pick.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
	In the highly visible lead section one used to read: "The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin ... accused Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority". @Hemiauchenia added "falsely" and explained: "The allegation is false, which should be expressed in Wikivoice". I reverted and gave my reason: "I agree, the allegation is false, but here we don't take a stance, do we? WP:NPOV". But Hemiauchenia thinks differently and reverted, and here we are. Any views on this? Should we take a stance in the lead section, "Putin is lying", or should we rather stick to ] and prefer nonjudgmental language? ] (]) (]) 01:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			].&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
	:If believe the Nazi claim is adequately refuted in the “Russian accusations and demands” subsection. Plus the same sentence in the lead also includes Putin’s claims about Ukraine's statehood, which again is dealt with in the subsection. So I think ] means we need to leave as is. Otherwise we would also need to say something about Ukraine’s statehood. ] (]) 02:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Neutrality means we go by what RS say, as NATO has not passed a law on what western media can say (whereas Russia has on what its media can say) we, therefore, have to go with western media as not state-mandated propaganda. ] (]) 19:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
	:: Ukrainian government’s association with far right parties and neo-Nazi groups as the ] must be concidered here hence they are serving as National Guard of Ukraine. They took recruits from many other countries, Sweden included with a famous member Mikael Skillt portraited in BBC NEWS 16'th of July 2014 and in other media from Sweden. Ukraine has monuments of Ukrainian nationalists that was collaborating with the Nazis from the WWII, one was ], leader of (OUN) and mentioned by the Forward newspaper. “Ukraine has several dozen monuments and scores of street names glorifying this Nazi collaborator, enough to require two separate Misplaced Pages pages,” wrote this Jewish newspaper. Memebers of (OUN) served as local Ukrainian militia for the SS and German army. So, Ukraine has a history from being nationalist, far right and Nazi until this day with the ] party, recently with members in Ukraine's Parliament. --] (]) 03:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			:To the IP user who was upset I didn't link past discussions, have fun: , , . Anyhow all of this truly has already been discussed to death. ] (]) 00:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::As in this context the characterization used by Russia is that Ukraine's government is dominated or controlled by Nazis, citing the Svoboda party, with its 1 single seat out of 450 in the parliament, and which AFAIK no RS says has ever described as even close to being representative of the whole the country or the government, seems like it would have issues with ].
			== 40 Western countries supporting Ukraine missing in the list ==
	::::Shall we also mention all the statues in Russia of people who had a hand in the ]? That, at least, would give direct historical context to the relationship between the two states and the present invasion. ] (]) 03:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			There is Belarus listed as supprorting Russia, but nowhere the full list of 40+ Western countries supplying weapons, training, intelligence (i.e much more than Belarus supports Russia) thereby distorting (intentionally or not) the full view of this conflict. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::Note that the “Russian accusations and demands” subsection already contains the details below. Also in most recent Ukrainian parliamentary elections in 2019, a coalition of ultranationalist right-wing parties failed to win even a single seat in the Rada, so overall the Ukraine government cannot be called pro Nazi ] (]) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			:As far as I know (and to demonstrate the difference) no western nation has been used to base Ukrainian forces, or have had any attacks launched from any. ] (]) 17:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
			: Belarus has legally committed a crime of international aggression by providing its territory for direct aggression. We haven’t established yet whether this legally qualifies it as a belligerent. The other 40 states are not in these categories, some of them have supplied weapons to the Russian Federation, but supplying weapons, training, and intelligence happens during peace and war and doesn’t constitute legal participation in a conflict.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
			::They provide safe transit to belligerent troops. ] (]) 14:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Not only transit, but invasion by troops out of Belarusian territory into Ukrainian, and missile and artillery attacks launched from Belarusian territory and airspace directly into Ukraine.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Strength infobox ==
	::::::While Ukraine has a ] fringe, including the neo-Nazi ] and ],<ref>{{cite news |last=Berger |first=Miriam |date=24 February 2022 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/24/putin-denazify-ukraine/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220227/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/24/putin-denazify-ukraine/ |archive-date=27 February 2022 |title=Russian President Valdimir Putin says he will 'denazify' Ukraine. Here's the history behind that claim. |newspaper=] |access-date=27 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Campbell |first=Eric |title=Inside Donetsk, the separatist republic that triggered the war in Ukraine |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-03/inside-the-separatist-republic-that-triggered-the-war-in-ukraine/100871262 |access-date=3 March 2022 |publisher=] |date=3 March 2022 }}</ref> analysts have described Putin's rhetoric as greatly exaggerating the influence of far-right groups within Ukraine; there is no widespread support for the ideology in the government, military, or electorate.<ref name="Li Allen Siemaszko">{{cite news |last1=Li |first1=David K. |last2=Allen |first2=Jonathan |last3=Siemaszko |first3=Corky |date=24 February 2022 |title=Putin using false 'Nazi' narrative to justify Russia's attack on Ukraine, experts say |work=] |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-claims-denazification-justify-russias-attack-ukraine-experts-say-rcna17537 |access-date=24 February 2022 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220225025147/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-claims-denazification-justify-russias-attack-ukraine-experts-say-rcna17537 |archive-date=25 February 2022}}</ref><ref name="Abbruzzese 2022">{{cite news |last=Abbruzzese |first=Jason |date=24 February 2022 |title=Putin says he is fighting a resurgence of Nazism. That's not true. |publisher=] |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/live-blog/russia-ukraine-conflict-live-updates-n1289655/ncrd1289673 |url-status=live |access-date=24 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224112830/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/live-blog/russia-ukraine-conflict-live-updates-n1289655/ncrd1289673 |archive-date=24 February 2022}}</ref> ] (]) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			On May 21st Zelensky told to journalists that Ukrainian armed forces are actually 700 thousand strong. Sources:
	:::::::See no reason why this article should be a battleground for a Russian propaganda slur. Azov has its own article, they are even neo-nazi in a meaningful sense (especially relating to the war) and the overall far-right inclusion among the total armed forces / volunteers involved is trivial. --'''''BLKFTR''''' <small>(])</small> 04:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/05/21/7347610/
			https://censor.net/en/news/3342842/today_you_see_result_of_work_of_700_thousand_ukrainian_defenders_zelenskyi
			https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIcY-jEH0Bg
			So the 'Strength' infobox should be updated accordingly. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::::::I tried to give as neutral info I could with somewhat reliable sources as background. Even the neutral BBC seams to support the Ukrainians in their broadcastings, I can't see anything else. Almost all neutral media that are said to be so take the Ukrainian stand and show full spite for Putin. They are trying to keep to the facts, but inbetween there's allways colors of support for Ukraine, EU, NATO etc. Western values and interests are the main dominating influence in media and within NATO. --] (]) 05:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Gas being turned off ==
	:::::::::If I were a pro-Russian reader, I would stop reading the article after a few lines – that "falsely accused" would make it clear to me that this is a piece of Western propaganda. If we want the reader to be informed about Russia's case for war (which doesn't mean embrace it) we should convey their reasons in a meaningful way instead of mocking and trivialising them. Obviously the current Ukrainian government is not a fascist dictatorship. According to Time magazine, when Putin said "demilitarize and denazify", what he meant is that there are extreme right-wing elements in Ukraine that can conceivably be described as neo-Nazi.The sources we are currently relying upon in the article (NBC and ABC) don't support the statement that Putin accused "Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis" and "Ukrainian society and government of being dominated by neo-Nazism". Either we find a verbatim source, or that statement is a trivial misrepresentation. Apparently Putin said "Ukrainian society was faced with the rise of far-right nationalism, which rapidly developed into aggressive Russophobia and neo-Nazism" and mentioned "Neanderthal and aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism which have been elevated in Ukraine to the rank of national policy"; he said "we are fighting neo-Nazis" and said "the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine". This is clearly war rhetoric and it is not simply "false": what he is selling to the Russian people is that one of the goals of the invasion is to fight neo-Nazism, the de-nazification of Ukraine, and in my opinion that's what our article should say, instead of labelling as "false" some supposedly factual statement by Putin on the nature of the Ukrainian government. ] (]) (]) 07:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::There are plenty of far-right movements in Russia: ], ], ], ], ], proponents of ], etc. There are plenty in democratic countries too. The question is: is the country as a whole is dominated or ruled by "neo-Nazi"? In Ukraine, the answer is unequivocal '''no'''. As a side note, today's Russia pretty much matching most of the ] and, at this point, could be legitimately called a fascist country. However, that is a whole separate topic. ] (]) 12:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:In context "falsely" is clearly a loaded, emotive term, that should be removed. The reader can make up their own mind on the truth or falsity of the accusation based on evidence already presented in the article ] (]) 09:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::How is a statement of sheer FACT a "loaded, emotive term"? It is practically insane to suggest so. Impartially doesn't mean sacrificing fact and accuracy just to make someone's criminal junk sound less criminal so they don't throw a tantrum. ] (]) 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:One battalion and 4% of the vote a nazi dominated nation does not make, the claims has been shown to be false. ] (]) 11:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	: I think that Putin's accusation should be seen as a ] considering the number of strong arguments against his point of view (for those who are not convinced by the provided links: ), so the use of the word "false" seems relevant. — ] (]). 12:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:There are numerous ]es stating and explaining that it's a completely baseless statement. Misplaced Pages is supposed to provide a summary in the lead based on them. Otherwise, it's not only ]; it would be echoing a blatant propaganda. ] (]) 12:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			Russian gas has already been turned off for Poland and Bulgaria.
	Some more sources ], ], ], ]. These either say the claim they are rin by NAzis, or that this is about "de-naszification" are false. ] (]) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			Please may someone add this in the article.
	:These are mostly editorials which report <del>legitimate</del> convincing but subjective views of various people and associations. I think that the use of "false" undermines the whole article, which should rather strive to deliver a neutral and objective point of view. By speaking of neo-nazism and denazification, clearly Putin is not making a descriptive statement which could be either true or false; he is stirring up emotions and indicating a policy objective - he is delivering "propaganda", if you want - which is what any head of state would do in order to justify a war. Either we take a stance on the war and claim that he is lying, as some propose, or we keep our NPOV and provide reliable information on the debates surrounding the war (Slatersteven's sources could be used to that end). --] (]) (]) 11:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Moslty does not mean Soley, so yes RS has said this, so unless this is disputed by RS there is no dispute. ] (]) 12:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Shall we have another, yes let's ], want any more? ] (]) 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			Thank you.
	*{{re|Gitz6666}} Responding to the points you make in the above discussion, there's a difference between telling readers what to think (bad) and reporting facts (good). If there was genuine disagreement among ] over the validity of Putin's claim, then "false" would be inappropriate. For comparison, see ], where's there's disagreement among scholars. In this case, there isn't disagreement. There are no sources that I'm aware of which describe Putin's neo-Nazi claim as accurate or truthful; it's universally described as false, grossly misleading and factually incorrect. If you know of sources which directly say otherwise, please link them. As such sources don't appear to exist, and there's an avalanche of sourcing saying Putin's claim is lie, we have a duty to convey this to readers per our policy on ], which says {{tq|"Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice."}} Our article body provides additional sourcing and a full explanation of ''why'' the claim is universally considered false – our lead only summarises what is said in the article, and our ] give us greater latitude to make assertions about prevailing knowledge/thought in the lead compared to the article body, without needing qualification. If this puts off a pro-Russian reader, that's unfortunate, but Misplaced Pages is ]: the consideration for the reader is accessibility, we should not seek to ] readers by gently tiptoeing around their worldview/ignorance, especially if this compromises a factual summary. ] • ] 13:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			https://www.dw.com/en/europe-cooperates-on-gas-as-russia-turns-off-taps-to-poland-and-bulgaria/a-61641814
	Always a good time to plug ]'s essay on this debate. — ''']''' 13:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:I have little sympathy for Larry's views on Misplaced Pages's anti-conservative conspiracy, but I doubt even he would argue that we should qualify – or avoid "debunking" – Putin's baseless, fascistic talking point regarding Ukraine being a neo-Nazi state. This is an area where the entire spectrum of factual, academic thought (including both US liberals & conservatives) appears to be in agreement. (Unlike, for example, the validity of Putin's concerns about NATO, where there appears to be genuine disagreement.) ] • ] 18:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	"falsely" is a fact established by reliable sources. It is not a point of view. So it does not violate NPOV. To omit it from the lead just to have a pro Russian read our article would be clickbait. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			It's the same with Finland as well: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-20/finland-loses-main-gas-supply-as-russia-will-turn-off-taps <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:What is clickbait is the use of the term "falsely". To native English speakers the word "claimed" already implies "falsely", so the use of both words together is a tautology. Of COURSE the claim itself is false, everybody knows that. There is no need to spell it out ] (]) 05:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Finland was added yesterday. ] (]) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
	::Ok, scrub my last remarks, I still think that there is no need to over-egg the pudding with the term "falsely", but I also see that the ''actual ''text says "falsely accused" not "falsely claimed", so... mea culpa ] (]) 05:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Leaders of DPR and LPR should be included ==
	:I find this idea of being "pro-Russian" problematic. I am pro-Russia, one of my favourite authors is Lermontov; I've gone through all the works of Leskov, Bulgakov, Bely, Dostoyevsky, Gogol etc. I listen to Russian music, so by any reasonable metric I like Russia. That said I of course support Ukraine, and have donated money to Ukraine, because I'm not brain dead. There's this temptation to treat the entire thing as if it were a 2D US Political spectrum but it is not. There is the truth and there is kremlin propaganda. Kremlin propaganda and lies need to be documented as such, and when Reliable Sources state that Putin has lied it needs to be stated. It seems to me ] in the extreme to put kiddy gloves on when treating lies that are being used to bomb Ukraine because of a desire not to offend the viewers of Russian Times and Sputnik. ] (]) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Did those reliable sources establish anything else? Maybe that Putin is a bad guy? If it's backed by reliable sources like CNN and White house, we are not in position to oppose such statements on[REDACTED] ] (]) 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Let me briefly restate my point, which is twofold. 1) We are not reporting Putin's statement in an entirely accurate way. In his 24 February on Ukraine he didn't say that "Ukraine dominated by neo-Nazis", as one reads in the article, but rather said that "the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine", "we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine", and "Your fathers, grandfathers ... did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine". These statements have a (quite flimsy IMHO) empirical basis as there are indeed fascists on the ground in Ukraine. 2) These are not statement of fact, which could be either true or false, but rather declarations of intent, policy objectives and expressive statements, aimed at stirring up aggressive sentiments. To label them as "false" is to misunderstand them. Which is what in a time of war everybody does: "you are fascists and we are going to wipe you out!", "You liar!", this is the kind of "conversation" we are trying to assess in terms of true/false. Now, @]and @] asked me for a reliable source, and I have found - it's Vox, a ]. "Russia’s president says he wants the “de-Nazification” of Ukraine. That actually means regime change"; "with this seemingly absurd rhetoric, Putin is laying the propaganda groundwork for the overthrow of Ukraine’s government." My point exactly. True/false don't apply here, unless we just want to take a stance ("You liar!"), which I think is what many would like us to do. Putin is stating that Russia's objective are not only strategic and preventive (national defence) but also political (regime change). ] (]) (]) 02:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
			Why are the leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics not included in the infobox? They are the heads of state of those states just as Putin is the head of state of Russia, and the DPR and LPR are completely involved in the war. ] (]) 22:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{reftalk}}
			:What states? They are recognised only by russia and their satellite "people's republics". ] (]) 10:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			::Not part of the U.N. ] (]) 14:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
	==Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 (3)==
			: Not “just as.” The proxy republics are not sovereign entities, and their titular leaders do not command the military collaborators’ forces. Ukrainian sources say that Pushilin in Donetsk commands elements of the police corps, and has partial influence over some competing factions, but not the ], and according to the ISW this is consistent with the observed evidence.. Others have reported that the Donetsk 1st Army Corps and Luhansk 2nd Army Corps are under the direct command of the RF’s 8th Combined Arms Army.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Per ], the infobox should summarise and be supported by detail in the article body. The entry is for prominent leaders. When last I looked, one of these had but a passing mention and the other had none. The article does not support their inclusion. ] (]) 01:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{edit extended-protected|answered=yes}}
			:{{ping|Cyroyte}} "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" do not exist. Donetsk, Ukraine & Luhansk, Ukraine do exist. ] (]) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
	The lede of the article states that Putin has "falsely accused Ukraine of being dominated by Neo-Nazis who persecute the Russian-speaking minority," citing an NBC fact-checking article. However, another NBC article published 9 days later appears to directly contradict that. The phrasing in the lede is weasel-y (the word "domination" is vague and implies many things) and unhelpful, so could we either qualify Putin's false claims ("falsely accused the Ukrainian ''government'' of being dominated...") or remove the word falsely altogether? The word "accused" already makes it clear that this is Putin's own claim and not a fact. ] (]) 09:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:See talk above about this. ] (]) 11:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			::] "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" do not exist. Donetsk, Ukraine & Luhansk, Ukraine do exist."
	{{Clear}}
	== mercenaries ==
			they exist if the USA say's so, is that it?
	{{Archive top
			any other country should abbid to this rule?
	|result = Already discussed and have a consensus per comments. ] ] (]) 12:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			the same happen to the Palestinians. ] (]) 00:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
	|status = none }}
			I am not saying that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics are legitimate countries, but that they are sovereign because they have control over a particular territory. In fact, they are listed as sovereign states at the article "]". ] (]) 01:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
	kadyrovite and wagner troops should be listed and linked on the russian side ] (]) 11:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			== UN diplomat quits and speaks out against war ==
	:They are Russian citizens and therefore covered by Russia being listed. E.g. the Afghanistan or Iraq wars don't list every subcontracted PMC, either. ] (]) 11:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Agree. ] (]) 11:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			I wonder if we should include info re the Russian UN diplomat that quit and said he was ashamed over the war. He also made some statements saying that the Russian population has been led to believe that a nuclear strike would scare Americans causing them to kneel to what ever Russia wanted. This incident has been reported on in all the major U.S. news sources. ] (]) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
			:ABC News: "Boris Bondarev, 41, confirmed his resignation in a letter delivered Monday morning after a diplomatic official passed on his English-language statement to The Associated Press." ] (]) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			::WashPo has a very good article: (In my above post I tried to add a link without signing in and can't get rid of it - I'd appreciate it if someone could fix it.) ] (]) 20:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== pics ==
			*Comment: to {{ping|Sectionworker}} & {{ping|ErnestKrause}} I think that a section on 'UN Diplomat quits & speaks out' should be added. Here's a good New York Times article on it
	where to find fotos after the antonov factory in kyiv destroyed ? --] (]) 12:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			:{{tq|“For 20 years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on Feb. 24 of this year,” Mr. Bondarev said, referring to the date that President Vladimir V. Putin sent Russian forces into Ukraine.}}
			:{{tq|“The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine and in fact against the entire Western world is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia,” he added.}} ] (]) 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::It appears that Bondareev also made a comment about the irresponsible position of Putin towards nuclear arms threats; if someone can put the exact quote here with the source, then it could be added to the Nuclear arms section. ] (]) 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::I've just added it there with the quote taken from the Washington Post article. ] (]) 22:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Ukraine support section ==
	:It's unclear what changes you want made to this article. This talk page isn't for discussion about the event or subject, and such comments may be deleted per ]. And, as seeing as you don't have extended confirmation, ] it seems like for the time being you can't edit this article. You are, of course, welcome to create an account. —Remember, I'murmate — ] <sup>(] &#124;])</sup> 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{archivetop|Duplicate discussion. Please see the ]. ] • ] 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)}}
	Do not like the edit summary, because is totally unnecessary. and here is a subject many people is reading about to direction the help for a link --] (]) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:You need to CAREFULLY think about what you are told, as you are courting a topic-ban if you continue.] (]) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::What are you talking about? All they've asked for is a link to some photos of a factory. Who issues TBANs for that? IP (.118), you can check Wikimedia Commons if they have the images you are interested in. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages doesn't have any and you'll have to search elsewhere. ] (]) 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::It might be seen as a violation of ], but I am unsure other English is quite good enough to not think they might have just badly worded something. As to IP 50, yo do not seem to have a lot of edits under your belt, so it might be best if you refrain from issuing warnings. ] (]) 17:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			The website is supposed to add nato in the Ukranian side of the belligerents because Ukraine is supported everyday with heavy money and heavy equipment by NATO ] (]) 19:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== First lines - checking the wording ==
			::Please see the ]. ] • ] 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
	''With over three million Ukrainians fleeing the country, the invasion has also caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II''. Better replacing it with ''... in Europe since then.'' so as not to repeat the same words from the previous sentence. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{archive bottom}}
			== Fixing capitalization Reactions Section ==
	:I read this last night and felt the same way. I’ve edited it as suggested. Thanks for your contribution. ] (]) 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			Single error in Tedros quote, black should be lowercase.
	{{Clear}}
			] (]) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022 ==
			:Source says it is "black and white lives", both in lower case. ] (]) 16:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Yes but I thought white was already lower case so it didn't need to be corrected. ] (]) 05:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts) ==
	{{Edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	The infobox says "2,741 vehicles and other military equipment".
			{{Archive top|result=] closed as this is a rank instance of ] passed off as honest discussion. Closed at present per previous comment/no changes. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 05:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)}}
	The source does not say that. So… IMO that's ]/].
			{{Collapse top}}
			Hi, everyone.
			I'm new around here, and i would like to point it out the following paragraph.
	I think it should be changed back to reporting each category of equipment separately, as the source does.
			"Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, '''if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed.'''"
	That would also make it consistent with how the figures according to Russia are presented.
			The previous paragraph was written very recently, but the text I mention below has been available since 2010, and was published on the website I mention below on December 12, 2017.
	There is no need to condense so much. The section has a "Show"/"Hide" toggle anyway.
			in this paragraph 3 sources are mentioned, to be true, "they must be people of very good morals" ???
	The source does not claim to exhaustively list every category of "military equipment". Using the categories that it does report as a total is therefore unsubstantiated.
			I think what is happening here is that, based on facts, such as those that happen very recently in history, the lies that condoleezza rice, colin powell, george w. Bush, and many others have created, and even had the can of, presented at the UN General Assembly.
	And "vehicles and other military equipment" is such a broad category that it's virtually meaningless… That could refer to anything from a parking lot full of bicycles to thousands of aircraft carriers with hundreds of thousands of stealth aircraft. ] (]) 03:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			Since the media are involved in this, they took this lie and replicated it to exhaustion, both in america and europe.
	The infobox is intended to be a summary, not a detailed list. More detail could be provided elsewhere. ] (]) 04:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{tlx|edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] 07:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			Let's take some care in here, for there are many "newspapers" and "journalist" and also "writers" who don't mind write lies.
	{{Clear}}
	== NATO, EU, Australia, Turkey, Japan, and South Corea not included in the top-right section of Belligerents - Ukraine - Supported by ==
	All of them have supplied military systems to Ukraine according to Misplaced Pages map: https://en.wikipedia.org/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Countries_supplying_military_equipment_to_Ukraine_during_the_2022_Russian_invasion.svg <small></small>
			'''It is not because a lie is replicated a billion times that it becomes a truth, and it is not because a truth is not replicated that it becomes a lie...'''
	:See:]. ] (]) 00:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	==[REDACTED] please stopped spread Russia propaganda ==
			"Date: Feb 9, 1990
	Wikipeda you dont try to be neutral but you go with humanity. You must side with Ukraine. Because if you neutral by accidently you spread Russia propaganda. You spread Russia lies by writed Russia destroyed more than 3700 Ukraine wachine and Ukraine only destroyed 2700 Russia war machine. Ukraine didnt have the number of aircraft, drones, tanks etc in pre war inventory that Russia claimed destroyed. Ukraine didnt have 160 combat aircrafts, 100 drones, more than 1000 tanks/armoured vehicle. Ukraine only in defensive position and they dont have ability to using war machine in large number. Instead the number Ukraine claimed destroyed from Russia war machine mostly were true. Russia did have a large quantity of war machine in pre war inventory. Russia in attacking position so they always used a large number of war machine. Misplaced Pages you accidently created article that described Russia as the winner. You support Russia aggresion and the act of killing innocent peoples. So please include Orxyspioenkop analyse for war machine casuaties in this article. It include list and complete with picture. Russia loses more than 1300 war machine (600 tanks/armored, 400 jeep/trucks, 30 aircraft) and Ukraine loses only 300 war machine (200 tanks/armored, 70 jeep/trucks, 10 aircraft). Please stop support killing civilian in Ukraine. ] (]) 15:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			Description: This Gorbachev Foundation record of the Soviet leader’s meeting with James Baker on February 9, 1990, has been public and available for <u>researchers at the Foundation '''since as early as 1996''', but it was not '''published in English until 2010''' when the Masterpieces of History volume by the present authors came out from Central European University Press.</u> The document focuses on German unification, but also includes candid discussion by Gorbachev of the economic and political problems in the Soviet Union, and Baker’s “free advice” (“sometimes the finance minister in me wakes up”) on prices, inflation, and even the policy of selling apartments to soak up the rubles cautious Soviet citizens have tucked under their mattresses."
	:This article is not supporting either side, and attempts to give as neutral view of the situation. It does not support killing civilians in Ukraine, or anywhere for that matter.--- ] (]) 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:We do not, we take a neutral stance and give both sides version. ] (]) 16:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:@] what do you think about this? How about only citing independent loss estimates in the infobox and relegating the numbers reported by either conflict party to the casualties article and its transclusion? The data from Oryx is probably not WP:RS (being essentially a personal blog or self-published), though it is the largest publicly available list of claimed losses with some sourcing I know of. ] (]) 16:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	::I think that articles citing Oryx would be ideal, at least for counting losses of Russian vehicles. I'm pretty sure that this was already discussed somewhere else on this talk page--- ] (]) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::I should clarify- I think that news articles that use Oryx's data would work well as Misplaced Pages citations ---] (]) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::I dunno, isn't that just "RS-laundering"? (Assuming Oryx is not citable, why would the same information repeated by e.g. the NYT become citable? - Russian or Ukrainian numbers don't become reliable by being repeated by a media outlet, either.) ] (]) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I was thinking something along the lines of . It cites different sources for casualty figures, as well as some vehicle loss claims. It cites Oryx's numbers without taking them as gospel, using them alongside other estimates. ---] (]) 19:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::@] In regards to casualty figures, I was always for including self-admitted or 3rd party cited figures, while delegating the belligerents' claims of their enemies losses from the infobox to the main body of the article due to the high possibility of propaganda inflation. This is due to considering that self-admitted casualty figures present a kind of confirmed minimum of casualties. However, if Russia does not give an update of its losses anytime soon, we might as well include in the infobox only figures cited to a 3rd party, since it seems the US gives an estimate for both sides every week or so, while leaving a link to the other estimates in the casualties section. Lets see in a few days how things develop. As for figures on vehicle losses, this in my opinion should definitely be cited only to a 3rd party source in the infobox. ] (]) 01:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::I'm not sure if I understand the issue with using Oryx, if it's good enough for the Economist for instance, why not us? We can also cite it in the article with a superscript ie: according to Oryx. I agree with OP as well about the current lay out. Most sources I see show far greater equipment losses for the Russians than for the Ukrainians but the lede at the moment gives the impression that the Ukrainians have taken more equipment losses, which is misleading. I understand that people can scroll down, but the lede is supposed to show a condensed version of data and as it currently stands that condensed data is inaccurate according to most sources. ] (]) 09:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Just to clarify, I'm not saying Oryx is a bad source (I'm of the opposite opinion). What I'm saying is that if I (or someone else) were to add Oryx I'd assume it would be reverted due to ]. So I'd want to establish some form of consensus that Oryx is RS before adding it, or finding a "non-RS-laundered" source like EngineeringEditor did. I think that article could just be cited as is, but I'm refraining from content edits in this area for now because I am way out of my depth here (I usually fix missing spaces after commas and stuff like that). ] (]) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm way out of my depth too, but the short discussion at ] makes some interesting points which might be of use to other editors. ] (]) 11:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::As stated below, even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the russian army or ukrainian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is russian or ukrainian. there is too much similar equipment on both sides. If it is equipment used the same in both armies, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" and destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment that it recovers in its advance, and also what it is taking out (vehicles/weapons/munition) of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. even that is what the site says (the commenters even find duplicate images). and this is similar with all other numbers and estimates ] (]) 02:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:I agree with the part that this article completely paints Russia as winning the conflict because it completely fails to draw attention to first hand evidence of extreme Russian losses and gives undue prominence to figures that have no such evidence or are outright Russian state lies. This article simply fails to give an accurate sense of the war thus far to the casual reader if not most readers and thus is failing as an article. ] (]) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			"Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “<u>neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,</u>''” '''and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”''''' Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and '''''discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.”''''' Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”" ] (]) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
	Actually no. Every equipment had series number, unit number and even nation flag. It could also be traced by its location. If its in location that previously being held by Ukraine so the equipments belong to Ukraine and so the otherwise. Also Ukraine didnt have Aircraft Sukhoi 30, Sukhoi 34, Helicopter Ka 57 or Mil 24, T-90 tanks, SAM units Buk, Pantsir etc. It easily to recognized. It think Orxyspioenkop its a research for war machine casualties that closer the truth than just state propaganda. Because it include the picture of the war machine itself. For example Russia claimed destroyed more than 100 Ukraine MLRS. The fact is Ukraine dont even have 100 MLRS in the first place. Even US only had 50 MLRS. Ukraine wouldnt use large quantity of MLRS because it can kill their own civilian. They not that stupid. Russia in other had hunderds of MLRS. And had experienced to used it in large quantity (Katyusha in WW II). Because they didnt care about civilian. Ukraine claimed destroyed 60 Russian MLRS. According to Oryxspioenkop there was 30 picture of Russian MLRS being destroyed or captured by Ukraine but only 2 Ukraine MLRS picture being destroyed or captured by Russian. Mostly Ukraine claimed destroyed Russian war equipment 30-50 percent had picture in Oryxspioenkop. But from Russian claimed destroyed Ukraine war equipment only had 10-20 percent of picture in Oryxspioenkop. Russian claimed had destroyed more than 1200 Ukraine tanks and armored vehicle but only had picture less than 200 in Orxyspioenkop. Ukraine claimed had destroyed more than 1800 Russian tanks and armored vehicles it did had more than 600 picture of Russian tanks/armored in Orxyspioenkop. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:Sorry i forgot to enter this,
	:Ukraine does have (or should we say, had?) Mi-24 helicopters and Buk systems (original models, maybe a few upgraded to M1). hell, even a ukrainian Buk missile from the kyiv air defense hit a city building (it can be recognized in the video of the event), perhaps because of its old or defective systems or being without maintenance. MLSR, according to wikipedia, as of 2016 Ukraine had about 185 BM-21 and 70 BM-27. Of course, the question is how many were in existence (active and reserve) at the beginning of hostilities. and of course there are fewer images of the Ukrainian losses, either destroyed or captured, much remains later in areas controlled by the Russian army, and of what they capture they do not put photos on social networks (although I have seen at least one video of as in an occupied Ukrainian military base, they load and take all the equipment, weapons and ammunition that was there, and you will not see photos or inventory accounting of this, but rest assured that they add up). in addition, what they recover later and that is not destroyed (a lot of equipment is seen abandoned or just disabled). For this reason, only irrecoverable losses, say destroyed equipment, can be safely counted as real losses, for either side. That is why the numbers are variable in time, sometimes they subtract and sometimes they add up, but the real is not known, perhaps only at the end, after all, it is said by both parties, or some research in this regard. meanwhile, all numbers are estimated, manipulated or pure disinformation. therefore, even with the biases they have, the numbers estimated by the US are the most "balanced" ] (]) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			:https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between
			:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ
			:I think that we should all be careful when writing about this topic, and not replicate what the "newspapers" and "journalists" and "writers" replicate to exhaustion without knowing what they benefit from it.
			:because in this way they are converting lies into truths???
			:Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer
			:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 ] (]) 23:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Mearcheimer has been previously discussed on this Talk page and has been archived. ] (]) 14:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
	Yes but most of them non operational from Soviet era. By the time war begins not more than 100 Ukraine MLRS still operational. But if you take a look at Oryxspioenkop you will know that most of Russian claimed were bogus and totally lied. Only 300 pictures of Ukraine war machine loses vs Russian claimed Ukraine loses close to 4 thousands war machines thats not even 10 percent. Instead there were more than 1200 pictures of Russian war machine loses vs Ukraine claimed 2700 Russian war machine loses. Thats nearly 50 percent. I think the real reason wiki dont want to using Oryxspioenkop because its clearly showing Russian losing the war. I curious how many Russian supporters in here. You are supporting killing peoples. If you hate Ukraine because you hate US, Western, NATO or even Jewish just remember it was Ukraine peoples they killed not US or other western countries. If you Russian really have a guts they should pick countries with theyre own sized. Why also Wiki didnt showed 3 Russia generals killed in Ukraine? I bet if its Ukraine general were killed they will show it in infobox. Please stop ideology of facism and stay with humanity. It was Russian killed Ukraine childrens not the otherwise. Dont support a country just because you like theyre ideology but look at humanity. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::Quotations from primary sources presented out of context can be misleading. Those conversations were specifically about forces dispositions ''in Germany'', many of Baker’s and others’ statements were offers that were never accepted, and neither NATO nor future-NATO Warsaw Pact states were involved in these talks. In the end, all of the promises were written down in the ] and signed by the parties, one of them being Soviet permission to move NATO forces east within Germany (and contradicting Putin’s propaganda statements). For a more accurate view, look at secondary sources based on recent research, like ]’s ''Not One Inch'', or ]’s “Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says ‘No’.”&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 22:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Hi,
			:::''This is not "Quotations from primary sources presented out of context can be misleading.", but "Record of conversation between".''
			:::''"many of Baker’s and others’ statements were offers that were never accepted",''
			:::what I can deduce from this, they should have had conversations with those who had decision-making powers, and not with those who were used to say what they wanted to hear. So I can only understand what of these gentlemen???
			:::words are one thing and actions another??? what interesting politicians do we have???
			:::"For a more accurate view, look at secondary sources based on recent research", with this, '''we have western propaganda and them Putin’s propaganda''', ''this is the correct way tho see it, not the other way around''.
			:::what i can infer from this is that we are the god and they??? because we analyze and our version turns out to be the correct one???
			:::and their version is what we say, is it???
			:::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin
			:::sorry for my English, but i'm not a writer but an avid reader.
			:::] (]) 00:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			:{{ping|Nunovilhenasantos}} You seem to be unaware that the U.S.S.R does ''not'' exist. For over 30 years, the U.S.S.R has ''not'' existed. ] (]) 19:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Hi, i known that.
			::It's history.
			::] (]) 23:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			:"These arguments do not stand up. Mr Baker was speaking about eastern Germany. His words were overtaken by the collapse of the Warsaw Pact nearly 18 months later. nato and Russia signed an agreement in 1997 that did not contain any restriction on new members, though enlargement had been discussed. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined almost two years later. The undertaking that has been violated is Russia’s pledge to Ukraine not to use economic or military coercion, given in 1994 when it surrendered the nuclear weapons based on its soil.
			:In fact nato has every right to expand. Under the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, signed by the Soviet Union, countries are free to choose their own allies. The Warsaw Pact suffered grievously under Soviet rule. Why would its ex-members not seek a haven? ... Indeed, the right for sovereign countries to determine their own destinies is one of the many things currently at stake in Ukraine.
			:But was nato expansion wise? A spiral of mutual suspicion between Russia and nato clearly exists, but to blame nato expansion for triggering it is scarcely credible. Mr Putin has increasingly used nationalism and Orthodox religion to shore up his rule. He needs enemies abroad to persuade his people that they and their civilisation are under threat. That is why he seized territory in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014. Besides, Russia has a long history as an imperial power. Like most declining empires, it was likely to resist as its periphery drifted off, regardless of nato expansion." ] (]) 20:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Note that this is ]; propose thread closure/archive. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Iseult makes a valid point. ] (]) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::with that, the same applies here, with some texts been ],
			:::if you write Putin’s propaganda, you should write Western propaganda, i'm wrong in this, can anyone elaborate???
			:::"Note that this is ]; propose thread closure/archive.", because is assessment, is the same done by many articles that I've read, from those in CNN, and there minions.
			:::this is the same with the azov "battalion", way back, they were call neo-nazis, and nazis, and now they are a "Battalion".
			:::the other day I saw on TV, saying that the "AZOV BATTALON", only have 10% of neo-nazis.
			:::ok, i will be more careful picking the situations to address, but I stand by this
			:::'''It is not because a lie is replicated a billion times that it becomes a truth, and it is not because a truth is not replicated that it becomes a lie...''' ] (]) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::sorry, forgot, to sign, ] (]) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::Going to BOLD close this thread under FORUM if nothing changes. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			{{Collapse bottom}}
			{{Archive bottom}}
			== Map correction ==
	{{Clear}}
	== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
	The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
	* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-03-15T13:07:01.945231 | Destruction of Russian tanks by Ukrainian troops in Mariupol (4).jpg -->
	Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 13:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			The Russians took Rubizne on May 11th but the map still shows it as contested. ] (]) 09:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== The removed Russians Casualties per UA MoD were the most accurate ones based on actual Evidence ==
	The following collapsed discussion has been moved to ] to centralise discussion. Please continue discussion there. ] (]) 11:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)		:Has Ukraine and/or any other institution confirmed this? What are your sources (per ] and ]?) ] (]) 13:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			::The more detailed map shows Rubizne under Russian control and the page on the battle of Rubizne states that the battle ended on 12th May (my mistake with date initially apologies) with a Russian victory, which was confirmed by CNN on 13th May and also by the ISW, in addition a Ukrainian commander confirmed it via twitter. Sources are available on the page for the battle of Rubizne and on the ISW’s own website. ] (]) 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{collapse top|warning=true}}
			== Can we have more pro-Ukrainian news? ==
	All the casualty figures are wrong and the one that we have the best evidence for being most accurate for Russian losses are the Ukrainian MoD ones that were removed.
			As the title says. I’m asking this as I think it would be beneficial for us all to hear more about what the Ukrainian forces are doing. The timeline seems not to have as much info as it does about the Russians. I think it would also be good for us all to hear some of the more positive developments. I’m sure we all want this conflict to end, and therefore I would like to see more Ukrainian successes in these pages.] (]) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
	Per https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html and the safe assumption we don't have a photo of every destroyed Russian piece of equipment in Ukraine, maybe 1 of every 2 at best, that means Ukrainian MoD's claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is reasonably accurate as corroborated by photo evidence. Thus their projected Russian deaths or casualties, well over 13,000 by now, is very credible and one to believe is most accurate on first hand evidence. All the other figures have no evidence to support them by comparison. Furthermore, almost all Ukrainian MoD claims in other regards have been proven correct at least 80% of the time if not a healthy bit more.
			:Russians are initiating the invasion fronts with Ukraine reacting to the invasion fronts for the most part. Most recent pro-Ukraine activity recently was to re-occupy Kharkiv. ] (]) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Good point. I’m asking for more info on Ukrainian reaction. ] (]) 18:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Is anyone going to respond to this enquiry? ] (]) 17:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::You can consider making a regular Misplaced Pages account which might make it easier for other editors to answer you. Regarding Ukraine's primary strategy you might look at this PBS link: . ] (]) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::::That link is god but it is a month old. My main issue is that this articles and other covering the same subject are not giving me enough information about what Ukraine is doing and what progress they are making. I’m trying to encourage people to rectify this. I’m annoyed because I’ve read these articles and I feel that I’ve not received enough information about Ukrainian progress. ] (]) 18:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			:no, it is not our job to parrot either side propoganda, but to try and use balanced sources. ] (]) 18:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			::I never asked that, actually. What I am saying is that I need more info about Ukraine. Due to these issues, I have no idea who is actually winning. ] (]) 18:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Can someone please add more Ukrainian info to these articles, please? What have Ukraine done over the last few days? ] (]) 18:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::Misplaced Pages's job is not to include every single small detail about everything. Not for a general page like this. You might find what you want at ]. ] ] ] 22:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2022 ==
	Russian claims are obviously bogus and citing anything from Russian state sources these days has to be a farce. That isn't even bias; it is just blatant fact. And the US claims are based on who knows what; but certainly not a first hand perspective and thus an inferior source to cite. This article stands as a farce while it literally ignores the reported casualty figures that clearly have the most weight of evidence behind them.
			{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	That the most accurate Ukrainian MoD figures aren't anywhere even on the page that I can see is doubly dubious. Ignoring figures backed by vast photo evidence to paste blatant state Russian lies. A Farce of an article. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			Change the text description of the animated map from "February 24 to April 21" to "February 24 to May 27" <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> Thanks for your contributions on {{u|Physeters}}. --] 14:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
	:The figures haven't been removed, they are in the article's casualties section, as per talk page discussions, so to cut down on the infobox size. At the moment, self-admitted fatality figures and figures provided by 3rd party sources (like the US) are presented in the infobox. As for citing Russian claims, if we are already citing one belligerent's claims (Ukraine) we are obligated to do the same for the other side as well as per Misplaced Pages's guidelines on neutrality and presenting all sides POV. ] (]) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			::@] You're welcome! <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic, Ebrima;background-color:OrangeRed;border-radius:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 4px#000000;padding:3px 3px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
	:Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian. If it is equipment used in both armies equally, it is not possible to be sure unless some serial number or conclusive identification is shown (no, an external drawing of a letter Z, V, whatever, is not a conclusive identification, anyone can paint it on a disabled/destroyed ukrainian vehicle, or similarly yellow stripes on a russian tank to pass for Ukrainian). There is equipment that the Russian army has "lost" that it recovers in its advance, the destroyed/disabled ukrainian equipment, and also what it is taking out of the Ukrainian military bases that it has occupied, and this is equipment that cannot be confirmed in quantity or type. ] (]) 01:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::There is a discussion regarding the equipment losses up above that you can join. ] (]) 02:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::"Even with the photos of oryxpioenkop site, the losses are not possible to know for sure in either of the two sides. Unless the equipment is one that is only and only used by the Russian army, it cannot be guaranteed that it is Russian."
	::So much wrong with this comment. For one, the equipment they use is not that similar as they have been making modifications and changes independently for 32 years now. Ukraine has its own variants and paint scheme that makes its tanks and other vehicles, even when destroyed, readily identifiable and differentiable from the Russian ones. Russia also has a much larger variety of vehicles than Ukraine and generally much newer ones Ukraine does not have acces to. Tanks for example Ukraine's most numerous tank is the T-64, while Russia does not even operate the T-64 anymore really, and the only model they really share in numbers is the T-72 but after 32 years of independent modernization and modification are different variants that can be differentiated.
	::Also, even when destroyed the paint is often left somewhere, which usually can identify who it belongs to. If not that, the Russian dead bodies, scattered Russians MREs, or big Z, O, and V letters are a good hint. Also who is posting the picture or video; a lot of it is visibly from Ukranian fighters when you trace them to their twitter origin.
	::Finally, the simple fact is Russia has a lot more combat and other vehicles and is on the offensive, while Ukraine has comparatively few and is mostly defending. The ones moving around in large convoys of armored combat vehicles is vastly and disproportionally the Russians.
	::Again, the Ukrainian MoD track record of mostly verifiable accurate claims to date through the war bolsters their credibility as a point of fact. There is simply no grounds to doubt Oryx's count/index of destroyed Russian vehicles in Ukraine. Again, it would be crazy to think we had a photo on the internet of every destroyed Russian vehicle in the war. At the very best 1 photo for every 1.5 vehicles, and even that would be rather unlikely as somewhere closer to 2 is more likely with a potential of even 3 vehicles for every 1 photo we have. And a ratio of about 2 vehicles to 1 photo would mean that Ukrainians MoD claims for Russian vehicles destroyed is more or less right on the money per Oryx's visual index. And again by extension this, and the Ukranian MoD generally good track record for accuracy thus far, means their claims of 13,000+ Russian dead/casualties, whichever it was, is extremely credible. And that fact should be reflect better in this article. ] (]) 10:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:I see no valid reason for the Ukrainian-sourced casualties to be censored from the article. Its mentioned above that they are in the casualty section, but I just checked and if it is, it's hidden. I can understand not cluttering the infobox with every vehicle claimed, but the total KIA should be included, especially if Russia's #s are. As it stands at the time of writing this, they are claiming around 12k and upper bound from US officials is 8k. It's relevant. --'''''BLKFTR''''' <small>(])</small> 04:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated. ] (]) 08:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::The info box should have both the Russian and Ukrainian estimates, not the US ones. After all it's just Russia and Ukraine doing the fighting. Burying the Ukrainian estimate in the body of the text whilst showing an outdated US estimate just hides it from a casual reader of this article. ] <sup>''] &#124; ]''</sup> 09:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::"Its in the very first paragraph of the section, bellow the table, and the latest claim of 13,500 losses is stated"
	:::So it is stated somewhere almost no one would ever look; I literally had to alt-F '13,500' to find it. Not not in the info box where it should be even though it is the best figure given by any source actually supported by an index of photo evidence. As the most credible number it belongs in the info box. If not that in the table in the casualties section. Not buried in a paragraph 3 pages down the article squished between two tables neither of which it is on. This article simply paints a false view of the actual numbers by refusing to readily provide the accurate numbers while unduly giving prominence to the most bogus ridiculous numbers being given by Russia. By all means, report the Russian given figures somewhere, while making them clear to be Russian state figures, but the info box and article overall should not compromise accuracy for unreasonable neutrality. ] (]) 10:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Mmm... yes. If I were looking for information on casualties, I'd never think to check the section entitled 'Casualties'. ] (]) 10:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I don't have to go digging into paragraphs in the casualties section to get the actual most accurate and real casualty figures for any war wiki article EXCEPT this one. Every other such article you can use the info box for the best figures. Not here apparently.
	:::::Indeed, in other war wiki articles you would read the casualties section if you wanted more info on the best figures that are given in the info box in addition to other figures that are generally less accepted. Here it is backwards, you get the worse figures in the info box while you have to go on reading 3 pages down between 2 tables to realize the actual most accurate figures are placed in some obscure spot the majority of people will not see it when they casually scroll the article. Even looking for it I didn't see it since it wasn't in the Info Box or Tables. And I was not the only one as other people have said themselves. ] (]) 10:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 ==
	*'''Comment''' There is a more central discussion regarding the size of the infobox at ] and on the particulars of reporting casualties at ]. It is unlikely that consensus will be achieved while there are multiple parallel discussions. I would suggest that it would be more productive to comment at the above discussion. ] (]) 10:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	{{collapse bottom}}
			1. Add the to the External Links section. Imo it should be added because a consistently updated link with a focus on the military aspects only would be both helpful and interesting.
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> per third point at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:External links|What can normally be linked}} with respect to level of detail. --] 16:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
			2. Add to the Further Reading section. It's a month old, so it's somewhat outdated. However, the sections on what happened at the start of the invasion are accurate, interesting and accessible, and the assumptions that underly the predictions are still mostly true. ] (]) 02:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== Listing killed commanders? ==
			:The current article uses several dozen reliable sources including The New York Times and BBC News. ] (]) 18:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Archive top
	|result = Proposal clearly lacks traction. ] (]) 12:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	|status = none }}
			::{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> Referenced report appears to fit recommendations at ] and is only the second resource listed in this section which was published after the events of this article began 24 Feb 2022. And of course... if it turns out to be better utilized in the article by citing it as a ], we can just make that adjustment later. Thanks {{u|SentientObject}}. --] 17:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
	Other wiki pages present the list of commanders that have been killed during conflicts. Although some are missing confirmation by the losing side yet, I think it's worth it to start documenting those casualties.
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2022 ==
	* Maj. Gen. Andrei Sukhovetsky, Deputy commander of the 41st Combined Arms Army:
	* Maj. Gen. Vitaly Gerasimov, Chief of staff, 41st Combined Arms Army: ,
	* Maj. Gen. Andrei Kolesnikov, 29th Combined Arms Army:
			{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	] (]) 22:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			Change "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine collect evidence." to "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine to collect evidence." as the former is missing a 'to'. ] (]) 00:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
	:Agree, they are sourceable as senior commanders. Wikilinked them: ], ], ]. We should also add current commanders for both Russia and Ukraine; who are they? ] (]) 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
			:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
	:Agree. They are important commanders in charge of large forces having significant outcomes on the battlefield. They can be just mentioned in the infobox. ] (]) 05:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Is 'conscription' an Ukrainian idea? ==
	I don’t believe they should be included on this page. Include them in the campaign in which they were killed. Those commanders’ deaths have relatively little impact in the overall invasion and this page is already too long. ] (]) 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:They should just be mentioned in the infobox. That doesn't really make the article much longer. ] (]) 23:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	::It does on mobile. Last I checked the infobox was eight screenfulls to scroll by on my phone. ] (]) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:They were killed in this campaign, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. `°° ] (]) 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Death of gen. Vitaly Gerasimov is reported to have stalled the Kharkiv offensive, described as the deadliest battle of the invasion. When army chiefs are deployed so near within the hot spots, I would argue that’s because they’re a crucial factor of the army’s effectiveness and therefore also deserve attention in this article. ] (]) 00:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:The page uses the word 'conscription' describing Ukraine only. Here is a text about "People's Republics". https://www.dw.com/en/how-ukraine-separatists-are-mass-conscripting-anyone-of-fighting-age/a-61608760
	I totally disagree about adding them to the infobox. That is an overall summary and some mid-senior generals wouldn’t really be appropriate. ] (]) 23:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	: Are they really only as unimportant as you say though? Seen the major coverage on their deaths, and the wording used in trustworthy news media ("top general", "major blow", etc.), they seem senior commanders? ] (]) 23:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
	:<blockquote>The United States has lost 1 general in combat since the end of WW2. A general dying in combat, even a 1-star general, is a big deal. That's one of the reasons why it is listed in many other similar articles: ] , ], ], ], ], ], ] (that's not an exhaustive list). Some of them include commanders that aren't top level at all. And to put things in perspective, is a "mid-senior" general commanding 10,000 troops less relevant than some warlord commanding a few thousand men at best. I'm not saying we should list them all, but those killed in combat is quite a bit more important than most of the information on the page.</blockquote> ] (]) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	::the main page of ] does not detail any Generals killed. Likewise this page should not list any either, it is already too long. They should be detailed in the relevant battle articles ] (]) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Not the main page no, but pages about months-long campaigns do: ], ], ], ], ], ]. The question is if we consider this article a campaign in a bigger war and I would argue it is due to how the article is framing it by being part of the ]. ] (]) 01:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::The separate WW2 articles for the invasion of Poland, the Eastern front, North African campaign do show a detailed list of the commanders involved and KIAs. The «main page» for this conflict following this logic would be the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian war article, but the above mentioned theatres of WW2 are more similar in scale than WW2 as a whole. ] (]) 01:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Of course, because WWII is too big to cover in an infobox. I could show 99 other articles having 5x larger infobox than this. That's a bad example. ] (]) 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Another text abour Russia. https://www.politico.eu/article/what-the-use-of-russia-conscripts-tells-us-about-the-war-in-ukraine/
	*It is not that these casualties shouldn't be mentioned somewhere - but where. They need to be written into the body of this article or another article. They certainly cannot just be dumped into the infobox under the casualties section. Per ], it is meant to be an at-a-glance summary and not a repository for miscellaneous information. The casualty section is already too bloated to be an at-a-glance summary as it is. ] (]) 08:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-russian-conscripts-cant-subdue-ukraine-war-army-volunteers-morale-invasion-military-putin-victory-11651784177 ] (]) 07:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
	::Not under the casualties section, but under the commanders section. They were senior commanders, so they belong to the commanders section? ] (]) 09:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Not there either for much the same reasons. ] (]) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)		::Universal conscription of all males between 18 and 60 years of age is fairly rare as is currently the case in Ukraine. ] (]) 13:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::“Universal”, yes, but if Russia employs conscripted soldiers then it would be fine to describe both as conscripts. Visibly less % for Russia than for Ukraine though. ] (]) 14:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::Per , the infobox is already too long. ] (]) 12:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			::Is anyone else doing it right now in this conflict? ] (]) 13:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Seems unique to Ukraine at this time. ] (]) 14:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::The DW article linked by Xx236 says "men between the ages of 18 and 55" are prohibited from leaving the Russian proxy states in Donbas, and are being forcibly conscripted. I'm not sure it warrants lead space in the same way that Ukraine's conscription does, but I do think this should be covered in the article body. ] • ] 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			:At the beginning some Russian conscripts were imprisoned by Ukrainians, they were send to fight allegedly erroneously. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/01/russia-military-army-conscripts-draft/] (]) 08:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			::The Russians continue to use conscripts and cover it up.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::The Russians are now extending the eligible ages of military support contractors involved in the invasion. ] (]) 17:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
			::The only phrase about conscripted in Russia "Some mothers of conscripted Russia soldiers".
			::Are police contactors soldiers? They were told they would do police tasks.] (]) 06:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
			== New articles and four more battles. ==
	{{Archive bottom}}
			We need at least four more articles about four battles near the cities where they take place. For example. ], ], ] and ]. — ] (]) 00:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022 ==
			* ]
	{{Archive top
			* ]
	|result = Consensus of EN WP is to use ]. An RfC at that page would be needed for us to change what we are doing here. ] (]) 23:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			* ]
	|status = none }}
			* ]
			:You have presented four red-linked pages. ] (]) 16:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
			::{{u|Baba Mica}}, you've created some pages here already. Some are appreciated such as Lyman which is notable but please don't make a page for Lysychansk yet. Fighting did not reach there. For that, Sievierodonetsk has to fall. I'm also doubtful about Bakhmut since fighting did not reach there either. ] ] ] 20:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::{{u|Super Dromaeosaurus}} Agree, no current fighting for Bakhmut or Lysychansk, while Marinka (ended by now) wasn't notable enough to warrant an article. ] (]) 20:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::Agree that these aren't notable or even non-existent. We can't have an article about every single village that changes hands.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
			Please consider ] when creating new articles.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 16:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Don’t assume DLNR are present without support of reliable sources ==
			Let’s please not blindly insert DLNR or “separatist forces” into articles’ infoboxes and body text without confirming that reliable sources support their participation. The majority of reliable sources on military action only refer to Russian forces or the Russian army, and don’t even mention DLNR.
			I just removed such unsupported assertions from three articles, one where only Russian and separatist sources asserted their presence, one where a single source mentioned their marginal participation (occupying a rural point near a battleground after the fight), and one in which not a single cited source mentions their participation.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			:They are listed in the Belligerent section and the Support section of the Infobox. ] (]) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Yes, but they don’t automatically belong in every article on this war, and we must not blindly reinterpret every action by Russian forces as “Russian and separatist forces.”&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022 ==
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}		{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
	Change the spelling of Odessa to Odesa throughout to match the use of other Ukrainian spellings for cities that are in Ukraine. ] (]) 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)		Add the countries supplying Ukraine with military aid in the supporting belligerents section ] (]) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
			:] '''Not done for now:''' This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 21:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
	:Consensus on ] is that is should be spelled as such. There would be a need for an RfC to change that on that page which has already failed multiple times. If you disagree, that should be handled on the city’s talk page and not here. ] (]) 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			::RfC is open in the section above already. ] (]) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
			== ] participates ==
	:Closing on basis of "requires consensus" per KD0710 above. Refer to ]. --] 13:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	::This is all generally fair, but the IP raises a decent point about consistency in the article. We are using Ukrainian spelling (or thereabouts, e.g. Irpin instead of the correct Irpin') everywhere else. We write Kharkiv, Lviv, Kyiv, Chernihiv, Donbas rather than Kharkov, Lvov, Kiev, Chernigov, Donbass and so on. In that respect, Odessa sticks out as odd. It isn't necessary to rename our article for that matter, as ] is a valid redirect. You only need a consensus ''here'' to use that spelling ''here''. The consensus at Talk:Odessa is irrelevant for our purposes. ] (]) 13:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:https://eurasianet.org/south-ossetian-troops-fighting-for-russia-in-ukraine
	::There's should indeed be consistency, but on the article name. ] (]) 13:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/25/russia-ukraine-war-putin-caucasus-ossetia-minorities-opposition/
	::{{ping|Mr rnddude}} Picky point: those aren't Ukrainian spellings, but ] using one of the ] available. It looks like "Odessa" with "ss" is a German-based rule, presumably to maintain {{IPA|/s/}} rather than the {{IPA|/ts/}} which would result from a single "s". ] (]) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			] (]) 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
	:::Well, yes, Ukrainian uses the Cyrillic alphabet just like Russian and Serbian. The point was that, for example, we write Kharkiv from Хаpkiв (Ukrainian), instead of Kharkov from Хapьkoв (Russian). I, uh, don't know why we'd be using German transliteration instead of British to be honest, and the article on Odessa suggests that the Russian spelling is Одecca (missing diacritics), so am not entirely sure that the German system is the reason for this spelling. ] (]) 14:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Yes the Russian spelling is Одecca and the Ukrainian Одeca but in English has it ever been spelled other than Odessa? I don't think so. And whereas the other examples like Kharkiv are reasonable transliterations of the original, in English the double S seems to more accurately represent the pronunciation. I believe Odesa wouldn't work so well. ] (]) 16:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::It's better to know than to think. Type in 'Odesa' on Google News and you will receive millions of English language hits spanning sources like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Rolling Stone (quite literally, the first three sources that pop up). As to pronunciation, English does not distinguish between single and double s. Passed and past have the same phonetic quality. ] (]) 05:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::{{replyto|Mr rnddude}} That's not true. Vase and vast. We should use what reliable sources say. You've given three, here's five more well-known organisations, also found in (which can't seem to make its own mind up, using both in the same snippet), all with "ss": , , , , . It is, as you say, better to know than to think, and I've always known it spelled "Odessa" in English. ] (]) 11:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::{{u|Bazza 7}} - You are not demonstrating a difference between singular and double s as neither vase nor vast have two s's. English does not distinguish between a lone and a double s. Btw, you might have chosen 'dogs' as your example as 'vase' is pronounced both as 'vais' and 'vaz'. Addendum: Dogs was the first word that came to mind with voicing across dialects. Enterprise or something like it might have been better. ] (]) 12:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::Yeah, I realised that afterwards but, as it's not my main point, let it go. But it shows (as does your comment about "vase") show that trying to use English pronunciation as a logical reasoning behind a spelling is not reliable. ] (]) 12:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::And I knew if I waited long enough, I would remember "fuse" and "fuss". And "his" and "hiss". ] (]) 12:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::(Edit-conflict) Fair. But, pronunciation was not my argument behind using a specific spelling. My argument was and is that we use a transliterated Ukrainian spelling everywhere else (that I've noticed). As others disagree with changing the spelling, so be it. (Re second comment) - Ok, fair examples. I must amend my previous statements to read: English pronunciation may or may not distinguish between singular and double s (passed/past (no distinction) ; his/hiss (voiced distinction). ] (]) 12:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			:This is an issue that has already been discussed at length (see ). The first source states: {{tq|The soldiers are part of Russian military units based in South Ossetia but which also include some local contract soldiers.}} The second source is not sufficiently specific that it would contradict the first source or other sources offered in the previous discussion. Bottom line, the previous consensus is that South Ossetia is not participating as a "soverign state" and these sources don't show otherwise. Regards, ] (]) 09:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
			::https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbj8ZH8gIDV/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=f10de68f-afbd-41bb-b470-c8a86aa9643e
			::President Bibilov to the soldiers - Вперед! 'Go ahead.' едут защищать и Осетию 'They go to defend Ossetia, too'. Words mean.] (]) 11:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::SO soldiers are Russian soldiers. Do People's Republic soldiers fight in separate PR units? This article does not inform. The reference 14 is from February. What is the difference between the PR and SO?] (]) 05:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
			:DPR 105th People’s Militia Rifle Regiment https://theins.ru/en/news/251541 ] (]) 06:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::You have given the answer to your own question. ] (]) 06:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) This was intended as a response to the post above plus one ({{tq|SO soldiers are Russian soldiers.}} I apologise for any confusion. ] (]) 08:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			::::::Where are the 'forces' described in this Misplaced Pages?] (]) 06:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
	== just take it ==
			:::::::The infobox states: {{tq|Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. See also: ]}}. ] (]) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
	is this already here ? https://onemileatatime.com/news/putin-russian-airlines-steal-foreign-aircraft/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=One%20Mile%20at%20a%20Time&utm_content=Putin%20Allows%20Russian%20Airlines%20To%20Steal%20Foreign%20Aircraft&fbclid=IwAR3t95xpZ9K3EPwOn_fHIJPEkveC-VhD1HMTE8RF7P6DYtPMqVobrdifhKs --] (]) 12:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	It would likely be more appropriate for ]. ] (]) 13:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)		:SO has an agreement with Russia. Russia defends SO, SO gives soldiers to Russia. I do not know details, but such agreement probably does not preserve neutrality of SO.] (]) 06:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
			::SO citizens are not enlisted in units of SO but in the Russian armed forces (whether they are also Russian citizens is another issue too). This does not constitute an overt act by SO, in the same way that any other republic in the Russian Federation is not acting independently or that because Gurkhas fought in the Falkland Islands, Nepal was a belligerent in that war. ] (]) 08:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
	for me is the same, you write somewhere in this wiki... --] (]) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Once more - the SO has sold its cannon fodder to Russia to be defended by Russia. Has Nepal sold the Gurkhas to obtain British warranty?] (]) 07:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Send 100 Australian soldiers to join Ukrainian Army. Will Russia accept such decision?] (]) 07:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			This is not a ]. ] (]) 09:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:I understand that the problem od SO participation is complicated, but it does not make SO neutral. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/26/georgias-breakaway-region-sends-troops-to-ukraine-a77094 ] (]) 10:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
	== Separatist republic demonyms ==
			== Error on Soviet Origin? ==
	What are the ] for the separatist republics? Are there even demonyms? Donetsk/Luhansk, Donetskian/Luhanskian, DPR/LPR? I've seen ] used for the DPR, but there isn't an equivalent for the LPR. ] (]) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			"Putin ... incorrectly described the country as having been created by Soviet Russia,"
	:Donetsian would be someone from the ] region. Demonyms aren’t used for these because they are relatively obscure, lack legitimacy, and don’t have defined boundaries. The people who run them identify as Russians and Ukrainians. There may be a regional identity for the Donbas but that would include DLNR people and their adversaries (until the big invasion, the DLNR occupied about a third of the Donbas).&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	::By the way, it’s important to differentiate residents of the city of Donetsk and its de jure province, the Donetsk oblast, from people under the Russian proxy rule imposed by the illegal Donetsk People’s Republic (Likewise Luhansk, Luhansk oblast, and the Luhansk People’s Republic). &nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 16:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::The government of Russia doesn't say Donetsk People's Republic is illegal. --] (]) 20:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			But Ukraine has no legal history as a state prior to the Bolshevik revolution? Lenin's support for devolving the Russian Empire to give such legal power and affirmation to various National Minorities was hotly debated by other communists of the time.
	{{Clear}}
	== Number of DNR and LNR soldiers ==
			From Wiki on Ukraine:
	Are the Numbers for DNR and LNR soldiers not a way to small?
	They have conscription now (https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/02/27/stay-hidden-or-get-drafted) and have a population of approximately 3.7 Mio. So, if only ten percent of the males would be forced in the Army that would be about 180000 men. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			"The 19th century saw the growth of Ukrainian nationalism, particularly in Galicia, then part of Austria-Hungary. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution a Ukrainian national movement re-emerged, and the Ukrainian People's Republic was formed in 1917. This short-lived state was forcibly reconstituted into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which became a founding member of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1922" ] (]) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
	Please find a RS that you believe has updated info. ] (]) 13:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			:And the point is ... ? ] (]) 13:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:exactly, it existed briefly before being forcibly integrated into the soviet union. ] (]) 14:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
	== Russias mercenaries from Syria and Libya==
			:Putin is wrong because he’s trying to deny the existence of a Ukrainian ''nation'' by referring to a state, and by labelling the country “Russian land.” The anon comment above adds the straw man of “1917.” In fact, Ukraine established a state in 1917, Lenin’s Bolshevik Russia (an unrecognized state with no continuity from previous states) legally recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders in 1918, and only conquered it in 1920, on the third attempt.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 14:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
			:There are many countries that gained independence as empires declined but that's not to say that the former empire is responsible for creating said countries, in fact quite the opposite is true. An equivalent argument that India was ''created'' by the UK, or that Korea was ''created'' by Japan show cases how preposterous a notion it is. As a person living in a former colony the idea that our former imperial overlords somehow created our country is insulting to put it mildly. This is why we talk of countries gaining independence, not being created. ] (]) 20:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
			Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repiblic won the ukrainian civil war in 1921 and was admited in USSR in late 1922 not was conquered by Soviet Union in 1920 on the third attempt. ] (]) 16:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
	According to the "Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine" Russia has approved the recruitment of 16,000 Middle East mercenaries to fight in the Ukraine. <br>
	Today the ] , that "Russian officers" had approved the recuitment of 22,000 Syrians and another 18,000 Syrians are being checked by ]. So in total 40,000 from syria alone might be drafted. Anyway, at the moment, is is rather unclear how many mercs there are fighting for russia, thats why I wouldnt mention those syrians in the infobox. ----] (]) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			:], I guess you’re responding to me? You’re inaccurately rewriting my sentences. The Russian Bolsheviks invaded Ukraine in December 1917, were forced to recognize the ] (UNR) in 1918 then invaded again in January 1919, created the ] in 1919 and invaded again in May 1920 to defeat the UNR, although partisan actions continued into 1921. The UkrSSR was a Russian puppet state without independence, sovereignty, or its own army, and the Bolsheviks underlined this when they abandoned the pretence of Ukrainian statehood and joined Ukraine to the USSR in December 1922. They redrew Ukrainian borders by assigning some Ukrainian-inhabited territories to the RSFSR.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 22:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
	:I think someone should add all three of these countries as belligerents since those volunteers hail from those three countries. --] (]) 17:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Not necessarily, as there are also volunteers from various other countries fighting on the Ukrainian side. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			~ Sorry Michael Z I am new on WP and I dont know how insert the answers from mobile or make calls (the @).
	{{Clear}}
			I am not arguing anything of that.
	== Minor edit suggestion for article lead ==
			I only said that UkrSSR (puppet or not) won the civil war in 1921 (not 1920) and later joined USSR.
			And by the way, is true that some part of Ukraine origins (Ukraine People's Republic) are based on soviet/bolsevisk actions, in fact the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets was stablished nearly at the same time that UPR, the bolsevisk uprising in kiev drove out the white forces leting the Rada (which suported bolseviks during the uprising) increasing the autonomy that months after lead to independence.
			I wouldn't say that Ukraine have full soviet origin like Vlad said, but has partial. ] (]) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
			:Three puppet states were established for the three Russian Bolshevik invasions conducted by an army under Moscow and mainly from Russia. The first two were governments consisted only of Russians, and were liquidated by the Bolsheviks due to their failure, because Ukrainians didn’t trust foreign armies that invaded their country and shot on sight anyone speaking Ukrainian. The third incorporated some token Ukrainians in non-power cabinet positions.
	Hello, I see in the lead that the last sentence of paragraph 3 reads "In response, Zelenskyy...". As this is the first instance of Volodymyr Zelenskyy being mentioned in the article, surely it should introduce him reading something along the lines of "In response, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy..."? (the same as Putin's first mention in paragraph 2, including a wikilink to ]. I'd do it myself but obviously can't. ] (]) 23:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			:* ] 1917–1918
			:* ] 1918
			:* ] 1919–1991 (renamed 1936)
			:&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
			== The latest update on Ukrainian losses according to the Russian ministry of defence was posted on 25th April ==
	:{{re|GeorgmentO}} {{done}} – I didn't link ] to avoid ] as it's not a crucial link, but I recognise there's an inconsistency with the Russian presidency (which is linked), so don't object if another editor wants to add it. Cheers, ] • ] 00:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
			The Russian ministry of defence has posted their latest update on Ukrainian losses on the 26th of April. <ref>https://t.me/mod_russia_en/1116</ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	{{Clear}}
	== Ambiguous statement of a battle outcome. ==
			== Bulking down the article size: Article back over 400Kb ==
	In the "Eastern Front" section the statement "On the morning of 25 February, Russian Armed Forces advanced from DPR territory in the east towards Mariupol and encountered Ukrainian forces near the village of Pavlopil, where they were defeated." didn't clarify which side prevailed in that specific battle. The Eastern Ukraine offensive main article indicates a Ukrainian victory against the Russian land forces from the DPR, so if you have editing privileges please revise the sentence to indicate a Ukrainian victory in that specific battle to remove the ambiguity. Many thanks. --] (]) 05:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Done ] (]) 08:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			The article size is back over 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article, and the article has been template tagged for length issues. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the ] article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the ] article, along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. A very short summary and link can be left in this Invasion article after that merge is done. The other suggestion might similarly note that the Peace efforts section lower in the TOC also has a sibling article already written for it at ], and to merge it from this Invasion article into the sibling article (leaving a link to that page from this Invasion article). The read time for the article is currently 40-50 minutes which is over Misplaced Pages policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that both of these merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ] (]) 19:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			:It's currently at 94 kB readable prose, which is on the large side but not just absurd. It's an active topic; see ]. We can figure out how/if to trim it in a few years when things have settled down. Feel free to boldly edit now, though, if there's stuff that's clearly misplaced. ] (]) 19:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (2) ==
			::Did some trimming up near the top in the lede and background sections. Based on the number of references some of it has apparently been argued about somewhere, so I used a light hand; waiting a bit to see if anybody has any objections. ] (]) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
	{{Edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
			:::Both VQuakr and myself are supporting bold edits on the bulking down. Possibly you can extend your edits to think about fully merging the Background section into the ] article, and then boldly removing that section from this article. You can add a short paragraph summary at the start of the Prelude section to include links and maybe 2-3 sentences to briefly describe the complicated deep history which goes back 3 decades. Supporting the bold edits version of bulking down the article which is now over 400Kb in size. ] (]) 18:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
	In "Russian Accusations and Demands" section, where it says "influence of far-right groups within Ukraine", link to ] for additional context.
			::::Currently 93kB, not 400. We certainly agree with WP:BOLD but there's no urgency here. ] (]) 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
			::::::Agree on WP:Bold. Your number on readable prose is correct; the last full size of the Misplaced Pages article storage as shown in the edit history is given for the last edit as "20:23, 2 June 2022‎ EkoGraf talk contribs‎ 403,885 bytes +7‎", which reads as 403Kb with about 93Kb readable prose. ] (]) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
			::::I'm generally in favour of keeping the Background section largely as it is (admittedly I'm biased as I wrote the majority of it). I agree it's moderately long, although it has been through heavy copy-editing so there's very little non-valuable information that can be readily trimmed. If you compare its size to the other sections, you'll see it's actually reasonably lean (there's a section size table at the top of this talk page, click "show" on "Other talk page banners"). The Background section is 30k bytes in size, compared to 56k for the Prelude section, 124k for the Invasion and resistance section and 58k for the Casualties and humanitarian impact section. It's comparable in size to the Media depictions section, which is 22k bytes. Any cuts will necessarily involve simplification, so there'll be difficult editorial decisions about what is and isn't crucial for readers. If cuts are to be made, I would suggest trimming some of the content about the Orange Revolution which is more distant from current events, although it'll be tricky to do while maintaining overall flow. I think what's currently in the section provides valuable context for readers. The Prelude section (particularly "Escalation (21–23 February 2022)") is probably a better candidate for cuts, as is the main section on the invasion (particularly "First phase – Southern front"). The invasion summary is frequently added to, but hasn't been as heavily reworked as earlier sections so has greater potential for cuts. Also, bear in mind that much of the page size is from citations. There are likely still cases of ] that can be reduced to lower page loading times, as the total prose size itself, at 94kB, is just about within the acceptable limit (see ]). I'm wary of moving content to the Russo-Ukrainian war article, as there are problems with its scope (was there really a larger war between Russia and Ukraine from 2014, outside of the ]? I'm sceptical sources actually say this). ] • ] 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
			::::::As I'm a fellow contributor to the Background section, then my concern is still that it duplicates material already covered in the ] article. Is there a useful purpose to keeping these duplicate versions? That said, if you feel that there are certain passages in the Invasion article Background section which are better than what is currently in the Russo-Ukrainian version, then I would support you to merge the Background material here as more up to date than the other version, and that the Background version should replace the redundant material in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. The point seems to be that Misplaced Pages policy is not to duplicate redundant material covering the same subject matter. That said, I'm also supporting your other ideas for trimming the article's multiple sections. The size issues of the article at 403KB with 93Kb of readable prose needs attention and the article should be shortened. ] (]) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::I see your point about repetition. Most of the shared content was written here then copied to ] in this ], which produced this situation. The scope of this article and the war article have since become clearer, although I've previously been sceptical about whether the approach we've taken so far is the best (see the current discussion on that article ], and my past thoughts on this ]; I'm currently unsure what my view is). It's important to note that this remains by far the most trafficked of the two articles, with approximately 4 million readers in the past 30 days compared to 900k – it therefore makes sense to have a strong background section here to aid most readers looking to understand the historical context of the current war. Any removals from the Background section here should be accompanied by a cross-check with the text there to ensure the best version of the text is kept, and I think further cuts should be limited, at least in the short-term, to non-essential information while the scope of the two articles overlaps so closely. ] • ] 02:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Am willing to go with consensus. The edits I did today were largely largely focused on what words I could remove and still say the same thing. I considered removing the whole paragraph about why Putin might be right about Nazis, and just saying that experts agree he is wrong, but that is definitely a meaning change, whereas I don't think I did much of that this morning in those first three sections. But yeah, I have done spinning down to daughter articles and can do that if desired, but figured I should ask first. I will check back on this thread in 12-24 hours and see what people think, or again later if there is still a discussion.
	While that article needs cleaning up it's relevant to what is discussed in this article, i.e. the question of the influence of the far right in Ukraine. ] (]) 16:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
	:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I think it's good to link to an article even if it needs cleaning up; once it's linked to, people will go to it, and some of them might clean it up! <span style="color:Purple; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Re 2014: yes, ] with ongoing violations of Minsk and Minsk II. In my previous trimmings, it is true I have not looked very hard at the Invasion section. Fine with looking at that if people agree, +1 on overcite ] (]) 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
	==biological weapons==
			::::::All sections of the article need to be updated and enhanced as the edit history moves forward. It would be a significant move forward if the sections for Background and Peace negotiations could be merged into their sibling articles; there's no reason to maintain two versions of these sections on Misplaced Pages which can readily be linked from this article to its sibling article. A reduction of a 403Kb article with about 93Kb readable prose which is over Misplaced Pages policy recommendations should move forward with bold edits on some of these sections. ] (]) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
	The article currently states:
			::::::I've merged the Peace negotiations section with the main article for about 15Kb of total size reduction to article. Should the sections for Background and Prelude be merged to their sibling Main articles in a similar way for bulking down the article? ] (]) 23:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
			::::::{{re|Elinruby}} which paragraph are you referring to? Is it the third one in the Prelude section, and if so, were the any specific changes you had in mind? The main offending bit in my view is {{tq|"Ukraine, like pro-Russian separatists in Donbas, has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi-linked Azov Battalion and Right Sector,"}}, although others may disagree, so it might be worth discussing on talk first or expecting ]. ] • ] 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			:::::Right, I personally don’t think that that is at all the most important thing about this war, assuming if’s even true, and that’s been to the reliable sources noticeboard a few times. Why is it in the lede? But I am aware that there are editors who will passionately disagree, so no, I will not BRD on that, as I have had that argument and it is exhausting. I’d be delighted if there was a consensus to remove it however. Just checking, were there any issues with what I did cut this morning? A couple of possibilities for trimming occur to me — the first couple of times I went through the article, I skipped the invasion section as it struck me as the meat of the article and I was looking for fat. There are probably some cuts possible there just by converting to active voice from passive. Some long quotes could be cut further down the article probably, but I looked pretty carefully at Putin’s quotes in the early sections, and I think it is important to report the full context there. There are places where there are two and three references further down though, on rather uncontroversial statements, and if I go through these I can probably cut total length somewhat without hurting anything, and now that I have been through a lot of the child articles I could probably make some weight suggestions in the invasion section. How is this for a proposal? I will do a pure copyedit on the invasion section, and make suggestions/ask questions on any due weight questions I think might be controversial? Also keep edits small and specific and easy to undo. But I don’t think I can get much more out of the early sections on wording alone ] (]) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	: "Chinese diplomats, government agencies, and state-controlled media in China have used the war as an opportunity to deploy anti-American propaganda, and amplified conspiracy theories created by Russia such as the false claims of US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine."
			::::::Your cuts from earlier today looked good, thanks for your work. I don't have any strong feelings about removing the sentence about Azov and Right Sector. I don't oppose removing it, although I can see the argument for retaining it, as Azov has played a key role in Russian propaganda, so it makes sense to note it. Unless there's a particular change you're not sure about yourself, I'd say go ahead boldly with other cuts to the invasion section, we can always come back here and discuss if someone raises an objection. ] • ] 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::Both Elinruby and Jr8825 have positive ideas for continuing with the trims to the article. Regarding the opening subsections on Background, my perspective is a little changed now that I've seen Jr8825's links in his comments above. At present, I'm counting a total of 9-10 paragraphs in the two sections of the current Background section which seems a little too much since alot of it can be merged into the Russo-Ukrainian war article (which is in need of improvement anyway). Can the two subsections of 9-10 paragraphs there be condensed into a single section of 4-5 paragraphs instead? When I looked at some approaches to doing this, they looked fairly promising; also all the material after the condensing would still be on Misplaced Pages albeit on the linked article in Russo-Ukrainian war to where it can be merged. Is it possible to try this? For the other material, I'm supporting both Elinruby and Jr8825 as having significant ideas for moving the article forward and dealing with this issue of bulking down such a large article still approaching 400Kb in total size. ] (]) 14:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			{{Outdent}} Took a quick look at the Invasion section. Nowhere near done, but some comments:
	The absence of US biological weapons in Ukraine is stated as fact. However, it isn't really since there is no independent confirmation of the truth of this absence. So, instead, it is rather simply an assertion by the US and Ukraine governments, which has the contrary assertion by the Russia government. Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here.
			*The referencing in the part of Invasion I looked at was really very precisely on point. For example, “dismissed as absurd” had a really good source for a European politician using that exact word. But I know when I trimmed the Legal and Media sections I mostly left the sources, so there is that, and most of Media Depictions is uncontroversial, with some attention to diversity. I think that is important, but perhaps not to the point of duplicating solid English-language sources that say exactly the same thing. There are also some sources I do not recognize, which is another thing.
			*Are constructions like “putative spearhead front” some sort of term of art? I know what a spearhead is, but in the English I speak a front is a line of control between opposing forces, and there seems to be a lot of this verbiage that could be eliminated by paring down to verbs, if these nouns aren’t conveying any additional information
			* I am being somewhat tentative because my writing style has sometimes been criticized as overly “newsy”. Since this is indeed in my background I plead “probably guilty” and personally think this is a good thing, but collaboration, etc, and this is an important article.
			*Re Azov Battalion and Right Sector, I agree that it is crucial that Putin has been talking about Nazis. But then we have several sentences talking about what might possibly have given him that idea — whereas I suspect it came from him in the first place — before we refute the statements. Just saying, why give it oxygen before dousing it with facts? I have not looked at the references for this, in this particular article, mind you, but what I have seen elsewhere makes me skeptical. I see however that {{user|Xx236}} has started a section about this, and pending that discussion at a minimum, I am going to leave this part alone. ] (]) 15:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			::That all sounds on point, and generally Misplaced Pages does not have issues with using journalistic prose. Let me know if this is brought up here as a situation. The original wording was "probative spearhead front" (not 'putative') which denoted that Russia did not know if that front would succeed. For example, the probative spearhead front on Kiev failed in Phase One of the Russian Invasion. ] (]) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			:::you’re right, probative. Still a bit early on the left coast here. ] (]) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	There are some reasons to be suspicious of the US–Ukraine assertions:
			== Stray reference needs home ==
	(1) Reuters reported that World Health Organization recommended that Ukraine destroy "destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's public health laboratories to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population..." and that "Ukraine has public health laboratories researching how to mitigate the threats of dangerous diseases affecting both animals and humans including, most recently, COVID-19. Its labs have received support from the United States, the European Union and the WHO." (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-who-says-it-advised-ukraine-destroy-pathogens-health-labs-prevent-2022-03-11/) Obviously, this does not mean that what referred to here by the WHO are actually biological weapons. But, it could plausibly be weapons. The public has no way to know at this time.
			The material in front of it was completely unrelated. Putting here for now, discussion of an aspect of military aid from Germany<ref>{{Cite news |last=Delfs |first=Arne |date=27 April 2022 |title=Germany's Ukraine Tank Plan at Risk Over Bullet Shortage |work=] |publisher=] |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-27/german-tank-offer-to-ukraine-risks-failing-over-bullet-shortage |url-status=live |url-access=limited |access-date=9 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220428173935/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-27/german-tank-offer-to-ukraine-risks-failing-over-bullet-shortage |archive-date=28 April 2022}}</ref> ] (]) 04:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
	(2) Victoria Nuland in answering questions from Congress said that there was an effort to "prevent materials from Ukraine’s biological research facilities from falling into Russian hands." Now, whether these materials are biological weapons or something else is unknown to the public, but they could plausibly be weapons. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-10/u-s-hits-china-for-pushing-russia-s-preposterous-lab-theory)
			{{talkref}}
			== Wrong figures on strength? ==
	(3) The US government has a history of secretly testing biological warfare techniques on its own US population in earlier decades. So, it may be reasonable for some folks to suspect US assertions about this ''a priori.''
			On ], we have already described that 700,000 Ukrainian forces are fighting in this war, and Zelensky said that too. Why the figure of Ukrainian strength amounts to only 298,600 in infobox? <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>>&nbsp;].]</span> 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
	At the very least, you need to use words like ''allegedly false,'' etc. in this article when we have no way knowing which country is making false statements. &ndash; ] &nbsp;] 22:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:Full conscription of male citizens does not equal the number of soldiers in the field. The latest pressing issue appears to be Zelenskyy saying that Ukrainian artillery and short range missiles are significantly outclassed by Russian artillery and missile strength. Biden in now promising to provide ] weapons possibly within weeks. ] (]) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
	:Speaking about claimes by China, please see ], etc. It ''is'' intentional disinformation per multiple RS, and it should be described as such on WP pages. Speaking about the publications in Reuters and others, they only say that Ukraine conducted biological research with pathogens, nothing more. That is done in every country, nothing special. To the contrary, UN said there was no any info about WMD in Ukraine. ] (]) 23:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:We base everything on what reliable sources say. There have been no reliable sources that have found any evidence that any biochemical weapons exist in Ukraine and a vast majority affirm that they don’t. If you have anything to the contrary, please post. ] (]) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
	:The RS cited says it is disinformation and a conspiracy theory. I'm not too keen on giving apparent credence–by casting doubt–to (what RS describe as) Russian disinformation. Your analysis above is OR. ] (]) 23:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
			:The infobox explicitly reports the strengths "at the start" since this is the only point in time for which there is a reliable comparison of strengths. An argument was made that, because reservists were not mobilised "at the start", they did not contribute to the Ukraine strength at that point in time. For myself, I am not convinced by the argument, even if the reservist strength might need to be qualified by a note. ] (]) 10:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
	:: It's not an analysis nor original research (it's not research at all). If one aims for Misplaced Pages to be impartial, the article merely needs to state (a) Russia–China allegations of biological weapons, (b) US–Ukraine denial of said allegations, (c) US-Ukraine counter-allegation of Russia–China disinformation concerning previously stated weapon allegation, (d) no evidence of anything. Everything else including the truth of any of these allegations is simply unknown at present.
			== Dates for Battle of Bakhmut 2022 ==
	:: As it reads now, the article is claiming that Russia–China are making false statements. But, we do not know if they are false. All we know is that the concerned parties are making denials. (I guess we also know that the sources are aligned with US/Ukraine.)
			I need the dates for the Battle of Bakhmut, which was recently deleted. Can someone send it? ] (]) 23:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
	:: It's good to use reliable sources. I'm in complete agreement with that. However, the source(s) yall are relying upon itself has a source, which in fact are the parties accused of having weapons. If that's ok with yall, fine. Then, leave it as is. However, I do point out inherent bias in doing so. &ndash; ] &nbsp;] 02:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::: Your claim that pathogens housed in Ukraine's laboratories could {{tq|plausibly be weapons}} is a majestic leap in OR. ] (]) 03:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)		:See ]. ] (]) 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
			Wtf is Battle of Bakhmut? Russian occupation forces didn't get closer than 30 km to the city ] (]) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
	: "Therefore, the article is biased towards the US-Ukraine perspective and opposed to the Russia perspective. I suggest you write an unbiased article instead of what is currently here." this is a misunderstanding that crops up from time to time in articles around this. ] does not mean that you take opposing viewpoints and present the midpoint (which would be ] or ] depending on how you do it), or that opposing viewpoints must be given equal weight and credence simply because they are opposing (]). ] (]) 08:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:I will invoke ], we cannot imply someone has done something until it is proven they have. So until independent investigation shows Ukiriane has been deploying WMD (of any kind) we have to make it clear such a claim lacks any credible evidence. So we can either say "woth out any credible evidence" or just they they do not have them. ] (]) 10:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			Yeah agree, the number of these “Battle of” articles, about every small town and village is getting pretty ridiculous.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
	: It's not controversial to state that the claim that there are US biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine is false. The claim has been thoroughly debunked, and therefore there is no need for any vagueness here. ] (]) 13:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			== mobilisation ==
	: Let's take a second to contemplate Russia's accusation. Russia accused the United States of creating weapon labs in Ukraine, directly on the border with Russia to make a coronavirus type disease that will target a specific race. Why would the US ever open bio weapons labs in such a preposterous location you might ask? Well, the Russians answered this as well, it's because the US was planning to send the virus in to Russia on infected bats. Jajaja, after we've all had a nice chuckle on what has to be one of the most bizarre accusations to have ever been articulated not only in the UN but in the entire city of New York, I think we can agree that this accusation is in many ways the definition of ]. We have the New York Times which straight up calls it non-sense, that's more than good enough for me. To comply with the edit you've requested of saying that it's possible we'd need at least ] and the ] corroborating it, because otherwise the accusation is comically absurd. ] (]) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			In the Prelude section, would “mobilization” be the correct spelling for moving troops and equipment to engage in war? ] (]) 03:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
	No, Misplaced Pages should not take a ] position halfway between the truth and a lie. Reliable sources say these are propaganda allegations based on no evidence, dredged up from propaganda repeated multiple times over the last eight years.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 22:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			:This is a matter of ] and this article is written in British English so the "is" form is used. ] (]) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
	:Here’s an example of a reliable source on this:
	:* ], “,” ''CNN'', March 10, 2022.
	:&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
			== Sourcing question ==
	I saw this discussion yesterday and then I saw pundits promoting this conspiracy theory on my Twitter feed this morning , so I created ]. ] (]) 02:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:I suggest saying something like "baseless", "unfounded" or "without any credible evidence", or using words directly from a source. If sources say they're propaganda allegations based on no evidence, as someone says above, then Misplaced Pages should convey that, not exaggerate it as if we could know it's false. We need to be precise with our wording. If sources actually say it's false (maybe they've visited every lab in the country, etc.?) then it may be OK to say it's false, but if there are more reliable sources saying things like lacking credible evidence, we should go with that. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 16:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			“On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the {{sclass2|Polnocny|landing ship|1}} {{ship|Ukrainian ship|Yuri Olefirenko||2}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/11502-analysis-russian-armed-forces-capture-dozen-ukrainian-ships-in-berdyansk.html |title=Analysis: Russian Armed Forces capture dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdyansk |date=14 March 2022 |access-date=18 March 2022 |website=Navy Recognition}}</ref>“
	{{Clear}}
	== Racism and xenophobia against refugees at the train and borders needs to be included in the refugee session ==
			Anybody know this source? The archives at WP:RSN have nothing on it, but quite a few other articles use it as a source on military hardware. The wikilinked article about the ship uses the same source, plus another one I don’t know. ] (]) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC) “On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the {{sclass2|Polnocny|landing ship|1}} {{ship|Ukrainian ship|Yuri Olefirenko||2}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/11502-analysis-russian-armed-forces-capture-dozen-ukrainian-ships-in-berdyansk.html |title=Analysis: Russian Armed Forces capture dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdyansk |date=14 March 2022 |access-date=18 March 2022 |website=Navy Recognition}}</ref>“
	In late February, it was reported that in the previous days, the Ukrainian State Border Guard Service at the border posts near Medyka and Shehyni had not allowed non-Ukrainians (many of them foreign students in the country) to cross the border into neighboring nations. claiming that priority was being given to citizens to cross the first citizens. Ukraine's foreign minister said that there were no restrictions on the departure of foreign nationals and that the border force was instructed to foreigners who allowed all citizens to leave foreigners. According to Ukraine's Sandhu, Aid's general secretary, students fighting to fight the Khas border were protected from violence and "their crosses with verbal supporters to try to fight the violence". Similar discrimination was reported by Africans who tried to leave.
			:There are multiple articles about this ship on mulltiple sources including the Nation Interest and others here: . Also on Navy Recognition website here: . ] (]) 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
			{{talk-reflist}}
	1 «Per le persone che non sono bianche è più difficile fuggire dall'Ucraina» . Il Post (em italiano). 3 de março de 2022. Consultado em 3 de março de 2022
	2 «Nigeria urges respect towards Africans at Ukrainian border – News». Al Jazeera. 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Consultado em 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022
	3 Waldie, Paul; York, Geoffrey (27 de fevereiro de 2022). «Africans and Asians fleeing Ukraine subjected to racial discrimination by border guards». The Globe and Mail. Consultado em 28 de fevereiro de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022
	4 Russia Attacks Ukraine Capital. NDTV 24x7. 12 de março de 2021. Consultado em 2 de março de 2022. Arquivado do original em 1 de março de 2022 – via YouTube
	5 «Concerns mount as black people report racism while fleeing Ukraine». The Independent. 1 de março de 2022. Consultado em 2 de março de 2022 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			== Right Sector ==
	:Hi, this portion is covered here: ]. ] (]) 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::Agreed. This page is for the invasion. The treatment of refugees should be included on that page and not this. ] (]) 17:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::I think racism deserves a brief mention in this article. This article has a four-paragraph subsection on refugees, and racism is a significant fraction of the refugee article. I think there's room in this article for at least a short sentence such as "There are allegations, disputed by some, of racism in the treatment of refugees." which summarizes three paragraphs in the refugee article. <span style="color:Red; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::Seems OK to me. ] (]) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::“Significant fraction”? Determined by an online word counter, the entire “Alleged racism” section is slightly less than 1% of the article.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::It's not that small, though less than I thought. I was looking at the table of contents where it's quite prominent -- 2 of 9 subsections. Online word counters can be deceiving, counting symbols like square brackets and stuff as significant numbers of words and ending up with way more words than the actual number of words in the article. I looked through the refugee article and counted the equivalent of 45 paragraphs, counting very small paragraphs as half a paragraph each. The racism part is 3 substantial paragraphs, making it about one-fifteenth of the article, or maybe more. By another method: the whole refugee article has about 12 screenfuls of text on my screen, and the racism part is nearly 1 screenful, making it nearly one-twelfth. I count 9 sentences in the refugee part of this article, several of them about double the short sentence I proposed, so I think it's proportional. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::The "Alleged racial discrimination" section of ] is a lot more than 1%. It's more like 15%, between one-sixth and one-seventh. I counted lines of text in the whole article, counting partial lines as 0 if less than a half or 1 if more than half. I got 182 lines for the whole article. (Others may get different counts depending on display font size etc.) For the discrimination section I got 28 lines (in 6 paragraphs, 2 subsections). That's actually an underestimate for the discrimination section because the lines weren't shortened by images. Based on that I estimated about 3300 words in the whole article, 500 words in the discrimination section. So I think there's definitely room in this article for a sentence about discrimination such as the one I proposed above. What do others think? (By the way, this talk page section got accidentally archived, then was restored.) <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 16:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			Does the Right Sector participate in the 2022 war? The references are not unequivocal. The ABC text is biased, it quotes Donbas people only. Putin's opinions belong to pre-invasion period.] (]) 08:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	{{Clear}}
			*To my best knowledge somewhere in 2016 Ukraine defense ministry put the ultimatum to all the militias (dobrobats) to either became a regular unit of the Army (or National Guard) or disarm. Most decided to became regular army units (e.g. Azov battalion joined National Guard and became a regular battalion, later regiment there). Right Sector chose to disarm and became just a not very popular political organization. ] (]) 09:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022 ==
			*Well apparently I am not completely correct. They are armed again and fight under the name of Ukrainian Volunteer Corps ] ] (]) 09:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			:I mean the three references, do they support participation of the 'Right Sector' and its "far-right fringe"?] (]) 09:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			::The Financial Times is paywalled but the first two do not, at all. The Washington Post article is a debunking of the claim and the ABC.au article extensively quotes a Russian citizen who moved to Donbas because she drank the koolaid. The article does get around to saying that that isn’t really right, and it’s by no means a validation of what Putin said. This is exhausting ] (])
			:It still seems that the references are unequivocal, so something should be corrected. ] (]) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			== 'Russian accusations and demands' ==
			There is such section, but no 'Rejection of Russian accusations and demands', 'Critics'. ] (]) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			:We seem to include rejections in that section. ] (]) 10:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			::You are right, so perhaps the title should be changed?] (]) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			:::Why? we do not say they are true, and it does reflect accurately what it is about. ] (]) 11:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			:::A sign 'We sell cars' does not warn that we buy stolen bicycles instead. 'Russian accusations and demands' means exactly what is written. ] (]) 12:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			== Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ==
			The article ] has recently been created. Any help improving it would be appreciated. Thank you, ] (]) 17:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			== ] ==
			In accordance with ], I have removed commanders/leaders from the infobox in the subject article because save one, none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article that would support their inclusion and the one that did had only a single passing mention. An editor has reinstated these. There is a discussion on this at ]. ] (]) 03:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			:Commanders of the operation for Russia have now changed 3 times, the second one, Dvornikov, was apparently replaced about a week ago. ] (]) 14:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			See also, the discussion at ]. Please comment there. ] (]) 05:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
			== Shouldn't the Heads of State of DPR and LPR also be listed in the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the infobox under Vladimir Putin? ==
			Considering that DPR and LPR are listed as belligerents, not merely support (as with Belarus), shouldn't their heads of state be included with Putin in the "Commanders and Leaders" section? I think Denis Pushilin (DPR) and Leonid Pasechnik (LPR) should be included. Seems inconsistent to list them in belligerents but not commanders and leaders. --] (]) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
			:Per ], the infobox is to summarise "key points" of "the article" - ie the infobox must be supported by what is written in the article. The article as written does not show that they have a "key" role. ] (]) 00:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			:There is no consensus in ] that these entities are sovereign states or legal belligerents, that they are legally or de facto independent, that their nominal political leaders direct their supposed forces. They are puppets, and the 1st Donetsk and 2nd Luhansk Army Corps are under the command of Russian officers and subordinate to the Russian 8th Combined Arms Army. The Russians are putting up Russian flags over cities they capture in Ukraine, including in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, and Russian government figures are talking about their plans to annex these territories that their president called “Russian land.”&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 02:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022 ==
	{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}		{{edit extended-protected|2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|answered=yes}}
			] (]) 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	Hello! I have updated the Battle of Kyiv map to make it accurate to today. I would like to change the caption "Military control around Kyiv on 5 March 2022" to "Military control around Kyiv on 18 March 2022" ] (]) 02:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
			The heading “revision and resistance” video’s caption “June 2” should be updated to “June 6”
			:{{done}} ~~ ] (<small>I made a mistake?</small> ''']''' &#8226; ]) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			== Kraken unit ==
	:{{done}} <span style="font-family:monospace;padding:3px 5px;background:#444;color:white">>>>&nbsp;].]();</span> 02:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
			:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/03/ukraine-kraken-volunteer-military-unit/
	{{Clear}}
			:https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/avec-les-volontaires-des-forces-speciales-d-azov-et-de-kraken-qui-liberent-la-region-de-kharkiv-20220606 ] (]) 11:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	==Removal of template <nowiki>{{current}}</nowiki>==
	Hello. I would like to propose removal of the template <nowiki>{{current}}</nowiki>, as its usage within this article appears to be against the guidelines set by the template itself.<br> Here are the main guidelines, transcluded from ], for, your convenience:
			::And the point is? ] (]) 11:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	{{box|
			:::To mention it in the text?] (]) 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	{{#section-h:Template:Current/doc|Guidelines}}
			::::Then perhaps you should make this as an edit request in the form: "change X to Y" where X (ie a passage of text would be where you would think it should be added and Y is the added text plus the passage of text. You could do this in your sandbox and link to that. ] (])
			== Total Casualty figures ==
			There is a discrepancy - looking at total Casualty figures in the Siege of Mariupol - it is given as 22,000+ deaths. The wide range given here takes one yahoo source that states 6000 deaths for Mariupol. Isn't this undue weight given the fact that no other source gives the 6000 number? I suggest using 22,000 for Mariupol and add the casualties for other areas on top. Please advise. ] (]) 07:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			:The 22,000+ deaths reported in ] are civilian deaths. I'm not certain where it is in this article that you are referring to 6000 deaths being reported at Mariupol? ] (]) 08:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			::It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths. Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. ] (]) 10:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths ] (]) 09:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. ] (]) 09:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			:This isn't the place to discuss issues with another article or articles when there is no problem with a figure reported here. It confuses people. It would also be a lot easier if there was a link to where the issue was - ]. There was no issue of ]. Both figures were sourced and both figures were attribute to the Ukraine (one the deputy mayor and one the mayor. The issue was "when" these figures were reported and there is a significant difference in the dates on which these figures were reported. The former figure is low and reported at a much earlier time (no surprise). The lower figure does not represent deaths as at 25 May. I have removed the lower figure from the table at ]. ] (]) 11:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			Now the table doesn't make sense. You have one city with over 22,000 casualties and yet the total is 11,000 - 27,000. The lower figure is still confusing. I think it's best to remove the 11000 figure as it just doesn't add up. ] (]) 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			:Done, but you do know that you could have fixed that? ] (]) 12:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			== Interactive Map ==
			Can anyone include Institute for the Study of War's interactive map of Russian invasion of Ukraine as a link/source or embed it into the article? Here is the map https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 which updates daily.] (]) 18:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			== Page move? ==
			Would it make sense to suggest a page move, to perhaps "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" or sorts? The term "invasion" suggests only the opening phase of a conflict; it is now more than three months and the conflict is a full-scale war involving multiple parties, with wide global repercussions (economic/fuel crises etc.). Hence I think the term "invasion" in the title doesn't merit the scale or significance of the topic covered in the article; having it describe the first phase of the war in February is sufficient. The broader "]" describing the overall conflict can still remain as it is without going into details of the 2022 war.
			I haven't been active on this topic, so perhaps active editors can voice opinions here? <b>]]]</b> 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			:I don't think "invasion" suggests this is only the opening phase. The specific proposed title "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" is too easily confused with "Russo-Ukrainian War", but I don't see a need to wordsmith a different alternative title at this time. ] (]) 16:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			::Support for VQuakr here. ] (]) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			::+1 ] (]) 00:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
			== RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine ==
			{{closed rfc top
			| status =
			| result = I'm not going to write the full novella that {{u|Levivich}} provided closing the last one of these RFCs, but the result is broadly the same. Numerically, the sides are fairly close, with no landslide in one direction or another, and the policy based arguments are not any more overwhelming for supporting or opposing. To, I'm sure, no one's surprise, there is '''No Consensus''' to include those providing military aid as supporters in the infobox. I will note that among support !voters there was some stipulations for who should be listed as providing support, lending some more weight to the oppose argument that it is a complex situation, and better explained in the article prose. ] (]) 17:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
	}}		}}
	In my estimation, the usage on this page does not meet the point 3 and 4. While point 2 provides for some leeway, we are three weeks away from the moment this news broke. If there is some major change in the news, such as, hopefully, a peace accord, the template may be reinstated, but right now, it is no longer relevant for usage on this page. I have already removed it previously, but the template was reinstated, so I'm bringing it here to complete the ] cycle. Thanks. ] 07:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Support - Based on your points, I tend to agree with you. My only concern is that major changes can happen in a relatively short amount of time, but perhaps we reinstate the tag should we have that issue in the future. ] (]) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)		Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing ''military aid''? --] (]) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' ] is a requirement, and it is not met here. Please reformat your opening statement to actually ask a question (and only that), not justify your position. ] (]) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	:I believe that the page meets point 3, because the recent news articles represent new developments in the conflict, such as and . Is there prior precedent for keeping the current template during ongoing conflicts? ---] (]) 15:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' ]. The RFC needs to specify if the support is military aid, financial aid, humanitarian aid, etc, by type of aid. The most basic type of relation between friendly nations is the ], followed by prior ] and agreements, followed by ] status for trade. The RFC needs to specify if it is only interested in "Western military aid" or the other types of aid as well. ] (]) 23:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
	::A non-exhaustive tour of many major conflicts listed at ] yields none that have the template, including ones that have recently seen major developments or escalations such as ], ], or ]. In my experience, it is rare for ] to survive much longer than 24 to 48 hours, so this article is already very much an outlier. My understanding is that ] is generally used when we expect a huge surge of page visits, such as breaking news, but we haven't quite gotten our ducks in the row yet with the coverage lacking pretty fundamental parts. The article as it is now, while it can obviously be better, is fair coverage of the topic as we understand it right now.<br> In any case, if there was a major turn in the conflict, such as Kyiv falling or peace accords being signed, I would most certainly support reinstating the template. ] 16:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::Thank you for the clarification ---] (]) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)		*'''Support'''' Why not, it shows just how isolated Russia is. It shows that even previously neutral nations now condemn them. ] (]) 09:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Question''' {{U|Mzajac}}, in a thread above, you stated: {{tq|No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not.}} Could you please provide your sourcing for this statement as it would seem very pertinent to this RfC. ] (]) 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	:I think the template has fulfilled its purpose, based on my past experience of how long {{t|current}} tends to be present on articles. Also noting the last 50 edits atm go back over 12 hours. ] (]) 17:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			*:{{re|Cinderella157}} Allowing the aggressor state to use your territory (i.e. be a "proxy") is illegal per ]; it also defined as ''aggression'' by the ]. Meanwhile, Article 51 of the ] enshrines the right to self-defense, explicitly including the ''collective'' self-defence.
	:{{re|Melmann}} thanks for raising this here per BRD. It was me who initially ] two days ago, as I felt a discussion would be better first. I think the template still has some limited utility (per point 2, as you point out), but on the whole I think your analysis is fair and I don't object to removing the tag. Best, ] • ] 19:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
			*:However, I do not think these legal aspects are relevant to the RfC question. ] (]) 12:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
	:Since we have consensus, I'm removing the template. —Remember, I'murmate — ] <sup>(] &#124;])</sup> 16:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			*: ], Definition of Aggression, Article 3: “Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: . . . (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.”&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:: This illegal act of aggression goes beyond “supporting” aggression. Belarus ought to be listed as a belligerent.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:::Agree. ] (]) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:::agree ] (]) 23:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
			**'''Follow-up Question''': And what (if anything) is said as to countries supplying lethal military hardware specifically and more generally various other types of "support" (non lethal equipment, humanitarian aid or sanctions etc)? ] (]) 23:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			**:What is said where? In the UN’s Definition of Aggression? Maybe you should read it over, but I don’t think it defines what belongs in “supported by” for the purpose of Misplaced Pages conflict infoboxes. It doesn’t even define who is a belligerent, only who is an aggressor, which I believe is self-evidently also a belligerent.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 01:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' adding "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list those providing ''military aid'' as per template established in other Misplaced Pages infoboxes on conflicts throughout history where arms were provided to a belligerent even though the providing country did not engage in the conflict directly, but was for the benefit of defeating the other belligerent. But do not list all 30 countries listed at ], because that list includes those who have "pledged" to provide aid, but haven't actually yet provided it. Only those who have already been confirmed to have provided should be listed under "Supported by". ] (]) 12:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support''', but don't add NATO and the EU, add the individual countries confirmed to have delivered weapons instead. ] ] ] 13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' for three reasons. (a) They only provide hardware. Of course they could provide more, like modern aircraft staffed by contractors or ], but they did not do even that. (b) That would be 40+ countries, they would clog the infobox. (c) That would be an implicit misinformation along the line of Russian propaganda, i.e. the false claim about "proxy conflict". ] (]) 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:{{re|My very best wishes}} A few counter-points:
			*:* Regarding (a) and "only hardware": Ukrainian Armed Forces demonstrated incredible will to fight, resilience and professionalism. However, it is evident that the initial ] (and intelligence) by the West played a significant role in enabling the resistance. It is now entering another phase, where the West have begun supplying heavy weapons (US organized conference at the ] with 40 countries participating signifies that) and that will have a major implications in Ukraine's ability to not only resist but potentially launch counter-offensives.
			*:* Re (b): We don't need to list all countries; I propose to include only the main contributors, including the EU and NATO and then add an interlink for ].
			*:* Re (c): It doesn't matter; we make decisions based on WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:N, etc. Russian disinformation is already beyond delusional anyway.
			*:-- ] (]) 14:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*::::(a) yes, sure, the delivery of weapons makes a lot of difference in all wars, but it does not warrant including the suppliers as "supporting countries" of field "belligerents". (b) OK, this is a good solution, but that should not appear in the field of "belligerents"; (c) I am saying that ''our infobox'' would be POV and as such would misled the reader in context of the currently happening misinformation. ] (]) 15:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:::::It's not POV, it's just stating the obvious reality. Some people lock themselves on the fact that Ukraine doesn't have formal allies (a binding treaty) or that NATO doesn't send troops to defend it. However, in that case these countries would unequivocally be ''belligerent''. We are talking about ''support'' here (specifically, the porposal is about ''military aid''): over 100 pieces of heavy artillery, tanks, missiles, etc -- it's exactly that, it's material, it's substantial, it's major. Why ignore that? -- ] (]) 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:::::::We are not ignoring it; there is a section about it on the page. However, such assistance is difficult to properly summarize in the lead, see comments just below. Do we include Turkey? This is a slippery slope. Should we include France and Germany as suppliers for ''Russia'' ? ] (]) 16:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:::Is My very best wishes stating that it would be better to include the explanation just provided about 'only provide hardware' as a separate section in the article. That Ukraine has no formal allies since Ukraine is not a part of NATO or the EU? ] (]) 14:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:It's false to say only hardware is provided. The US military itself has begun training Ukrainian troops.<ref name=UStrain1 /><ref name=UStrain2 /> Its intelligence service has also provided location information that has helped kill a dozen or so Russian senior officers.<ref name=UStarget1 /><ref name=UStarget2 /> ] (]) 05:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:If you look at the Vietnam War Misplaced Pages page, you'll see that there is a dedicated section for explaining aid/positions of countries which supported each side. I think it would be appropriate to do the same; no matter how you spin it - you can't say that the western countries supplying ''lethal'' weapons to Ukraine isn't support. ] (]) 13:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' There is a wide range of things that could be considered support, the distinctions carry significant political weight, and have determined whether they cross certain parties’ red lines. For example:
			*# Belarus has committed ''aggression against Ukraine'', according to the UN definition, by allowing aggression against Ukraine from its territory, including missile attacks and military incursion. (It should be listed as a ''belligerent'', not a supporter.)
			*# Before the open invasion on February 22/24, there was a distinction between ''defensive'' and other lethal aid. This seems to be no longer discussed since.
			*# There is a distinction between ''lethal'' and ''non-lethal'' military aid, e.g., weapons versus body armour, military hospitals, training, intelligence.
			*# There is a distinction between military ''aid'', that is gifts or grants, and ''commercial sales''. Even in peacetime commercial sales of arms normally require political approval.
			*# Relevant to that, there is the question of ''permission'' by originating states in weapons transfers. E.g., Germany prevented the transfer by Czechia and the Netherlands of armoured vehicles to Ukraine because they had historically come from Germany, citing the principal of not providing weapons to a conflict. Germany has dropped this restriction, and now looks to be ready to start sending its own armoured vehicles and weapons.
			*# There is a distinction between ''military'' aid and ''humanitarian'' aid.
			*# There are states participating in sanctions against one side or the other.
			*# There are states, organizations, and individuals respecting sanctions out of fear of getting hit by secondary sanctions, e.g., some Chinese banks and businesses refusing to do business in the Russian Federation for fear of getting sanctioned for supporting sanctioned entities, because they value their business in the West.
			*: We need to set a threshold as to what constitutes “support.” I am not sure if, for example, Turkey is a military supporter because it sells Ukraine the dramatically useful Bayraktar TB2 drones, because politically has tried to play the role of mediator. Similarly, France, Germany, and other EU states seem to have provided more military technology to the Russian Federation than to Ukraine up to this point (at least to 2020).&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 15:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:I'd stick with what we did for the "]" article, primarily focusing on '''lethal military aid'''; the label can be "Arms suppliers". ] (]) 16:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*::Do you mean giving Ukraine lethal weapons as aid, including only defensive lethal weapons, but not selling Ukraine lethal weapons commercially? So, not giving Ukraine unarmed armoured vehicles, not giving it spare parts to bring jet fighters back into service, not giving it counterbattery radar, night-vision devices, reconnaissance drones, training, or military intelligence (which may include enemy plans and locations of enemy units, enabling their destruction).
			*::Seems reasonable. But then the article should make clear how “supported by” is defined. Then that is “arms donators” or equivalent?&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 01:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' For all the reasons offered by My very best wishes. It is also not clear what is proposed, but regardless, various kinds of aid, including sanctions, financial, humanitarian and commercial and 'gifted/lend-lease' harware, so it would be difficult to regulate this in a coherent fashion. I believe a considerable amount of Ukr hardware is actually inherited from Soviet Union days, so we would thus have the absurdity of Ukr being aided by Russia ''(and vice versa?)''. The whole subject is better handled in text or in a related article. ] (]) 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' In response to arguments by editors that arms suppliers do not qualify as support for Ukraine, but Belarus should be listed as in support of Russia by aiding the "aggression" against Ukraine... I would quote the president of the United States who himself said just today that they are aiding Ukraine in its defense or the UK ministers from the past few days that the intent is to even push out Russia out of Crimea and diminish its military. So, I think the intent is quite clear. Belarus in support of Russia by providing the staging ground, most NATO/EU countries in support of Ukraine by providing arms and heavy equipment since the start of the invasion. Further, even though I don't object to listing Belarus in support of Russia in the infobox, there is more of an argument to list Western support of Ukraine, which is quite notable. And I would once again remind that we have added "Supported by" countries who provided arms only in various conflicts throughout the last century in our articles. Finally, any previous arms provided by France, Germany etc to Russia or Ukraine before the invasion is unrelated to why they are providing it NOW (intent). ] (]) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict. For example, the recent supply of 155mm artillery only adds 1% more to Ukraine's current artillery inventory. Furthermore adding countries such as the U.S. U.K. and other European nations to the infobox would play into the Kremlin rhetoric that Russia is fighting with the west, instead of with Ukraine. ] (]) 17:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			**"The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict." In the expressed opinion of the US President their arms support was what made the Russian military withdraw from Kyiv. ] (]) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:"Negligible role in the conflict" - that is simply not true. I could write an essay on this (incl. why 155 mm is significant in several ways and "1% more" is nonsense), but we would be delving deep into off-topic and discussions on military capabilities. Let's stick with WP:RS on WP:DUE/WP:N judgement; I already provided multiple sources: . ] (]) 18:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:I don’t think the magnitude of the effect is key at all. Whether the USA supports with $33B in aid or a tiny postage-stamp country supports with the $6.99 and a box of first aid kits that it can scrounge up, it is still a concrete commitment to support (however we define it).
			*:But you are right that the wording must give the right impression about and define exactly what “supported by” really means (regardless of the number of states listed).&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' for same reasons as last time, which include content problems, ] issues, and mobile accessibility issues. I'm amenable to a , where we add "(supported with ])". ] (]) 17:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			**Would accept the German-like solution. ] (]) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' US Congress passed the ]: . It again illustrates the increasing scale of support for Ukraine. The revival of ] is historic. --] (]) 10:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''
	{{Clear}}
			:I rely on past Misplaced Pages articles as historical precedent on how things are normally done on Misplaced Pages without political motives changing.
	== Invasion and resistance ==
			:Misplaced Pages articles that show weapon and other forms of suppliers under "supported by" ], ], ], ], ]
			:NATO is not only providing weapons but also electronic, recon and intelligence support. <ref>{{Cite news |last=Schwartz |first=Felicia |last2=Foy |first2=Henry |last3=Reed |first3=John |date=2022-04-14 |title=US sends Ukraine more weapons and intelligence to repel Russian offensive |work=Financial Times |url=https://www.ft.com/content/9f31d808-a209-46f1-a7d2-1bc443aa698d |access-date=2022-04-29}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last=Klippenstein |first=Ken KlippensteinSara SirotaKen |last2=SirotaMarch 17 2022 |first2=Sara |last3=P.m |first3=10:48 |title=U.S. Quietly Assists Ukraine With Intelligence, Avoiding Direct Confrontation With Russia |url=https://theintercept.com/2022/03/17/us-intelligence-ukraine-russia/ |access-date=2022-04-29 |website=The Intercept |language=en}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web |last=Strout |first=Nathan |date=2022-04-25 |title=How one US intelligence agency is supporting Ukraine |url=https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/2022/04/25/how-one-us-intelligence-agency-is-supporting-ukraine/ |access-date=2022-04-29 |website=C4ISRNet |language=en}}</ref>
			:ELINT is electronic intelligence and the US claimed they were doing it when the Moskva was sunk: https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/misc/elint.pdf
			:I think that we shouldn't make an exception to this article because it might not align with our political agendas or point of view. ] (]) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Mainly per U|My very best wishes. There is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. There is also nuance to the type of assistance that cannot be ''simply'' captured in an infobox. An abbreviated listing would be misleading and a detailed listing would be contrary to ], which is to be a summary of key points - detail ≠ summary. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead, not a replacement and the article should not be written in the infobox. In consequence, ] therefore particularly applies to an infobox. A bloated infobox also causes ] issues - particularly for mobile users. The necessary detail is summarised in the lead and presented in the body of the article. That is sufficient and best meets our obligations under ] (IMO). There are some arguments here, that we need to show the support for Ukraine. While well intended, these are not ]. WP needs to be dispassionate and apartisan - writing at arm's length from the subject. There are also arguments the ]. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a mandate. The argument does not consider the individual cases and why it may or why it may not be appropriate in one case but not another - it is a broad-brush assertion. More particularly, it does not consider whether this "otherstuff is "best practice". Few parent articles for modern-era conflicts since ] have reached GA status or better (to my knowledge) - certainly neither the ] nor the ]. But ultimately, "best practice" goes back to conformity with ] (such as ]). Unless one can show that this "otherstuff" is "best practice" (and in my observation it isn't) and the circumstances are similar, then an argument that appeals to "otherstuff" is unsound. ] (]) 11:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
	The map in the section is only showing the situation until 4/03/22! It should be updated until today, the 17-th of March! Russian troops are already in the suburbs of Kiev! ] (]) 09:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			* Current Events. There is an emerging consensus in news sources currently in motion that the correct reference might be to the USA with its 40 Allied nations forming a coalition to provide economic support along with military supplies and refitting to Ukraine for its battle with Russia here in "US and allies gather at Ramstein to discuss how to help Ukraine defeat Russia’s ‘unjust invasion’". The link to one of the latest articles is in "Stars and Stripes" under the title I have just quoted, BY JOHN VANDIVER AND JENNIFER H. SVAN • STARS AND STRIPES • APRIL 26, 2022. Link here: . ] (]) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
	:1) See the FAQ; 2) The map is not hosted on en.wiki, take up your concerns with commons.wiki. ] (]) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' I agree with using the German Misplaced Pages solution of adding "(supported with ])".
			:- I get that adding NATO etc. as belligerents is the Russian narrative, and I'm as pro-Ukraine as anyone, but realistically, the West ''is'' supporting Ukraine, and IMO it's ] not to have ''something'' about the West's support in the infobox. A link to ] is the solution IMO. ] (]) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''' but only to list those states that provide direct lethal military aid. No political support and such things. Also avoid using supranational bodies like EU or NATO since support for Ukraine differ in scope and type from state and state.] (]) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*:The EU as an organization has also provided military support directly. I don’t think NATO has to date.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Per My very best wishes. Belligerents should only list belligerents; there's far too many fine gradations of what 'support' can mean that will be flattened by a list of countries. --] (]) 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' Agree with {{u|Ahm1453}} and {{u|Mindaur}} in general, also specifically because {{tq|"the United States military"}} is now training {{tq|"Ukrainian troops"}}<ref name=UStrain1>{{cite news |title=US starts training of some Ukrainian troops on howitzer artillery |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us-starts-training-some-ukrainian-troops-howitzer-artillery-2022-04-20/ |work=Reuters |date=20 April 2022 |language=en}}</ref> and there's been {{tq|"a stark shift from Western support for Ukraine focused now on delivering heavy weaponry and not only defensive system."}}<ref name=UStrain2>{{cite news |title=US begins training Ukrainians on howitzer artillery: Official |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/20/us-begins-training-ukrainians-on-howitzer-artillery-official |work=www.aljazeera.com |language=en}}</ref> If on the off-chance listing becomes too long, we can partially shorten or link. ] (]) 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) NYT reports that {{tq|direct assistance}} from US and Western {{tq|intelligence services}} helped Ukraine successfully attack senior Russian officers, whose heavy losses {{tq|astonished}} analysts. US goal has shifted to weakening and deterring Russia for the long term per statement by Def Sec Lloyd Austin.<ref name=UStarget1>{{cite news |title=US intelligence helped Ukraine target Russian generals — report |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-intelligence-helped-ukraine-target-russian-generals-report/ |work=Times of Israel |agency=AFP |date=5 May 2022}}</ref><ref name=UStarget2>{{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Julian E. |last2=Cooper |first2=Helene |last3=Schmitt |first3=Eric |title=U.S. Intelligence Is Helping Ukraine Kill Russian Generals, Officials Say |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/politics/russia-generals-killed-ukraine.html |work=The New York Times |date=4 May 2022 |url-access=limited}}</ref> Even though I voted against in a previous RfC, events have since '''escalated'''. ''updated 07:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)''
			*'''Support''' List the individual countries who have provided lethal military support to Ukraine. That would maintain a neutral point of view--] (]) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' - per My very best wishes. While there is a somewhat dubious tendency to add increasingly long "supported by" lists to infoboxes, there is no rule requiring to do so, and managing such list with huge number of supporters this conflict has would create whole a lot of issues for minimal benefit.--] (]) 19:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:'''Oppose''' - Per My very best wishes. Only list belligerents who have made a formal declaration of war. Also as Cinderella157 noted, there is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. ] (]) 02:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
			*::Nobody has made a formal declaration of war. ] (]) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. For those unaware, ], ] and ] each have brief WP articles. In my reading of them, many of the countries supporting Ukr fit most appropriately in the "Non-belligerent" categorization because the nature of their support most closely matches the examples provided in that article. ''If that reading is correct'', naming these countries under the "Belligerent" section of the IB would be '''''misleading and inaccurate''''' and should be avoided. The "German-like" solution creatively finds a way to detach named nations from the belligerent label however and it might be acceptable. --] 18:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' Basically, vague, POV and inappropriate for infobox.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The list is quite large, and it would clog the infobox. ] (]) 17:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea
			*'''Support''' If providing intelligence, training, money, military equipment and sanctions against Russia is not support, I don't know what is. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			: '''Comment''' the above comment by an Ip geolocated in Germany sounds a bit dubious to me, said IP never edited Wiki before, and their first ever edit is here ...<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 13:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' The West is only providing money and some light weapons.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' I'm concerned about the vagueness of the word "supported" - this could imply they are sending in troops, which they aren't. ] (]) 12:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' because "support" is a vague term that could mean a lot of different things, and has a POV problem too. ] (]) 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Strong Support''' - we should be consistent with how we treat other wars. ] lists many supporters of both sides that did not send troops directly. Similar lists of supporters exist for ], ], and the majority of other major conflicts I can find except for WW2, presumably because the number of total belligerents is just too large. ]{{strikethrough|, a featured article,}} individually lists 9 different British colonies/dominions in the infobox that aided the war effort, so an argument that we will 'clog' the infobox by including countries that supply lethal aid seems hard to sustain. It seems pretty clear that if military aid is being supplied to either party in the conflict, that should be included. Are we really going to act like the intelligence provided by the US doesn't count as support? ] (]) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:A lot of these articles don't have a lot of editor attention. The infobox here was subject to 2 RfCs, which is probably more than the number of RfCs on supporters in the infoboxes of these 20th/21st century war infoboxes, combined. I raised the issue of IBs of 20th/21st century wars on ] and I think editors did agree there are some problems. Many of those articles are a mess of indiscriminate information anyway.
			*:Consider a more visible, GA-level article of a 20th century war, ]. Commanders and leaders is significantly trimmed, the value of participants params is a single word "Allies" or "Axis" with a hyperlink. There is a high-level list of casualties, with a hyperlink for more info, but nothing insane. No equipment figures or other silliness like on the IB here or on these other 20th century wars. It's a tight infobox in line with ]. (nb: WW1 has not been a featured article since 2006, when it was delisted. The infobox, at the time it was an FA, looked ).
			*:Your argument is that most infoboxes of recent wars are bad. I agree. That doesn't mean we proliferate more bad infoboxes across the encyclopaedia, but instead we should put effort into cleaning more of these articles up (their infoboxes, and their content too tbh). ] (]) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
			*::Thanks for the correction on WWI, not sure why I had thought it was featured. Would you be able to link to the discussion you had on ]? My argument is not that existing infoboxes are bad, and I'm still not sure how including direct financial/material/intelligence support in the infobox is out of line with ]. It seems like it's both true and salient information that the Soviets and USA were both helping arm Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, and that the US is arming Ukraine in the current war, etc. These things can have a massive impact on the source, ultimate outcome, and historical significance of each conflict. --] (]) 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
			:Another data point I just found - we include Russian support for the Taliban in ] even though it was only financial 'bounties' and Russia claims that it wasn't involved at all. Meanwhile US is providing weapons, funds, and intelligence to Ukraine and admitting as much. ] (]) 17:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
			::{{U|TocMan}}, my reasons to oppose are much like those of {{noping|ProcrastinatingReader}}. That ] is not of itself a justification. It is only a valid argument if it represents "best practice" - and it doesn't. ] tells us not to write the article in the infobox - we have prose in both the lead section and the body of the article on this. The article is not omitting this detail. It is following ] and ] more broadly in this respect. ] (]) 01:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::{{U|Cinderella157}} Thanks for your perspective. As you point out, ] is fine if it represents best practice, and I remain unconvinced that this is not best practice. There are myriad military articles that include arms suppliers as supporters in the infobox, including ] about post-Soviet conflicts. This is a very different state of affairs than if only a few low quality articles existed that use the practice, which might have just never received good editorial attention. In any conflict but especially one with global implications, knowing at a glance the nature of support for each side is both useful and important. I am not sure what NPOV issue you think is resolved by keeping a slim list of supporters; but I think including more supporters quickly resolves any NPOV issue. If we include Belarus as a Russian supporter for letting Russia use its territory but not the United States for providing intelligence that was used to destroy a Russian ship, that may be a defensible line to draw, but it is inherently trickier than just showing all supporters - as we already do in other high quality articles. --] (]) 02:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::{{U|TocMan}}, You cite ] as a FA and representative of "best practice". That article was promoted 25 February 2007 per . Since then, the article has undergone over 3,000 edits and doubled in size. Furthermore, the infobox now bares little resemblance to that in the promoted version. FA status only specifically attaches to the version promoted. Substantial variation in the article is reason to consider a review and whether it continues to FA criteria. ] (]) 04:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::::That's fine, but doesn't do anything to address my overall argument. --] (]) 13:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::::Even before you identified the ], there was this discussion (]) about taking the article to FAR. In its present form, it does not represent "best practice". ] (]) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support''': Technical objections, such as a long infobox, are minor complaints and have been addressed already. Opposers do not seem to have read the Rfc, but are repeating obsolete arguments. Linking to a list, for example, is a very doable workaround. If "supported by" is not the most apt terminology, there are plenty of other great descriptors, such as "arms supplier", "lethal aid", "military training", etc. As a digital, web based, cooperative medium, Misplaced Pages should take advantage of its inherent flexibilities, and not be bound by dogmatic reasonings and self-imposed limitations. I find TocMan's argument,supported by sources, more substantive and consistent than the naysayer's. Additionally, even though the U.S. government has yet to openly target Russia, public attitude is shifting. One U.S. official, elected at the federal level, even said they're "fundamentally at war, although somewhat through a proxy, with Russia."<ref>{{cite news |title=“We’re Fundamentally at War”: Rep. Moulton Says U.S. in Proxy War with Russia |url=https://www.democracynow.org/2022/5/9/headlines/were_fundamentally_at_war_rep_moutlon_says_us_in_proxy_war_with_russia |work=Democracy Now! |language=en}}</ref> The combination of lethal weaponry, direct training military to military, and rhetoric from its own politican, makes that country unique among supporters of Ukraine.] (]) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
			::This account has 9 edits to their name.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			:::And? New editors do not start with 10,000 edits, they start with 0. ] (]) 07:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			::::But most legit new editors don’t immediately jump into controversial RfCs. Make a couple hundred normal edits, then show up to these things. Otherwise these RfCs become a brigaded, SPA, sock infested joke.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. I may be wrong on this technical note, but I believe if we included just the United States, and/or a link to the full list, it ''wouldn't'' even make the infobox bigger, since the Russian-allied forces + supporting Belarus take up more than that amount of space already. This would just be filling in blank space with text. At the very least, I think the US should be shown due to the extent of its support. With the revelations that America helped to target and sink the Moskva,<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/05/politics/us-intelligence-russian-moskva-warship-ukraine-target/index.html</ref> and provided intelligence help in killing Russian generals,<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/politics/russia-generals-killed-ukraine.html</ref> it's approaching actual engagement, per Fantasix6. I don't have a particularly strong opinion as to ''how'' the other supporting countries should be represented (as a linked list, listing each one out individually, as a collapsed list, not at all), but to not include ''any'' of the supporting countries doesn't make sense to me. --] (]) 22:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. This is not a special case. There is a long-standing precedent for including at least the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, as several others have listed examples of. ] (]) 01:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose'''  This is infobox creep: adding some stuff just to add more stuff, without a basis supported by ]. Factually, non-belligerent ''supporters'' of Ukraine against the Russian Federation and Belarus are the 141 states that voted to pass ], condemning illegal “Aggression against Ukraine.” Military aid (donations), and military commercial sales, are routine transactions between states. When a state is in a war, such transfers don’t suddenly make the donor a belligerent or some kind of quasi-belligerent. And it would certainly violate ] to label such states “supporters” and thereby equate their actions to those of illegal aggressor Belarus.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 20:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
			*: There's a very clear difference between a vote at the UN, and providing military intelligence that was directly used to blow up a war ship, or $50bn in direct aid - that is not a "routine transaction" or ordinary "commercial sales". Re: Belarus it's bizarre to think that someone is only a 'supporter' if they support the bad guys, but supporters of the good guys don't count for some reason. ] (]) 16:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
			*::Yes, there is a difference, but those things don’t define belligerent status in a war, these actions aren’t participation in conflict, they’re not illegal, they’re not aggression. I don’t make these rules. The ''amount'' of fifty billion is not routine, but you are not arguing that 50B constitutes support but 10M does not, is it? UN members, including every state we’re talking about, are parties to treaties that define international conflicts and participation in them.
			*::On the other hand, the Russian Federation and Belarus both agreed to the definitions, promised to respect international laws, and then intentionally violated them. Bad-guy status follows from conducting a war of aggression.
			*::Ukraine is a belligerent because it is the victim of their continuing aggression into its territory for eight years.
			*::I don’t believe mine is the bizarre argument here.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:: As others have pointed out, Germany and France, for example, have recently sold dual-use and military equipment, including weapons components like thermal fire-control systems for AFVs, to the Russian Federation. That doesn’t make them RF supporters in this war either.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 22:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:::Has Germany and France continued to deliver these systems? Has Germany and France shared intelligence about Ukrainian military positions to Russia? Has Germany and France passed laws since the invasion to allocate massive amounts of financial and military assistance to Russia? Your argument is very bizarre. ] (]) 00:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - In the future, we can argue about ''how'' to list the support, but reliable sources are consistently attributing the material lethal aid from the United States, EU, and others towards Ukraine's success, and to remove that information from the infobox would severely harm the usefulness of the infobox as a summarizing "at a glance" tool. This is vital information. The most effective argument against that I can see is that it would make the infobox larger and thus less useful, but this is countered by the fact that the Russian side already has multiple entries which extend empty space on the Ukraine side, which can be filled without increasing the size of the infobox. As for "equipment sales and transfers being routine" in response to ] above, I think we can agree that the United States, at the very least, is providing a lot more than just equipment and money, in the form of military intelligence, which reliable sources have also attributed to Ukraine's success thus far. This is on top of high end equipment, and the response to the now famous quote "I need ammo, not a ride." Ukraine said they needed aid to survive, they got the aid, they've survived... all this looks like extremely notable information that people want to find in the infobox. ] (]) 23:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:If intelligence makes the difference, let’s identify and list the states that are doing so as intelligence providers. However, many states share intelligence routinely in peacetime, so this does not make one a belligerent. If it’s provision of weapons, then do we list the EU, France, and Germany as supporters of the RF too, since they sold weapons components until March?&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 14:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
			*::States share intelligence all the time, especially if they are in alliances such as NATO. Ukraine is not in such alliances. ] (]) 00:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:::Jacob H, You're mistaken. As a member of the ] Ukraine is, in fact, in an alliance to get intel from other countries. And, speaking of the "Open Skies Treaty," Russia withdrew from that treaty in December 2021, and, at the exact same time Russia began its massive military buildup on Ukraine border. 2 months later waged their illegal war on Ukraine. Strange timing, huh. ] (]) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
			*::::The United States withdrew from the alliance before Russia, so your point doesn't make as much sense, but this isn't about whether the invasion was illegal or not: it is about, it is simply about we should be staying true to what is happening, and that is the United States and European countries are actively supporting Ukraine in the following ways: Financial, Militarily, Intelligence, Foreign Sanctions. Furthermore, the surveillance gathered by the U.S. and others goes way outside the scope of the Open Skies Treaty. The Open Skies treaty was signed to increase trust to prevent misunderstandings. The United States is not a member of this treaty, and it is the one that conducts the most of the surveillance flights, specifically over the black-sea and Poland (NATO). The Americans have admitted themselves that they provide intelligence directly to Ukraine, not through any partner like the U.K. which is a member of the treaty.
			*::::By not adding the supporting countries, it seriously undermines the credibility of Misplaced Pages. You cannot reasonably argue that at least the U.S. & some other NATO member states are not supporting Ukraine militarily and by other means. ] (]) 02:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:::::The lead section presently states: {{tq|Many countries imposed new sanctions, which have affected the economies of Russia and the world, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine.}} There is a prominant section in the article ] and a daughter article linked from that section: ''See also: ]''. How could it be reasonably argued that we are not already openly reporting the nature and extent of legal 'support' being provided by other countries to Ukraine and in a way that best conforms to ], ] and any other relevant ]. ] (]) 04:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
			*::::::The information is provided in the article, but it's my understanding that the info-box is used to summarize events, belligerents e.t.c… This has not been done, and from my understanding the only reason is that it would make the infobox too long, and this is answered in point 3 of the response to the RfC by @] ] (]) 04:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:::::::Typo in user reference, correction: @] ] (]) 04:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
			*::::::::Sorry, but I'm not seeing that {{noping|Levivich}} has contributed to this discussion? ] (]) 09:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			*:::::::::See the following: ] ] (]) 06:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
			*::::::::::{{noping|Levivich}} observes at point 3 in respect to technical limitations and accessibility: {{tq|that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to.}} But such a change has not happened?. {{noping|Levivich}} makes a number of closing observations on what a new RfC might propose (as a more refined question) such that it might lead to a consensus. This RfC has failed to head such advice and is likely to produce the same outcome as previous precisely because it has failed to head their advice. ] (]) 08:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Support ''' The United States and the EU are providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, along with reports of logistical assistance. To try to understand this, think of Ukraine and Russia fighting without the assistance of other nations. Then, think of all the weapons flowing into Ukraine, possibly tens of billions of dollars' worth of weapons. While not fighting directly on Ukraine's side, these nations are apparently supporting Ukraine's side with powerful, expensive equipment. ] (]) 03:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Thinking about it further, we have ], but there isn't a link to it in the infobox. ] (]) 03:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Think about the Russian weapons that would not exist without foreign support. France delivered bombs, rockets, missiles, and guns. Russian drones and combat aircraft have imported GPS units. Russian command posts, cruise missiles, radars, helicopters, and air-defence systems are full of US electronics. Russian airborne fighting vehicles and tanks have French sights and fire control. The Russian tank factory is shutting down production for lack of foreign components. Russian special forces were modernized in high-tech training camps built by Germany. Russian artillery is corrected using Chinese drones. (I can find the references for all of the above, if necessary.)
			::So sure, if we define “support” as providing military gear, then let’s list it all on both sides.&nbsp;—'']&nbsp;].'' 17:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' It makes sense, considering how many nations (even the Taliban) are rushing to support Ukraine, however you better also include Japan. ] (]) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' There are many other articles that include the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, and several examples have been cited previously. The reasons to not support this do not overcome precedence. ] (]) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			:<s>{{highlight|'''Request to close''' ''by participant agreement''|#fff899|8 June 2022}}.</s> A summary of this discussion so far could be written with striking similarity to the closure notes provided in the previous RfC '']''. Most notably, {{tq|On the strength of arguments, there is no global consensus to be applied that would give one side or the other sufficient weight to overcome the numerical split of opinion}}. In light of that, I recommend we mutually agree to close this RfC as "no consensus" in accordance with item #2 at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment|Ending RfCs}}. I don't see any reason to tie up the time and effort of an uninvolved editor if we can agree that we haven't reached a consensus here. --] 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
			::<!--hidden ping|Mindaur|Slatersteven|EkoGraf|Super Dromaeosaurus|Ahm1453|Mr.User200|CurryCity|Waters.Justin|TocMan-->Pinging OP and some early supporters. Can we agree to tie this up as "no consensus" and move to other proposals? If not, it seems like we've reached ] and so a ] by an uninvolved editor might be appropriate. --] 15:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
			::<!--hidden ping|Fantasix6|HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith|Lightspecs|Fieari|Nythar|Great Mercian|Jurisdicta-->Ping remaining supporters. --] 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
			:::Stop bothering ] (]) 14:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
			::'''Close '''It doesn't look like we've reached consensus here. ] (]) 19:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
			::It ''might'' be worthwhile to have a formal non-involved editor close, but I highly suspect anyone can see that the result is no consensus. There are well reasoned editors on both sides of the issue, and the valid points on both side don't seem to be clearly and plainly answered by their opposition in a definitive manner. I don't see how we can say anything but no consensus, much as I'd personally and strongly prefer otherwise. ] (]) 07:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
			::''Withdrawn''. Given the trickle of comments posted ''after'' this suggestion it seems ] is more appropriate. --] 17:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support''': it's consistent with other conflicts to include nation state donors of military equipment as a "supported by" <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Xsign -->
			{{reflist-talk}}
			*'''Support''' - the arguments and evidence presented by Mindaur and Fieari are convincing. It's beyond argument that the assistance (i.e. the support) of the US, EU and NATO nations, are a substantial contributor to Ukraine's success in the war. Thus this should be listed as ''support'' in the infobox. ] (]) 06:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Adding military support is consistent with other infoboxes. It is also logical to include as it impacts the abilities of belligerent(s) to succeed on the battlefield. ] (]) 10:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
			{{closed rfc bottom}}

---

Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 January 2025

This is an archive of past discussions about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Crimea

I assume that the article describes Crimea as part of Russia. The infobox does not mention Crimea, but the lead says "the two occupied territories of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbas)". Some unification would be useful.

Some Tatars do not want to be conscripted https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3441479-crimean-tatar-leader-appeals-to-people-in-crimea-to-dodge-russian-army-draft.html

Conscription of inhabitants of occupied areas is, as far as I know, illegal. The same in occupied Eastern Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is Elinruby (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Page protection

I have now requested page protection, enough is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Supporting. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Elements of "proxy war"?

Hello everyone, I'd like to bring up something that I think this article lacks, and that is the issue of this being a "proxy war". I've identified some sources that seem to describe this as a proxy war in some way:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-long-holy-war-behind-putins-political-war-in-ukraine https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-does-arming-insurgency-ukraine-mean https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-25/nato-us-in-proxy-war-with-russia-biden-next-move-crucial/100937196

The definition of "proxy war": https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proxy-war

"a war fought between groups or smaller countries that each represent the interests of other larger powers..."

Clearly, with NATO/US steadfast refusal to engage directly and materiel support for Ukraine, it's a proxy on some level. On the Russian end, it's less clear--Russia has historically been considered more of the "military superpower" over China, but with their (alleged) underperformance, and with the potential of becoming economically dependent on China in the face of Western sanctions, perhaps they are the ones fighting the proxy on behalf of the superpower? This article does not mention "proxy" anywhere. Allegedly, the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles...but let's not pretend that Western-made Javelins weren't crucial to many Ukraine successes. How would this get added? Also, I can't seem to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Metalloid (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea of this being a "proxy war" is part of the Russian propaganda and represents a strong POV. Perhaps a mention of it could be made when describing Russian propaganda efforts, but certainly not claiming in Wikivoice that Russia's brutal aggression on a neighbour is a proxy war. Jeppiz (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn’t advocate for calling it that, because it isn’t one. I was wondering if it would be helpful to discuss the debate over whether this is a proxy war. Lawfare is a far cry from Russian propaganda, and they’re game for at least discussing the idea. We haven’t even sold them MIGs (alternatively, they may be paperweights) due to fears of over-involvement. Providing small arms to the underdog defending themselves against a Goliath does not suggest nefarious proxy war geopoliticking, quite the contrary. Mentioning a proxy war in the way I envision would involve mostly saying why it isn’t one, per the sources. If you omit discussing this out of fear of parroting Russian propaganda, you risk creating a “forbidden fruit”. Noble Metalloid (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not a proxy was, as far as I am aware no RS has called it proxy war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

that isn't what was proposed Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Structure for sections based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion

Hi. Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine, we will move ahead soon to create a new section for the current time period, based upon viewing this as a new chronological period of the conflict. This is based upon a consensus to structure the article sections on the conflict, based on chronological periods, as per previous talk page discussion. You can click the link to view the full discussion, which has now been archived. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion spoke of the Siege of Mariupol needing to come to a conclusion before discussing options, however, the siege has not come to an end. Your link above does not link to anything, and its not clear what you mean since the siege of Mariupol is still in progress. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

hi. I revised the link, in order to point to the correct section on the archived talk page. Actually, the talk page discussion related to the start of the Russian offensive in the east of Ukraine. I do appreciate your thoughtful reply on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You have just restored that missing link. The discussion there spoke of the advantages of waiting for the siege of Mariupol to be resolved, and the forces are still continuing the siege as of this morning in the linked Misplaced Pages article for the siege. The main editing for the new "eastern" offensive to which you refer has moved to the new article for War in Donbas were the details of this second phase of the invasion are being dealt with, and which I linked this morning. Since Misplaced Pages now has the new article for the War in Donbas, then most of the questions you previously asked seem to have been redirected there for current updates. The article here currently links the War in Donbas article as a continuation of the Invasion of the Southeastern front where you can find the link. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• That Mariupol remains under siege is not an insurmountable problem and probably not a problem at all (IMHO). Looking at the article there, siege of Mariupol#Final pockets fairly closely aligns in time with the broader change in tempo of a chronological "second phase" and could easily be massaged into a new section here. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157, thanks. yes, I agree. I am also going to ping @Jr8825, and @ErnestKrause, as they provided some very helpful input in the previous talk page discussion. if you could each please reiterate or indicate your opinions on this proposal for the article, as discussed in the previsous archived discussion, I would appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Based upon the beginning of a new Russian offensive in the East of Ukraine". What new offensive? I see only a continuation of the existing offensive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  as per the comment above, some individuals are asking "what new offensive?" I think this illustrates the need to structure this aerticle to delineate the curent new phase of this conflict.

  if you would like to have some references, no problem, here they are.

  1. Russia has opened a long-anticipated new phase of the war in Ukraine, launching its eastern offensive in a bid to seize the country's industrial heartland., NBC News
  2. Russia unleashes offensive on Ukraine, ushering in new phase of war, politico
  3. Russia begins large-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine, axios
  4. Zelenskiy: Russian offensive in eastern Ukraine has begun. UK Guardian.
  5. As Russia launches a new offensive, what did it learn from the first one?, April 19, 2022. NPR.
  6. Civilians flee eastern Ukraine ahead of new Russian offensive. UK Guardian

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• All three editors seem in agreement that the siege of Mariupol should not hinder the refactoring of the section for the Second phase of the invasion. The appropriate start date for this appears to be the day 8 April that the combined forces were put under the change os a single general for the first time in the campaign, under General Dvornikov. Starting to refactor Invasion section according to agreement of all three editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok that sounds good. Thanks for your work on that, @ErnestKrause. Sm8900 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

NO ACTION See open central discussion at #RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can these all be merged into one thread, it's getting very hard to follow all these separate questions on the same thing? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

NO ACTION See open central discussion at #RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

197.234.142.91 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Nato and Australia and New Zealand Sweden Finland should be put as support for ukraine

This is already being discussed above, please comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, see FAQ #2. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support of Ukraine?

See FAQ #2, countries sending weapons to Ukraine should not be listed in the infobox. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How are there no countries listed as supporting Ukraine? At least every country that has reportedly supplied weapons to the Ukraine should be listed there, shouldn't it? Alfield (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The infobox is only meant to summarize the key aspects of the article, not to be all-encompassing (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). So, whether support is included in the infobox is an editorial matter. There was an RfC on this that failed to reach a consensus, with opponents arguing it would make the infobox too large and would unduly imply too much involvement on the part of other countries. ― Tartan357  06:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not do it like the German Wikipdia? It indicates that the Ukraine recieves massive support and you can inform yourself about what countries are supporting UKR without making the infobox too large. Alfield (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason why other nations are not included in the Belligerents section is because current consensus is against doing so. This has been discussed multiple times previously. Nythar (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You can add a single name in a single line in the infobox instead of dozens: NATO. But no, you shills adding Belarus for the lulz. 2.141.64.59 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not need 15 threads asking the same question. Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-invasion phase

So now that the Russian military objective has shifted towards consolidating gains made in Donbass and the south, should we keep limit the scope of this article to be just about the initial invasion and put the rest of it on Russo-Ukrainian War or should we keep adding to this article? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment that two articles, Russian occupation of Kherson & Russian occupation in Zaporizhzhia Oblast were created to contain some of that information. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Have they, they still seem to be attacking. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

International press seems fairly committed to reporting this as a first phase of the invasion followed by a second phase of the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

But not "post-invasion". Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Not 'post-invasion'. The langauge in the international press is all talking about the start of the second phase of the invasion which is expanding at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing the main map to the colourblind-friendly version

NO ACTION This is a procedural close on the basis of the clear consensus to adopt option 1 in the discussion below (#Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg) as the preferred colourblind-friendly version of the map. The consensus below makes this discussion redundent. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose that the main map shown in the infobox be changed to the colourblind-friendly version.

• Current map
• Proposed replacement

The current map (on the left above) does not offer sufficient contrast for individuals diagnosed with tritanopia.
Although tritanopia incidence rate is about 1%, this highly visible article has been viewed 5,445,185 times at the time this was written, which means that we have likely served this map to individuals diagnosed with tritanopia more than 54 000 times. Of course, this number will only go up.
Per MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is a core WMF policy, and it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project". Based on this, I think we have a clear case for action to switch to the colourblind-friendly map.

Simulations of tritanopia:
Current whole page Just the image
Proposed replacement image

Please be patient as the tool loads, it may take a few seconds to be ready. Melmann 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong support - No love lost for a map with new colour schemes. The proposal works perfectly for everyone, a genuinely good change. PenangLion (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support with suggestion. This replacement looks a lot better. My suggestion is that there needs to be better contrast between "troop movement arrows" and the background colors, otherwise it is hard to see. If troop movements were, for example, black that would make them a lot easier to see. Another alternative might be to "outline" (any colored troop movement arrows) in clear black lines so you can really see these movement arrows. Or alternately still, just experiment with other "arrow colors", but always strive for strong contrast. Chesapeake77 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support IMO the new one looks a lot better, since there's a larger contrast between the occupied/non-occupied territories. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Looks a lot clearer to me (average sighted?) 51.6.155.34 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support I hate the yellow on yellow. Hard to see, if not impossible, on mobile devices.--JOJ 16:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment, yes but I would also mention that the "grey" troop movement arrows are also hard to see. Better contrast there is still needed. Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

IIRC this was discussed on Commons after the first overwrite (c:File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Voting_on_two_color_schemes), and editors decided to keep copy A. Some colourblind people commented there saying the one on the right wasn't actually easier to see. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment, I do think its a good idea to have the advances/movements of forces in different colours, so readers can tell the forces apart, maybe not have red arrows on orange for the Russians and maybe blue instead of unclear Grey for the Ukrainians. ~ BOD ~ 23:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support per MOS:ACCESS though contrast in the movement arrows should be increased. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be a better option (option 1) per discussion below - #Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak support The gray arrows on cream background for Ukraine are much clearer than the current version, but are hard to tell apart from the borders on the map for people with normal color vision, as is the new icon assigned to the older bombardments. The new contrast choice for the Russian troops and Russian-controlled territory is also somewhat worse than the original for viewers with protanopia or deuteranopia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support for WP:ACCESSIBILITY, plus as someone with a type of colourblindness that doesn't affect the colours on the current map, I find the new clearer to read. --Inops (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Object One can discern the differences in gradient in the simulation of tritanopia version. It does not affect the viewing of the image. The orange subtlely resembles the color of the ribbon of Saint George, a Russian military symbol thus it would bring to the map a layer of unwanted meaning. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I've seen better suggestions, such as a light blue and red one or a white(ish) and black one. This suggestion sure is better than the green and orange one but I am not convinced that this is the best possible version we can come out with and approving this version already could make people stop proposing alternatives. Super Ψ Dro 09:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose It gives passive colors to Ukraine while making Russian gains seem overwhelmingly dominant. The current file is accessible to 99 % of the readers and the color blind accessible version already in the file page. Viewsridge (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Oppose – The proposed colorblind map colors aren't intuitive, and for normal color vision people, the contrasting is just terrible in some areas (such as grey arrows on a light background). The colors are jarring and even a little confusing, as some of the colors are too close to others, while the proposed colors make it appear as if Ukraine doesn't even hold any territory. The grey colors for cities is also terrible and difficult to distinguish against the background. Not only that, but the colors don't mesh well together and don't look nice. If we implement a colorblind-friendly version, I prefer a version that is close to the current version of the map. As a matter of fact, I would strongly oppose any proposed color scheme that bears little to no resemblance to the current colors. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also Very Strongly Oppose, LightandDark2000 has described the situation well. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• There is another discussion below on some proposals to use a similar coloring scheme to the current colors that is also workable for colorblind individuals. Please also have a look at that discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: My proposal is to improve the MOS:ACCESS now with what we currently have ready, not to select 'one final map to rule them all that nobody will ever be able to change'. If this proposal was to be implemented, it would be a step towards a better accessibility, and we can take that step now. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of better.
The community has been struggling to agree on a proper colour scheme that works for everyone, and in the meanwhile colourblind users suffer. Per MOS:ACCESS, accessibility is not optional, and since there is WP:NODEADLINE our colourblind users may be left in Misplaced Pages census process purgatory for weeks or months. I would see no reason why we can't implement this now, and then when the discussion yields the final set of colours, implement those.
Could you attempt to justify a 'very strong oppose' in the context of our MOS:ACCESS obligations and the reality that your discussion may not yield result anytime soon? Melmann 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that this is irrelevant now, given that the second, later discussion has clearly concluded in favor of one of the proposals there over this particular proposal...But...Let me ask this: Why should we do this? Why should we rush a discussion, when the policy you yourself cited, WP:NODEADLINE, states that there is no deadline for Misplaced Pages editors to complete an article or implement a change? Why should we prejudge the results of an open discussion when there is no way of knowing for certain exactly how it will end? And most importantly, why should we rush ahead with a controversial change that has divided the participants and attracted significant opposition, especially while the said discussion is still ongoing? If this doesn't breach WP:CONSENSUS, or at least the soul of the policy, I don't know what does. I will say that rushing ahead with a proposal with this much opposition would generate significant backlash, both on Misplaced Pages and on other sites that view our maps (such as Twitter and Facebook). I've seen color changes hastily implemented before on other, unrelated projects on Misplaced Pages in the past, in the name of MOS:ACCESS. While I will not explicitly say which projects are involved for those, let me just say that those attempts did not end well. They attracted significant backlash and opposition, both on Misplaced Pages and on social media. And there were even attempts to revert those changes outright on Misplaced Pages. If we move forward in such a hasty, ill-thought manner, as you are suggesting here, you will provoke widespread backlash over a map that's literally viewed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people each day. The fact that there is already significant opposition here to the proposal here means that it should not be implemented immediately, especially not with the discussion still in progress. I think that as Wikipedians, we have a responsibility to see a discussion through to the end before implementing a controversial or disputed change, based on the results of that discussion. We also have a responsibility, as editors of these articles, to ensure that while our articles are accessible, that the graphics and charts we use are also acceptable to most of our readers. WP:ACCESS is important, but equally important are the views of our readers with normal vision. You cannot stomp over the opinions of normal vision readers here in the name of WP:ACCESS, especially when there are better alternatives available. Both discrimination and reverse discrimination are equivalent evils that should not be entertained. Lastly, I will note that the proposals discussed in the second option below are significantly more popular than the proposal being discussed here, as the latter discussion ended in a snow closure. I think that the best course of action is to defer to the results of that discussion, rather than trying to overturn consensus or start more pointless color drama. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Greyshark09, Spesh531, Kwamikagami, Dawsongfg, RobiH, Outth, Eoiuaa, Kippenvlees1, Symmachus Auxiliarus, Fogener Haus, Physeters, Lx 121, Berrely, HurricaneEdgar, MarioJump83, Tradedia, Ermanarich, Brobt, CentreLeftRight, Wiz9999, Borysk5, Oganesson007, Nate Hooper, Rob984, Ceha, AlphaMikeOmega, WeifengYang, PutItOnAMap, TheNavigatrr, Beshogur, AntonSamuel, Paolowalter, Emk9, EkoGraf, Rr016, Tan Khaerr, Kami888, and MrPenguin20: I'd like to hear the opinions of other users who work on these maps, the map modules, or have participated in the map color discussions on Commons, as I think they should have a say in the matter as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Neither of the two. There are more color options being discussed on commons. RobiH (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, as there's already a more or less uniform design for conflict maps on Misplaced Pages which people recognize, at it's viewed by literally Millions. However, I agree that a change to a more colorblind-friendly version should be made, as has been suggested in another discussion below.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

weak support. I see merits for accommodation, though I think the replacement proposed is not the best. Though it would be helpful if the color scheme matches with other[REDACTED] war maps, for almost all other war maps, government forces are actually red, and rebel forces green. One can argue how applicable this is here, as Russian invading forces are in fact not rebels, and red is almost universally denoted across as representing Russian occupation (Liveuamap, military.net, etc.). Hence we might actually we might need other arrangements for this, one that may very well be used for precedence in mapping interstate wars (which in terms of[REDACTED] live mapping we don't have much historic precedence), which of course means that when we are literally establishing precedence, one that would be great to be accommodating. However, many above have pointed out the problem with the proposed alternative. Perhaps when a better alternative is proposed we should support it. WeifengYang (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose As a color-blind person I concur with @LightandDark2000:. EkoGraf (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support WP:ACCESSIBILITY is important for a global encyclopaedia. Kappasi (talk) Kappasi (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

support. I don't have anything particularly profound to say, other than that I think the new map looks nice and pretty. Nate Hooper (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak Oppose We don't really need it. The current map works fine, there's no need change it. Its an unnecessary change. CheeseInTea (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm kindly requesting for an uninvolved editor to review this discussion, and implement the proposal at Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox. Melmann 07:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the discussion at #Discussing colour changes for c:File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg, there is a very strong consensus there for implementing option 1 as the preferred colourblind friendly version of the map. The consensus there would appear to make this discussion redundent? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. The snowball consensus at the second discussion makes this discussion obsolete, since they're literally discussing the same issue (but with different proposals). Also, it's very improper to request the implementation of a controversial proposal when there's clearly strong opposition or division regarding the idea, as I am seeing here. Such action directly undermines WP:CONSENSUS, if not the very heart and soul of the policy. People should not be trying to overturn consensus, just because they don't like how the discussion turned out. I agree that this discussion should be closed, as it has basically become redundant and has been superceded by the outcome of the second discussion below. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not imply any impropriety but the two discussions have occurred in near parallel and, the outcome below does have a clear implication to this discussion - that it has become redundant. I was simply giving notice that that there should be a "procedural close" of this discussion in favour of the discussion below. The topic may be controversial but I don't think that the close here would be, given the circumstances and how closely the page is watched. Cinderella157 (talk)

I was referring to the edit request just above an earlier comment of yours here, not your comment in the closure for the second discussion below. My apologies, if you thought otherwise. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links

The external links to CNN, Reuters, etc seem excessive and UNDUE. Anyone can google to find these and they are not encyclopedic. Focus on the more necessary ones and try to cut the list to 3 or so. WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL both apply. I would be bold and remove, but I am not a regular editor and thought this might have been discussed? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit unclear what changes you want done. Do you mean unproperly cited references that contain only external links? If so, you can always just use a citation template to properly format them. Also, those sources you mentioned are reliable, per consensus. The list of frequently discussed sources pertaining to reliability, and the consensus of those, are at WP:RSPSOURCES. You also shouldn't try to "cut the list" like that and delete them, as WP:TSI is needed for veritability. However, you can WP:CITEBUNDLE (or see H:CITEMERGE). — I'ma editor2022 18:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit

There is a typo in the section Second phase: Southeastern offensive (8 April to present) where it says As of 30 April, an NATO official... instead of As of 30 April, a NATO official has described...

--Tyco333 (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks — Czello 10:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nato support Ukraine

See FAQ #2. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the section "belligerents" it should be showed that Ukraine is supported from NATO 151.57.133.251 (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belarus is a belligerent

According to my dictionary, this is all WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. This discussion is thus fatally flawed and a waste of everyone's time. Unless there are sources which specifically describe Belarus as a belligerent in the present context (I guess? there probably might be, but none have been presented here); but the absence of them here means that it would probably be more worthwhile to start a new discussion on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, the Definition of Aggression, Article 3:

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: . . . (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.

The reference to Article 2 means it is aggression prima facie, that is, it is legally aggression unless and until proven otherwise, and “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply.

By allowing the Russian Federation to use Belarusian territory to launch missile attacks and an invasion by its troops over the last two months, Belarus has committed an act of international aggression against Ukraine. As an aggressor state, Belarus should be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, not merely a supporter. To minimize its aggression with the restrictive label “supported by” is to reflect the non-neutral WP:POV of the Lukashenka régime.  —Michael Z. 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is still a non-belligerent state, as long as its military doesn't participate in the actual fighting. Compare with WWII era Donegal Corridor in Irish airspace. "Legally agressor" and "belligerent" are not necessary the same thing. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"The framework for the Union of Russia and Belarus was set out in the Treaty on the Formation of a Community of Russia and Belarus (1996), the Treaty on Russia-Belarus Union, the Union Charter (1997), and the Treaty of the Formation of a Union State (1999). The integration treaties contained commitments to monetary union, equal rights, single citizenship, and a common defence and foreign policy." ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Seryo93, Belarus is not a belligerent. Otherwise, we would have to list Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then of being direct belligerents on the side of the US-led Coalition during the Iraq War since the invasion was staged from those countries. And we did not even list them under "Supported by". Because that label has for the most part been reserved in WP infoboxes for countries that provide arms support to one belligerent with the intent of defeating the other one. EkoGraf (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know whether the Iraq War case is the same or not.

But Belarus committed an act of aggression violating the “sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State” in a “war of aggression” which “gives rise to international responsibility.” According to my dictionary, a belligerent is “engaged in a war or conflict according to international law.” It is literally and precisely what it is.

If we are using some other definition of belligerent, then please show your work. —Michael Z. 02:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The key fact is that Belarusian military is, indeed, NOT engaged in hostilities. See also OSCE report, which, in this aspect, basically concurs with my point: "Although Belarus allows its territory to be used to launch Russian attacks on Ukraine, the Mission considers that as of 1 April it is not a party to the IAC, as long as it does not itself commit acts of violence or other acts that would constitute direct participation in the hostilities by persons attributable to Belarus." Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The field is “belligerents,” not “direct participants in hostilities.” —Michael Z. 18:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent means "engaged in war", i.e. fighting, which is precisely what Belarus does NOT. Seryo93 (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

My dictionary says belligerent: “engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.” This precisely supports my argument.

I also looked up engage, and only one of five senses mentions combat, but it only applies when an enemy is the grammatical object (e.g., “engage the enemy”), so that sense is not in use in that definition. “Engaged in war” simply means involved in the war. Anyway, Russian combat units are invading directly out of Belarus, firing weapons out of and over Belarus’s territory, and retreating behind the defences of its troops on the border, so it is engaged in war tangibly as well as intangibly. —Michael Z. 19:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Belarus still falls under dictionary definition of non-belligerent, a country that refrains from direct participation in a war but openly favors and usually gives aid in varying degree and kind to one of the belligerents (emphasis mine). Seryo93 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s just playing with the words in a definition that is too vague to resolve the question. Allowing its territory for direct attacks is direct participation. It’s just one more way of saying “Belarus is not a belligerent because Belarus is not a belligerent.”

Since Belarus allowed Russian jets to operate from its airstrips to launch cruise-missile attacks across the border into Ukrainian territory to bomb Ukrainian cities, Ukraine is within its rights to defend itself by attacking those jets in Belarus, by attacking the airstrips and hangars in Belarus. Since Belarus allowed Russian mechanized forces to invade across its border and then to retreat behind Belarusian border defences, Ukraine is within its legal rights to pursue retreating Russians into Belarusian territory to destroy them, to bomb the Russian trains carrying Russian forces on Belarusian railways to their marshalling points behind the Belarusian border. Ukraine has a right to defend itself by destroying fuel depots and ammo dumps strategic to the Russian attack in the territory of Belarus. Belarus is party to the conflict.

Ask yourself: if Poland allowed Ukraine to fly its MiGs out of Polish bases to bomb Kaliningrad, would you insist Poland is not a party to the conflict? If Estonia said “hey Ukraine: please loiter your Bayraktar TB2 drones over Estonia all day long and lob missiles at St. Petersburg,” would you insist Estonia is a third party not involved? I hope not. So why do you defend war criminal Lukashenka’s enabling of war criminal Putin’s aggression against Ukraine? Belarus is a legal aggressor. Belarus is the origination of attacks against Ukraine. It is a belligerent in both intangible and tangible terms. —Michael Z. 19:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, removing the "supported by" label provides the possibility that readers will have a mistaken impression of the facts, and that presentation may suggest Belarus is contributing troops, which it obviously isn't. Information is not contextualised in the infobox, owing to limited space, so there should be extra care to avoid giving possible misleading impressions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagree

I think the best we to make an impartial decision on that would be by looking at other conflicts. Specifically the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, which was use to launch an invasion, and Turkey, they are not included as belligerents. Making an exception for Ukraine would just show further bias. Ahm1453 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What makes this article the exception and not that one? Please discuss this case on its merits, because I have no intention of researching the rationale of the infobox labels in another war’s article right now. —Michael Z. 02:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. First, I think that comparing this war to the 2003 Iraq invasion is relevant because one nation launched a war into another nation from the territory of a third. That is a similar event and Misplaced Pages never listed Kuwait as a belligerent, it is historical precedent. In fact Kuwait is not even listed as a nation that supported the US-led Coalition in 2003 like Belarus is.

I think someone else pointed out that there are two definitions, one refers to being engaged militarily and the other being an aggressor. Latin: "Bellum Gerere" defined as "To wage war".

The Latin term makes more sense because numerous Misplaced Pages page about war lists groups that are not legally considered as belligerents as belligerents to the conflict.

We cannot change things so drastically because it aligns with people's political views. Ahm1453 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

So add a note that defines “belligerent.” In fact, we should define it now, for the purposes of this discussion, because we don’t seem to agree on it. —Michael Z. 02:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No need for a note, Misplaced Pages's guideline has been clearly defined Template:Infobox military conflict for well over a decade and Seryo93, ProcrastinatingReader and Ahm1453 have all said it quite well. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup. And the field is defined as “parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; . . .” Being a legal aggressor state is participating. Providing railway transport of combat units, providing airstrips for attack operations, providing safe territory and airspace for missile launches, providing border passage and hospital services for retreating units, providing a defended border to secure the retreat, and providing territory and border passage for invading forces is participating.

If that’s not clear enough, then let’s change the documentation.

In the meantime, no need for a note indeed. Just the need to include the participants as recommended. —Michael Z. 18:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Except for the fact that this approach contradicts RS cited right above, which says that Belarus isn't a party to this IAC. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Belarus hasn't taken part in the conflict itself. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Now you appear to be talking about a legal definition of parties to an international armed conflict. If Belarus is a legal aggressor state then it is a legal party to the conflict.

If you mean in more concrete terms: the conflict was conducted in part across the Belarus–Ukraine border, and attacks against Ukraine originated in the territory of Belarus. With the permission of Belarus, not against its will. So it is willing party to the conflict.

(I don’t know which RS you cite, so I can’t respond specifically.) —Michael Z. 19:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I talk about this RS. Seryo93 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. But please don’t ignore Ukraine’s dispute of the OSCE’s claim about Belarus in the same document. OSCE is using this definition for the purposes of applying international humanitarian law. The document mentions aggression, but in this statement it strangely ignores Belarus’s action which I think we agree falls within the UN’s Definition of Aggression—perhaps the OSCE is only interested in direct Russian IHL violations, which Belarus is not committing? In citing aggression, it does refer on page 1 to the UN resolution on Aggression against Ukraine, which states in point no. 10 that Belarus is involved. Anyway, I can’t explain the disputed apparent inconsistency. —Michael Z. 20:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would agree with Michael Z. How can a country that committed an act of unprovoked aggression (per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314) not be a belligerent? The Union of Russia and Belarus (including their joint "defense") only enforces this point. On a practice, Russian forces are using the Belarus territory as a "safe heaven". It appears that Ukrainian forces now occasionally target military installations on the Russian territory (although this is not officially admitted), but afraid to target any Russian military installations at the Belarus territory. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree According to my dictionary (the Macquarie) A belligerent (in this context) is a state or nation at war, or a member of the military forces of such a state. An aggressor is defined by virtue of UN resolution. While the two terms may be similar, they do not have identical meanings and, while Belarus is clearly an aggressor (having committed an act of aggression) it is not "at war" with Ukraine. It is clearly supporting Russia by its actions but its actions do not rise to being a beligerant. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Start date should be February 22, 2022

According to the article introduction, this is the day the Duma authorized military action against Ukraine and when Russia openly sent troops into the DPR and LPR. Both are and were internationally recognized as Ukrainian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:1B46:84AF:2076:510A:1837:33CF (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

On 24 February, Putin announced that he had made the decision to launch a "special military operation" in eastern Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

China's Nuclear Guarantee

The introduction mentions the Budapest memorandum, which is potentially pertinent to the section on the use of low-yield nuclear weapons - i.e. the potential use of "tactical" nukes which is currently getting press coverage.

What is not mentioned on this page is the Dec 2013 guarantee which China provided, as reported by the WSJ, the pertinent text of which seems to be: "China pledges unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the nuclear-free Ukraine and China further pledges to provide Ukraine nuclear security guarantee when Ukraine encounters an invasion involving nuclear weapons or Ukraine is under threat of a nuclear invasion,”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.14.20 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a somewhat dated newspaper link you are presenting. China's position at present seems to be to decline making ciritical statements about the Russian invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently false claims about Ukrainian comments regarding Transnistria.

The article claims, that On 27 April, Ukraine stated it could "take control" of Transnistria should the Moldovan government request.. As source, it gives an article from the 23rd of April in which neither Transnistria, nor Moldova are even mentioned. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible, but I'm not allowed to edit the article.Liekveel (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a false claim. I simply forgot to add the source. The source that you mentioned has nothing to do with it - it refers to the previous sentence. Simply clumsly editing on my part.

YantarCoast (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just added the most recent reports on Transnitria involving explosions destroying broadast towers there. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian military occupation articles

Alerting editors that, as of this note, four of these articles have been created. Improvement is needed for all of them, and if needed, they should be linked into this main article’s text. I will be creating more for the other affected Oblasts, but for now, these 4 exist.

• Russian occupation of Kharkiv Oblast
• Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast
• Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast
• Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast

Elijahandskip (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

They are now linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Foreign support of Ukraine

NO ACTION See open central discussion at #RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is absolute nonsense that we still have only Ukraine in the box. There is a massive ammount of foreing help coming from the west, both weapons and military intelligence. We should vote for this issue again, or change all the infoboxes of other conflicts. --Novis-M (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The section you are apparently referencing in the infobox is called "Belligerents". The definition of a belligerent according to Merriam-Webster is "belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war". From what reliable sources tell us, the nations at war are Russia and Ukraine, which also include pro-Russian separatists, Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR, along with support from Belarus (from which Russia invaded northern Ukraine). Nythar (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The publicly sending of weapons, secured from the governments of countries is clearly military support. If Belarus let russian troops to staged and cross the border but no intervened with it´s own military, is at the same level at western countries that deplete their own arsenals to transfer hot weapons to be used by Ukraine.

The list if only indicates "suport" to Belarus, is far away from the real word. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not. —Michael Z. 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to Frequently Asked Questions #2: "Can you add X country to the infobox because it is sending weapons to Ukraine?" Or the discussion here The topic has already been discussed numerous times. 191.177.204.73 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we add a "Supported by" section to the Ukrainian side? Looking at Spanish Civil War I see that we include countries like Mexico in that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

While it is true the Spanish Civil War article has "Supported By" in its Belligerent section, current consensus on this article is to not include other nations in there. See Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Nythar (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine

NO ACTION See open central discussion at #RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine Cinderella157 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Need to include in the right square of the article the contries that are supporting Ukraine, like is put in all other[REDACTED] pages on wars and conflicts. There are lots of them that are sending weapons, instructors, food, rations, blocking russian sales, etc. All of this is publicly known, verified by press reports of both sides of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.140.133 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the list of combatants, only those parties actually using weapons/fighting are listed. This has been discussed many times already.50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. We put the list of supporting countries in the "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article and there are plenty of other precedents Please note that we clearly label "Supported by:".

I think it's time to put it here too: 1) the Western support with weapons is substantial (especially as heavy weapons are now being supplied); 2) it is notable (WP:N) and there are plenty of WP:RS about the subject. Mindaur (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I support adding them as well. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Supported by" is included under the belligerents section of many wars. See Nigerian Civil War for a clear example. The page for the Syrian civil war also includes this information. Not including it here is strange. 86.22.31.94 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, countries that provide full diplomatic support or send heavy weapons must be in the list. If not, the info is biased. 190.188.140.133 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

See #Link to closed and archived RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. The consensus was that countries supplying material or diplomatic support to Ukraine did not meet the threshold to be included in the infobox as "supported by", whereas, the direct access for conduct of the invasion provided by Belarus crossed this threshold. Countries supporting Ukraine is discussed at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military involvement and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Sanctions and ramifications. There is too much detail for this to be "summarised" and consequently, its inclusion in the infobox would fail WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly inconsistent with a wide variety of other Misplaced Pages articles on wars, and additionally whether the countries that would be in the infobox support Ukraine with lethal or non-lethal aid could be disclosed using parentheses. 2601:18F:681:7850:8068:AF36:22CF:56CB (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It is nonetheless the consensus here, arrived at after extensive discussions. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a mandate. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a dated discussion and a new consensus can overturn it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It is, but the discussion needs to be aware of the status quo and how the status quo was arrived at. Further, since it was the result of an RfC, any proposal to overturn the consensus should probably be made as an RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, Slatersteven, Cinderella157, Cinderella157: So, do we have a consensus on adding "Supported by" for Ukraine? The Western military support for Ukraine has ramped up to the point where it's becoming a game-changer . Or, any volunteers to start RfC? --Mindaur (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with including it. It helps the reader to understand just how isolated Russia is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I also support including it, specially now per the two citations provided by Mindaur. Super Ψ Dro 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, Slatersteven, Cinderella157, Cinderella157, Viewsridge: I created an RfC below. Somebody should close all other sections as it's getting indeed confusing. Mindaur (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

supporting country ?

NO ACTION See open central discussion at #RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the table of the parties to the conflict there is Belarus as a supporting country, should the countries providing material support, including military support to Ukraine, not be included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

sign your posts with four consecutive tildas ( ~ ) 50.111.30.135 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal above, all countries provividing weapons to Ukraine should be considered as supporting countries --93.42.36.160 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

War spreading

After many ukrainian or supposed false flag attacks on Russian territory, should we add Russia/names of western Russian regions into the location of the infobox? We should also add transnistria as a spillover in the infobox after the past few attacks there. Wikiman92783 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as long as RS say they are part of the conflict and not (for examp[le) accidents. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't add Transnistria yet. It's clear it's a Russian false-flag attack, but it seems too much to just call it like spillover this soon. Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Prisoners of war

I would suggest to remove the opening sentence: "Over a thousand prisoners of war have been captured", as by now, by combining the claims of both sides (see the POW section in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War), the prisoners are supposedly a few thousands. --Potionkin (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Issue at Russo-Ukrainian War

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War § The state of this article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Refugees section - forced relocation

The text in the refugees section currently says:

Thousands of refugees arriving in Russia appeared to have been forcibly relocated using 'filtration centers', evoking the memory of Soviet era population transfers and prior Russian use of such centers in the Chechen War of Independence to suppress evidence of war crimes. As of 8 April, Russia evacuated approximately 121,000 Mariupol residents to Russia, with some allegedly having been sent to work there. RIA Novosti and Ukrainian officials stated that thousands were dispatched to various filtration centers in both Russian and Russian-occupied Ukrainian cities, from which people were redirected to economically depressed regions of Russia.

References

1. Peter, Laurence (27 March 2022). "Russia transfers thousands of Mariupol civilians to its territory". BBC News. Retrieved 1 April 2022.
2. ^ Mackintosh, Eliza; Ochman, Oleksandra; Mezzofiore, Gianluca; Polglase, Katie; Rebane, Teele; Graham-Yooll, Anastasia (8 April 2022). "Russia or die: After weeks under Putin's bombs, these Ukrainians were given only one way out". CNN. Retrieved 9 April 2022.
3. • Бутченко, Максим (15 April 2022). "В духе Сталина. Фильтрационные лагеря, допросы и вывоз в глушь — как Москва насильно депортирует украинцев Донбасса". NV.ua (in Russian). Retrieved 20 April 2022.
   • Шаповал, Валентина (18 April 2022). "Денисова: оккупанты держат в фильтрационных лагерях РФ более 20 000 мариупольцев". Segodnya (in Russian). Retrieved 20 April 2022.
   • Горичева, Юлия; Тохмахчи, Анна (11 April 2022). ""Раздевали, татушки мои смотрели". Артем уехал из Мариуполя в "ДНР", а потом и из России. Он рассказывает о том, что происходило на границах". Current Time TV (in Russian). Retrieved 20 April 2022.
   • Ганюкова, Ольга (10 April 2022). "Оккупанты создали в России лагерь для депортированных из Украины: там содержат более 400 человек". Obozrevatel (in Russian). Retrieved 20 April 2022.
   • Курпита, Татьяна (17 April 2022). ""Не имели одежды, еды и предметов гигиены": в России обнаружили три лагеря для депортированных мариупольцев". TSN (in Russian). Retrieved 20 April 2022.
   • Пилипенко, Евгений (24 March 2022). "Россия создала близ Донецка фильтрационный лагерь для украинцев – разведка". LIGA.net (in Russian). Retrieved 20 April 2022.
   • Климов, Александр (5 April 2022). "В Харьковской области оккупанты создают фильтрационные лагеря — Денисова". NV.ua (in Russian). Retrieved 20 April 2022.
   • Ball, Tom (20 March 2022). "Ukraine accuses Russia of killing 56 care home residents in Luhansk". The Times. News UK. Retrieved 20 April 2022.
   • "ФОТО. Оккупанты строят фильтрационные лагеря для украинцев". sport.ua (in Russian). 28 March 2022. Retrieved 20 April 2022.
4. Куприянова, Ольга (24 March 2022). "Фильтрационные лагеря и трудоустройство на Сахалине: украинцев из оккупированных городов принудительно отправляют в россию" . 1+1 (in Russian). Retrieved 20 April 2022.

A great deal of this should be "Ukrainian accuses" rather than WP:VOICE, while other parts don't appear to be in the sources/and or are editorialising (covering war crimes?). I can't read many of the Ru and Ukr sources so cannot fix. A similar text was copied to the Refugee crisis page, but much of it removed as WP:OR while other parts were altereed to Ukr claims. Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for sharing your point of view. However, changing the article to "Ukrainian accuses" doesn't seem to resolve the issue and seems to violate WP:VOICE. Perhaps in place of "Ukrainian accuses" we could use "it has been reported" which takes a neutral point of view in place of using the word "accuses" which is a lot more polarizing. This issue is difficult because there are a lot of strong opinions on both sides of this issue, it is an ongoing current event and it is polarizing. However, I believe we need to take a neutral approach in our editing. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No objection to "has been reported", "Ukraine accuses", was merely meant to make the point that at present it is almost impossible for any news source to verify many of these claims. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't you think these are refugee camps? Why are all these sources non English, and the two that there are are BBC and CNN. They have not exactly demonstrated themselves as the most honest recently or in the past. Ahm1453 (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

In the first sentence of the last paragraph in the 'Refugees' section, the word 'about' has been misspelled as 'aboit'. 04:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Belligerent is highly subjective 140.0.19.244 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No specific change suggested. — Czello 08:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

no, it is not - not at all - see a dictionary 50.111.30.135 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Request typo fix in quick info box

Quick post, shouldn't "Reports vary widely" be "reports vary Wildly?"--97.123.120.227 (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add russia or the western regions recently bombed into the infobox as ukraine occasionally bombs them now Wikiman92783 (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You can make an edit request using {{edit extended-protected}} if you wish. That'll put it in the list of requested edits. ★Ama 20:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, use of edit-request templates on a page like this is counterproductive. All that does is summon some random patroller, unfamiliar with the article, who will ritually tell the requester to get consensus first. On a page with many active watchers, simply stating what's requested or proposed, as the OP has done, is better; either someone will do it immediately, or discussion will ensue. EEng 16:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No fly zone

Should we change "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine as this would risk a larger-scale war, a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement" to "NATO and its member states also refused to send troops into Ukraine , or to establish a no fly-zone, as this would risk a larger-scale war, a decision which some experts have labeled as a policy of appeasement.", as it is sourced already. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. Reason: The "no-fly zone" request is prominently in the first sentence at Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Ukraine, so mentioning it here is good. --User:Haraldmmueller 14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. I agree with Harald's reasoning. UlyssorZebra (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

'No boots on the ground' and 'no planes in the air' is the consistent policy adopted throughout the invasion by supporting foreign governments. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll give till tomorrow if there are no obejcti0js I will make the change. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Has tomorrow come yet? EEng 16:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Its been done. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

typo: prupose → purpose 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you point out where specifically? Definitely makes it easier for editors with permissions to implement your request. Thanks. ★Ama 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This section: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Peace talks: Second phase of invasion (8 April to present). 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

tbh you could have very easily found it yourself using the CTRL+F function in your browser, or Misplaced Pages's own "find and replace" tool. 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

To be honest you could've read the instructions on the template telling you to specify where it is... It's not that I don't know how or where to find it, it's that I'm advising you, friendly at first and assuming good faith, to include it in your request so others don't have to do something you should've done in the first place. I'll re-open the edit request so someone can implement it. ★Ama 23:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the instructions don't say to specify where it is, only that the request needs to be in a specific "change x to y" format. There's only one instance of the misspelling, so there was no ambiguity in my request (and if there were more than one you'd want to fix them anyway). If you're not even familiar with the most basic of tools then you really need a new hobby. 82.132.185.14 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright man good luck finding someone who'll change your edit requests, have a good day. Unsubscribed and off my watchlist! ★Ama 23:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ama was trying to assist. This image is currently used on the Dutch Interwiki version of this article. Should it be used in the English version of this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

War crimes and human rights violations

Evidence of Russian war atrocities and human rights violations, from forced removals of Ukrainians to Russia, to executions and tortures of Ukrainians in Bucha, Irpin and numerous other locations, to mass graves in Mariupol, Bucha and other locations, must be included. I am appalled that they are not and that they don't have their own section. 2604:2D80:A782:BC00:978:8BCA:17A1:1FFC (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

They have better than their own section, they have their own article. BSMRD (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

War crimes? What war crimes? Where are your sources, IP? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine not Anti-Semetic

Russia falsely accused Ukraine of being na*i. I just wanted someone to use this source, according to pew research statistically in 2019 only 11% of Ukrainians had negative views on Jews, while 83% had positive views. That is higher than most European countries. I added this help combat misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm1453 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/14/minority-groups/

Putin ill

Vladimir Putin has been diagnosed with cancer and will soon be undergoing an operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. In fact it's not even a source at all, just an unconfirmable broadcast on a news channel we don't even know exists Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 08:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Please change the colours of your signature, it's nigh unreadable on a white background (which is what almost everyone has)

Googling yields a few reliable sources, ex. or ; however both of these seem to cite rumours or unsubstantiated claims by a "former Russian intelligence officer"; so this would fall squarely under WP:NOTNEWS (being unconfirmed speculation). It doesn't help that the other sources I could find reporting this include the ever reliable Daily Fail or its cousin the Sun... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian do you feel this is better? I'll definitely change it more to make it prettier though Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 20:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Yes, although the talk page link will need the same correction :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether this information should be included is also being discussed at Talk:Vladimir Putin. I would suggest trying to get consensus there before discussing whether it is appropriate for this article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin appears to be due for oncological surgery with 2-3 days recovery time in hospital according to multiple sources with his security council advisor Patrushev to tamporarily take office during the recovery time. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Spanish television channel Cuatro (TV channel); 02/05/2022

Belarus is a belligerent, continued

The previous discussion (#Belarus is a belligerent) was closed after a brief period with reference to an unnamed dictionary, and with a suggestion to start a new discussion with sources. So below are some articles by legal scholars. @Seryo93, ErnestKrause, EkoGraf, ProcrastinatingReader, Ahm1453, My very best wishes, and Cinderella157:

As pointed out above, the OSCE’s legal advice determined that by not sending forces into Ukraine Belarus is not a direct party to the international armed conflict, and therefore is not liable for Russian violations of international human-rights law in Ukraine. The OSCE’s report also included Ukraine’s response which points to the UN’s definition of aggression.

But at the same time, by facilitating Russia’s war and allowing unlawful invasion and direct attacks into Ukraine directly from its territory and airspace it bears state responsibility by violating the UN Charter’s Ch. I, Art. 2(4) prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and is also guilty of aggression, according to the UN’s definition (and Ukraine’s response on the latter point was valid).

I’ll reiterate Oxford dictionaries’ definition of a “belligerent,” verbatim: “Engaged in a war or conflict, as recognized by international law.” There is no more definitive legal source on war than the UN Charter’s article 2(4).

Belarus is guilty of unlawful use of force or threat of force and international aggression in this war against Ukraine. If we want to clarify what acts it did and did not commit, that is fine and right. But it should be listed as a belligerent for its illegal participation in use of force and aggression. —Michael Z. 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What dictionaries and UN documents define as being a "belligerent" is entirely irrelevant, per WP:SYNTH, if there is no source specifically saying "Belarus meets this definition". The only sources above which are not dictionaries or legal definitions are (which states that "However, the lack of neutrality does not mean participation in an armed conflict."), (which is a summary of the previous) and (which is one person's opinion, and which does not use the term "belligerent" anyways). So these sources are very far from sufficient to support such an inclusion, no matter what the Oxford dictionary might say. Basing an assertion on whether something meets a given dictionary definition, without a reliable source explicitly saying it does meet such a definition, is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH, and matches very closely with the final example of that section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

No. The term “belligerent” comes to us from a conventional label in a Misplaced Pages infobox. Its meaning to the editors and readers can only be determined by the template’s documentation, by broad consensus recorded in a discussion, or, failing that, by a dictionary definition.

By the way, if that is a hard requirement, I don’t see any sources that use the precise term “belligerent” for the Russian Federation, Donetsk People’s Republic, Luhansk People’s Republic, and Ukraine: so far their inclusion is also SYNTH. The OSCE source that some are relying on and cited above states that the D/LNR are “proxies” and “are under overall control of Russia,” and, passim, implies they are not co-belligerents of Russia (direct quotation is “this would anyway also be the case if those ‘republics’ were actually independent States, as Russia claims, and simply co-belligerents of Russia”), as part of the same legal argument used to exclude Belarus. —Michael Z. 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Template documentation is not policy. WP:OR is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you made the substantially the same argument in the previous discussion and the consensus was pretty clear. I don't think there's anything here that would change it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, on non-belligerency: A non-belligerent State is allowed to deviate from the duties of abstention, prevention and impartiality and, this notwithstanding, is not regarded as a party to the conflict. For instance, a non-belligerent State can help a party to the conflict by channelling to it war material and other strategic supplies. It may also furnish logistic support, such as warship refuelling or repair, beyond the limits set forth by the 1907 Hague Convention No. XIII, or allowing belligerent aircraft to land on and take off from its territory, contrary to the rules of neutrality which require their internment. A formula encapsulating non-belligerency is that the non-belligerent is entitled to aid the belligerent, bar armed intervention at its side (emphasis mine). Pretty much the situation with Belarusian involvement in this conflict: it allows its territory to be used by the Russian military units involved in the hostilities, but doesn't send its own military in support of the Russian effort. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Per RandomCanadian, ProcrastinatingReader and Seryo93, everything has already been said. Unless you can provide a source explicitly stating Belarus is directly participating in the conflict, anything else is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Also I don't think reopening the discussion one day after it was closed is really per WP guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that is pretty specific, including resupply and landing. Excellent. But the quotation doesn’t include allowing direct cross-border invasion and cross-border firing attacks, both of which Belarus has facilitated. Does it get explicit about that? (Unfortunately, Google Books is not letting me view the content of that source.) —Michael Z. 21:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I do see that citations provide for aerial attack from a non-belligerent territory (essentially, "or allowing belligerent aircraft to <...> take off from its territory" is not much different from Belarusian allowance for Russia to send its forces to Ukraine from Belarusian territory), which, after all, is still an attack by belligerent force. Furthermore, "the non-belligerent is entitled to aid the belligerent, bar armed intervention at its side " still applies fully to Belarus. It avoids direct intervention by its own military, but assists Russia in other ways, including territorially. Seryo93 (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen any quotations that say that a state can allow cross-border invasion or shelling from its own territory by a belligerent and still remain a non-belligerent. This is still not covered by the sources mentioned. —Michael Z. 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

If it's not covered by the sources, then it fails WP:V, and doesn't get included. As simple as that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict

Quote:

No need for a note, Misplaced Pages's guideline has been clearly defined Template:Infobox military conflict for well over a decade and Seryo93, ProcrastinatingReader and Ahm1453 have all said it quite well. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The topic was closed because there is really nothing to argue. The article is already Ukrainian biased in my opinion. It does not even mention any western nations as Supporting states.

I can under that this is an on going issue and people are personally affected by this conflict so I do not want to harm their feelings, but it is important to remember that Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda source.

Ahm1453 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Well, according to Lukashenko, the Belarus army plays an active role by preventing any attack on Russian forces from the rear . Furthermore, he claimed to intercept missiles sent by Ukrainian forces . I think that does constitutes a direct involvement to the military campaign. So yes, a belligerent. I am not sure if Lukashenko was telling the truth. However, if that was true (the Ukrainian forces do seem to strike already Russian territory ), i.e. the Ukrainian forces were sending missiles, and Belorussian forces intercepted them, that immediately makes Belarus a belligerent. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment Referring to my previous and the reasons given for the close. That we are arguing semanitics of definitions here clearly makes the assertion a matter of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. It is clearly contentious and not a matter of WP:BLUE. Per WP:BURDEN we need WP:RSs to support such a claim. However, it can (given the contention) be viewed as a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require exceptional sources. Sources would need to specifically state that Belarus is a belligerent. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (and the template documentation), we would require a clear consensus of sources before we might add such a claim to the infobox as a summary of the article and WP:DUE. We are far from anywhere near this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Legal status of Belarus

Mzajac has just added the narrative form of his Belarus edit into the Legality section of this article. At the same time, User:Cinderella is discussing size issues of this article in the new section above on this Talk page, and the possibility of moving those sections into their already existing sibling articles on Misplaced Pages. Would that work for all the editors involved here? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it; because it appears UNDUE in that specific section (there are plenty of sources discussing the issue of Russia's crime of aggression and of further war crimes; however including Belarus in that would be unwarranted in an article which is supposed to be a summary of the topic - of course, outside of the specific legal issues, mention of Belarus is appropriate in other places and in other contexts). No objection to this kind of content being split out to appropriate sub-pages where it can be discussed with sufficient depth and detail to allow for proper emphasis of the more significant elements. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:, so you reverted my verbatim inclusion of conclusions from sources due to reasons: “A single opinion post, even by a PhD, is not enough to justify this kind of content in a Misplaced Pages article; per the WP:OR issues already explained at sufficient depth on talk page and also per WP:UNDUE,” which I do not understand. Other editors disputed the application of the term “belligerent,” which this does not address, and you closed the discussion as an uninvolved editor, asking for sources. So I found sources, and now you dispute these sources, including the ones previously used by advocates of opposing views, without any sources that contradict them. This is not right.

What I included is balanced and broadly and accurately represents sources without contradicting those that argued against labelling Belarus as a “belligerent” in the infobox.

Also, when reverting, please do the courtesy of using the “revert” function or pinging us in your edit summary. —Michael Z. 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You are well aware of the issues with the sources, as I've explained to you very clearly above (19:15, 1 May 2022), and in the edit summary (opinion posts by a PhD are still opinion posts and should not be used to make claims in Wiki-voice). The point about UNDUE is self-explanatory (it brings undue weight to focus on Belarus in that particular section) and similarly also explained (21:21, 1 May 2022). The WP:ONUS is for you to get consensus for inclusion (or, as others have suggested, to include this material in sub-pages which can afford to cover the topic with more details). Me being previously uninvolved does not mean I have to stay uninvolved forever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Perm factory explosion and fire

An article has been made for the 2022 Perm factory explosion and fire. The sources I can access allege that this might be sabotage, but since newsweek is pretty dubious, I don't want to put anything that isn't directly stated as fact into the article. I'd like some help in building the article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the scope could be expanded to cover all sabotage attacks in Russia. I've heard a lot in the news, and in cities like St. Petersburg and even Moscow. Not sure if that event alone is notable by itself. Super Ψ Dro 17:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I would, but I really have no idea where to start, especially since the Perm explosion isn't stated to be sabotage by any source I can find. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus There is now a draft page for Draft:Sabotage during the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully this blooms into another good page shooting off from the main article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The fear with sabotage like this is suddenly everything that goes wrong in Russia is because of sabotage. Fire? Sabotage. Explosion? Sabotage. Bridge collapse? Sabotage. Methanol instead of ethanol in the cleaning product killing scores? Sabotage. I'm not saying that it's not occurring but I think stuff like this has the ability to quickly become a bit paranoid especially in a country that has had something of a reputation for strange and bizarre events. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

reminder that the TP's are NOT a forum - your post is 100% discussing the topic instead of bringing a RS to improve the article 50.111.30.135 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Append it to April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks, which looks like it’s being expanded and renamed (see its talk page) to include all suspicious attacks, fires, and explosions in the Russian Federation. —Michael Z. 23:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

just FYI, if you struggle to find sources but find one that DOES state something as fact, best bet is to use WP:INLINE attribution such as "According to (whoever),.... blah blah blah". See also WP:WIKIVOICE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The map should respect that Transnistria= Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia

The neutral point of view is clearly violated because in truth Transnistria is Moldovan territory illegally occupied by Russia. This is a fact, not an opinion. The map does not respect this, therefore I suggest changing this so that the neutral point of view is not violated. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:396C:BBA9:BB1F:9851 (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In what way? Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Refer to wikipedia's page on Transnistria conflict. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. If the map shows something else, this needs to be addressed Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

War crimes, lead section and article. Informal request for comments

As this article's section on war crimes used to be identical to the lead section of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I'd welcome if all interested editors could help us reach a consensus (or at least an orderly discussion) on that article's talk page. We are reaching the brink of another edit war there. The main controversial changes recently made to the lead section of that article are the following ones:

• Removed from the lead any references to mistreatment of marauders and pro-Russian supporters: The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about reports and videos of ill-treatment, torture, and public humiliation of civilians and prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine: alleged marauders, bootleggers, pro-Russian supporters and curfew violators have been publicly humiliated by police officers and members of the territorial defence...; plus, removed this section on the same topic from the article.
• Removed from the lead any references to torture and killing of Russian prisoners of war (POW) (... and Russian prisoners of war have allegedly been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.) and replaced them with references to allegations of ill-treatment of Russian POW (The Monitoring Mission has also expressed concern about videos and allegations of ill-treatment of Russian prisoners of war in territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine.).
• Added to the lead Ukrainian prisoners of war have also been abused, exposed to public curiosity, tortured, and subjected to summary execution.
• Added to the lead Human rights organizations have also accused Russian troops of using mass rape as a "weapon of war", possibly with tacit approval from their superiors. In March 2022 the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine stressed the heightened risks of sexual violence and the risk of under-reporting by victims in the country. After Russian withdrawal from areas north of Kyiv, according to The Guardian, there was a "mounting body of evidence" of rape, torture and summary killings by Russian forces inflicted upon Ukrainian civilians, including gang-rapes committed at gunpoint and rapes committed in front of children
• Removed from the article any references to allegations by Russia over Ukraine using citizens as human shields.

You can confront this old version (11:19, 26 April 2022) with this more recent one (00:43, 30 April 2022). This is the diff between the two versions. These changes were made by User:Volunteer Marek and User:Shadybabs against the opposition of User:Ilenart626 and myself. As the latter editors have been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting facts to push a POV, I disengage and leave it to all interested editors to restore the balance or find a new one on the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You are still listed by Wikitools as #9 for authorship of this article out of over 1000 editors of the page. What do you state by using the word 'disengage'? Does it mean no more editing on the main page or no more editing on the Talk page here? User:Cinderella in the section directly above seems to have some similar comments on the article. Is that a 'disengage' in the narrow sense or the broad sense of the phase? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

By "disengage" I only meant that I'm abandoning an editorial conflict that has become unpleasant to me. I've invited you to join that discussion but I haven't implied anything about my future editing - although perhaps the time has come for me to take a break from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Broader participation is necessary: 2 editors against 2 editors is not a majority, let alone a consensus, and that article is too important to be neglected (apart from the fact that, as User:Cindarella157 rightly pointed out here above, we'd achieved some sort of coordination between the main article's and that article's editing processes). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well, that was definitely an improvement by users you complain about. They fixed the bias and made this text more focused on more significant war crimes, such as rapes, etc.My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Much bias?

I notice that everything that happened to Russians is "alleged" according to you. While everything that happened to Ukrainians is fact. Despite the fact that there are video and photographic evidence that prove Ukrainian guilty and also Russian guilt atleast prima facie. Ahm1453 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Much bias? 2.0

Removal of Russian allegations, removal of any evidence suggesting that Ukraine is also committing war crimes. Remember Misplaced Pages is NOT a PROPAGANDA source for Ukraine. Ahm1453 (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

or Russia. We should do our best not to repeat any propaganda. But as well. just because there is video, doesn't make it so Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

War/invasion

Change invasion to war 2A01:E0A:A7E:E860:584A:2A5F:88EF:7F2C (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We have an article on the wider war, this is about this specific operation/invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That article is a large bunch of OR and an issue of design-by-committee, where it gradually morphed from an article on the 2014 annexation of Crimea, to an article basically on Ukraine and Russia's interactions since 2014. It's most obvious in the lead, which focuses on 2014 events, then jumps to 2019 providing just one sentence on current status, and then discusses the 2022 invasion. It labels 2015-2022 as a "frozen conflict phase (2015-2022)". In reality, it is talking about two disparate issues that occurred in 2014 and then in 2022, and decided to pop them all into one article under an OR heading of "Russo-Ukrainian War", solidified by a low-participation no-sources RM. That article has no clear scope.

I don't have strong feelings either way about whether this article should be called "invasion" or "war", but I do want to point out that there are a LOT of sources that call 2014 to 2022 a frozen conflict, including the monitors of the Minsk agreement. It is however true that the article clearly hasn't been worked on much since about 2015. But that could be remedied. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The “frozen conflict” stage of the war didn’t begin until February 2015, but I think you’ll find many sources that say the Russians were trying to establish a frozen conflict during this “trench warfare” period. In fact, more than half of the pre-February 2022 casualties were incurred after the end of the 2014-15 “hot war” or “active” phase. —Michael Z. 03:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor's suggestion is fair. I think the COMMONNAME is still invasion, but where sources refer to a war, they're referring to this 2022 event. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We have eight years of sources referring to the war before that.  —Michael Z. 03:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC) —Michael Z. 03:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I think invasion is fair to use because it really is in every way an invasion. Misplaced Pages lists United States invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Iraq as invasions, not Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is Chechnya not listed under the belligerents?

They were sent to Ukraine by order of their president, so they clearly should be listed. 87.50.178.158 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya isn't an independent state or breakaway region like the DPR and LPR; the Chechen Republic is a constituent part of the Russian Federation. Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Guettarda, also discussed once more before. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya is not an independent state. It would be like complaining that Texas is not listed as a belligerent in a US war. Ahm1453 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Or Canada. EEng 16:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

bad joke Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

information that could be added

As for war crimes go Russia has been seen and filmed using cluster bombs which are illegal to use against civilians, and even placed many many land mines around bridges. Another incident is the train station bombing that killed 50-100 people or the mass graves found. lastly jailed 15-20K protesters banned Facebook IG and news stations for calling it a war/invasion and anyone could be jailed for calling it so for 15 years. 47.157.236.115 (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This article is a summary of the invasion as a whole. The section on war crimes herein is the lead of the main article on this specific topic - War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The lead of that aricle is a summary of that article. Specific details should be added to that article if not already there. Cluster munitions are already mentioned in this article, as is deliberate killing of civilians and censorship is dealt with in another section of this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Notes on English-language idiom

A lot of editors here and on other Ukrainian pages seem to have English as a second or third language. Nothing wrong with that of course, but a couple of points that I keep correcting over and over again:

• An "amount" is for fungible things, that you might weigh, for example. If it is something you can count (even if you haven't) you probably mean "many" rather than "a large amount", or perhaps "a large number". "Some" is acceptable both for number and amount, btw.
• I keep seeing language that somebody "began to" do something when the meaning seems to clearly be that they "did" something. I suspect this is idiom from some language that I don't speak, but in English this really emphasizes the "begin" part, and unless the point really is that this is a change and this is when it happened, you're just eating up bandwidth to add in extra words that make your sentence confusing.

Thank you everybody for your attention to these matters. Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Another point I keep seeing that isn't *wrong* but isn't quite English somehow: In constructions like "Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund", that "the" is not normally used in the first mention. If you are going to mention her again after a fairly long intervening text, and the reader might have forgotten who she is, however, the proper format would be "Georgieva, the IMF managing director". In this case you are reminding the reader; don't ask me to explain why this is not done in first mentions, but it isn't. This is also my notification to the group that I am making these copyedits, btw. Feel free to object that I am imposing my own dialect or whatever if that seems appropriate ;) Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Also a hold-out is the person or thing that holds out. The hyphenated word is a noun not a verb. This one comes up quite a bit also. If we could stop reproducing it this would make me happy Thanks 08:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Potential NATO enlargement as a reaction/impact

One of the knock-on effects has been that NATO enlargement is on the agenda in a very big way in Finland and Sweden (see Finland–NATO relations for Finnish sources to choose from with some in English, and there's incidental stuff for Sweden there too, but probably better Swedish sources exist). Specifically, there's been a _massive_ shift in public opinion, and it's now being worked through in parliament in Finland, and, though neither country's officially come out and said as much yet, it looks like both countries will be submitting applications. I'm pretty sure this should be mentioned somewhere in the article-plex covering the war, but I can't quite figure out the best place to put it. Main article? Maybe marginally not noteworthy enough - but a short sentence might be a good amount of weight; even if it does go in to the main article, it should also go into one of the specific reactions articles. Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Well, it's not governmental yet! Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Maybe - but I can't see any other examples of big public opinion shifts mentioned in there, and it's likely to become governmental in a few weeks. I also slightly quibble about this being a 'reaction' - if NATO does expand due to the war, it seems pretty impactful! Ideas, anyone? FrankSpheres (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Lets leave it until it enlarges. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's probably fair to not touch the top-level article until there's some kind of official movement. But I do also think that waiting until NATO officially expands will be way too late: the best guess is it's six to eighteen months away, depending on diplomacy and just how much of a hurry everyone's in but that they'll be accepted, and will have NATO-equivalent security guarantees in the meantime. This is a significant consequence even while it's in progress and readers will want to know about it, and we'd be doing them a disservice by leaving it out until the final accession is agreed months later. Maybe when they formally apply and begin negotiations will be the right moment to warrant a mention in the top-level article? (Still not sure whether it ultimately belongs in the 'Sanctions and ramifications' section or the 'Reactions' section, but, upon further reflection, I'm not sure that that division is very natural anyway. But that's a different discussion!)

I've gone and added a little description of the polling to Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in a new section as a bold edit - the polling shift has already happened so there's not even a technical element of speculation there and, even after there's an official application to go in the governmental reactions article, that'll make sense. Like I said, even with a mention in the top-level article, this should be mentioned in the specific reactions article(s) because of summary style. FrankSpheres (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO membership application, or an official confirmation of intent to apply, would be an appropriate point for addition here.--Staberinde (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Putin cites growing NATO membership as a reason for thinking that Russia's security interests are in play, I agree. Elinruby (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Content issue for discussion

The Background section says "During the election campaign, the pro-European integration opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned by TCDD dioxin; he later implicated Russian involvement." I believe the intended meaning of "implicated" here is "accused" but that fails verification also, since what he actually does, according to the source at the end of the sentence, is accuse Russia of refusing to make witnesses (suspects?) available. Needs a better source and possibly a rewrite Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

well. let me amend that. The source is fine but doesn't support the text in front of it, so one or the other should change.Elinruby (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Size split

At 85kb of readable prose, this article is already in "probably should be split" territory, and heading towards "almost certainly should be split". We should start a discussion to see in what manner this article should be split, since as time goes on, and the war goes on, it's likely to continue getting bigger. One possibility is the sections "First phase..." and "Casualties...", each of which is around 45kb (raw), and which could be summarized, with content moved into a new article. See WP:SIZESPLIT. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

In most cases, sections of the article already have child articles that align to the sections (more or less). It is more a case of now being ruthless in culling and more effectively summarising detail best covered in the child articles. In the case of War crimes and crimes against humanity, that subsection was culled by replacing it with the lead at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There was a discussion leading to this which was pretty smooth and the lead from the child article dovetailed very neatly into this article. Reasonably, the whole section, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Legal implications could have been replaced except that: War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine did not cover all of the content in the man section (even though it might reasonably do so; and, there are other daughter articles (such as Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that don't follow a clear hierarchy. I think that this experience indicates a course of action, addressing sections or subsections here as a concerted plan for each section or subsection. It should draw on why that experience worked and how it could be improved upon. It would require a mutually aligned concerted effort between an identified section/subsection and the primary child page. It would require cross-alignment from here to there; a good succinct lead; and, sourcing in that lead, even though that is not a normal requirement of a lead. My thoughts, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The other approach for that section would be to first move or split the material to the sibling pages which you mention. Then you would have more room to bulk down that section to a short summary alone, with all redirects moved to the top of the section similar to what Boud and elinruby did for the Media section and other sections previously. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

If people were happy with what I did with the media section, I am willing to do another move in a day or two. Right now I am re-reading the article and doing a cautious copy-edit, reducing size where this seems like an improvement anyway. I am not removing any content at this time, just tightening up the language a bit. (and documenting kinda precisely) Elinruby (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Supporting on this. Time frame you mention is also good. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem with strength figures in infobox

There is a fairly obvious issue with infobox strength figures. Russian army is shown only as its initial force, and separatist armies are shown at their peacetime size. On other hand for Ukraine both standing army and reservists are shown. Basically Russia + separatists are shown at their initial frontline strength, while Ukraine is shown at full theoretical potential. This is highly misleading, while Ukraine is mobilizing, this is not an instant process. Additionally separatist republics are also mobilizing and in fact started mobilizing earlier than Ukraine. Also, while Russia itself is not officially mobilizing, it has sent additional reinforcements from other regions to Ukraine.--Staberinde (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Staberinde, the only "reliable" figures we have for a particular point in time (or there abouts) is at the start of the invasion. The infobox specifically notes it is as at the start. Do you have a particular suggestion and sources to support same? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 Ukraine definitely didn't have 900,000 reservists under arms at the start of invasion, so quite clearly those should be removed from infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The 900,000 appears to be reliably sourced to International Institute for Strategic Studies. Do you have a source that states otherwise? Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

International Institute for Strategic Studies does not claim 900,000 Ukrainian reservists were mobilized and combat ready on 24 February 2022. Do you have source stating that they were?--Staberinde (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing the opposite is true in regard to Russian troop numbers which are down not up: "Russia is beginning this offensive with a depleted army. American officials say that it retains only 75% of the combat power, across ground and air forces, that it had at the start of the war. Russia originally amassed 120 or so battalion tactical groups (BTGs), formations of around 700 soldiers. Dozens of these are no longer battle-worthy after suffering heavy losses of men and equipment. The Pentagon reckons that there are 78 BTGs in Ukraine presently; Ukrainian officials put the figure at 87." Furthermore monitoring and tallying troop movements from various sources would be WP:OR, so we have initial numbers, and have left them. That they are initial is clearly marked in the text. Plus that all aside it's an infobox not a scoreboard. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Resistance in the lead

Hi! It seems to me that the article lacks a mention to the role of the Ukrainian resistance in the lead and focuses almost exclusively on the Russian action. If I well remember it once said something like "Russian troops met stiff resistance and logistical problems that hampered their progress," is there a reason behind its removal? FilBenLeafBoy (Let's talk!) 00:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

International press has been covering this as a Russian invasion with Ukraine applying a strategy of bunker defenses, siege defenses, and trench warfare defensive tactics to impede Russian advances. The Russian actions are usually documented first since they are the ones determining where the invasion is expanding the military front of Russia's attacks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

US assessment of nuclear weapons

The US stated last week that it does not believe Russia will use nuclear weapons or attack NATO territory, in spite of Russian statements. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sees-no-threat-russia-using-nuclear-weapons-despite-rhetoric-official-2022-04-29/ Possibly applicable to the nuclear weapons use section. Overlasting Peace (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Article section seems to have moved forward to May references rather than the April reference which you link. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Leaders in infobox

I recall that in the early days of the war, the 'leaders' portion of the infobox included more than just Putin and Zelenskyy. Somewhere in March other figures like Mishustin, Shoigu etc were removed. Obviously not every general of politician should be included, but why the change? I haven't seen any infobox show just the heads of state before Rousillon (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a summary of key points of the article - ie it is supported by text in the body of the article. Any commanders with no mention or only a passing mention in the body of the article are not prominent in the context of the article and are not included for that reason. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not they're discussed at length in the articles, they're still prominent in the context of the invasion. I am not saying this infobox should include the unimportant low-ranking politicians or commanders, but it should include the figures who do have important roles in this war (like Shoigu, Gerasimov, Dvornikov, Kadyrov, Zaluzhniy, Reznikov). As is standard in most other infoboxes such as this. It just seems odd to only list Putin and Zelenskyy (and even if it's only supposed to be heads of state, it ignores Pushilin and Pasechnik)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rousillon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

See infoboxes at Kyiv offensive (2022), Northeastern Ukraine offensive, etc. I was able to locate Gerasimov and Zaluzhniy displayed under "leaders" there and I expect the other leaders are similarly covered where relevant. Per Cinderella157, this is just organization and appropriate summary technique to parallel the article prose. --N8_wilson 20:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine all alone

NO ACTION There is an open RfC on this issue at #RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine (above). Constructive comments on that issue should be made there rather than opening multiple threads. On the other hand, international "support" for Ukraine is covered in the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The fact that this page still does not show that Ukraine is supported by other countries is so fricking ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to push an agenda. I mean it is not even a matter of denial of support, Ukraine is openly supported by western allies with weapons, training, and intelligence. Why is it even up for debate whether they should be shown as supporting or not? It is plainly misleading and dishonest to show it as it is. 142.184.180.208 (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see A2 in the FAQ at the top of the page; a discussion already took place regarding this. — Czello 08:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has long become a monument for editor biases and double standards. HangaMiJyang (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Single purpose account. See Czello above. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s

In the "Foreign military sales and aid" section, there is a mention of Slovakia having SU-25s with which it could supply Ukraine. However, that source is incorrect, Slovakia does not operate any SU-25s since ~2002 and sold most of them to Armenia in ~2004. Here's a wiki page detailing every Slovak SU-25s and what happened to them (though it is only in Slovak). There's also a List of Sukhoi Su-25 operators Standa-SK (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

er. I don't suppose you have handy a reference for the sale? I did notice this mention earlier, and didn't question it to go look at the reference, but if you're right this should be fixed. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Source for the mention of SU-25s is "Weber, Peter (28 February 2022). "EU nations intend to supply Ukraine with fighter jets, foreign policy chief says". The Week. Archived from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 28 February 2022."; The Week is a decent source but I am waaay outside my scope of knowledge. Is there somebody who speaks Slovak that could look at this? Standa-SK, is the statement on the Slovak Misplaced Pages referenced? And if so by whom? 11:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Best I could find is this article from the Slovak Ministry of Defense or this article from SME. At least one of the SU-25s sold to Armenia was shot down during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. As for the statements in the Slovak Misplaced Pages article, they are all sourced to valka.cz. Standa-SK (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

mmm well that valka forum won’t fly as a reliable source, I don’t think. I do see that the list of Sukoi operators does not include Slovakia, but again, that’s not an RS. On the other hand, while your MOD and SME articles both go to the same news agency article, it does look reliable, although, again, we are way outside any area where I can claim expertise. So I might be willing to believe that Slovakia sold 10 of these jets to Albania but do we know how many they had to begin with? Still, Slovakia’s participation, or not, is fairly peripheral in this article. It might be best to just remove that part of the sentence, on the principle of first do no harm. Anyone else have an opinion? Elinruby (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, the section reads: EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the EU intended to supply Ukraine with fighter jets. Bulgaria, Poland, and Slovakia had MiG-29s, and Slovakia also had Su-25s, aircraft which Ukraine already flew and which could be transferred without pilot training. However, the planes' owners were reluctant to donate weapons critical for their own territorial defences, and feared that Russia could view it as an act of war if jets fly from their air bases to fight over Ukraine. This section is describing an "intention". It fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. As to the more specific question (questionable clam re Slovakia), the is WP:ONUS. Strike the lot IMHO. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)  Done Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

ok thanksElinruby (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Mearsheimer

Not a word about Mearsheimer's take on the conflict? 2001:B07:646B:4D36:FDE4:1A7B:6912:9FA0 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We do not mention all kinds of peoples take on it, why should we include his? Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it's opposite to most ad it has had quite a wide resonance.

That probably belongs to page Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, not to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Put it there. 93.45.56.11 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

View that PDF and scroll down to the chart that shows most experts disagree with Mearsheimer. Maybe that’s why. Although he is an important scholar, his views on Ukraine do not represent the academic consensus. Russian propaganda has really been pushing Mearsheimer videos and interviews on social media because they serve its purposes when sound bites are presented without context. (But it counts on you not reading very much of that PDF, because Mearsheimer keeps repeating that the Russian Federation is a declining power that will keep getting weaker.)

Here’s a couple of critiques of Mearsheimer:  —Michael Z. 16:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, just as they say, the article by Mearsheimer is full of contradictions, and he just repeats some "arguments" by Putin. Of course one could criticize Western countries (and especially Germany), but that would be not for expanding NATO, but for supporting in many ways the regime in Russia before the invasion. Putin is exactly same man as he was in 2000, and he was preparing this invasion since 2014 or possibly earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of contradictions around the topic, if something was said by Putin it doesn't make it the exact opposite of truth. What about "assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed"? US National Security Archive begs to differ: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early 128.106.218.149 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Intel

Please add: "The CIA provided intelligence that helped Ukrainian forces locate and strike the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The targeting help, which contributed to the eventual sinking of the Moskva, is part of a continuing classified effort by the Biden administration to provide real-time battlefield intelligence to Ukraine."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/05/us-intelligence-ukraine-moskva-sinking --91.54.19.14 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia launching nukes?

Can someone, anyone, explain the point of 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Potential_Russian_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons? It's a long section devoid of any substance at all. A bunch of speculation about whether Russia will use nuclear weapons, most recently a denial from Russia, mixed in with extended (yet predictable) quotes from Zelensky about the suitability of Russia as a responsible nuclear weapons state due to apparent contamination concerns (which–if actual–should come from scientists if anything, not from politicians). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There are too many comments from multiple world leaders fully cited in that section. Its not just Zelenskyy, and it looks like William Burns of the CIA has commented, Sergei Lavrov has commented for Russia, Antony Blinken for the State Department, John Kirby for the Pentagon, and others. Each of these names has a Misplaced Pages article for their biographies, and it seems to be a non-trivial discussion involving Russia as a nuclear power. That seems to be more than "predictable quotes from Zelenskyy". ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

But it still is all just speculation, maybe one paragraph, but that is it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

World leaders have made a million comments on a million issues since Feb. If Russia doesn't use nukes, this stuff will be a footnote in 10 years time. If nukes are used, then it will be significant. So far, no nukes are used, and there's no realistic prospect of them being used. We write articles for the long term, we aren't a news ticker. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

They have used nukes though. Nuclear weapons have two uses, one is destruction, and the other use is the threat of destruction. Every time Russia threatens to go nuclear it is using the weapons, this is one of their main uses. It also has fundamentally re-calibrated the conflict, western nations are obsessed with the threat and go to pain staking lengths to avoid escalation; such caution was in short supply when NATO helped end the Serbian genocide in Bosnia. I also disagree with the idea that this will be a footnote, Russia's using of nuclear weapons to create an umbrella around the Ukrainian conflict is noticed world wide and has smashed nuclear non-proliferation. 2804:14C:8781:8673:DF9D:44EE:7D88:C1A8 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Equipment Losses should be listed as clearly as possible

Why are there no[REDACTED] articles detailing equipment losses?

Numbers can never be 100% accurate, but for instance there's been 7 provable downings of a TB-2 Bayraktar Drone used by the UA Air Force occuring as late as early May - However, Russia claimed that they've successfuly downed all operational drones since early on in the war. These two discrepencies could be easily rectified with a list detailing confirmed equipment losses to give a more complete picture of the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:3582:571C:5343:76D (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Typos

Section "Russian accusations and demands": "repressng" should be "repressing" Andyofmelbourne (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2022 (typo fix)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead section ('The invasion was internationally condemned as an war of aggression.') please fix 'an war' to 'a war'. Jakub 42 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Tamzin (she/they) 03:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the section "Alleged clashes (17–21 February 2022)" there is a spelling mistake: "the another" instead of just "another" or "the other". Please change this to one of the two suggestions. Thanks.

In the same section there is a dot in the middle of the sentence about russian videos after the word "amateurish".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribidag (talk • contribs) 6:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done both. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Second phase — Siege of Mariupol" section, please change "Reports of dissent within the Ukrainian troops at Azovstal were reported by Ukraienskaya Pravda on 8 May indicating that the commander of the Ukrainian Marines assigned to defend the Azovstal bunkers made an unauthorized acquisition of tanks, munitions and personnel to make a breakout from the entrenched position there in order to flea from the city" to "in order to flee the city. These are two different words. Plus, please fix the typo in the same sentence: Ukraienskaya to Ukrainskaya. Thank you. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:14C4:5AD3:A60C:2C7C (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done both. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

"Invasion" word is misused

NOT DONE WP:COMMONNAME Cinderella157 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is not a invasion. President Putin's statement says that it's a "special operations in Ukraine". There was no formal declaration of war on former state of Soviet Union "Ukraine". Please change the title of the page to "2022 Russia's Special Operation in Ukraine" as Russia haven't declared war on Ukraine. I believe Misplaced Pages should see sources from both sides instead of relying entirely on Western Sources. 106.197.2.17 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't repeat Kremlin propaganda. — Czello 09:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

invasion

/ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n/

noun

an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

Nope seems to me what Russia is doing fits this definition precisely. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple independent reliable sources refer to this as an "invasion" (per here). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Dignifying this obvious troll with a response is counterproductive. If they want to indulge in a dystopian alternate reality, there are plenty of other sites offering that. ― Tartan357  10:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very long sentence

In the section "Impact on agriculture and food suppies" there is a very long sentence relying on a single source:

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), further to causing the loss of lives and increasing humanitarian needs, the likely disruptions caused by the Russian invasion to Ukraine's grain and oilseed sectors, combined with potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions, could jeopardise the food security of many countries, especially those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.

I suggest breaking this sentence up, perhaps like so:

Due to the Russian invasion, disruptions to the grain and oilseed sectors of Ukraine are likely. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), this would cause further loss of life and increase humanitarian needs. In addition, potential food and fertiliser export difficulties encountered by the Russian Federation as a result of economic sanctions could jeopardise the food security of many countries. Particularily vulnerable are those that are highly dependent on Ukraine and the Russian Federation for their food and fertiliser imports.

(However, feel free to change it as you like.)

This would mean repeating the source after each full stop, but would make it much easier to read.--Ribidag (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit looks good; feel free to make it, keeping in mind spelling errors and the English style guide (I believe this article uses American English, though feel free to correct me). Iseultparlez moi 18:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Ribidag I see now that the page is EC-protected; I'll make the changes then. Iseultparlez moi 18:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. (This article is written in British English). Ribidag (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done by Iseult Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO RESPONSE/INVOLVEMENT

I believe that NATO involvement in the war has helped Ukraine get an upper hand, and I think it should be mentioned. Here are some sources to back up my point:

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/europe/europe-top-stories/russia-plays-down-nuclear-war-talk-after-us-ambassador-chides-nato/ar-AAWZk6M?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/after-nato-weapons-u-s-intelligence-shines-for-ukraine/ar-AAWZKc3?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-ambassador-to-u-s-says-nato-not-taking-nuclear-war-threat-seriously/ar-AAWXLkL?ocid=BingNewsSearch

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sweden-and-finland-nato-membership-could-be-approved-in-just-2-weeks-e2-80-94report/ar-AAWUFoQ?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Please excuse my bad citing, I am still working on it. BadKarma22 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, what section would this be added under? BadKarma22 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC) BadKarma22 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO has taken the position of 'no boots on the ground' and 'no planes in the air' to support Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already a section for this. See 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Foreign_military_support NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

NATO, as an organisation, has provided very little in the way of direct support to Ukraine and is mainly focused preventing an escalation by bolstering the defence in neighboring countries. It is NATO countries, not NATO as an organization, that are supplying arms and other support to Ukraine. Obscurasky (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I originally intended to add this to the Russo-Ukraine War page and didn't check this article. I apologize. However, I think we could still mention the US intelligence contribution. BadKarma22 (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I was also using NATO as an umbrella term. BadKarma22 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would add to the page the ramification of the conflict in terms of the change in the geopolitical situation in the scandinavian peninsula, today the uk and finland signed a mutual security agreement to protect eachother, quite a strong sign that finland is almost certainly going to join nato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELtorto (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange grammar

In the section "Prisoners of War", it says that over a thousand prisoners were captured. Seeing as though the conflict is still ongoing and more are likely to be captured, I suggest changing this to have been captured.--Ribidag (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's strange that a prisoner would be captured, no? Makes more sense that a soldier would be captured and then become a prisoner. 2804:14C:8781:8673:7FA:C827:BED8:CE71 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Then perhaps it ought to be "Over a thousand combatants have been captured". Then again, it might be best to just remove that sentence since it is bound to be outdated. Any thoughts? Ribidag (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite lead sentence of Prisoners section to deal with reliability/unreliability issues of statistics generated during the invasion by different sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. I think the sentence could be split in two. I suppose one could also argue that any information regarding casualty counts ought to be limited to the dedicated casualties section above, so a rewrite could be:

Reliable statistics concerning prisoners of war resulting from the invasion have been disputed in the international press. Both underestimates and overestimates of prisoner counts are apparent depending on the source of the statistics.

Also, the first sentence seems to say that the international press has disputed reliable statistics, which is odd. I suppose the intended message is that the international press has disputed whether or not it is possible to make reliable statistics. If that is the case, I feel that it should be clarified. Ribidag (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it was changed as I wrote this. Ribidag (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Электроник to Mr. Biden

Impenetrable conversation, not going anywhere. — Czello 13:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NATO Casualties : The Russians have got WARD recently ... Do YOU know who was JW Clark ? Is he a hero from the USA or just one "white mercenary" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not quite sure that I understand your post. Could you please be more specific? 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:1009:A242:23B5:EF2C (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Russian TV often shows dead americans ... Can you mention their names in the table "NATO Casualties" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No, as Kremlin propaganda isn't a reliable source. — Czello 09:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

BUT they showed PASSPORT CARDS of killed young men ... IGNORE THOSE FACTS in en-wiki ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.205 (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, we don't consider Russian state TV to be a reliable source. If there has been significant coverage in sources we deem reliable there may be justification for inclusion. — Czello 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Which can be faked, sorry we do not use Russian state propaganda. But even if it were true, so? Russia is using Mercenaries, why not Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

YOU don't trust RU-WIKI ? NO NATO casualties ? O.key. 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOTHING TO TRANSLATE

We do not trust En-wiki, wiki's are not wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And what the hell does Domestic terrorism have to do with the possibility that some Americans might be fighting in Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

DOMESTIC ? it's an INTERNATIONAL CASE of State terrorism ! 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOW i wonder are you for or against THE PUTIN ADMINISTRATION in KIEV ?

Then why are you linking to an article about domestic terrorism? Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Because IT IS ME who translated THE THEME for Ru-Wiki ! 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) NOT the Kremlin Pool

So? What relevance does this have to this topic? All it does is confuse this issue as people will go there assuming it has some relevance, thus you are just wasting user's time with that link. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

PLEASE ... USE your own links: State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) after new NATO summit 2.61.3.205 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Sorry but what has this to do with the topic? Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

WE were talking about NATO CASUALTIES : AMERICAN ... NOT BRITISH ! That is my address was TO Mr.Biden 2.61.3.205

IP comes back to Rostelcom (Russian telecom), Sibirtelecom actually, to nobody's surprise I am sure Elinruby (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk) 13:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead not chronological

The second paragraph of the lead (first big paragraph), begins in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, then progresses to a build-up in 2021. Then comes Putin's "special operations" speech on the 24:th of February. After this we jump back one day to the 23:d of February to say that Russian officials denied plans to invade up to and including that day, which I suppose is fine as a look-back after the invasion has started.

In the next paragraph we are suddenly back on the 21:st of February, the invasion hasn'st started yet, and instead Russia recognizes the two self-proclaimed statelets. Then the invasion begins on the 24:th again, with Putin again announcing a "special military operation". We then hear a little about what happened shortly thereafter, with missile strikes and general mobilization.

I was a little confused reading this and the first time I did, I thought the first speech mentioned was different from the second, when they are in fact the same. This is because the first time it is mentioned no date is given. It just says "shortly before the invasion" which really means 10:s of minutes before, but with how the lead jumps in time makes you think it is a few days before, somewhere before the 23:d of February, which is the next actually given date.

More nitpicky is that the fourth paragraph begins with "As the invasion began on 24 February 2022" and then goes into fronts and such. This again gives a feel of "restarting" after just having heard what happend as the invasion began: missile strikes and general mobilization. Some way to show these happened simultaneously might tie it together better.

I think it could be an improvement to make the lead more chronological.--Ribidag (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I believe that this is the best or clearest lead that might be written. However, on the particular issues that you would raise, I am not seeing that there is a particular issue and that the chronology of events is reasonably clear even if the lead does not follow a strict chronological order. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage

Hello, I am slightly surprised that I can't see any mention of alleged 'attacks' inside Russia and Belarus. Belarus has just legislated against sabotage with the death penalty because of the extent. A military facility in the far east of Russia suffered an explosion reported today: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/12/1-dead-7-injured-in-russia-military-base-explosion-a77650 many others I am sure editors will know about. There are good RSS but I could understand a reason why sabotage is left out of the article. However the situation in Belarus is now cited as being partly the cause of Russia's withdrawal from the north. It's part of Ukrainian solidarity and strategically, militarily significant. I thought worth a discussion maybe. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Attack on Belgorod and Millerovo air base attack are already included and linked in the article, as well as the destruction of communication towers in Moldavia. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Where did the "current event" box at the top of the page go?

I mean, it's still going on, and probably will be for several years, right? HighwayTyper (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It is presently displayed in the Invasion section. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

US financial support

How about add this, on place of Ukrainian side Im talking about us financial supporting Ukraine with Lend lease, so M1Jyyy (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We do in Foreign military sales and aid. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also in this article: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

cluster munitions

These aren't really prohibited; many countries have signed a treaty agreeing not to use them. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among them. However, using cluster munitions against civilians is most likely a war crime. but that would fall under different international laws. Struggling to find a concise way to express this. I have been changing "prohibited" to "banned" on this and the applicable subpages, but that is only slightly less wrong. Anyone have any thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

currently going with "repudiated by many countries", open to other ideas. Elinruby (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Supporting this. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

About the map

Comprehensive map key of the invasion says about 'Ukrainian advances'. Even if we do not take into account that in most northern areas Russian forces just withdrew because they could not do anything, maybe the correct term would be 'Ukrainian counter-offensive' as these moves are entirely in Ukrainian territory and Ukrainian army held those before the current war?Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? "Advances" does not mean "invasion". Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Advance implies going forward when actually Ukrainian troops return at that place. I don't know it sounds to me that counter-offensive is a better term. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Advances in this context means that they are counteracting against Russian forces. Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, if it is just me just ignore my comment. Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian casualties

UK has now stated that Russia lost 1/3 of its ground invasion force from February, 24. (KIA, MIA, WIA, POWs included I suppose.) https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1525762560888344577?s=20&t=5bifi3vtZs7vfcseRrzzPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oca24016 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

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 want to add a section explaining how the invasion caused Finland (a non-NATO country), to join NATO. Source:

BadKarma22 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That should be its own article @BadKarma22 Starship SN20 (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SpinningCeres 03:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Can we clean up the line thickness of the "Casualties" table? It's confusing

The causalities table is quite confusing - it's very hard to quickly see what casualties relate to what party because of inconsistent use of line thickness. For example, the Russian and Allied forces, the line between US and UK estimates is thick, despite both being estimates for the Russian and Allied forces. However, the line between Luhansk and Russian and Allied forces is thin despite between different parties.

Thick line should be used to separate different categories, while thin lines should be used to separate the different estimates within that same category imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.246.42 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the thinner lines are meant to indicate that the groups are part of one force, while thicker lines imply different belligerents or neutral groups ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Composite images of Russian high command

Left to right: Aleksandr Dvornikov (Commander of Field Operations), Sergey Shoigu (Defense Minister) and Alexander Zhuravlyov (previous Commander of Field Operations, reassigned under Dvornikov after 8 April 2022)

The high command for the Russian invasion is now known, should the image be added somewhere in the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. See also MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Images support the text of the article - don't write the article with images or in image caption. It is a case of showing that the proposal meets the WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Information is verified and accurate of current high command for Russian invasion. Caption can be adjusted as needed. Editors can comment if the composite images are "significant and relevant" for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Grain war

The subject is covered, perhaps the sources may be used.

https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/14/ukraine-war-grain-exports-blocked-by-russia-threaten-to-bring-hunger-and-famine-g7-warns

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germany-accuses-russia-of-waging-grain-war/2588110

https://radioopensource.org/grain-war/

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/05/12/war-in-ukraine-threatens-the-world-s-breadbasket_5983258_19.html Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Grain silos are overfilled in Ukraine and Ukraine does not have safe access to transport grain using their seaports by Odessa. The topic of general hostility in this region appears to be covered in the article in the Odessa front section and in the Navy section. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Further recognition denied. Super Ψ Dro 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Special military operation in Ukraine – For an invasion to occur, the following criteria must be met: the objective of a third country must be the seizure of the country and its annexation. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has declared that his goal is solely the de-Nazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.. JanPawel2025 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose The invasion occurred when Russia invaded Ukraine. Misplaced Pages is not going to mainstream Putin propaganda. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Russian media's POV. lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose this is simply propaganda invasions frequently occur with no intent of annexation anyways, and we have no evidence against the idea annexation is the end goal. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 19:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy close For self-evident reasons. Curbon7 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename to Russo-Ukrainian War

Four responding editors finding four opposes. Closing according the WP:SNOW. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian War". Also "Annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation" and "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" should be removed from "Russo-Ukrainian War" and it should be renamed to something else as technically "2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation" is the actual war between the two parties and the "Russo-Ukrainian War" page is actually referring to the series of conflicts, disputes and clashes since 2014. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Editor, you are completely new here, please learn.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is by far the most common name for this stage of the conflict, yielding far more Google search results than "Russo-Ukrainian War" (2.54 million vs 635,000 with quotation marks, 540 million vs 22.3 million without); you can be certain the former only refers to this invasion while the latter was also used prior. Lightspecs (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (A) Since there is no article 2022 Invasion of Ukraine by Russian Federation the proposal to rename the non-existent article makes no sense. (B) If it means this article (2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) still oppose because this article is a necessary sub article of Russo-Ukrainian War (C) the proposal to split other articles doesn't belong here. (D) the articles under discussion need to have the appropriate rename/split/merge tags so that more editors are aware of the proposed changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

What's with these nonsense proposals lately? Super Ψ Dro 13:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ukrainian side of the war

It should add nato and the listings of nato countries in the support part of Ukraine 2001:8F8:1471:D52E:F064:352A:1506:2A2F (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

'This IP address is currently partially blocked'Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the whole range is under a partial block, not just the IP. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:E028:FDDD:D5CF:71F7 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue of support by troops, or support by piloted jets, or support by military equipment provided is currently discussed in the section above. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no troops nor piloted jets in Ukraine. Russia uses French and German military technology delivered after 2014, I am for listing the two countries as supporters of Russia.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

See RFC in progress above. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

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 need to update the infrmation LOLl-KING (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) I just need to update this information

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- lomrjyo  20:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"The Chinese military also allegedly conducted a massive cyberwarfare espionage effort on the eve of the invasion, including on nuclear infrastructure, pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge."

As posted before but was ignored, the Security Service of Ukraine officially denied a Chinese cyber attack took place or have any evidence of such attack.

From their official Twitter, posted on 2 April: https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1509983294334582793

"The SBU did not provide the media with any official information that cyber-attacks from China were allegedly carried out on the eve of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our military and other resources. The SBU has nothing to do with the findings of The Times. The Security Service of Ukraine does not currently have such data and no investigation is underway."

I would suggest adding keeping the allegation while adding this, and remove "pointing to advanced Chinese knowledge" because it is not NPOV. Chokoladesu (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Individual country responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine are dealt with on the sibling pages. China is usually mentioned as somewhat acquescing to Russia regarding the invasion as a recurrent point coction I am vered in the international media. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

this is already in the article, though. I wondered myself about the advanced Chinese knowledge, which is a strange phrasing. Chinese military of course have advanced knowledge of cyberwarfare; does this mean of Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure? Yet no damage was done? And the SBU specifically denies either leaking the information or being able to confirm it -- which is odd coming from a country that has recruited hackers. Naturally they might deny it, but they would know about it, and it is also true that this could be Russian FUD. The thing about advanced knowledge should be cited and clarified if kept; I can't remember, was any of this cited at all? How well? [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

sourcing is pretty good, and this is also mentioned in technical literature however, a couple of things: the person who wrote that meant *advance* knowledge. But this is a conclusion which is cited to anonymous intelligence officials, so I would support deleting the phrase. I am also not sure whether the cyberattacks should be mentioned here or elsewhere, and in how much depth. There is also Russian information war against Ukraine. But I am tired and going away and somebody else can make the call. I find all that highly notable but I am a geek and this is a top-level article. That is what I know Elinruby (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hearing no objection I have deleted the "advance knowledge" part and will incorporate the SBU denial into the sentence now. Elinruby (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

might be good to cite the twitter post as well Chokoladesu (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Finnish NATO membership

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A few days ago, I sounded out adding the potential Finnish/Swedish NATO applications to the article in Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#Potential_NATO_enlargement_as_a_reaction/impact, and there was a rough consensus for adding it once there was official movement. Today, the Finnish President and PM made a joint declaration saying that "Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay", which looks like it meets the threshold of officiality to me. I can't add this myself, but here's some proposed text for the 'Reactions' section:

On 12 May, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö and Prime Minister Sanna Marin issued a joint declaration that Finland should join NATO.

There might be room for some further elaboration on this (e.g., discussing just how badly the idea of invading a neighbour to keep NATO away from Russia has backfired on Putin here), but the article's pretty dense already. Maybe when there's some more heavy-weight analysis to cite on this point?

I haven't tried to describe the likely next steps, but they'll happen shortly, it's expected, and I don't think that the precise procedural details matter as much as the declared intention. This means that the information we put in will get stale quite quickly, but that's okay - it's a wiki and nothing's set in stone, and especially not on a highly-active article like this one. FrankSpheres (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "Finnish leaders confirm support for Nato application". Yle News. 12 May 2022. Retrieved 12 May 2022.

I think we can wait until its a done deal. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That'll take months, as I said last time. This is an official declaration of the intent to apply and the consequent geopolitical shift. Everything from here is formality and hoop-jumping, more or less. FrankSpheres (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

And? we can wait months or years, we are not a newspaper. Ohh and an "offical declaration if intent" is not doing it or succeeding. Anything can happen, including a Russian invasion top stop it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin has cited the enlargement of NATO as being one of the main reasons for this war; the evolution of Finland's position on NATO membership is relevant to this article no matter where this goes. I think this is definitely worth a mention. Aluxosm (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Both Finland and Sweden have been expressing similar concerns; should the article leave out Sweden? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sweden will announce it's membership application on Sunday. 2804:14C:8781:8673:D445:ACD4:5093:7349 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So will Finland. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's sensible to wait on Sweden until we get a definite official signal like we did today from Finland - e.g., the PM declaring they'll apply, or the government laying a proposal before parliament; currently it's all still technically innuendo there. Not that I don't think it will happen (it's basically locked in), but this article's already really hefty and consequently we have to be very picky about what goes in and is worthy of mention - an official movement seems to me to be a pretty good prima facie boundary. FrankSpheres (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment: If Finland and Sweden will join NATO, then I would argue that we should also include this into the "Result" section in the infobox. It would be a direct consequence of this war (even if it's not between the belligerents). --Mindaur (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

On 18/05/2022 Finland, together with Sweden, officially applied to join NATO, although Turkey raised some objections to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Finland and Sweden on Wednesday morning (18 May 2022) simultaneously handed in their official letters of application to join NATO NATO official website. IP-Editor; May 19, 2022.

Turkey has stated they will challenge application, where unanimity is required for approval. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Does It matter? This is already an official request by two important countries closely involved in the conflict and It is clearly a consequence of this conflict. The reaction section should include Finland and Sweden application to Nato and eventually the possible rejection by Turkey. I think this is relevant information and certainly more relevant than what Pope Francis thinks about the conflict. 11:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.47.214 (talk)

 Note: I am marking this edit request as answered procedurally as it is an ongoing discussion as to whether or not the requested edit should be included at this time, per the template instructions. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference for introduction: "false" mistreatment claims in Donbas

At the moment, the article introduction says the following "falsely accused Ukraine of being governed by neo-Nazis who persecute the ethnic Russian minority."

This reads like politicised editorialising. Our reference for the "falsely" part is The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. What a strange choice for a source on such a major issue, a journal of a random American Jewish community? Is the word "falsely" needed at all here? Can we categorically say there was no mistreatment of ethnic Russians in the Donbas and none of that mistreatment was associated with Azov or other groups which have some kind of neo-Nazi connection?

Maybe we could say the Russian claim is exaggerated, but even that may be editorialising. To categorically say "false" seems misleading. Torchist (talk)

Possibly look at the section titled "Russian accusations and demands". ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed thoroughly on numerous threads on numerous parts of wiki all of which I'm too lazy to link to. Be that as it may, the consensus was that the edit you're proposing lacks consensus, so it stays. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You want this article to leave open the possibility that Putin’s hate speech might all be true because you’re unhappy with a single source that says it’s not true? There are thousands of sources that say it’s not true. Take your pick. —Michael Z. 19:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality means we go by what RS say, as NATO has not passed a law on what western media can say (whereas Russia has on what its media can say) we, therefore, have to go with western media as not state-mandated propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

To the IP user who was upset I didn't link past discussions, have fun: , , . Anyhow all of this truly has already been discussed to death. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

40 Western countries supporting Ukraine missing in the list

There is Belarus listed as supprorting Russia, but nowhere the full list of 40+ Western countries supplying weapons, training, intelligence (i.e much more than Belarus supports Russia) thereby distorting (intentionally or not) the full view of this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.38.18 (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know (and to demonstrate the difference) no western nation has been used to base Ukrainian forces, or have had any attacks launched from any. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Belarus has legally committed a crime of international aggression by providing its territory for direct aggression. We haven’t established yet whether this legally qualifies it as a belligerent. The other 40 states are not in these categories, some of them have supplied weapons to the Russian Federation, but supplying weapons, training, and intelligence happens during peace and war and doesn’t constitute legal participation in a conflict. —Michael Z. 18:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

They provide safe transit to belligerent troops. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only transit, but invasion by troops out of Belarusian territory into Ukrainian, and missile and artillery attacks launched from Belarusian territory and airspace directly into Ukraine. —Michael Z. 18:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Strength infobox

On May 21st Zelensky told to journalists that Ukrainian armed forces are actually 700 thousand strong. Sources: https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/05/21/7347610/ https://censor.net/en/news/3342842/today_you_see_result_of_work_of_700_thousand_ukrainian_defenders_zelenskyi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIcY-jEH0Bg

So the 'Strength' infobox should be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.172.92.34 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Gas being turned off

Russian gas has already been turned off for Poland and Bulgaria.

Please may someone add this in the article.

Thank you.

https://www.dw.com/en/europe-cooperates-on-gas-as-russia-turns-off-taps-to-poland-and-bulgaria/a-61641814

It's the same with Finland as well: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-20/finland-loses-main-gas-supply-as-russia-will-turn-off-taps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:3D54:C9BD:1A5F:4CD7 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Finland was added yesterday. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Leaders of DPR and LPR should be included

Why are the leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics not included in the infobox? They are the heads of state of those states just as Putin is the head of state of Russia, and the DPR and LPR are completely involved in the war. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

What states? They are recognised only by russia and their satellite "people's republics". Dim.yttrium (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not part of the U.N. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Not “just as.” The proxy republics are not sovereign entities, and their titular leaders do not command the military collaborators’ forces. Ukrainian sources say that Pushilin in Donetsk commands elements of the police corps, and has partial influence over some competing factions, but not the Russian separatist forces in Donbas, and according to the ISW this is consistent with the observed evidence.. Others have reported that the Donetsk 1st Army Corps and Luhansk 2nd Army Corps are under the direct command of the RF’s 8th Combined Arms Army. —Michael Z. 17:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should summarise and be supported by detail in the article body. The entry is for prominent leaders. When last I looked, one of these had but a passing mention and the other had none. The article does not support their inclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cyroyte: "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" do not exist. Donetsk, Ukraine & Luhansk, Ukraine do exist. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cyrobyte "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" do not exist. Donetsk, Ukraine & Luhansk, Ukraine do exist."

they exist if the USA say's so, is that it? any other country should abbid to this rule? the same happen to the Palestinians. Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics are legitimate countries, but that they are sovereign because they have control over a particular territory. In fact, they are listed as sovereign states at the article "List of sovereign states". Cyrobyte (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

UN diplomat quits and speaks out against war

I wonder if we should include info re the Russian UN diplomat that quit and said he was ashamed over the war. He also made some statements saying that the Russian population has been led to believe that a nuclear strike would scare Americans causing them to kneel to what ever Russia wanted. This incident has been reported on in all the major U.S. news sources. Sectionworker (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

ABC News: "Boris Bondarev, 41, confirmed his resignation in a letter delivered Monday morning after a diplomatic official passed on his English-language statement to The Associated Press." ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

WashPo has a very good article: (In my above post I tried to add a link without signing in and can't get rid of it - I'd appreciate it if someone could fix it.) Sectionworker (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: to @Sectionworker: & @ErnestKrause: I think that a section on 'UN Diplomat quits & speaks out' should be added. Here's a good New York Times article on it

“For 20 years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on Feb. 24 of this year,” Mr. Bondarev said, referring to the date that President Vladimir V. Putin sent Russian forces into Ukraine.

“The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine and in fact against the entire Western world is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia,” he added. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears that Bondareev also made a comment about the irresponsible position of Putin towards nuclear arms threats; if someone can put the exact quote here with the source, then it could be added to the Nuclear arms section. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just added it there with the quote taken from the Washington Post article. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine support section

Duplicate discussion. Please see the above thread. Jr8825 • Talk 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The website is supposed to add nato in the Ukranian side of the belligerents because Ukraine is supported everyday with heavy money and heavy equipment by NATO 2001:8F8:1471:BDAD:A10B:746B:7F38:C4A (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion on this. Jr8825 • Talk 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fixing capitalization Reactions Section

Single error in Tedros quote, black should be lowercase. 99.106.93.88 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Source says it is "black and white lives", both in lower case. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes but I thought white was already lower case so it didn't need to be corrected. 99.106.93.88 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts)

WP:BOLD closed as this is a rank instance of WP:FORUM passed off as honest discussion. Closed at present per previous comment/no changes. Iseultparlez moi 05:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

Hi, everyone. I'm new around here, and i would like to point it out the following paragraph. "Russian leaders described this expansion as a violation of Western powers' assurances that NATO would not expand eastward, although any such alleged pledges, if real, were made informally, and their nature is disputed." The previous paragraph was written very recently, but the text I mention below has been available since 2010, and was published on the website I mention below on December 12, 2017. in this paragraph 3 sources are mentioned, to be true, "they must be people of very good morals" ??? I think what is happening here is that, based on facts, such as those that happen very recently in history, the lies that condoleezza rice, colin powell, george w. Bush, and many others have created, and even had the can of, presented at the UN General Assembly. Since the media are involved in this, they took this lie and replicated it to exhaustion, both in america and europe. Let's take some care in here, for there are many "newspapers" and "journalist" and also "writers" who don't mind write lies. It is not because a lie is replicated a billion times that it becomes a truth, and it is not because a truth is not replicated that it becomes a lie... "Date: Feb 9, 1990 Description: This Gorbachev Foundation record of the Soviet leader’s meeting with James Baker on February 9, 1990, has been public and available for researchers at the Foundation since as early as 1996, but it was not published in English until 2010 when the Masterpieces of History volume by the present authors came out from Central European University Press. The document focuses on German unification, but also includes candid discussion by Gorbachev of the economic and political problems in the Soviet Union, and Baker’s “free advice” (“sometimes the finance minister in me wakes up”) on prices, inflation, and even the policy of selling apartments to soak up the rubles cautious Soviet citizens have tucked under their mattresses." "Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”" Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Sorry i forgot to enter this, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ I think that we should all be careful when writing about this topic, and not replicate what the "newspapers" and "journalists" and "writers" replicate to exhaustion without knowing what they benefit from it. because in this way they are converting lies into truths??? Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Mearcheimer has been previously discussed on this Talk page and has been archived. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Quotations from primary sources presented out of context can be misleading. Those conversations were specifically about forces dispositions in Germany, many of Baker’s and others’ statements were offers that were never accepted, and neither NATO nor future-NATO Warsaw Pact states were involved in these talks. In the end, all of the promises were written down in the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany and signed by the parties, one of them being Soviet permission to move NATO forces east within Germany (and contradicting Putin’s propaganda statements). For a more accurate view, look at secondary sources based on recent research, like M. E. Sarotte’s Not One Inch, or Steven Pifer’s “Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says ‘No’.” —Michael Z. 22:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Hi, This is not "Quotations from primary sources presented out of context can be misleading.", but "Record of conversation between". "many of Baker’s and others’ statements were offers that were never accepted", what I can deduce from this, they should have had conversations with those who had decision-making powers, and not with those who were used to say what they wanted to hear. So I can only understand what of these gentlemen??? words are one thing and actions another??? what interesting politicians do we have??? "For a more accurate view, look at secondary sources based on recent research", with this, we have western propaganda and them Putin’s propaganda, this is the correct way tho see it, not the other way around. what i can infer from this is that we are the god and they??? because we analyze and our version turns out to be the correct one??? and their version is what we say, is it??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin sorry for my English, but i'm not a writer but an avid reader. Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) @Nunovilhenasantos: You seem to be unaware that the U.S.S.R does not exist. For over 30 years, the U.S.S.R has not existed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Hi, i known that. It's history. Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "These arguments do not stand up. Mr Baker was speaking about eastern Germany. His words were overtaken by the collapse of the Warsaw Pact nearly 18 months later. nato and Russia signed an agreement in 1997 that did not contain any restriction on new members, though enlargement had been discussed. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined almost two years later. The undertaking that has been violated is Russia’s pledge to Ukraine not to use economic or military coercion, given in 1994 when it surrendered the nuclear weapons based on its soil. In fact nato has every right to expand. Under the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, signed by the Soviet Union, countries are free to choose their own allies. The Warsaw Pact suffered grievously under Soviet rule. Why would its ex-members not seek a haven? ... Indeed, the right for sovereign countries to determine their own destinies is one of the many things currently at stake in Ukraine. But was nato expansion wise? A spiral of mutual suspicion between Russia and nato clearly exists, but to blame nato expansion for triggering it is scarcely credible. Mr Putin has increasingly used nationalism and Orthodox religion to shore up his rule. He needs enemies abroad to persuade his people that they and their civilisation are under threat. That is why he seized territory in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014. Besides, Russia has a long history as an imperial power. Like most declining empires, it was likely to resist as its periphery drifted off, regardless of nato expansion." Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Note that this is WP:NOTAFORUM; propose thread closure/archive. Iseultparlez moi 21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Iseult makes a valid point. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC) with that, the same applies here, with some texts been WP:NOTAFORUM, if you write Putin’s propaganda, you should write Western propaganda, i'm wrong in this, can anyone elaborate??? "Note that this is WP:NOTAFORUM; propose thread closure/archive.", because is assessment, is the same done by many articles that I've read, from those in CNN, and there minions. this is the same with the azov "battalion", way back, they were call neo-nazis, and nazis, and now they are a "Battalion". the other day I saw on TV, saying that the "AZOV BATTALON", only have 10% of neo-nazis. ok, i will be more careful picking the situations to address, but I stand by this It is not because a lie is replicated a billion times that it becomes a truth, and it is not because a truth is not replicated that it becomes a lie... Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) sorry, forgot, to sign, Nunovilhenasantos (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Going to BOLD close this thread under FORUM if nothing changes. Iseultparlez moi 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map correction

The Russians took Rubizne on May 11th but the map still shows it as contested. 2A00:23C8:928:5301:8141:7C97:466F:35FB (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Has Ukraine and/or any other institution confirmed this? What are your sources (per WP:CITE and WP:RS?) A09090091 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The more detailed map shows Rubizne under Russian control and the page on the battle of Rubizne states that the battle ended on 12th May (my mistake with date initially apologies) with a Russian victory, which was confirmed by CNN on 13th May and also by the ISW, in addition a Ukrainian commander confirmed it via twitter. Sources are available on the page for the battle of Rubizne and on the ISW’s own website. 2A00:23C8:928:5301:2896:B589:228B:AB53 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we have more pro-Ukrainian news?

As the title says. I’m asking this as I think it would be beneficial for us all to hear more about what the Ukrainian forces are doing. The timeline seems not to have as much info as it does about the Russians. I think it would also be good for us all to hear some of the more positive developments. I’m sure we all want this conflict to end, and therefore I would like to see more Ukrainian successes in these pages.2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3550:7C65:C66C:EE29 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Russians are initiating the invasion fronts with Ukraine reacting to the invasion fronts for the most part. Most recent pro-Ukraine activity recently was to re-occupy Kharkiv. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I’m asking for more info on Ukrainian reaction. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3550:7C65:C66C:EE29 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond to this enquiry? 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3DC7:F24F:BCDE:F5DC (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You can consider making a regular Misplaced Pages account which might make it easier for other editors to answer you. Regarding Ukraine's primary strategy you might look at this PBS link: . ErnestKrause (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That link is god but it is a month old. My main issue is that this articles and other covering the same subject are not giving me enough information about what Ukraine is doing and what progress they are making. I’m trying to encourage people to rectify this. I’m annoyed because I’ve read these articles and I feel that I’ve not received enough information about Ukrainian progress. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3DC7:F24F:BCDE:F5DC (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

no, it is not our job to parrot either side propoganda, but to try and use balanced sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I never asked that, actually. What I am saying is that I need more info about Ukraine. Due to these issues, I have no idea who is actually winning. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:3DC7:F24F:BCDE:F5DC (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please add more Ukrainian info to these articles, please? What have Ukraine done over the last few days? 2A01:4C8:1482:49D5:3C23:3BB5:F5DE:5EFE (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's job is not to include every single small detail about everything. Not for a general page like this. You might find what you want at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 22:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

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 the text description of the animated map from "February 24 to April 21" to "February 24 to May 27" Physeters 14:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your contributions on the animation Physeters. --N8_wilson 14:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@N8wilson You're welcome! Physeters 14:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1. Add the Institute for the Study of War's daily updates on Ukraine to the External Links section. Imo it should be added because a consistently updated link with a focus on the military aspects only would be both helpful and interesting.

 Done per third point at Misplaced Pages:External links § What can normally be linked with respect to level of detail. --N8_wilson 16:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

2. Add RUSI's report on the conflict to the Further Reading section. It's a month old, so it's somewhat outdated. However, the sections on what happened at the start of the invasion are accurate, interesting and accessible, and the assumptions that underly the predictions are still mostly true. SentientObject (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The current article uses several dozen reliable sources including The New York Times and BBC News. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Referenced report appears to fit recommendations at WP:Further reading and is only the second resource listed in this section which was published after the events of this article began 24 Feb 2022. And of course... if it turns out to be better utilized in the article by citing it as a WP:RS, we can just make that adjustment later. Thanks SentientObject. --N8_wilson 17:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

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 "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine collect evidence." to "The ICC also set up an online portal for people with evidence to contact investigators, and sent investigators, lawyers and other professionals to Ukraine to collect evidence." as the former is missing a 'to'. EloquentMosquito (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Is 'conscription' an Ukrainian idea?

The page uses the word 'conscription' describing Ukraine only. Here is a text about "People's Republics". https://www.dw.com/en/how-ukraine-separatists-are-mass-conscripting-anyone-of-fighting-age/a-61608760

Another text abour Russia. https://www.politico.eu/article/what-the-use-of-russia-conscripts-tells-us-about-the-war-in-ukraine/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-russian-conscripts-cant-subdue-ukraine-war-army-volunteers-morale-invasion-military-putin-victory-11651784177 Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Universal conscription of all males between 18 and 60 years of age is fairly rare as is currently the case in Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

“Universal”, yes, but if Russia employs conscripted soldiers then it would be fine to describe both as conscripts. Visibly less % for Russia than for Ukraine though. Juxlos (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone else doing it right now in this conflict? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems unique to Ukraine at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The DW article linked by Xx236 says "men between the ages of 18 and 55" are prohibited from leaving the Russian proxy states in Donbas, and are being forcibly conscripted. I'm not sure it warrants lead space in the same way that Ukraine's conscription does, but I do think this should be covered in the article body. Jr8825 • Talk 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

At the beginning some Russian conscripts were imprisoned by Ukrainians, they were send to fight allegedly erroneously. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/01/russia-military-army-conscripts-draft/Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Russians continue to use conscripts and cover it up. —Michael Z. 17:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Russians are now extending the eligible ages of military support contractors involved in the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The only phrase about conscripted in Russia "Some mothers of conscripted Russia soldiers".

Are police contactors soldiers? They were told they would do police tasks.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

New articles and four more battles.

We need at least four more articles about four battles near the cities where they take place. For example. Lyman, Lysychansk, Bakhmut and Marinka. — Baba Mica (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Battle of Marinka (2022)
• Battle of Lyman
• Battle of Lysychansk
• Draft: Battle of Bakhmut (2022)

You have presented four red-linked pages. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Baba Mica, you've created some pages here already. Some are appreciated such as Lyman which is notable but please don't make a page for Lysychansk yet. Fighting did not reach there. For that, Sievierodonetsk has to fall. I'm also doubtful about Bakhmut since fighting did not reach there either. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus Agree, no current fighting for Bakhmut or Lysychansk, while Marinka (ended by now) wasn't notable enough to warrant an article. EkoGraf (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that these aren't notable or even non-existent. We can't have an article about every single village that changes hands. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Please consider #Don’t assume DLNR are present without support of reliable sources when creating new articles. —Michael Z. 16:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Don’t assume DLNR are present without support of reliable sources

Let’s please not blindly insert DLNR or “separatist forces” into articles’ infoboxes and body text without confirming that reliable sources support their participation. The majority of reliable sources on military action only refer to Russian forces or the Russian army, and don’t even mention DLNR.

I just removed such unsupported assertions from three articles, one where only Russian and separatist sources asserted their presence, one where a single source mentioned their marginal participation (occupying a rural point near a battleground after the fight), and one in which not a single cited source mentions their participation. —Michael Z. 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

They are listed in the Belligerent section and the Support section of the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but they don’t automatically belong in every article on this war, and we must not blindly reinterpret every action by Russian forces as “Russian and separatist forces.” —Michael Z. 19:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2022

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the countries supplying Ukraine with military aid in the supporting belligerents section Bigfifa (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC is open in the section above already. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

South Ossetia participates

https://eurasianet.org/south-ossetian-troops-fighting-for-russia-in-ukraine

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/25/russia-ukraine-war-putin-caucasus-ossetia-minorities-opposition/

Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an issue that has already been discussed at length (see here). The first source states: The soldiers are part of Russian military units based in South Ossetia but which also include some local contract soldiers. The second source is not sufficiently specific that it would contradict the first source or other sources offered in the previous discussion. Bottom line, the previous consensus is that South Ossetia is not participating as a "soverign state" and these sources don't show otherwise. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbj8ZH8gIDV/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=f10de68f-afbd-41bb-b470-c8a86aa9643e

President Bibilov to the soldiers - Вперед! 'Go ahead.' едут защищать и Осетию 'They go to defend Ossetia, too'. Words mean.Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

SO soldiers are Russian soldiers. Do People's Republic soldiers fight in separate PR units? This article does not inform. The reference 14 is from February. What is the difference between the PR and SO?Xx236 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

DPR 105th People’s Militia Rifle Regiment https://theins.ru/en/news/251541 Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You have given the answer to your own question. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) This was intended as a response to the post above plus one (SO soldiers are Russian soldiers. I apologise for any confusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Where are the 'forces' described in this Misplaced Pages?Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The infobox states: Strength estimates are as of the start of the invasion. See also: Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

SO has an agreement with Russia. Russia defends SO, SO gives soldiers to Russia. I do not know details, but such agreement probably does not preserve neutrality of SO.Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

SO citizens are not enlisted in units of SO but in the Russian armed forces (whether they are also Russian citizens is another issue too). This does not constitute an overt act by SO, in the same way that any other republic in the Russian Federation is not acting independently or that because Gurkhas fought in the Falkland Islands, Nepal was a belligerent in that war. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Once more - the SO has sold its cannon fodder to Russia to be defended by Russia. Has Nepal sold the Gurkhas to obtain British warranty?Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Send 100 Australian soldiers to join Ukrainian Army. Will Russia accept such decision?Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand that the problem od SO participation is complicated, but it does not make SO neutral. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/26/georgias-breakaway-region-sends-troops-to-ukraine-a77094 Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Error on Soviet Origin?

"Putin ... incorrectly described the country as having been created by Soviet Russia,"

But Ukraine has no legal history as a state prior to the Bolshevik revolution? Lenin's support for devolving the Russian Empire to give such legal power and affirmation to various National Minorities was hotly debated by other communists of the time.

From Wiki on Ukraine:

"The 19th century saw the growth of Ukrainian nationalism, particularly in Galicia, then part of Austria-Hungary. In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution a Ukrainian national movement re-emerged, and the Ukrainian People's Republic was formed in 1917. This short-lived state was forcibly reconstituted into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which became a founding member of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1922" 73.191.41.112 (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

And the point is ... ? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

exactly, it existed briefly before being forcibly integrated into the soviet union. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Putin is wrong because he’s trying to deny the existence of a Ukrainian nation by referring to a state, and by labelling the country “Russian land.” The anon comment above adds the straw man of “1917.” In fact, Ukraine established a state in 1917, Lenin’s Bolshevik Russia (an unrecognized state with no continuity from previous states) legally recognized Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders in 1918, and only conquered it in 1920, on the third attempt. —Michael Z. 14:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many countries that gained independence as empires declined but that's not to say that the former empire is responsible for creating said countries, in fact quite the opposite is true. An equivalent argument that India was created by the UK, or that Korea was created by Japan show cases how preposterous a notion it is. As a person living in a former colony the idea that our former imperial overlords somehow created our country is insulting to put it mildly. This is why we talk of countries gaining independence, not being created. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repiblic won the ukrainian civil war in 1921 and was admited in USSR in late 1922 not was conquered by Soviet Union in 1920 on the third attempt. DrYisus (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

User:DrYisus, I guess you’re responding to me? You’re inaccurately rewriting my sentences. The Russian Bolsheviks invaded Ukraine in December 1917, were forced to recognize the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) in 1918 then invaded again in January 1919, created the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919 and invaded again in May 1920 to defeat the UNR, although partisan actions continued into 1921. The UkrSSR was a Russian puppet state without independence, sovereignty, or its own army, and the Bolsheviks underlined this when they abandoned the pretence of Ukrainian statehood and joined Ukraine to the USSR in December 1922. They redrew Ukrainian borders by assigning some Ukrainian-inhabited territories to the RSFSR. —Michael Z. 22:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

~ Sorry Michael Z I am new on WP and I dont know how insert the answers from mobile or make calls (the @). I am not arguing anything of that. I only said that UkrSSR (puppet or not) won the civil war in 1921 (not 1920) and later joined USSR. And by the way, is true that some part of Ukraine origins (Ukraine People's Republic) are based on soviet/bolsevisk actions, in fact the Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets was stablished nearly at the same time that UPR, the bolsevisk uprising in kiev drove out the white forces leting the Rada (which suported bolseviks during the uprising) increasing the autonomy that months after lead to independence. I wouldn't say that Ukraine have full soviet origin like Vlad said, but has partial. DrYisus (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Three puppet states were established for the three Russian Bolshevik invasions conducted by an army under Moscow and mainly from Russia. The first two were governments consisted only of Russians, and were liquidated by the Bolsheviks due to their failure, because Ukrainians didn’t trust foreign armies that invaded their country and shot on sight anyone speaking Ukrainian. The third incorporated some token Ukrainians in non-power cabinet positions.

• Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets 1917–1918
• Ukrainian Soviet Republic 1918
• Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic 1919–1991 (renamed 1936)

 —Michael Z. 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The latest update on Ukrainian losses according to the Russian ministry of defence was posted on 25th April

The Russian ministry of defence has posted their latest update on Ukrainian losses on the 26th of April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyazKader (talk • contribs) 11:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Bulking down the article size: Article back over 400Kb

The article size is back over 400Kb which can be daunting to readers of the article, and the article has been template tagged for length issues. One suggestion might be to note that there is a great deal of duplication with the Russo-Ukrainian war article as to both of them covering a 'deep history' version of the events leading to the 2022 Russian Invasion. There is no reason for maintaining two versions of this 'deep history' going back 30-35 years, and it seems a useful endeavor to merge the two subsections of the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, along with perhaps 2-3 subsections of the Prelude section as well. A very short summary and link can be left in this Invasion article after that merge is done. The other suggestion might similarly note that the Peace efforts section lower in the TOC also has a sibling article already written for it at 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, and to merge it from this Invasion article into the sibling article (leaving a link to that page from this Invasion article). The read time for the article is currently 40-50 minutes which is over Misplaced Pages policy guidelines and this makes a large demand upon new readers who are going through the article from top-to-bottom for the first time. Suggesting here that both of these merge-to-sibling article measures be done to deal with the bulking down of this long article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's currently at 94 kB readable prose, which is on the large side but not just absurd. It's an active topic; see WP:HASTE. We can figure out how/if to trim it in a few years when things have settled down. Feel free to boldly edit now, though, if there's stuff that's clearly misplaced. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Did some trimming up near the top in the lede and background sections. Based on the number of references some of it has apparently been argued about somewhere, so I used a light hand; waiting a bit to see if anybody has any objections. Elinruby (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Both VQuakr and myself are supporting bold edits on the bulking down. Possibly you can extend your edits to think about fully merging the Background section into the Russo-Ukrainian war article, and then boldly removing that section from this article. You can add a short paragraph summary at the start of the Prelude section to include links and maybe 2-3 sentences to briefly describe the complicated deep history which goes back 3 decades. Supporting the bold edits version of bulking down the article which is now over 400Kb in size. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently 93kB, not 400. We certainly agree with WP:BOLD but there's no urgency here. VQuakr (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree on WP:Bold. Your number on readable prose is correct; the last full size of the Misplaced Pages article storage as shown in the edit history is given for the last edit as "20:23, 2 June 2022‎ EkoGraf talk contribs‎ 403,885 bytes +7‎", which reads as 403Kb with about 93Kb readable prose. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of keeping the Background section largely as it is (admittedly I'm biased as I wrote the majority of it). I agree it's moderately long, although it has been through heavy copy-editing so there's very little non-valuable information that can be readily trimmed. If you compare its size to the other sections, you'll see it's actually reasonably lean (there's a section size table at the top of this talk page, click "show" on "Other talk page banners"). The Background section is 30k bytes in size, compared to 56k for the Prelude section, 124k for the Invasion and resistance section and 58k for the Casualties and humanitarian impact section. It's comparable in size to the Media depictions section, which is 22k bytes. Any cuts will necessarily involve simplification, so there'll be difficult editorial decisions about what is and isn't crucial for readers. If cuts are to be made, I would suggest trimming some of the content about the Orange Revolution which is more distant from current events, although it'll be tricky to do while maintaining overall flow. I think what's currently in the section provides valuable context for readers. The Prelude section (particularly "Escalation (21–23 February 2022)") is probably a better candidate for cuts, as is the main section on the invasion (particularly "First phase – Southern front"). The invasion summary is frequently added to, but hasn't been as heavily reworked as earlier sections so has greater potential for cuts. Also, bear in mind that much of the page size is from citations. There are likely still cases of WP:OVERCITE that can be reduced to lower page loading times, as the total prose size itself, at 94kB, is just about within the acceptable limit (see WP:SIZERULE). I'm wary of moving content to the Russo-Ukrainian war article, as there are problems with its scope (was there really a larger war between Russia and Ukraine from 2014, outside of the War in Donbas? I'm sceptical sources actually say this). Jr8825 • Talk 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As I'm a fellow contributor to the Background section, then my concern is still that it duplicates material already covered in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. Is there a useful purpose to keeping these duplicate versions? That said, if you feel that there are certain passages in the Invasion article Background section which are better than what is currently in the Russo-Ukrainian version, then I would support you to merge the Background material here as more up to date than the other version, and that the Background version should replace the redundant material in the Russo-Ukrainian war article. The point seems to be that Misplaced Pages policy is not to duplicate redundant material covering the same subject matter. That said, I'm also supporting your other ideas for trimming the article's multiple sections. The size issues of the article at 403KB with 93Kb of readable prose needs attention and the article should be shortened. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I see your point about repetition. Most of the shared content was written here then copied to Russo-Ukrainian war in this diff, which produced this situation. The scope of this article and the war article have since become clearer, although I've previously been sceptical about whether the approach we've taken so far is the best (see the current discussion on that article here, and my past thoughts on this here; I'm currently unsure what my view is). It's important to note that this remains by far the most trafficked of the two articles, with approximately 4 million readers in the past 30 days compared to 900k – it therefore makes sense to have a strong background section here to aid most readers looking to understand the historical context of the current war. Any removals from the Background section here should be accompanied by a cross-check with the text there to ensure the best version of the text is kept, and I think further cuts should be limited, at least in the short-term, to non-essential information while the scope of the two articles overlaps so closely. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Am willing to go with consensus. The edits I did today were largely largely focused on what words I could remove and still say the same thing. I considered removing the whole paragraph about why Putin might be right about Nazis, and just saying that experts agree he is wrong, but that is definitely a meaning change, whereas I don't think I did much of that this morning in those first three sections. But yeah, I have done spinning down to daughter articles and can do that if desired, but figured I should ask first. I will check back on this thread in 12-24 hours and see what people think, or again later if there is still a discussion.

Re 2014: yes, frozen conflict with ongoing violations of Minsk and Minsk II. In my previous trimmings, it is true I have not looked very hard at the Invasion section. Fine with looking at that if people agree, +1 on overcite Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

All sections of the article need to be updated and enhanced as the edit history moves forward. It would be a significant move forward if the sections for Background and Peace negotiations could be merged into their sibling articles; there's no reason to maintain two versions of these sections on Misplaced Pages which can readily be linked from this article to its sibling article. A reduction of a 403Kb article with about 93Kb readable prose which is over Misplaced Pages policy recommendations should move forward with bold edits on some of these sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've merged the Peace negotiations section with the main article for about 15Kb of total size reduction to article. Should the sections for Background and Prelude be merged to their sibling Main articles in a similar way for bulking down the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: which paragraph are you referring to? Is it the third one in the Prelude section, and if so, were the any specific changes you had in mind? The main offending bit in my view is "Ukraine, like pro-Russian separatists in Donbas, has a far-right fringe, including the neo-Nazi-linked Azov Battalion and Right Sector,", although others may disagree, so it might be worth discussing on talk first or expecting WP:BRD. Jr8825 • Talk 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, I personally don’t think that that is at all the most important thing about this war, assuming if’s even true, and that’s been to the reliable sources noticeboard a few times. Why is it in the lede? But I am aware that there are editors who will passionately disagree, so no, I will not BRD on that, as I have had that argument and it is exhausting. I’d be delighted if there was a consensus to remove it however. Just checking, were there any issues with what I did cut this morning? A couple of possibilities for trimming occur to me — the first couple of times I went through the article, I skipped the invasion section as it struck me as the meat of the article and I was looking for fat. There are probably some cuts possible there just by converting to active voice from passive. Some long quotes could be cut further down the article probably, but I looked pretty carefully at Putin’s quotes in the early sections, and I think it is important to report the full context there. There are places where there are two and three references further down though, on rather uncontroversial statements, and if I go through these I can probably cut total length somewhat without hurting anything, and now that I have been through a lot of the child articles I could probably make some weight suggestions in the invasion section. How is this for a proposal? I will do a pure copyedit on the invasion section, and make suggestions/ask questions on any due weight questions I think might be controversial? Also keep edits small and specific and easy to undo. But I don’t think I can get much more out of the early sections on wording alone Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Your cuts from earlier today looked good, thanks for your work. I don't have any strong feelings about removing the sentence about Azov and Right Sector. I don't oppose removing it, although I can see the argument for retaining it, as Azov has played a key role in Russian propaganda, so it makes sense to note it. Unless there's a particular change you're not sure about yourself, I'd say go ahead boldly with other cuts to the invasion section, we can always come back here and discuss if someone raises an objection. Jr8825 • Talk 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Both Elinruby and Jr8825 have positive ideas for continuing with the trims to the article. Regarding the opening subsections on Background, my perspective is a little changed now that I've seen Jr8825's links in his comments above. At present, I'm counting a total of 9-10 paragraphs in the two sections of the current Background section which seems a little too much since alot of it can be merged into the Russo-Ukrainian war article (which is in need of improvement anyway). Can the two subsections of 9-10 paragraphs there be condensed into a single section of 4-5 paragraphs instead? When I looked at some approaches to doing this, they looked fairly promising; also all the material after the condensing would still be on Misplaced Pages albeit on the linked article in Russo-Ukrainian war to where it can be merged. Is it possible to try this? For the other material, I'm supporting both Elinruby and Jr8825 as having significant ideas for moving the article forward and dealing with this issue of bulking down such a large article still approaching 400Kb in total size. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Took a quick look at the Invasion section. Nowhere near done, but some comments:

• The referencing in the part of Invasion I looked at was really very precisely on point. For example, “dismissed as absurd” had a really good source for a European politician using that exact word. But I know when I trimmed the Legal and Media sections I mostly left the sources, so there is that, and most of Media Depictions is uncontroversial, with some attention to diversity. I think that is important, but perhaps not to the point of duplicating solid English-language sources that say exactly the same thing. There are also some sources I do not recognize, which is another thing.
• Are constructions like “putative spearhead front” some sort of term of art? I know what a spearhead is, but in the English I speak a front is a line of control between opposing forces, and there seems to be a lot of this verbiage that could be eliminated by paring down to verbs, if these nouns aren’t conveying any additional information
• I am being somewhat tentative because my writing style has sometimes been criticized as overly “newsy”. Since this is indeed in my background I plead “probably guilty” and personally think this is a good thing, but collaboration, etc, and this is an important article.
• Re Azov Battalion and Right Sector, I agree that it is crucial that Putin has been talking about Nazis. But then we have several sentences talking about what might possibly have given him that idea — whereas I suspect it came from him in the first place — before we refute the statements. Just saying, why give it oxygen before dousing it with facts? I have not looked at the references for this, in this particular article, mind you, but what I have seen elsewhere makes me skeptical. I see however that Xx236 (talk · contribs) has started a section about this, and pending that discussion at a minimum, I am going to leave this part alone. Elinruby (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That all sounds on point, and generally Misplaced Pages does not have issues with using journalistic prose. Let me know if this is brought up here as a situation. The original wording was "probative spearhead front" (not 'putative') which denoted that Russia did not know if that front would succeed. For example, the probative spearhead front on Kiev failed in Phase One of the Russian Invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

you’re right, probative. Still a bit early on the left coast here. Elinruby (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Stray reference needs home

The material in front of it was completely unrelated. Putting here for now, discussion of an aspect of military aid from Germany Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

1. BBC News television channel; 18/05/2022
2. https://t.me/mod_russia_en/1116
3. Delfs, Arne (27 April 2022). "Germany's Ukraine Tank Plan at Risk Over Bullet Shortage". Bloomberg News. Bloomberg L.P. Archived from the original on 28 April 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.

Wrong figures on strength?

On 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Popular_resistance, we have already described that 700,000 Ukrainian forces are fighting in this war, and Zelensky said that too. Why the figure of Ukrainian strength amounts to only 298,600 in infobox? >>> Extorc.talk 17:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Full conscription of male citizens does not equal the number of soldiers in the field. The latest pressing issue appears to be Zelenskyy saying that Ukrainian artillery and short range missiles are significantly outclassed by Russian artillery and missile strength. Biden in now promising to provide M142 HIMARS weapons possibly within weeks. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The infobox explicitly reports the strengths "at the start" since this is the only point in time for which there is a reliable comparison of strengths. An argument was made that, because reservists were not mobilised "at the start", they did not contribute to the Ukraine strength at that point in time. For myself, I am not convinced by the argument, even if the reservist strength might need to be qualified by a note. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dates for Battle of Bakhmut 2022

I need the dates for the Battle of Bakhmut, which was recently deleted. Can someone send it? Xurum Shatou (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

See Draft:Battle of Bakhmut (2022). ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wtf is Battle of Bakhmut? Russian occupation forces didn't get closer than 30 km to the city DakeFasso (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah agree, the number of these “Battle of” articles, about every small town and village is getting pretty ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

mobilisation

In the Prelude section, would “mobilization” be the correct spelling for moving troops and equipment to engage in war? 174.251.64.117 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a matter of WP:ENGVAR and this article is written in British English so the "is" form is used. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing question

“On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko.“

Anybody know this source? The archives at WP:RSN have nothing on it, but quite a few other articles use it as a source on military hardware. The wikilinked article about the ship uses the same source, plus another one I don’t know. Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC) “On 14 March, the Russian source RT reported that the Russian Armed Forces had captured about a dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdiansk, including the Polnocny-class landing ship Yuri Olefirenko.“

There are multiple articles about this ship on mulltiple sources including the Nation Interest and others here: . Also on Navy Recognition website here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "Analysis: Russian Armed Forces capture dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdyansk". Navy Recognition. 14 March 2022. Retrieved 18 March 2022.
2. "Analysis: Russian Armed Forces capture dozen Ukrainian ships in Berdyansk". Navy Recognition. 14 March 2022. Retrieved 18 March 2022.

Right Sector

Does the Right Sector participate in the 2022 war? The references are not unequivocal. The ABC text is biased, it quotes Donbas people only. Putin's opinions belong to pre-invasion period.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• To my best knowledge somewhere in 2016 Ukraine defense ministry put the ultimatum to all the militias (dobrobats) to either became a regular unit of the Army (or National Guard) or disarm. Most decided to became regular army units (e.g. Azov battalion joined National Guard and became a regular battalion, later regiment there). Right Sector chose to disarm and became just a not very popular political organization. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Well apparently I am not completely correct. They are armed again and fight under the name of Ukrainian Volunteer Corps Ukrainian_Volunteer_Corps#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean the three references, do they support participation of the 'Right Sector' and its "far-right fringe"?Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The Financial Times is paywalled but the first two do not, at all. The Washington Post article is a debunking of the claim and the ABC.au article extensively quotes a Russian citizen who moved to Donbas because she drank the koolaid. The article does get around to saying that that isn’t really right, and it’s by no means a validation of what Putin said. This is exhausting Elinruby (talk)

It still seems that the references are unequivocal, so something should be corrected. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

'Russian accusations and demands'

There is such section, but no 'Rejection of Russian accusations and demands', 'Critics'. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We seem to include rejections in that section. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are right, so perhaps the title should be changed?Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? we do not say they are true, and it does reflect accurately what it is about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A sign 'We sell cars' does not warn that we buy stolen bicycles instead. 'Russian accusations and demands' means exactly what is written. Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The article Anonymous and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has recently been created. Any help improving it would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Are we putting commanders or not?

In accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I have removed commanders/leaders from the infobox in the subject article because save one, none of the commanders listed in the article had any mention in the article that would support their inclusion and the one that did had only a single passing mention. An editor has reinstated these. There is a discussion on this at Talk:Battle of Donbas (2022)/Archive 1#Are we putting commanders or not?. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Commanders of the operation for Russia have now changed 3 times, the second one, Dvornikov, was apparently replaced about a week ago. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

See also, the discussion at Talk:Siege of Mariupol#Commanders in infobox. Please comment there. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Heads of State of DPR and LPR also be listed in the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the infobox under Vladimir Putin?

Considering that DPR and LPR are listed as belligerents, not merely support (as with Belarus), shouldn't their heads of state be included with Putin in the "Commanders and Leaders" section? I think Denis Pushilin (DPR) and Leonid Pasechnik (LPR) should be included. Seems inconsistent to list them in belligerents but not commanders and leaders. --2601:644:8501:3FF0:ACD5:F6:ABFE:50AF (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise "key points" of "the article" - ie the infobox must be supported by what is written in the article. The article as written does not show that they have a "key" role. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus in WP:reliable sources that these entities are sovereign states or legal belligerents, that they are legally or de facto independent, that their nominal political leaders direct their supposed forces. They are puppets, and the 1st Donetsk and 2nd Luhansk Army Corps are under the command of Russian officers and subordinate to the Russian 8th Combined Arms Army. The Russians are putting up Russian flags over cities they capture in Ukraine, including in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, and Russian government figures are talking about their plans to annex these territories that their president called “Russian land.” —Michael Z. 02:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Senomo Drines (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The heading “revision and resistance” video’s caption “June 2” should be updated to “June 6”

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 12:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Kraken unit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/03/ukraine-kraken-volunteer-military-unit/

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/avec-les-volontaires-des-forces-speciales-d-azov-et-de-kraken-qui-liberent-la-region-de-kharkiv-20220606 Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

And the point is? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

To mention it in the text?Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should make this as an edit request in the form: "change X to Y" where X (ie a passage of text would be where you would think it should be added and Y is the added text plus the passage of text. You could do this in your sandbox and link to that. Cinderella157 (talk)

Total Casualty figures

There is a discrepancy - looking at total Casualty figures in the Siege of Mariupol - it is given as 22,000+ deaths. The wide range given here takes one yahoo source that states 6000 deaths for Mariupol. Isn't this undue weight given the fact that no other source gives the 6000 number? I suggest using 22,000 for Mariupol and add the casualties for other areas on top. Please advise. mezil (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The 22,000+ deaths reported in Siege of Mariupol are civilian deaths. I'm not certain where it is in this article that you are referring to 6000 deaths being reported at Mariupol? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths. Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. mezil (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is given in the breakdown : Mariupol: 6000-2200 deaths mezil (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please look at article Casualties of Russo-Ukrainian war for breakdown. mezil (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss issues with another article or articles when there is no problem with a figure reported here. It confuses people. It would also be a lot easier if there was a link to where the issue was - Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Civilian deaths. There was no issue of WP:WEIGHT. Both figures were sourced and both figures were attribute to the Ukraine (one the deputy mayor and one the mayor. The issue was "when" these figures were reported and there is a significant difference in the dates on which these figures were reported. The former figure is low and reported at a much earlier time (no surprise). The lower figure does not represent deaths as at 25 May. I have removed the lower figure from the table at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War#Civilian deaths. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Now the table doesn't make sense. You have one city with over 22,000 casualties and yet the total is 11,000 - 27,000. The lower figure is still confusing. I think it's best to remove the 11000 figure as it just doesn't add up. mezil (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, but you do know that you could have fixed that? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Interactive Map

Can anyone include Institute for the Study of War's interactive map of Russian invasion of Ukraine as a link/source or embed it into the article? Here is the map https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 which updates daily.50.64.136.84 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Page move?

Would it make sense to suggest a page move, to perhaps "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" or sorts? The term "invasion" suggests only the opening phase of a conflict; it is now more than three months and the conflict is a full-scale war involving multiple parties, with wide global repercussions (economic/fuel crises etc.). Hence I think the term "invasion" in the title doesn't merit the scale or significance of the topic covered in the article; having it describe the first phase of the war in February is sufficient. The broader "Russo-Ukrainian War" describing the overall conflict can still remain as it is without going into details of the 2022 war.

I haven't been active on this topic, so perhaps active editors can voice opinions here? NoNews! 16:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "invasion" suggests this is only the opening phase. The specific proposed title "2022 Russo-Ukrainian War" is too easily confused with "Russo-Ukrainian War", but I don't see a need to wordsmith a different alternative title at this time. VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Support for VQuakr here. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

+1 Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm not going to write the full novella that Levivich provided closing the last one of these RFCs, but the result is broadly the same. Numerically, the sides are fairly close, with no landslide in one direction or another, and the policy based arguments are not any more overwhelming for supporting or opposing. To, I'm sure, no one's surprise, there is No Consensus to include those providing military aid as supporters in the infobox. I will note that among support !voters there was some stipulations for who should be listed as providing support, lending some more weight to the oppose argument that it is a complex situation, and better explained in the article prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing military aid? --Mindaur (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL is a requirement, and it is not met here. Please reformat your opening statement to actually ask a question (and only that), not justify your position. BSMRD (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The RFC needs to specify if the support is military aid, financial aid, humanitarian aid, etc, by type of aid. The most basic type of relation between friendly nations is the military alliance, followed by prior treaties and agreements, followed by favored nation status for trade. The RFC needs to specify if it is only interested in "Western military aid" or the other types of aid as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support' Why not, it shows just how isolated Russia is. It shows that even previously neutral nations now condemn them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Question Mzajac, in a thread above, you stated: No. Allowing a state to use your territory for a war of aggression is an illegal act of international aggression, according to the UN’s definition. Allowing weapons transfers by commercial sale or donation is not, whether a party is at war or not. Could you please provide your sourcing for this statement as it would seem very pertinent to this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: Allowing the aggressor state to use your territory (i.e. be a "proxy") is illegal per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314; it also defined as aggression by the Rome Statute. Meanwhile, Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the right to self-defense, explicitly including the collective self-defence.

  However, I do not think these legal aspects are relevant to the RfC question. Mindaur (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  UNGA Res. 29/3314, Definition of Aggression, Article 3: “Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: . . . (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” —Michael Z. 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  This illegal act of aggression goes beyond “supporting” aggression. Belarus ought to be listed as a belligerent. —Michael Z. 14:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. Mindaur (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  agree 208.114.154.7 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Follow-up Question: And what (if anything) is said as to countries supplying lethal military hardware specifically and more generally various other types of "support" (non lethal equipment, humanitarian aid or sanctions etc)? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    What is said where? In the UN’s Definition of Aggression? Maybe you should read it over, but I don’t think it defines what belongs in “supported by” for the purpose of Misplaced Pages conflict infoboxes. It doesn’t even define who is a belligerent, only who is an aggressor, which I believe is self-evidently also a belligerent. —Michael Z. 01:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support adding "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list those providing military aid as per template established in other Misplaced Pages infoboxes on conflicts throughout history where arms were provided to a belligerent even though the providing country did not engage in the conflict directly, but was for the benefit of defeating the other belligerent. But do not list all 30 countries listed at List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, because that list includes those who have "pledged" to provide aid, but haven't actually yet provided it. Only those who have already been confirmed to have provided should be listed under "Supported by". EkoGraf (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but don't add NATO and the EU, add the individual countries confirmed to have delivered weapons instead. Super Ψ Dro 13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons. (a) They only provide hardware. Of course they could provide more, like modern aircraft staffed by contractors or volunteers, but they did not do even that. (b) That would be 40+ countries, they would clog the infobox. (c) That would be an implicit misinformation along the line of Russian propaganda, i.e. the false claim about "proxy conflict". My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: A few counter-points:

  • Regarding (a) and "only hardware": Ukrainian Armed Forces demonstrated incredible will to fight, resilience and professionalism. However, it is evident that the initial supply of weapons (and intelligence) by the West played a significant role in enabling the resistance. It is now entering another phase, where the West have begun supplying heavy weapons (US organized conference at the Ramstein Air Base with 40 countries participating signifies that) and that will have a major implications in Ukraine's ability to not only resist but potentially launch counter-offensives.
  • Re (b): We don't need to list all countries; I propose to include only the main contributors, including the EU and NATO and then add an interlink for other states.
  • Re (c): It doesn't matter; we make decisions based on WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:N, etc. Russian disinformation is already beyond delusional anyway.

  -- Mindaur (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  (a) yes, sure, the delivery of weapons makes a lot of difference in all wars, but it does not warrant including the suppliers as "supporting countries" of field "belligerents". (b) OK, this is a good solution, but that should not appear in the field of "belligerents"; (c) I am saying that our infobox would be POV and as such would misled the reader in context of the currently happening misinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's not POV, it's just stating the obvious reality. Some people lock themselves on the fact that Ukraine doesn't have formal allies (a binding treaty) or that NATO doesn't send troops to defend it. However, in that case these countries would unequivocally be belligerent. We are talking about support here (specifically, the porposal is about military aid): over 100 pieces of heavy artillery, tanks, missiles, etc -- it's exactly that, it's material, it's substantial, it's major. Why ignore that? -- Mindaur (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  We are not ignoring it; there is a section about it on the page. However, such assistance is difficult to properly summarize in the lead, see comments just below. Do we include Turkey? This is a slippery slope. Should we include France and Germany as suppliers for Russia ? My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Is My very best wishes stating that it would be better to include the explanation just provided about 'only provide hardware' as a separate section in the article. That Ukraine has no formal allies since Ukraine is not a part of NATO or the EU? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's false to say only hardware is provided. The US military itself has begun training Ukrainian troops. Its intelligence service has also provided location information that has helped kill a dozen or so Russian senior officers. CurryCity (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the Vietnam War Misplaced Pages page, you'll see that there is a dedicated section for explaining aid/positions of countries which supported each side. I think it would be appropriate to do the same; no matter how you spin it - you can't say that the western countries supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine isn't support. Jacob H (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There is a wide range of things that could be considered support, the distinctions carry significant political weight, and have determined whether they cross certain parties’ red lines. For example:
  1. Belarus has committed aggression against Ukraine, according to the UN definition, by allowing aggression against Ukraine from its territory, including missile attacks and military incursion. (It should be listed as a belligerent, not a supporter.)
  2. Before the open invasion on February 22/24, there was a distinction between defensive and other lethal aid. This seems to be no longer discussed since.
  3. There is a distinction between lethal and non-lethal military aid, e.g., weapons versus body armour, military hospitals, training, intelligence.
  4. There is a distinction between military aid, that is gifts or grants, and commercial sales. Even in peacetime commercial sales of arms normally require political approval.
  5. Relevant to that, there is the question of permission by originating states in weapons transfers. E.g., Germany prevented the transfer by Czechia and the Netherlands of armoured vehicles to Ukraine because they had historically come from Germany, citing the principal of not providing weapons to a conflict. Germany has dropped this restriction, and now looks to be ready to start sending its own armoured vehicles and weapons.
  6. There is a distinction between military aid and humanitarian aid.
  7. There are states participating in sanctions against one side or the other.
  8. There are states, organizations, and individuals respecting sanctions out of fear of getting hit by secondary sanctions, e.g., some Chinese banks and businesses refusing to do business in the Russian Federation for fear of getting sanctioned for supporting sanctioned entities, because they value their business in the West.

  We need to set a threshold as to what constitutes “support.” I am not sure if, for example, Turkey is a military supporter because it sells Ukraine the dramatically useful Bayraktar TB2 drones, because politically has tried to play the role of mediator. Similarly, France, Germany, and other EU states seem to have provided more military technology to the Russian Federation than to Ukraine up to this point (at least to 2020). —Michael Z. 15:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'd stick with what we did for the "Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article, primarily focusing on lethal military aid; the label can be "Arms suppliers". Mindaur (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean giving Ukraine lethal weapons as aid, including only defensive lethal weapons, but not selling Ukraine lethal weapons commercially? So, not giving Ukraine unarmed armoured vehicles, not giving it spare parts to bring jet fighters back into service, not giving it counterbattery radar, night-vision devices, reconnaissance drones, training, or military intelligence (which may include enemy plans and locations of enemy units, enabling their destruction).

  Seems reasonable. But then the article should make clear how “supported by” is defined. Then that is “arms donators” or equivalent? —Michael Z. 01:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose For all the reasons offered by My very best wishes. It is also not clear what is proposed, but regardless, various kinds of aid, including sanctions, financial, humanitarian and commercial and 'gifted/lend-lease' harware, so it would be difficult to regulate this in a coherent fashion. I believe a considerable amount of Ukr hardware is actually inherited from Soviet Union days, so we would thus have the absurdity of Ukr being aided by Russia (and vice versa?). The whole subject is better handled in text or in a related article. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment In response to arguments by editors that arms suppliers do not qualify as support for Ukraine, but Belarus should be listed as in support of Russia by aiding the "aggression" against Ukraine... I would quote the president of the United States who himself said just today that they are aiding Ukraine in its defense or the UK ministers from the past few days that the intent is to even push out Russia out of Crimea and diminish its military. So, I think the intent is quite clear. Belarus in support of Russia by providing the staging ground, most NATO/EU countries in support of Ukraine by providing arms and heavy equipment since the start of the invasion. Further, even though I don't object to listing Belarus in support of Russia in the infobox, there is more of an argument to list Western support of Ukraine, which is quite notable. And I would once again remind that we have added "Supported by" countries who provided arms only in various conflicts throughout the last century in our articles. Finally, any previous arms provided by France, Germany etc to Russia or Ukraine before the invasion is unrelated to why they are providing it NOW (intent). EkoGraf (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict. For example, the recent supply of 155mm artillery only adds 1% more to Ukraine's current artillery inventory. Furthermore adding countries such as the U.S. U.K. and other European nations to the infobox would play into the Kremlin rhetoric that Russia is fighting with the west, instead of with Ukraine. Viewsridge (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "The weapons provided to Ukraine during the invasion still play a negligible role in the conflict." In the expressed opinion of the US President their arms support was what made the Russian military withdraw from Kyiv. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Negligible role in the conflict" - that is simply not true. I could write an essay on this (incl. why 155 mm is significant in several ways and "1% more" is nonsense), but we would be delving deep into off-topic and discussions on military capabilities. Let's stick with WP:RS on WP:DUE/WP:N judgement; I already provided multiple sources: . Mindaur (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think the magnitude of the effect is key at all. Whether the USA supports with $33B in aid or a tiny postage-stamp country supports with the $6.99 and a box of first aid kits that it can scrounge up, it is still a concrete commitment to support (however we define it).

  But you are right that the wording must give the right impression about and define exactly what “supported by” really means (regardless of the number of states listed). —Michael Z. 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for same reasons as last time, which include content problems, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE issues, and mobile accessibility issues. I'm amenable to a German Misplaced Pages-like solution, where we add "(supported with foreign aid from other states)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Would accept the German-like solution. EkoGraf (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment US Congress passed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022: . It again illustrates the increasing scale of support for Ukraine. The revival of Lend-Lease is historic. --Mindaur (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Support

I rely on past Misplaced Pages articles as historical precedent on how things are normally done on Misplaced Pages without political motives changing.

Misplaced Pages articles that show weapon and other forms of suppliers under "supported by" Iran–Iraq War, Yom Kippur War, Nigerian Civil War, Vietnam War, Soviet–Afghan War

NATO is not only providing weapons but also electronic, recon and intelligence support.

ELINT is electronic intelligence and the US claimed they were doing it when the Moskva was sunk: https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/misc/elint.pdf

I think that we shouldn't make an exception to this article because it might not align with our political agendas or point of view. Ahm1453 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Mainly per U|My very best wishes. There is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. There is also nuance to the type of assistance that cannot be simply captured in an infobox. An abbreviated listing would be misleading and a detailed listing would be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is to be a summary of key points - detail ≠ summary. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead, not a replacement and the article should not be written in the infobox. In consequence, WP:NOTEVERYTHING therefore particularly applies to an infobox. A bloated infobox also causes WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues - particularly for mobile users. The necessary detail is summarised in the lead and presented in the body of the article. That is sufficient and best meets our obligations under WP:P&G (IMO). There are some arguments here, that we need to show the support for Ukraine. While well intended, these are not NEAUTRAL. WP needs to be dispassionate and apartisan - writing at arm's length from the subject. There are also arguments the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a mandate. The argument does not consider the individual cases and why it may or why it may not be appropriate in one case but not another - it is a broad-brush assertion. More particularly, it does not consider whether this "otherstuff is "best practice". Few parent articles for modern-era conflicts since World War II have reached GA status or better (to my knowledge) - certainly neither the Korean War nor the Vietnam War. But ultimately, "best practice" goes back to conformity with WP:P&G (such as WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Unless one can show that this "otherstuff" is "best practice" (and in my observation it isn't) and the circumstances are similar, then an argument that appeals to "otherstuff" is unsound. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Current Events. There is an emerging consensus in news sources currently in motion that the correct reference might be to the USA with its 40 Allied nations forming a coalition to provide economic support along with military supplies and refitting to Ukraine for its battle with Russia here in "US and allies gather at Ramstein to discuss how to help Ukraine defeat Russia’s ‘unjust invasion’". The link to one of the latest articles is in "Stars and Stripes" under the title I have just quoted, BY JOHN VANDIVER AND JENNIFER H. SVAN • STARS AND STRIPES • APRIL 26, 2022. Link here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with using the German Misplaced Pages solution of adding "(supported with foreign aid from other states)".

- I get that adding NATO etc. as belligerents is the Russian narrative, and I'm as pro-Ukraine as anyone, but realistically, the West is supporting Ukraine, and IMO it's WP:ADVOCACY not to have something about the West's support in the infobox. A link to List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War is the solution IMO. Shimbo (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support' but only to list those states that provide direct lethal military aid. No political support and such things. Also avoid using supranational bodies like EU or NATO since support for Ukraine differ in scope and type from state and state.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  The EU as an organization has also provided military support directly. I don’t think NATO has to date. —Michael Z. 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per My very best wishes. Belligerents should only list belligerents; there's far too many fine gradations of what 'support' can mean that will be flattened by a list of countries. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Ahm1453 and Mindaur in general, also specifically because "the United States military" is now training "Ukrainian troops" and there's been "a stark shift from Western support for Ukraine focused now on delivering heavy weaponry and not only defensive system." If on the off-chance listing becomes too long, we can partially shorten or link. CurryCity (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC) NYT reports that direct assistance from US and Western intelligence services helped Ukraine successfully attack senior Russian officers, whose heavy losses astonished analysts. US goal has shifted to weakening and deterring Russia for the long term per statement by Def Sec Lloyd Austin. Even though I voted against in a previous RfC, events have since escalated. updated 07:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support List the individual countries who have provided lethal military support to Ukraine. That would maintain a neutral point of view--Waters.Justin (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per My very best wishes. While there is a somewhat dubious tendency to add increasingly long "supported by" lists to infoboxes, there is no rule requiring to do so, and managing such list with huge number of supporters this conflict has would create whole a lot of issues for minimal benefit.--Staberinde (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose - Per My very best wishes. Only list belligerents who have made a formal declaration of war. Also as Cinderella157 noted, there is clearly a big distinction between the support offered by Belarus which crosses a clear line and the assistance provided by countries to assist Ukraine or oppose Russia. FobTown (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nobody has made a formal declaration of war. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. For those unaware, Belligerent, Co-belligerent and Non-belligerent each have brief WP articles. In my reading of them, many of the countries supporting Ukr fit most appropriately in the "Non-belligerent" categorization because the nature of their support most closely matches the examples provided in that article. If that reading is correct, naming these countries under the "Belligerent" section of the IB would be misleading and inaccurate and should be avoided. The "German-like" solution creatively finds a way to detach named nations from the belligerent label however and it might be acceptable. --N8_wilson 18:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically, vague, POV and inappropriate for infobox. Volunteer Marek 18:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The list is quite large, and it would clog the infobox. CheeseInTea (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea
• Support If providing intelligence, training, money, military equipment and sanctions against Russia is not support, I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:438F:6037:998B:43DF (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment the above comment by an Ip geolocated in Germany sounds a bit dubious to me, said IP never edited Wiki before, and their first ever edit is here ...---Wikaviani 13:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The West is only providing money and some light weapons.---Wikaviani 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm concerned about the vagueness of the word "supported" - this could imply they are sending in troops, which they aren't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because "support" is a vague term that could mean a lot of different things, and has a POV problem too. Iraniangal777 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support - we should be consistent with how we treat other wars. Vietnam War lists many supporters of both sides that did not send troops directly. Similar lists of supporters exist for Iran-Iraq War, Korean War, and the majority of other major conflicts I can find except for WW2, presumably because the number of total belligerents is just too large. World War I, a featured article, individually lists 9 different British colonies/dominions in the infobox that aided the war effort, so an argument that we will 'clog' the infobox by including countries that supply lethal aid seems hard to sustain. It seems pretty clear that if military aid is being supplied to either party in the conflict, that should be included. Are we really going to act like the intelligence provided by the US being used to sink Russian ships doesn't count as support? TocMan (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  A lot of these articles don't have a lot of editor attention. The infobox here was subject to 2 RfCs, which is probably more than the number of RfCs on supporters in the infoboxes of these 20th/21st century war infoboxes, combined. I raised the issue of IBs of 20th/21st century wars on WP:MILHIST and I think editors did agree there are some problems. Many of those articles are a mess of indiscriminate information anyway.

  Consider a more visible, GA-level article of a 20th century war, World War II. Commanders and leaders is significantly trimmed, the value of participants params is a single word "Allies" or "Axis" with a hyperlink. There is a high-level list of casualties, with a hyperlink for more info, but nothing insane. No equipment figures or other silliness like on the IB here or on these other 20th century wars. It's a tight infobox in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. (nb: WW1 has not been a featured article since 2006, when it was delisted. The infobox, at the time it was an FA, looked like this).

  Your argument is that most infoboxes of recent wars are bad. I agree. That doesn't mean we proliferate more bad infoboxes across the encyclopaedia, but instead we should put effort into cleaning more of these articles up (their infoboxes, and their content too tbh). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction on WWI, not sure why I had thought it was featured. Would you be able to link to the discussion you had on WP:MILHIST? My argument is not that existing infoboxes are bad, and I'm still not sure how including direct financial/material/intelligence support in the infobox is out of line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It seems like it's both true and salient information that the Soviets and USA were both helping arm Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, and that the US is arming Ukraine in the current war, etc. These things can have a massive impact on the source, ultimate outcome, and historical significance of each conflict. --TocMan (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Another data point I just found - we include Russian support for the Taliban in War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) even though it was only financial 'bounties' and Russia claims that it wasn't involved at all. Meanwhile US is providing weapons, funds, and intelligence to Ukraine and admitting as much. TocMan (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

TocMan, my reasons to oppose are much like those of ProcrastinatingReader. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not of itself a justification. It is only a valid argument if it represents "best practice" - and it doesn't. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to write the article in the infobox - we have prose in both the lead section and the body of the article on this. The article is not omitting this detail. It is following WP:NPOV and WP:P&G more broadly in this respect. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella157 Thanks for your perspective. As you point out, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is fine if it represents best practice, and I remain unconvinced that this is not best practice. There are myriad military articles that include arms suppliers as supporters in the infobox, including featured articles about post-Soviet conflicts. This is a very different state of affairs than if only a few low quality articles existed that use the practice, which might have just never received good editorial attention. In any conflict but especially one with global implications, knowing at a glance the nature of support for each side is both useful and important. I am not sure what NPOV issue you think is resolved by keeping a slim list of supporters; but I think including more supporters quickly resolves any NPOV issue. If we include Belarus as a Russian supporter for letting Russia use its territory but not the United States for providing intelligence that was used to destroy a Russian ship, that may be a defensible line to draw, but it is inherently trickier than just showing all supporters - as we already do in other high quality articles. --TocMan (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

TocMan, You cite First Nagorno-Karabakh War as a FA and representative of "best practice". That article was promoted 25 February 2007 per this version. Since then, the article has undergone over 3,000 edits and doubled in size. Furthermore, the infobox now bares little resemblance to that in the promoted version. FA status only specifically attaches to the version promoted. Substantial variation in the article is reason to consider a review and whether it continues to FA criteria. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, but doesn't do anything to address my overall argument. --TocMan (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Even before you identified the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, there was this discussion (Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War#FA criteria) about taking the article to FAR. In its present form, it does not represent "best practice". Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Technical objections, such as a long infobox, are minor complaints and have been addressed already. Opposers do not seem to have read the Rfc, but are repeating obsolete arguments. Linking to a list, for example, is a very doable workaround. If "supported by" is not the most apt terminology, there are plenty of other great descriptors, such as "arms supplier", "lethal aid", "military training", etc. As a digital, web based, cooperative medium, Misplaced Pages should take advantage of its inherent flexibilities, and not be bound by dogmatic reasonings and self-imposed limitations. I find TocMan's argument,supported by sources, more substantive and consistent than the naysayer's. Additionally, even though the U.S. government has yet to openly target Russia, public attitude is shifting. One U.S. official, elected at the federal level, even said they're "fundamentally at war, although somewhat through a proxy, with Russia." The combination of lethal weaponry, direct training military to military, and rhetoric from its own politican, makes that country unique among supporters of Ukraine.Fantasix6 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This account has 9 edits to their name. Volunteer Marek 08:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And? New editors do not start with 10,000 edits, they start with 0. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

But most legit new editors don’t immediately jump into controversial RfCs. Make a couple hundred normal edits, then show up to these things. Otherwise these RfCs become a brigaded, SPA, sock infested joke. Volunteer Marek 17:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I may be wrong on this technical note, but I believe if we included just the United States, and/or a link to the full list, it wouldn't even make the infobox bigger, since the Russian-allied forces + supporting Belarus take up more than that amount of space already. This would just be filling in blank space with text. At the very least, I think the US should be shown due to the extent of its support. With the revelations that America helped to target and sink the Moskva, and provided intelligence help in killing Russian generals, it's approaching actual engagement, per Fantasix6. I don't have a particularly strong opinion as to how the other supporting countries should be represented (as a linked list, listing each one out individually, as a collapsed list, not at all), but to not include any of the supporting countries doesn't make sense to me. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a special case. There is a long-standing precedent for including at least the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, as several others have listed examples of. Lightspecs (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  This is infobox creep: adding some stuff just to add more stuff, without a basis supported by WP:RS. Factually, non-belligerent supporters of Ukraine against the Russian Federation and Belarus are the 141 states that voted to pass UNGA Resolution ES-11/1, condemning illegal “Aggression against Ukraine.” Military aid (donations), and military commercial sales, are routine transactions between states. When a state is in a war, such transfers don’t suddenly make the donor a belligerent or some kind of quasi-belligerent. And it would certainly violate WP:NPOV to label such states “supporters” and thereby equate their actions to those of illegal aggressor Belarus. —Michael Z. 20:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  There's a very clear difference between a vote at the UN, and providing military intelligence that was directly used to blow up a war ship, or $50bn in direct aid - that is not a "routine transaction" or ordinary "commercial sales". Re: Belarus it's bizarre to think that someone is only a 'supporter' if they support the bad guys, but supporters of the good guys don't count for some reason. TocMan (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, there is a difference, but those things don’t define belligerent status in a war, these actions aren’t participation in conflict, they’re not illegal, they’re not aggression. I don’t make these rules. The amount of fifty billion is not routine, but you are not arguing that 50B constitutes support but 10M does not, is it? UN members, including every state we’re talking about, are parties to treaties that define international conflicts and participation in them.

  On the other hand, the Russian Federation and Belarus both agreed to the definitions, promised to respect international laws, and then intentionally violated them. Bad-guy status follows from conducting a war of aggression.

  Ukraine is a belligerent because it is the victim of their continuing aggression into its territory for eight years.

  I don’t believe mine is the bizarre argument here. —Michael Z. 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  As others have pointed out, Germany and France, for example, have recently sold dual-use and military equipment, including weapons components like thermal fire-control systems for AFVs, to the Russian Federation. That doesn’t make them RF supporters in this war either. —Michael Z. 22:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Has Germany and France continued to deliver these systems? Has Germany and France shared intelligence about Ukrainian military positions to Russia? Has Germany and France passed laws since the invasion to allocate massive amounts of financial and military assistance to Russia? Your argument is very bizarre. Jacob H (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - In the future, we can argue about how to list the support, but reliable sources are consistently attributing the material lethal aid from the United States, EU, and others towards Ukraine's success, and to remove that information from the infobox would severely harm the usefulness of the infobox as a summarizing "at a glance" tool. This is vital information. The most effective argument against that I can see is that it would make the infobox larger and thus less useful, but this is countered by the fact that the Russian side already has multiple entries which extend empty space on the Ukraine side, which can be filled without increasing the size of the infobox. As for "equipment sales and transfers being routine" in response to Michael above, I think we can agree that the United States, at the very least, is providing a lot more than just equipment and money, in the form of military intelligence, which reliable sources have also attributed to Ukraine's success thus far. This is on top of high end equipment, and the response to the now famous quote "I need ammo, not a ride." Ukraine said they needed aid to survive, they got the aid, they've survived... all this looks like extremely notable information that people want to find in the infobox. Fieari (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  If intelligence makes the difference, let’s identify and list the states that are doing so as intelligence providers. However, many states share intelligence routinely in peacetime, so this does not make one a belligerent. If it’s provision of weapons, then do we list the EU, France, and Germany as supporters of the RF too, since they sold weapons components until March? —Michael Z. 14:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  States share intelligence all the time, especially if they are in alliances such as NATO. Ukraine is not in such alliances. Jacob H (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Jacob H, You're mistaken. As a member of the Open Skies Treaty Ukraine is, in fact, in an alliance to get intel from other countries. And, speaking of the "Open Skies Treaty," Russia withdrew from that treaty in December 2021, and, at the exact same time Russia began its massive military buildup on Ukraine border. 2 months later waged their illegal war on Ukraine. Strange timing, huh. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  The United States withdrew from the alliance before Russia, so your point doesn't make as much sense, but this isn't about whether the invasion was illegal or not: it is about, it is simply about we should be staying true to what is happening, and that is the United States and European countries are actively supporting Ukraine in the following ways: Financial, Militarily, Intelligence, Foreign Sanctions. Furthermore, the surveillance gathered by the U.S. and others goes way outside the scope of the Open Skies Treaty. The Open Skies treaty was signed to increase trust to prevent misunderstandings. The United States is not a member of this treaty, and it is the one that conducts the most of the surveillance flights, specifically over the black-sea and Poland (NATO). The Americans have admitted themselves that they provide intelligence directly to Ukraine, not through any partner like the U.K. which is a member of the treaty.

  By not adding the supporting countries, it seriously undermines the credibility of Misplaced Pages. You cannot reasonably argue that at least the U.S. & some other NATO member states are not supporting Ukraine militarily and by other means. Jacob H (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• The lead section presently states: Many countries imposed new sanctions, which have affected the economies of Russia and the world, and provided humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. There is a prominant section in the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military support and a daughter article linked from that section: See also: List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. How could it be reasonably argued that we are not already openly reporting the nature and extent of legal 'support' being provided by other countries to Ukraine and in a way that best conforms to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and any other relevant WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  The information is provided in the article, but it's my understanding that the info-box is used to summarize events, belligerents e.t.c… This has not been done, and from my understanding the only reason is that it would make the infobox too long, and this is answered in point 3 of the response to the RfC by @Levivch Jacob H (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Typo in user reference, correction: @Levivich Jacob H (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I'm not seeing that Levivich has contributed to this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  See the following: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 7#RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? Jacob H (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich observes at point 3 in respect to technical limitations and accessibility: that's something we could change as a community if we wanted to. But such a change has not happened?. Levivich makes a number of closing observations on what a new RfC might propose (as a more refined question) such that it might lead to a consensus. This RfC has failed to head such advice and is likely to produce the same outcome as previous precisely because it has failed to head their advice. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Support The United States and the EU are providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, along with reports of logistical assistance. To try to understand this, think of Ukraine and Russia fighting without the assistance of other nations. Then, think of all the weapons flowing into Ukraine, possibly tens of billions of dollars' worth of weapons. While not fighting directly on Ukraine's side, these nations are apparently supporting Ukraine's side with powerful, expensive equipment. Nythar (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, we have List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, but there isn't a link to it in the infobox. Nythar (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Think about the Russian weapons that would not exist without foreign support. France delivered bombs, rockets, missiles, and guns. Russian drones and combat aircraft have imported GPS units. Russian command posts, cruise missiles, radars, helicopters, and air-defence systems are full of US electronics. Russian airborne fighting vehicles and tanks have French sights and fire control. The Russian tank factory is shutting down production for lack of foreign components. Russian special forces were modernized in high-tech training camps built by Germany. Russian artillery is corrected using Chinese drones. (I can find the references for all of the above, if necessary.)

So sure, if we define “support” as providing military gear, then let’s list it all on both sides. —Michael Z. 17:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Support It makes sense, considering how many nations (even the Taliban) are rushing to support Ukraine, however you better also include Japan. Great Mercian (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support There are many other articles that include the major supporters of each belligerent in infoboxes, and several examples have been cited previously. The reasons to not support this do not overcome precedence. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to close by participant agreement. A summary of this discussion so far could be written with striking similarity to the closure notes provided in the previous RfC Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?. Most notably, On the strength of arguments, there is no global consensus to be applied that would give one side or the other sufficient weight to overcome the numerical split of opinion. In light of that, I recommend we mutually agree to close this RfC as "no consensus" in accordance with item #2 at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Ending RfCs. I don't see any reason to tie up the time and effort of an uninvolved editor if we can agree that we haven't reached a consensus here. --N8_wilson 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging OP and some early supporters. Can we agree to tie this up as "no consensus" and move to other proposals? If not, it seems like we've reached WP:WHENCLOSE and so a closure request by an uninvolved editor might be appropriate. --N8_wilson 15:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping remaining supporters. --N8_wilson 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop bothering Great Mercian (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Close It doesn't look like we've reached consensus here. Nythar (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to have a formal non-involved editor close, but I highly suspect anyone can see that the result is no consensus. There are well reasoned editors on both sides of the issue, and the valid points on both side don't seem to be clearly and plainly answered by their opposition in a definitive manner. I don't see how we can say anything but no consensus, much as I'd personally and strongly prefer otherwise. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Given the trickle of comments posted after this suggestion it seems WP:Closure requests is more appropriate. --N8_wilson 17:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support: it's consistent with other conflicts to include nation state donors of military equipment as a "supported by" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finbee (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "US starts training of some Ukrainian troops on howitzer artillery". Reuters. 20 April 2022.
2. ^ "US begins training Ukrainians on howitzer artillery: Official". www.aljazeera.com.
3. ^ "US intelligence helped Ukraine target Russian generals — report". Times of Israel. AFP. 5 May 2022.
4. ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Cooper, Helene; Schmitt, Eric (4 May 2022). "U.S. Intelligence Is Helping Ukraine Kill Russian Generals, Officials Say". The New York Times.
5. Schwartz, Felicia; Foy, Henry; Reed, John (2022-04-14). "US sends Ukraine more weapons and intelligence to repel Russian offensive". Financial Times. Retrieved 2022-04-29.
6. Klippenstein, Ken KlippensteinSara SirotaKen; SirotaMarch 17 2022, Sara; P.m, 10:48. "U.S. Quietly Assists Ukraine With Intelligence, Avoiding Direct Confrontation With Russia". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-04-29. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
7. Strout, Nathan (2022-04-25). "How one US intelligence agency is supporting Ukraine". C4ISRNet. Retrieved 2022-04-29.
8. ""We're Fundamentally at War": Rep. Moulton Says U.S. in Proxy War with Russia". Democracy Now!.
9. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/05/politics/us-intelligence-russian-moskva-warship-ukraine-target/index.html
10. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/04/us/politics/russia-generals-killed-ukraine.html

• Support - the arguments and evidence presented by Mindaur and Fieari are convincing. It's beyond argument that the assistance (i.e. the support) of the US, EU and NATO nations, are a substantial contributor to Ukraine's success in the war. Thus this should be listed as support in the infobox. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Adding military support is consistent with other infoboxes. It is also logical to include as it impacts the abilities of belligerent(s) to succeed on the battlefield. LandyYecla (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cite error: There are <ref group=?> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=?}} template (see the help page).