Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Attribution in the lead

@TylerBurden Regarding your edit, and the need for attribution for the sentence: "Putin espoused irredentist and neo-imperialist views challenging Ukraine's legitimacy as a state, falsely claimed that Ukraine was governed by neo-Nazis persecuting the Russian minority,

Looking at the several sources you mentioned under 'Putins invasion announcement', although I have not read all of them in completion, I do not see any which align with the sentence in question, could you point me at the right one please.

The sentence in question is very descriptive at first, and then makes a concrete statement, both the description of Putins actions, and the statement of Putin claiming 'the Ukraine government was persecuting the Russian minority', should align with secondary source material, and given the descriptive nature of the sentence, should in my view be attributed with an inline citation; especially considering it is a contentious topic as per MOS:LEADCITE. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Would sources provided in Putin's invasion announcement section as well as in On conducting a special military operation article be enough? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I did look through Putin's invasion announcement section sources as stated, however I have found sources on that article thank-you. Although, it seems Putin was not calling the Ukraine leadership neo-nazis but rather elements of their military/population, and while the sources certainly do corroborate the use of the term 'irredentist', the term 'neo-imperialist' not so much.

I propose removing the term neo-imperalist, changing wording to be something like "falsely claimed that the Ukrainian government was supporting neo-nazis, and that they were persecuting and committing genocide against the Russian minority in Donbass", and provide inline citations to the following: https://theconversation.com/putins-claims-that-ukraine-is-committing-genocide-are-baseless-but-not-unprecedented-177511 , https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/putins-speech-declaring-war-on-ukraine-translated-excerpts

This revision would provide greater context, be more exact, lean closer to the sources, and provide the needed attribution. Regardless of the rewording, the sources above (and/or others) should be inline citations. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

the term 'neo-imperialist' not so much
This view is widely accepted:
Putin’s plan for a new Russian Empire includes both Ukraine and Belarus - Atlantic Council
Full article: Russia’s war goals in Ukraine
How to think about war in Ukraine - by Timothy Snyder ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank-you for the sources, one of these should be used inline. Although the term they are using is imperialist, not neoimperialism. This includes all of the source under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_imperialism#Contemporary_Russian_imperialism . 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"A few golf carts and bikes"

@Flemmish Nietzsche Following large losses of equipment Russia has been frequently deploying its infantry in unarmored vehicles like their Chinese desertcross carts, dirt bikes, civilian cars and bicycles, this wasn't a Russian fad or isolated incidents, here is a recent source from Forbes.

Since you removed it entirely from this article, where would be more appropriate? TylerBurden (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find somewhere to put it — maybe in the eastern front article, but certainly not on the main page of the invasion. A lot of what David Axe (the author of most Forbes articles on the war) says shouldn't be taken as indicative of something being an isolated incident or not; he's not exactly the most respected journalist out there. The text you added also made it seem like these "golf cart assaults" were the plurality of assaults being done, when this is nowhere close to reality. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

He's Forbes staff, last I checked WP:FORBES is generally reliable with oversight. But due to what he reports on I can see why certain spheres wouldn't like him, and it's not the first time this has been said on here. He's not the indication anyway, the hundreds of geolocated videos and other sources reporting the same thing are. TylerBurden (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Also Axe is pretty credible as a source, with a long track-record as a defence journalist. FOARP (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And a long track record of being wrong, contradicting himself and walking back on his words.

- Ukraine’s Challenger 2 Tanks Can Plow Right Through Russian Fortifications (May 31, 2023)

- The British Challenger 2 Is The Wrong Tank For Ukraine (March 27, 2024)

If you use David Axe as a source, be ready to rewrite the relevant portion after a few months so that it says the opposite.

David Axe is a propagandist, doesn't matter that he writes for Forbes. Check WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS for more info. 2A05:4F44:A18:ED00:46A8:75DE:8C02:220D (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

You would prefer it if he never corrected himself? FOARP (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• We are seeing one instance with three sources on the one date, of which two are directly written by David Axe and the other uses one of the David Axe articles as a source. Doesn't belong here per WP:NOTNEWS. Might belong in a specific article on that specific engagement but probably not even the eastern front article. Only significant if this were happening at multiple places and or at multiple times. No evidence it is? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM Doesn't matter what I prefer. The point is that he often contradicts and corrects himself, makes no sense to cite him. His articles are sensationalistic and he rarely gives "expert analysis", it's always his own opinion. 213.149.62.204 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Nuclear Disarmament as Russian diplomatic interdiction of Ukraine

The 1994 invasion on Ukranian sovereignty was to curtail nuclear weapons apportionment. To diplomatically transfer from now Pivdenmash's(former Yuzmash) nuclear secrets for both Russia and the United States of America. This lead to East-West collusion practices on space module production for the International Space Station. Aditya.m4 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

1994? Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

See Budapest Memorandum. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What invasion? Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The invasion of Ukraine was in order to align militias with diplomatic attache's in 1994 especially in Crimea though not heavily reported by Partnership for Peace Aditya.m4 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Aditya.m4 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please outline what exactly the proposed change to the article is proposed here? Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)