Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outdated duration of the War's

[edit]

i have noticed that the duration date of the war to the present is still 9 months which should be edited on my opinion. Hritik Das (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"2 years, 9 months, 3 weeks and 5 days" is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ten years like the Russo-Ukrainian War article says?
"The Russo-Ukrainian War[d] began in February 2014."[1] 46.188.232.131 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No as this is about Russia's direct invasion, not the wider war. Slatersteven (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be 11 years Hritik Das (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is the Russo-Ukrainian War. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)@[reply]

Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?

[edit]

To include countries whose armed forces personnel are directly contributing to Ukraine's war effort.

Sweden, for officially having personnel in Ukraine: "The minister noted that Sweden already has a physical presence in Ukraine through its defense procurement agency that works with the Ukrainian government to purchase military equipment."[2]

Poland, Romania, for keeping Ukrainian F-16s and Ukrainian Air Force flying missions from those bases (the same reasoning used to include Belarus): "Serhii Holubtsov, head of aviation within Ukraine’s air force, said that “a certain number of aircraft will be stored at secure air bases outside of Ukraine so that they are not targeted here.”[3]

"Test flights from Romania to the Odessa region have already been carried out multiple times. F-16s have flown over Tulcea, reached Vilkovo, and made several circles over Zmein. One of the missile launch zones was identified in this location, with the target being Crimea."[4] (This claim is unsupported/denied by WP:RS)

"Ukraine plans to keep some of its F-16s at foreign bases to protect them from Russian bombing strikes."[5]

"President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the Polish government has made a decision that will speed up the delivery of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine."[6]

Slovakia, Germany, for repairing Ukrainian military equipment: "Germany has decided to move the repair center for Ukrainian large military equipment established in Slovakia to its own territory, according to ntv. According to a spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defense, the process should be completed by December 31, 2024."[7]

United States, providing targeting, according to Ukrainian officials, "KYIV, Ukraine — Ukrainian officials said they require coordinates provided or confirmed by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes using its advanced U.S.-provided rocket systems, a previously undisclosed practice that reveals a deeper and more operationally active role for the Pentagon in the war."[8]

France, direct participant in the war: "French special forces carried out several missions in Ukraine early in the war, though these were short-lived operations." ... "Similarly, the involvement of the National Gendarmerie — tasked with verifying Russian war crimes — was targeted and temporary."[9]

“Officially, any intelligence gathered is only sent to NATO nations, but everyone knows that some of these nations quickly share the information with Ukraine, enabling them to counter incoming attacks,” a former Royal Air Force (RAF) officer said. “Western intelligence data offers Ukraine the ability to respond a wee bit quicker.”[10]

"As well as gathering “real-time intelligence that theoretically could be shared with Ukrainian partners,”[11]

This kind of support (especially France's direct participation) goes beyond sending weapons and aid. A country's armed forces personnel directly contributing to Ukrainian war effort justifies adding them as Ukraine's supporters in the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ on this page. "Supported by" is deprecated. It is being used here because of specific discussions that a party is a belligerent but not a combatant (with multiple sources). A similar case would need to be made. The sources you have cited do not establish this. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they do. Perhaps an RFC is needed here, or on the Russo-Ukrainian war page. Where do you think the RFC would be more appropriate? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is required; however, you may not open an RfC as a restricted editor under WP:GSRUSUKR. Another editor, eligible under A1, would have to decide to open an RfC if they assessed a legitimate case to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To which restriction are you referring? Is it a general one? Because I don't see anything regarding creating RfCs on the talk page. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TurboSuperA+: "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions." Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the discussion referenced by A4 in the FAQ took place before the RfC that deprecated the "Supported by" field, so this discussion might be helpful for clarity under the "revised" standards. It's my opinion that the RfC makes it clearer how to address the situation, which could be useful since the A4 discussion was so divided Placeholderer (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this, and discussed this again, and discussed this again, and nothing has changed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider France. According to several sources, there is French military presence in Ukraine helping the war effort against Russia.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/03/01/ukraine-s-western-allies-already-have-a-military-presence-in-the-country_6575440_4.html
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/western-special-forces-in-ukraine-openly-exist--just-unoffic
"According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent of special forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow Nato states Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."[12]
It is obvious that certain countries are participating in the war in a way that goes beyond sending aid.
Russia is "supported by" Belarus, because they launched attacks from Belarus' soil at the beginning of the invasion. This is what Romania and Poland are doing by allowing Ukraine to store, repair and launch F-16s from their soil.
Russia is "supported by" the DPRK because DPRK troops are allegedly in the Kursk region, helping Russia push Ukrainians back. This is what France is doing and we have multiple sources saying so.
Clearly, the principle has been satisfied. The only objection can be made regarding the amount of support provided.
What is the threshold or the criteria that needs to be satisfied for a country to "support" Ukraine in the same way Belarus and DPRK are supporting Russia? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which has already been discussed, many times. bring something new. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, you ignored it.
Re: Sweden, https://kyivindependent.com/swedish-defense-minister-does-not-rule-out-eu-nato-troop-presence-in-ukraine/
That article came out 4 days ago, I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the talk page, therefore it has not already been discussed.
"The minister noted that Sweden already has a physical presence in Ukraine through its defense procurement agency that works with the Ukrainian government to purchase military equipment."
Direct admission by the Swedish Defense Minister (recognised expert on the state and activities of the Swedish military) that Sweden already has a physical presence in Ukraine. The language is clear and unambiguous.
I ask again, what criteria needs to be satisfied for a country to be "supporting" Ukraine? Sweden sending military personnel to aid Ukraine's war effort goes beyond sending weapons and money only (which is what the infobox states now). TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RS saying they are a combatant, or at the (very least) said they have troops in combat. The same as it has always been. This is what I meant, this is a new supporter, it does not say they are involved in combat. Supporter is deprecated for a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus doesn't pass that criteria, because Belarus has never used its own troops against Ukraine. I cannot find a single WP:RS that claims Belarus is a combatant.
Regarding your question on specifics:
"The British have been among the most transparent about their presence since Macron's statements. "Beyond the small number of personnel we do have in the country supporting the armed forces of Ukraine, we haven't got any plans for large-scale deployment," a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told reporters on Monday."[13] [archive link to bypass paywall: https://archive.ph/qrG5R]
Is this the reason why "supported by" was deprecated, because WP:RS claim NATO countries are directly supporting Ukrainian military with their own personnel in Ukraine? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, as its depreciated on other pages too. Belarus is rather unique (as you would know from reading every other discussion we have had on it, but fine. If you want to launch an RFC on this ask someone, I can tell you the result now. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I can tell you the result now."
Does that mean that no matter what WP:RS I find there is no way to include supporters for Ukraine in the infobox?
Because the issue is a complicated one, there seems to be a legal distinction between co-belligerency, support and parties to the conflict. Much as I have been saying, it is a matter of threshold. I can find scholarly (WP:RS) articles arguing for one side or the other.
We can all agree (and so do the WP:RS) that providing materiel support is not a sufficient reason to declare a country a co-belligerent or a party to the conflict. However, I am arguing that countries admitting to have personnel in Ukraine that directly aid Ukraine's war effort can be considered parties to the conflict. There are some WP:RS arguing that what NATO is doing is "common defense" which would make those NATO countries parties to the conflict.
This is why I asked what the criteria is for adding a country into the infobox, either "Supported by", "co-belligerent" or "party to the conflict" for Ukraine.
France has admitted to have had "limited" special forces and national gendarmerie presence (aiding Ukraine's war effort). Swedish defense minister has said "Sweden is in Ukraine". And we know that US/UK have been providing targeting info and operational support for HIMARS/ATACMS/Storm Shadow and other long-range missiles. This is why Germany has specifically denied requests to send their Taurus missiles, because they'd have to help Ukraine operate them, this could make them "party to the conflict" under international law.
I think there is an argument to be made for adding France, Sweden, US, UK and Poland (potentially others, but for the sake of brevity we can focus on those five to start).
I am happy to provide WP:RS, citations and arguments, I would just like to know what criteria must be satisfied. Military presence on the ground supporting Ukraine's war effort? (UK, US, Sweden and France satisfy this criteria, for example) Common defense? Breach of neutrality law? A WP:RS claiming they are belligerent? (There are WP:RS arguing some countries are providing "belligerent support", others arguing that what certain NATO countries are doing is breaching law of neutrality (as opposed to Austria and Switzerland who are holding to a strict interpretation of neutrality) TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think as of now we can summarize the criteria as belligerent. Or engaged in combat. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus is neither belligerent (no WP:RS claiming so) and they are not engaged in combat. That means there are criteria beyond belligerency/combat that you seem unwilling to share. I think this is done so that any change perceived as unfavourable to how Ukraine and NATO are presented in the article can be denied and opposed. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means nothing has changed since the 1500 other times this has been discussed. So the result will be the same, Supporter is (generally) deprecated and we will only ass a supported if there is something unusual about the support (I.E. more than just supplying arms/training). Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"we will only add a supported if there is something unusual about the support (I.E. more than just supplying arms/training)."
Such as providing intelligence/targeting information?
“Officially, any intelligence gathered is only sent to NATO nations, but everyone knows that some of these nations quickly share the information with Ukraine, enabling them to counter incoming attacks,” a former Royal Air Force (RAF) officer said.
“Western intelligence data offers Ukraine the ability to respond a wee bit quicker.”[14]
"As well as gathering “real-time intelligence that theoretically could be shared with Ukrainian partners,”[15]
"KYIV, Ukraine — Ukrainian officials said they require coordinates provided or confirmed by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes using its advanced U.S.-provided rocket systems, a previously undisclosed practice that reveals a deeper and more operationally active role for the Pentagon in the war."[16]
Coordinates provided by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes using its advanced US-provided rocket systems goes beyond "just supplying arms/training". Because without that targeting data, the strikes would not be able to happen. Therefore NATO-provided intelligence plays a vital and necessary role in combat. I would like there to be an RfC where we can discuss the inclusion of any or all of the following countries into the "Supported by:" infobox section for Ukraine: UK, US, France, Sweden, as some of these countries have a confirmed, official presence in Ukraine while others are directly assisting the war effort (e.g. targeting). TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Belarus having their country used to launch one of the main fronts of the early stages of the invasion, in an attempt to conquer the capital, is a few steps above keeping some planes in Romania for training and maintenance. Other Western support for Ukraine, like helping target missiles and supplying equipment/funds, is comparable in importance, but as "conventional" support I think it is more clearly covered by the RfC that deprecated the "support" field (as in, that's the type of stuff that was decided in that RfC to not include in infoboxes).
I think it would be WP:UNDUE to say that the presence of noncombatant Swedish defense contractors puts them in a super-exclusive category of support, and the source for French spec-ops doesn't actually say very much either (French and other special operations to evacuate foreign nationals from Sudan don't make those countries belligerent)
A big part of the Belarus RfC (I recommend checking it out) was discussing whether or not it's fair to include Belarus support while leaving out Western support. That discussion concluded, but not unanimously, that yes, it was fair to leave Western support out of the infoboxinfobox. Placeholderer (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A big part of the Belarus RfC (I recommend checking it out) was discussing whether or not it's fair to include Belarus support while leaving out Western support."
I am surprised that that RfC was closed the way it was as one of the closing premises/arguments is wrong. The RfC close treats the Anglo-American perspective as acceptable and even desireable, when Wikipedia's position is in fact the opposite.

Q: Doesn't that breach NPOV? A: The English Wikipedia adopts the mainstream POV in Western democracies. For the thought and policy that underlies this, please refer to Anglo-American focus.

The statement in bold above is incorrect, according to Anglo-American focus:

English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries.

WP:CSB deals with this.
Other countries need to be added to the infobox to maintain WP:NPOV.
Furthermore, according to the RfC that deprecated the "support" field that you linked, it was decided that "crucial" and "critical" support is reason enough to include a country as a belligerent to the conflict:

In addition, it is also universally acknowledged that Turkey has armed Azerbaijan with drones, fighter jets, and other technological and artillery weapon advantages that decided the outcome of the war. Turkey's role in the war has been described as "vital",[9] "crucial",[10] "critical",[11] and "direct".[12]

It is widely accepted that the war would have ended long ago had not Ukraine received critical support from the US and UK (especially at the start of the Russian invasion). WP:RS call the support "crucial" and "critical":
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/western-support-critical-ukraines-fight
https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/10/03/isw-ukraine-ramps-up-weapons-production-but-western-aid-still-crucial/
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-west-reaps-multiple-benefits-from-backing-ukraine-against-russia/
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/west-s-military-support-has-been-crucial-to-ukraine-s-defense-against-russian-attacks/2781979
We need an RfC to discuss the inclusion of US and UK (at the very least) as supporters of Ukraine in the infobox, to be consistent with Wikipedia's policy on the Anglo-American POV, to maintain NPOV and to follow the guidelines that were written when the "Supported by" was deprecated. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that the comments about Turkey in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War were from a separate discussion had before the "Supported by" RfC, so that discussion was under different rules. Now, that war's article doesn't actually include Turkey under "Supported by" but rather as an alleged belligerent.
Michael Z. had a good comment in the Belarus RfC, that "Technically, Belarus is in the rare category of being a co-aggressor but not legal belligerent. Any serious argument for removing [from the infobox] it must be able to acknowledge this and explain why it should be left out. The current consensus is to consider it exceptional, so the pragmatic onus is on editors that argue for change to justify it and convince others." Belarus is in the infobox as an exception to the rule because it has not had a conventional position in the war.
To include more "conventional" support from the West in the infobox is deprecated by the "Supported by" RfC. It's not the quantity of support being critical, but the type of support given, that determines if something should be an exception to the "Supported by" deprecation. To take more examples from Sudan, it's widely acknowledged that support from foreign powers like the UAE has had a critical impact on the war, but that war's article doesn't include a "Supported by" field (there had been a "Supported by" field previously but it was removed explicitly because of the "Supported by" RfC) Placeholderer (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Now, that war's article doesn't actually include Turkey under "Supported by" but rather as an alleged belligerent."
Indeed! The same could be said about some NATO countries (US and UK), since Russian officials (e.g. foreign minister Sergei Lavrov) have accused them of participating in the conflict, per WP:RS.:
https://www.reuters.com/world/russias-lavrov-says-us-nato-are-direct-participants-ukraine-war-2022-12-01/
https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-accuses-us-britain-of-helping-ukraine-in-crimea-missile-attack/7286812.html
"Russia’s foreign ministry said the Cameron remarks recognised that Britain was now de-facto a part of the conflict."[17]
We could add US and UK as "belligerents (alleged by Russia)" the same way Turkey is added to the infobox with an (alleged by Armenia).
- "https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-accuses-us-britain-of-helping-ukraine-in-crimea-missile-attack/7286812.html"
I have agreed that Belarus should stay in the infobox, if the same provision can be used to add other countries to the infobox. This is to satisfy wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:CSB.
- "the type of support given, that determines if something should be an exception to the "Supported by" deprecation."
Yes, I consider helping Ukraine with missile targeting (in addition to other help) as sufficient for that exception to be applied here.
I ask again, that there be a RfC started that would consider adding US and UK as either "Supporters" of Ukraine (under the same exception as Belarus), parties to the conflict, or belligerents (allged by Russia).
I don't see how I will convince you, and I am sticking firmly by that the inclusion of Belarus while rejecting inclusion of other countries (regardless of what WP:RS say) violates wikipedia's policies on NPOV and Anglo-American bias.
Here's some more WP:RS that discuss NATO's involvement in the war that goes beyond "neutrality".
"He added: "But the main message is that the stronger the support for Ukraine and the longer we are willing to commit, the sooner this war can end."[18]
"On the 1000th day of Russia’s atrocious war, Europe stands by Ukraine." (quote by Ursula von der Leyen, an expert on EU policy)[19]
Since I am apparently not allowed to start an RfC and you are unwilling, where can I request an RfC be written? Should I start a new topic, where I summarise all the WP:RS that can be used for US and UK inclusion in the infobox? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pretend to know much about the specifics of Turkey in the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war, but from a glance it seems Turkey's involvement there included (allegedly, hence "alleged") Turkish planes shooting down Armenian ones, as well as Turkey sending Syrian mercenaries to fight for Azerbaijan. That's a different type of involvement from what NATO has done in this war (I've seen no RS say that Ukraine's Foreign Legion is backed by foreign governments). It would be WP:UNDUE to include NATO countries in the infobox here because Russian officials say they're "belligerent" by their own standards — if Russian officials said that NATO battalions entered combat in Ukraine, on the other hand, then NATO would potentially go in the infobox (depending on what RS say about it).
I think our main specific disagreement at this stage (though I can only really speak for myself) is that I think targeting assistance falls under conventional support and shouldn't be enough to be an exception to the "Supported by" RfC. A question I'd ask you is: if the US didn't provide any material support and only provided targeting assistance, would you still support having them included under "Supported by", as an exception to the rule, in the infobox? Because I think infobox conventions are clear and consistent that material support does not justify including countries under "Supported by", regardless of quantity or effect on the war, because it was determined by other editors that that's not what infoboxes are for.
I'm not saying NATO is neutral, just like the UAE isn't neutral in the Sudan war. I'm saying that I think the support from NATO countries falls under the "Supported by" RfC's deprecation of the "Supported by" category and should therefore not be included in the infobox, and that I think this is consistent with other conflicts with foreign supporters Placeholderer (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence sharing is pretty routine. For example Britain was sharing a lot of information with Japan in the leadup to the the Battle of Tsushima but despite being decidedly annoyed by the dogger bank incident still ultimately remained a neutral party in the conflict.©Geni (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying NATO is a neutral party to this conflict? How can that be when NATO has offered Ukraine membership, while rejecting Russia's bid in 2003? NATO is clearly on one side of this conflict, and WP:RS support this.
There are primary sources arguing that NATO countries could be in breach of neutrtality: "Under the provisions set out therein, a neutral State must treat all belligerents impartially.12 In particular, ‘[t]he supply, in any manner … by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, of war-ships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden’.13 Even the provision of significant financial support to one side of the conflict may potentially be considered non-neutral.14 The legal problem with the actions of many ‘neutral’ States towards the Ukraine conflict is immediately apparent.[20]TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NATO never offered Ukraine membership, also Russia never applied to join NATO. At best it expressed an interest as long as it did not have to go through the usual application process, it never actually asked to join. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
The fact is that Russia wanted to join. Finland and Sweden joined NATO without going through the usual application process, so Russia's request was not unusual.
Re: Ukraine
"In response to Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership, Allies agreed at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO." and "In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO."[21]
Ukraine is a NATO partner.[22]
"He [Mark Rutte] did not discuss when Ukraine might join the world’s biggest military alliance, beyond insisting that it would become a member."[23]
I can find more WP:RS, because the consensus is that Ukraine is both a NATO partner and on the path to NATO membership. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well you mean apart from the fact that there was no major European war going on at the time? Also, they did have to (in fact) go through the motions, its why it took so long for Sweeden to be accepted. Also being a partner does not mean they are in (note as well this was AFTER the invasion, they were not and had not been invited to join. Russia was also a NATO friend until this war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations). Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident NATO didn't exist during the Battle of Tsushima. And yet we have Intelligence sharing.©Geni (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not ask me, as I have already said we have had this discussion many times, and do not need another one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to summarise the discussion (which is indeed ongoing forever) (1) We classify as belligerent those countries (or entities) whose troops see frontline combat confirmed by multiple sources (2) We uses supported by very cautiously (e.g. we also do not list Iran for supplying drone to Russia). We discussed in depth and agreed (so far and by a small margin whether to call that supporting at all) to use it for countries from which direct attacks (including infantry) were initiated. It is very rare for a non-belligerent to allow alien forces to launch attack from their soil without engaging in the war as belligerent. This has only been the case for Belarus (in particular early on in the conflict), none of the supporters of Ukraine (e.g. Poland, Romania) or Russia (e.g. Iran) have come close to this level of support. Hence no reason to change current status quo. Arnoutf (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"we also do not list Iran for supplying drone to Russia"
Iran isn't bankrolling the Russian government and their military, but US, EU and NATO countries are bankrolling Ukraine's. There's consensus among WP:RS that without NATO's help Ukraine would not have been able to continue the war this long. NATO countries are paying for Ukraine govt.'s salaries, they are funding their defense, they are paying for their pensions and healthcare. This requires special consideration and I think it is a unique case where exception to the policy/rule is warranted.
NATO countries, namely US and UK (but also others) can be considered parties to the conflict, since Ukraine is a NATO partner and on path to NATO membership. Meanwhile NATO countries have put 13 rounds of sanctions on Russia. It is clear that NATO has chosen a side in this conflict, it is disingenuous to pretend as if NATO is a neutral party in all of this. NATO's support goes beyond "just money and weapons" both in quality and quantity. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the article say that NATO is neutral, or is this just something that you are inventing to support your point? TylerBurden (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Russo-Ukrainian_War
  2. ^ https://kyivindependent.com/swedish-defense-minister-does-not-rule-out-eu-nato-troop-presence-in-ukraine/
  3. ^ https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-f16s-39c72290915d9589e468be088769afca
  4. ^ https://armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2024/ukraine-f-16-based-nato
  5. ^ https://simpleflying.com/ukraine-f16s-outside-borders-protect-russian-strikes/
  6. ^ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/07/19/7466516/
  7. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/germany-moves-repair-center-of-ukrainian-1734523702.html
  8. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/09/ukraine-himars-rocket-artillery-russia/
  9. ^ https://defence24.com/geopolitics/french-instructors-in-ukraine
  10. ^ https://english.nv.ua/nation/nato-increases-surveillance-over-ukraine-with-awacs-aircraft-deployment-to-poland-50431372.html
  11. ^ https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-surveillance-defense-war-65b93d45f67204c9db7a07330e722097
  12. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065
  13. ^ https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/03/01/ukraine-s-western-allies-already-have-a-military-presence-in-the-country_6575440_4.html
  14. ^ https://english.nv.ua/nation/nato-increases-surveillance-over-ukraine-with-awacs-aircraft-deployment-to-poland-50431372.html
  15. ^ https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-surveillance-defense-war-65b93d45f67204c9db7a07330e722097
  16. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/09/ukraine-himars-rocket-artillery-russia/
  17. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/06/russia-ukraine-war-live-putin-orders-nuclear-weapons-test
  18. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c03l9eky1p9o
  19. ^ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ursula-von-der-leyen_on-the-1000th-day-of-russias-atrocious-war-activity-7264544371193131010-r7Lq
  20. ^ https://law.adelaide.edu.au/ua/media/2811/alr_44-2_10_jarose.pdf
  21. ^ https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
  22. ^ https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_192648.htm
  23. ^ https://apnews.com/article/nato-ukraine-membership-russia-7a27716d4838edf2c0ff6d97df50478d

DPR and LPR

[edit]
Moved from Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox § DPR and LPR
 – ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics as separate entities, instead mentioning them in a footnote about Russia of the following content: "The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic were unrecognized entities in eastern Ukraine created by Russia in 2014 on the eve of the War in Donbas, which, amid the full-scale invasion, were formally annexed by Russia, alongside partially-occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia." CapLiber (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand they were obviously just an extension of the Russian army, and we've excluded South Ossetia from being mentioned in the infobox on similar grounds. On the other, LPR/DPR formations were treated as being different in some ways by the Russians (e.g., giving them ancient rifles to fight with etc.). I guess I lean towards removing them but it's probably worth having an RFC on this. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are more often described together then separate. On these grounds, agree with the proposal. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you practically never see LPR referenced without also seeing DPR referenced. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what will the decision look like? CapLiber (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, your assertion that you practically never see LPR referenced without also seeing DPR referenced probably holds true only when it comes to very high-level overviews of the war, and particularly those not written in the regional languages. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the infobox is. High level overview. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we should ignore the existence of two effectively independent and separate entities because it is easy to group them together in overly generalized writing? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. We should mention them together like "DPR and LPR", because this is how they are mentioned in very high-level overviews of the war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the annexation months into the invasion in 2022, they were independent entities (legally), as were their militaries; that they are no longer independent right now doesn't matter at all, as they were when the invasion began. So yes, they should be included. That said, this discussion shouldn't be on this talk page at all, but rather at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, where it will be more widely seen. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they were independent entities (legally)
They weren't.
having declared their independence from Ukraine footnote text should be removed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why should it be removed? The rebel leaders did declare independence, just not to any diplomatic recognition; the two republics were completely unrecognized until 2022, but they were still entities that existed (as Ukraine certainly didn't control the territory held by the republics). Legally here means that Russia did not claim that the two entities were a "part of Russia" until 2022, and they still maintained a degree of actual independence until then. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rebel leaders did declare independence
Note the difference
The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic were Russian puppet states, having declared their independence ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They existed as separate entities at the start of the war. Previous discussions were that they remain in the infobox subsequent to annexation. There have been robust discussions regarding this so there is a fairly strong consensus for the status quo version. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removal, because LPR and DPR were never recognised (internationally, anyway). If they aren't removed, then possible solutions could be: a) to put their names in quotes, b) add "so-called" in front of their names, c) call them either "Donbas separatists" or "Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas", d) a combination of the above. In any case, a change is required because as it currently stands it seems that they are indepdendent, recognised entities, when their "independence" was very, very shortlived before they were annexed by Russia. I don't think there is any talk of LPR and DPR being or ever becoming independent entities. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC) 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is OK as it is, nuance is for the body, not the info box. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nuance would be still mentioning them as separate entities. I suggest uniting them into single "Pro-Russian militias in Ukraine" with footnote listing Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts and telling the story of their occupation and subsequent annexation by Russia. Military administrations set up by Russia in parts of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts could me mentioned there as well. CapLiber (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the “nuanced” option is mentioning them at all, since it requires footnotes that boil down to saying they were simply puppet-states. That said it would also be good to see whether reliable sources treat them at all as distinct from Russia. FOARP (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Russian-backed separatists" is more correct, unless you have a WP:RS claiming they are "pro-Russian" rather than being supported by Russia. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian militias in Ukraine" would be the most suitable name since we're talking more about armed groups rather than about political factions. CapLiber (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS overwhelmingly refer to them as "Russian-backed separatists".
- https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/4/ukraine-crisis-who-are-the-russia-backed-separatists
- https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-separatist-regions-crux-russian-invasion/story?id=83084803
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/what-is-the-background-to-the-separatists-attack-in-east-ukraine
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/22/what-are-donetsk-and-luhansk-ukraines-separatist-statelets
- https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/ukraine-war-the-future-of-russian-backed-separatist-territories-189536
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/russia-plan-to-annex-ukraine-separatist-regions-referendum/101460210
- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-invasion-fears-separatists-military-mobilization-putin-rcna16937
- https://www.politico.eu/article/separatists-in-ukraine-luhansk-region-to-hold-referendum-on-joining-russia/
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-donetsk-luhansk-1.6588501
- https://abcnews.go.com/International/tensions-rise-ukraine-russian-backed-separatist-shelling-hits/story?id=82962555
There are many, many more sources calling them the same. Therefore the consensus among WP:RS seems to be that they are "Russian-backed separatists". TurboSuperA+ (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the DPR and LPR really were just extensions of Russian forces, which ceased to exist months into the war. Adding them as footnotes makes sense here EarthDude (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The US and other countries have ruled out sending troops to Ukraine.[460]"

[edit]

The part about "other countries" is factually incorrect and not supported by WP:RS.

France has not ruled out sending troops to Ukraine:

https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/15/macron-still-doesnt-rule-out-sending-troops-to-ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/sweden-rules-out-sending-troops-to-ukraine-after-nato-membership-agreed

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/2/frances-macron-doesnt-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240502-macron-doesn-t-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine-if-russia-breaks-front-lines

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/05/02/macron-doesn-t-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine-if-russia-breaks-front-lines_6670198_7.html

https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-doesnt-rule-out-sending-troops-to-ukraine-ammo/

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/27/europe/france-macron-troops-ukraine-intl/index.html

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/02/27/war-in-ukraine-president-macron-doesn-t-exclude-sending-troops-on-the-ground-announces-missile-coalition_6562295_4.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/world/europe/europe-ukraine-support-meeting.html

The section should be changed to "The US has ruled out sending troops to Ukraine." OR "The US has ruled out sending troops to Ukraine, while France has not." TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done - changed to "Sending troops to Ukraine was ruled out by the US and other countries in the early days of the invasion. President Emmanuel Macron of France later said in 2024 that sending troops was a possibility" as there was a significant gap (~2 years) between the source for the US+NATO ruling out troops and Macron's statement in 2024. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, good edit. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been an election since Macron said that. He has no support in the country whatsoever for such a policy. Germany's election has left makeup of their new gov't in question, and the feeling within the German public mirrors that of the U.S.2603:6080:21F0:67F0:61B6:3857:A818:52EC (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think military aid for Russia should be it's own separate page.

[edit]

You see, I don't think the part of the page talking about it goes in much length, so I want a new page. Sure there may be not a lot of allies but it's important. It helps mappers, curious people, researchers, and more. So please let it have it's own separate page, as this page doesn't even have much info. Datawikicontributor (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add NATO and its member countries as belligerents

[edit]

Dozens of military experts from such countries have boots on the ground. Why is North Korea added as belligerent under the argument that there are 'experts' on ground and wikipedia has been reluctant to describe all the aid Ukraine is receiving when there is confirmation of large groups of nationals from NATO countries to be operating in Ukraine (take the swedish group that was blown out around mid-year). 2806:107E:D:468C:BC74:7199:BF2C:1E3E (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combat 'boots on the ground'? NO. Advisors, yes. Not the same thing. 2603:6080:21F0:67F0:61B6:3857:A818:52EC (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine, there are no NATO member countries fighting in Ukraine. Send military advisors and military aid isn't the same thing as being a belligerent. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Terrainman: Even if there would be "NATO member countries fighting in Ukraine" it doesn't automatically mean that's involvement of NATO. Eurohunter (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although that wasn't my point and is sort of off-topic, it is true that no NATO member country has soldiers fighting in Ukraine, but North Korea does. I would have to read the inclusion of NK as a beligerent discussion for more insight beyond this as to why NK was added as a belligerent, but boots on the ground seemed to be a major point. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an international law definition of belligerency that would be applicable here? NK sends a small number of token soldiers who die as fodder whereas the US basically provides Ukraine's entire military arsenal + teaches them how to operate it. The latter is clearly far more impactful to the war yet the US gets a get-out-jail-card because of some legalese interpretation of what "belligerent" means. Also quite interestingly, Belarus is listed in the infobox despite not providing any soldiers. Odd to list Belarus but not the US/NATO. JDiala (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read some (of the many) discussions before on how we arrived at this decision (in short - soldiers fighting-belligerent, attack sorties from your soil - supporter). Several of those are archived or even on other threads on the current page. Arnoutf (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that discussions were had and a decision was reached does not mean I have to agree with it. The explanations given for why Belarus is more of a "supporter" to Russia than the US is to Ukraine are not convincing and consist of loads of OR from both sides as noted by the closer to this discussion. And, for the record, it seems that the last formal RfCs on including NATO and other Western arms-supplying parties to the infobox were in February 2022 (this and this), mere days after the start of the war, and one ended in no consensus with the closer explicitly suggesting further discussion. I think it might be worthy of re-litigation since the role the West has played in this war has only become more apparent three years later. JDiala (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From both my searching and recollection the most recent RfC discussion touching on this was closed in November 2023 where the closer noted: Q: Do we need to add any other countries to the infobox? A: With thanks to RadioactiveBoulevardier for his stalwart, impassioned and rather well-argued case for this, other editors don't seem very persuaded, and there's no consensus to add anyone else to the article. We should also note that the term "supported by" has been deprecated (see template doc) but retaining Belarus here was a result of RfC linked in accordance with the RfC by which "supported by" was deprecated. Unless something has significantly changed and unless there is a reasonable indication that an RfC would succeed where it has not previously, opening a further RfC could be seen as disruptive. This discussion so far is not indicating a will to change. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft on drones

[edit]

Hi everyone, I have made a skeleton draft here at Draft:Drones in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the lead paragraph copying from Drone warfare#Russian invasion of Ukraine and some provisional headings I might think are useful. This is a very notable topic IMO which needs it own article, especially considering many other topics about the invasion have their own articles. I am not an expert in the topic, so putting it here so people can work on it. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 05:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble I would see in forking off to a stand-alone article is how this would develop as an analysis of the development of drone warfare during the invasion rather than as a ticker-tape list of drone engagements contrary to WP:NOTNEWS or being primarily a list of drone types. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I totally agree. That's not a complete draft whatsoever, mostly its just to remind the editors (myself, lol) about what information and references are already available. I'm no expert, but I definitely think the war has evolved drone warfare to the point where its almost a central part of the entire war. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 10:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the rapid development of drones (including marine drones) in full scale war is an important topic related to this war. I think however, the discussion on how to develop that may be better suited as a spin-off from the Drone warfare article compared to here (btw that done warfare article seems outdated with a lot of attention to the fairly minor developments prior to the Russian invasion in Ukraine. It seems that article needs to be completely overhauled which may in allow for sufficient space for what you are proposing at that article (and if not a spinoff can be developed from there). Arnoutf (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the NPP/AfD perspective of “is this topic independently notable?” the answer is obviously “absolutely”, but outlining the headers before filling in with random info might be a good idea. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don’t really know whether lumping UAVs and USVs together is necessary or desirable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1266529047"