Talk:First Chechen War

Result field

I would like to suggest adding "Signing of Khasavyurt Accord and Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty" into the result field. I think it should be a non-controversial result of this war, and it's totally a fact. Hoben7599 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This violates the guideline for what the result field is for. It either says "Victory", "Inconclusive", or no result field. Have you read the guideline? I suggest create a section in the article titled "Result", and add all the many different POVs that keep coming up on this talk page, with sources, and counter opinions. But I understand this is work, and many editors only want a single POV, and to keep out other POVs. That is the problem. -- GreenC 14:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC Okay i see. Hoben7599 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we just add chechen victory and then footnote the peace treaty? it is accurate for the event (which is also why the second war to finish the mission) PhilovGraves (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules, the immediate outcome is what goes in the infobox. The immediate outcome, the legal cessation of hostilities, was a peace treaty. 'Neither side admitted defeat. It was only after this that people began saying one side or the other lost. For this conflict, an infobox result field is not a good fit. The result field is optional, not required. It is better to explain what happened with multiple POVs over time. This is all explained in the rules for the result field.-- GreenC 17:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC "Neither side admitted defeat." how is that relevant when the defeat is factual ? Brother Nazif (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The treaty didn't explicitly grant Chechnya independence. Russia could legally maintain that Chechnya was still part of the Russian Federation. Russia didn't have to sign a surrender document. Russia still had de jure sovereignty of Chechnya. That is not a clear Russian defeat. Of course facts on the ground were another matter, and that is where some argue Russia lost. So it depends on perspective. For the purpose of a Wikipedia infobox, when there is ambiguity we don't use the result field. It says this in the documentation for the infobox. It is much better to explain the situation in the text of the article, then a simplistic black and white infobox field that is inflexible and does not (and can not) explain the full picture. -- GreenC 05:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC It is clear, the war was initiated by Russia to establish federal authority over Chechnya, and it ended with a military defeat in Grozny, leading to the Khasavyurt Agreement and the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Chechnya. Russia did not achieve its goal as Chechnya continued its de facto independence. Brother Nazif (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Chechnya continued its de facto independence, and Russia continued its in-fact legal control. The result is ambiguous. Anyway the result field doesn't mean what you think. Suggest reading the rules for what it's for. If you are unable to see the ambiguity I don't know what to else can be said other than point to the Wikipedia rules of what the result field is for and when not to use it. The infobox result field has a narrow and specific meaning and purpose. If you want to argue Russia "lost" in the main body of the article, you should do so instead of wasting time in the infobox. I've already deleted the entire infobox before because it is a constant source of disruption. I will delete it again if it continues to be a source of disruption. Infoboxes are optional, and meant to summarize unambiguous black and white factual data from the article itself, not controversial and debated claims that exist outside what the main body of the article says. -- GreenC 18:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC I've already explained how Russia did lose, as for the legal aspect, the case is in reality ambiguous. Brother Nazif (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes and the rules say when it is ambiguous don't use the result field at all. -- GreenC 05:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete infobox

The infobox for this article has been a continual source of disruption. The majority of edits involve the infobox. That includes the |results= field, which editors continually misunderstand the rules about, but also the casualty numbers, and other figures. I am coming to the conclusion this article should have no infobox. This would achieve a number of benefits:

1. Stop the constant drive-by editors fiddling with numbers
2. Stop the constant misunderstanding and disputes over the |results= field
3. Re-focus attention on the body of the article, where editors will be forced to explain not tell ie. to write in prose vs. filling in a box

While MOS:INFOBOX are common, they are not required.

According to MOS:INFOBOXUSE:

• The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

• The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.

The infobox is clearly supplanting the main article, for most editors who almost solely focus on the infobox.

• The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose

The infobox is overloaded with information and sources

The infobox has taken over this article for many editors. They can't get past it. Despite years of disputes over the |results= field not a single editor has changed the body of the article, they only constantly and continually focus entirely and exclusively on the infobox. For these reasons it is harmful, disruptive, and holding back development. -- GreenC 03:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been one month, nobody has commented. I am removing the infobox for the above reasons. This is to encourage editors to focus on improving and expanding the article itself. If there is important information in the infobox, focus on adding/expanding that information in the article in prose format. Remember: "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose" ( MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). This infobox has become so fat few can see beyond it as evidenced by the constant churn-edits to the infobox and very few to the article itself. — GreenC 16:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

After removal, I found only 3 citations reused in the article. This is a strong indication that most of the content in the infobox was not discussed in the body of the article. According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." -- GreenC 16:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC: I think it's egregious to outright remove the infobox. Despite what I've heard people say before, infoboxes are useful and informal. If people cannot be civil or follow the rules, they should be reported. These arguments could be used to remove many boxes, which I don't like. I believe the best solution here is simply to remove information that is not mentioned in the article (remove results too? replace it with Khasavyurt Accord?) and to simplify the wording to not be a copy of the article text, which I've done below. If anyone wants to readd the other combatants or numbers, they should also include that information in the article's main text. I've been doing this with the Mali War article, though I've yet to outright wipe egregious parts of it, and maybe I'll get to this article once I'm done with that. Wowzers122 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree it might seem "shocking" (the meaning of egregious) but the rules say they are optional, which is not shocking given the long history of disputes over infoboxes. You gotta wonder why people are so against infoboxes, and now I see why. In this case it has been a bigger negative than positive. Look through the edit history of the article. It's mostly red accounts or IPs with little experience mostly just tweaking numbers and messing with the results field. The box attracts lazy inaccurate drive-by "fill in the box" editing that never ends. We and readers are better off without. What does it really provide anyway? BTW there is no results field for this conflict, the peace treaty/accord that was the immediate end of the conflict neither side admitted defeat. Only in the non-immediate aftermath were interpretations of who won, and later interpretations are not what the results field is for, only the immediate aftermath, and only if one side had a clear unambiguous victory ie. not a peace treaty in which neither side admitted defeat. -- GreenC 01:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think vandalism or rule-breaking should be justification for the removal of anything. Removing the infobox entirely will also attract "lazy inaccurate drive-by editing" by people who try to add it back, as seen by the edit you reverted. Infoboxes are useful for summarising key facts about the page's subject. Wowzers122 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Wowzers122, possibly you are right it will be more churn no matter what. Do you think a long list of commanders is a key fact? If that was removed or greatly trimmed, the rest looks like basic facts a casual reader would be interested in. The casualty numbers are always a source of fiddling and contention. They probably should be explained in the main article with the cites defined in the article and named refs in the infobox. Previously the infobox had the cites defined in the infobox making it a mess to figure out. — GreenC 04:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The commanders I left are the heads of state and top military leaders. The difference in casualty numbers is already explained in the Casualties and material damage section. The ones mentioned in the opening but not explained there can be added to it. If you're fine when the box eventually being added back in, I can add it with named refs for those figures. Wowzers122 (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for working on this. -- GreenC 20:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

First Chechen War
Part of the Chechen–Russian conflict, the Russo-Caucasian conflict, the Wars in the Caucasus and post-Soviet conflicts
A Russian Mil Mi-8 helicopter brought down by Chechen fighters near the Chechen capital of Grozny in 1994.
Date 11 December 1994 – 31 August 1996 (1 year, 8 months, 2 weeks and 6 days) Location Chechnya and parts of Ingushetia, Stavropol Krai and Dagestan Territorial changes Chechen Republic of Ichkeria becomes an independent state
Belligerents
Chechen Republic of Ichkeria	Russia Loyalist
Commanders and leaders
Dzhokhar Dudayev X Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev Aslan Maskhadov Ruslan Gelayev Shamil Basayev	Boris Yeltsin Pavel Grachev Anatoly Kulikov Anatoly Romanov Konstantin Pulikovsky Viktor Vorobyov †
Units involved
Various militia forces	Russian Armed Forces
Strength
5,000–6,000 (late 1995)	uh...
Casualties and losses
3,000–10,000 killed	6,000–14,000 killed
20,000–100,000 civilians killed 200,000+ civilians injured 500,000+ civilians displaced 120 civilians killed outside Chechnya

Wowzers122, the infobox continues to be a source of trouble. Special:Diff/1313588943/1320761854 added conflicting/disputed numbers, with nothing that explains the POVs. It appears the infobox is not capable of reporting all POVs about casualties and force strengths. Either the infobox needs to go, or the casualties and strength figures should be moved to a separate section, within the article body, where multiple POVs can be explained, in prose, including discussion of conflicting sources and numbers. None of this is possible in an infobox, which are designed for basic non-controversial black and white information. -- GreenC 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Do what you want. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

In one of the captions, it says

"On November 17, 1991, Russian-speaking community leaders in Checnya called for the establishment of a breakaway "Terek Cossack Republic" (flag left) consisting of all territory north of the Terek River (map right)."

It should say "community leaders in Chechenya". 85.131.184.138 (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Casualties

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that it's "impossible for infobox to give meaningful information". The stable version of the infobox included casualties and the section wasn't bloated. @GreenC, could you explain your reasoning? Alaexis_¿question? 10:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Our article states in prose: It is impossible to determine the exact losses of the militants, however, in 2001, Russia reported 17,391 Chechen fighters killed. Yet, the "stable version" you link gave a wide range of "3,000–10,000 killed", giving the false impression that is is possible, but a completely different number. There is ambiguity. Ambiguity should be in the body of the article where multiple POVs can be hashed out with explanation, sourcing, attribution, and context. That range is a factor of 6. It's like saying 1 person, or it was 6 people, we don't know, and we don't know who gave these numbers. Whenever there is this much ambiguity it is much better to direct readers to the body of the article. This principal of moving ambiguous information out of infoboxes is well established. Infoboxes are OK for immutable facts: the sides who fought, the primary leaders, unambiguous results, etc.. but for ambiguous information they are not good. It results in bloat, churn, lack of real understanding, fast assumptions. It also gets picked up by scrapers for AI and other purposes since it's easy to parse, giving the false impression there is a well-known and understood figure, that actually is not. -- GreenC 01:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't see the number 17,391 in the article right now, what is its source?

Btw the source for the 10k number is pretty weak (an unattributed "could have reached" estimate in a newspaper article) so I'd suggest removing it from the infobox which leaves us with a 3,000-4,500 range. Alaexis_¿question? 21:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone added the 17,391 figure recently Special:Diff/1320787389/1320788748. And the 10,000 number has a source in the main text. Anyway the point is you can see how much churn is going on, how variable it is depending on POV. And POV also applies to which sources or numbers are reliable. So the infobox continues to churn away, every person with their own sources and numbers and opinions. These numbers are ultimately just opinions. This is why everything needs to be fully explained in the body, where multiple POVs can be explained ie. Write an entire paragraph about that number from that source. Then another entire paragraph about a different number from a different source. Take as much time and space as you need to explain it. It's much easier and more accurate to use the body of the article for ambiguous information - it has unlimited space, this is the wiki way. Trying to come up with an absolute "true number" for the infobox is a problem because everyone has opinions and there are multiple POVs. -- GreenC 23:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I went down a rabbit hole trying to find the source for the 17,391 number and didn't succeed. RIA indeed reported it in 2011 attributing it to Alexander Cherkasov's Книга чисел. Книга утрат. Книга страшного суда. This article exists and is often cited by other RS but unfortunately this number doesn't appear there. @Lone_Ranger1999, since you've added this number, perhaps you can help us?

Note that the number likely refers to total casualties (killed&wounded) judging by the previous sentence in which the same word is used for the total Russian casualties, which are then broken down by type. Therefore, it's consistent with 3-4.5k killed fighters.

Regarding the 10k number, my point is that the evidence for it is weaker - it's taken from a newspaper article by a political scientist (ru:Храмчихин, Александр Анатольевич) who says that it "could have reached 10k" and doesn't provide any sources. Alaexis_¿question? 14:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't come across the specific number myself, and only recently learned that the figure of 17,391 was in effect on August 16, 1996, meaning there were still two weeks left. Also, the number 17,391 represents irrecoverable losses, meaning those killed and captured. But that's just my opinion, and it's unlikely the number of captured fighters exceeds 1,000.And these figures are the most logical. Yes, I understand that Russian troops waged the war horribly ineptly, but the Chechens, armed only with RPGs and Kalashnikovs, can't possibly suffer an absurd 3,000 killed against an army with helicopters and tanks. I propose that the loss infographic include casualty figures for Russia: 5,000-14,000 killed, and for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria: 3,000-17,000.But then again, that's what Wikipedia is famous for: trying to provide objective information. We'll provide the "Russian" and "Chechen" points of view, and users will decide for themselves who to believe. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that the 17,391 figure isn't really supported by reliable sources and we should dismiss it.. Alaexis_¿question? 09:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

"The result is discussed in the article body"

GreenC (talk · contribs), I understand that the topic has been contentious, but this seems like an undesirable resolution. I haven't seen it used anywhere else on the Wiki, despite plenty of wars being contentious with regards to their outcomes. Typically, when the result is controversial, the value might be "Disputed - see [section]", or a war's closing treaty is simply linked, e.g. here the Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty. Then users who quickly want to read about the result of the war can choose to visit that article for more direct information. I already changed the value of the casualty parameter because it unnecessarily mentioned things like "POVs". Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a guideline for usage of the |result= field. It clearly states to do exactly what is being done here. What it says:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

If you want to say "See the <whatever> section" that is fine. The idea is not to conceal the ambiguity of the result, when the standard terms "X victory" or "Inconclusive" are not a sufficient explanation. Also the |result= is optional, it's not required at all, particularly when editors are engaging in speculation about who won or by how much. -- GreenC 19:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Should the "result" parameter in the infobox be set to "Chechen victory"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) Consensus for Chechen victory. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the "result" parameter in the infobox be set to "Chechen victory"? The infobox documentation states that if there is a clear victor, the parameter can be used with a standard term like "X victory," but should be omitted if the outcome is ambiguous. This RfC seeks community consensus on whether reliable sources support describing the outcome as a clear Chechen victory, based on arguments previously raised in this discussion. Notifying previous participants: @GreenC: @Alaexis: @Goddard2000: @The Great Mule of Eupatoria: @TJ Kreen: @Prinsgezinde: Iask1 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Supporting arguments for "Chechen victory"

I am reviving this discussion because the Goddard2000 account appears to no longer exist or be active, but their arguments remain relevant and compelling. As Goddard2000 noted earlier, multiple reliable sources describe the war as a Russian defeat, which implies a Chechen victory. For instance:

• Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, in his analysis, clearly admits Russia was defeated.
• Russian journalists acknowledge a Russian defeat.
• The Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) analysis explicitly demonstrates that Russia was defeated.
• Maria Esmont, a reporter on the frontlines, reports it as a Chechen victory: "The war in Chechnya, which began rather unexpectedly, ended even more suddenly. Even as late as early August, nobody could have predicted that the Russian army could be defeated militarily."
• Russian propaganda channels, even today, admit Russia lost the war.
• Russian political scientists like Aleksey Malashenko confirm this.
• Scholarly sources, such as those from Tufts University and the New York Times (as Goddard2000 pointed out), mention a stalemate but still frame it as a "humiliating defeat" for Russia, with quotes like "Russia’s defeat in Chechnya" and acknowledgment that the peace treaty led to full Russian withdrawal.

Goddard2000 effectively argued that a battlefield stalemate does not preclude a victory, as the Khasavyurt Accords resulted in Russia withdrawing all troops from Chechnya, achieving Chechnya's goal of de facto independence. This is not ambiguous: Russia invaded to reintegrate Chechnya, failed, and retreated after losing control of major cities like Grozny in Operation Jihad. A stalemate leading to negotiations favoring one side (Chechnya's autonomy) can be interpreted as a victory, as supported by the sources above.

In addition to Goddard's sources, further reliable analyses reinforce this:

• RFE/RL articles describe the Khasavyurt Accords as a ceasefire where Russia did not achieve its goals, effectively conceding to Chechen forces after they retook Grozny and other cities: "In early August 1996, the Chechen resistance launched a major offensive and within days succeeded in winning back control of Grozny."
• HistoryNet notes Chechen fighters forced Russia to negotiate after retaking the capital, underscoring Russian failure: "A mix of brilliant guerrilla warfare and ruthless terrorism was able to humble Russia’s decaying remnants of the Soviet war machine."
• The U.S. military case study acknowledges the 1996 withdrawal as a short-term setback for Russia, but the immediate outcome aligns with Chechen success in resisting invasion: "The first Chechen war resulted in Russian defeat, and in 1996, Yeltsin and representatives from the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria negotiated the Khasavyurt Accord and Russian troops left Chechnya."
• The Taiwan defense study calls it a "Pyrrhic victory" for Chechens, implying a victory nonetheless, despite costs: "第一次車臣戰爭最終俄羅斯以失敗收場" (The First Chechen War ultimately ended with Russia defeated).
• Academic work from UNC highlights Russia's failure to eradicate the rebellion, supporting the view of Chechen resilience as victorious: "Achievement of de facto status marked the highest levels of legitimacy for the Chechen rebellion."

These sources collectively show a scholarly and journalistic consensus leaning toward Russian defeat/Chechen victory, rather than true ambiguity. Per the infobox guideline, "Chechen victory" accurately reflects the immediate outcome without concealing details, which can be elaborated in the Aftermath section. Omitting it entirely gives undue weight to minority "stalemate" views, especially when even those sources (e.g., Tufts, NYT) admit Russian humiliation and withdrawal. If consensus supports this, we can add "Chechen victory" while linking to Aftermath for nuance.

Addressing the opposing arguments raised by GreenC: The claim that the immediate outcome was a negotiated settlement (Khasavyurt Accords) where neither side admitted defeat, characterizing it as a "mutually hurting stalemate," overlooks the fact that Chechnya achieved all its objectives by recapturing Grozny and other major cities through Operation Jihad, forcing Russia to withdraw completely and granting de facto independence. Russia, on the other hand, failed to integrate Chechnya or suppress the separatists, which was its primary goal. The absence of a formal admission of defeat by the Russian government does not negate the reality of their loss; many conflicts have clear victors without such admissions. If formal admission were required, then results should be removed from numerous other Wikipedia articles, such as the Second Chechen War (listed as a Russian victory despite no formal Chechen surrender) and others like the Soviet-Afghan War. Sources, including those cited by GreenC, often describe a stalemate but still acknowledge it as a humiliating Russian defeat, supporting that the overall outcome favors "Chechen victory" without violating infobox rules on ambiguity. Iask1 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Support, Russia’s objective was to reintegrate Chechnya back into Russia. Chechnya’s “operation jihad” in the last weeks of the war is also a supporting factor as it undid Russian progress by retaking the capital, as well as surrounding towns like argun and gudermes which broke the stalemate The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Support. (Summoned by bot) If a Russian defeat is the general consensus, Wikipedia should also use it. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 20:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The infobox has specific rules to use the immediate result which was a peace treaty that allowed both sides to save face and back down without absolute defeat. The immediate result of the conflict was ambiguous, and the infobox rules say for ambiguous results to point readers to the body of the text, or not use the |result= at all. -- GreenC 21:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The argument that a negotiated peace treaty inherently defines the result as "ambiguous" relies on a diplomatic technicality. The Paris Peace Accords ended the Vietnam War, and the Geneva Accords ended the Soviet Afghan War, both were "face-saving" treaties, yet Wikipedia correctly lists the results as "North Vietnamese victory" and "Mujahideen victory" because the military reality was withdrawal and failure of strategic objectives. The Khasavyurt Accords arent different, they were the mechanism for Russian withdrawal following the military defeat detailed in the sources. To omit the result is to prioritize a legal fiction over the consistent consensus of reliable sources (WP:DUE). Iask1 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This directly contradicts the infobox rules which state:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

The outcome of the war was a peace treaty where Russia saved face by continuing to have a legal control of the territory, the same as existed before the war; and the Chechens saved face by being able to claim they controlled the ground militarily. Neither side could claim an absolute victory, it was an ambiguous result. According to the infobox rules, the |result= field should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Claiming an absolute victory with "X victory" for Chechnya is "hiding ambiguity". This has been a problem with this article for a long time, pro-Chechan supporters have been trying to claim absolute victory and subvert and hide that Russia continued to have legal control of the territory, nothing changed in that regard; it was not the absolute victory Chechnya propagandist say it was. Nor does the infobox allow for non-standard terms, it only allows for four possibilities: "X victory", "Inconclusive", no result parameter, or a note to see the main article. Whenever there is ambiguous information in an infobox we almost always direct readers to the main body of the text. It is suitable and appropriate solution in this case. Nobody is arguing for "Inconclusive", even though that argument could easily be made. -- GreenC 21:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read the last part of Iask1's statement. Thanks. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This objection rests primarily on the premise that the immediate result of the war was an ambiguous peace treaty in which Russia “continued to have legal control” comparable to the prewar situation. This premise is not supported by the weight of the reliable sources or by broader Wikipedia consistency.

The negotiations that produced the Khasavyurt Accords were not a stalemate, they followed directly from the August 1996 Chechen offensive (Operation Jihad), during which Chechen forces retook Grozny. As noted by multiple sources (RFE/RL; HistoryNet; U.S. military case studies), this military reversal precipitated the outcome. The immediate result in 1996 was distinct:

1. Full withdrawal of Russian federal forces.
2. Restoration of the separatist government's control over the territory.
3. De facto independence from 1996 to 1999 (Britannica; Lieven; Dunlop). Under Wikipedia practice, an outcome reached as a consequence of battlefield inability to sustain operations is part of the “immediate” result, not a separate or neutralized outcome.

The argument that Russia "saved face by continuing to have legal control" relies on a diplomatic fiction rather than military fact. If we applied this standard of "legal ambiguity" to other conflicts, the Vietnam War would not be listed as a "North Vietnamese victory" (as the Paris Peace Accords were technically a negotiated settlement), nor would the Soviet Afghan War be listed as a "Mujahideen victory" (Geneva Accords). In both cases, a superpower withdrew forces and failed to achieve strategic objectives while the opposing force achieved survival and effective control. The First Chechen War fits this exact pattern. Treating Russia’s retained constitutional claim as equivalent to prewar control gives disproportionate weight to formal rhetoric over actual conditions on the ground, contrary to WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE.

Reliable sources do not describe the outcome as evenly balanced. Even those that use terms like “stalemate” regarding the treaty simultaneously characterize the war overall as a Russian defeat or humiliating failure. Wikipedia does not require unanimity, only that the infobox reflect the prevailing characterization in reliable secondary sources (WP:V, WP:NPOV). Here, the dominant framing is Russian defeat / Chechen victory. Iask1 (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The immediate outcome was a peace accord in which neither side admitted defeat. It's difficult to understand how an accord in which neither side admitted defeat, and the political map was not changed at all, has one side with a complete victory. The result says not to use qualifiers like "defacto". It was clearly an ambiguous result in which both sides won and lost things. The accord allowed Russia to withdraw and rebuild its army without admitting defeat. Without admitting defeat. -- GreenC 03:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The immediate result of the war was Russia losing control of Chechnya’s largest population centers, as well as withdrawing from its south which it was getting increasingly mired in which both occurred before Khasavyurt. Even without admitting defeat, the situation in the ground at the time of signing said otherwise. Furthermore Russian sources and literature even considering a more negative lean on the issue of Chechnya still consider the first war a failure for Russia The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This point has been addressed repeatedly above, so I will be brief.

A formal admission of defeat is not the standard by which Wikipedia determines a war’s outcome. Across articles (e.g., Vietnam, Soviet Afghan War), the winner is identified by whether strategic objectives were achieved. Russia’s stated objective was to reintegrate Chechnya and destroy the separatist government. It failed on both counts and withdrew all federal forces after losing control of Grozny and other major cities. Chechnya’s objective was expelling Russian forces and preserving de facto independence, was achieved. That is why reliable sources, including Russian analysts and Western scholars alike, consistently describe the war as a Russian defeat. I understand the hesitation to change the infobox, given the history of edit warring and overstatements in this article. However, the claim that Chechnya did not win is not seriously debated in scholarly literature, nor in Russian military or political analysis. Labeling the outcome as “ambiguous” gives disproportionate weight to a diplomatic formality (“no admission of defeat”) over the documented military and political outcome on the ground, contrary to WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARY. Iask1 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

the winner is identified by whether strategic objectives were achieved Do you have a policy or guideline to support that? Also, what was Chechnya's strategic objectives? I can't imagine it was to legally allow Russia to retain ownership - they clearly wanted to be independent of Russia, strategically. -- GreenC 19:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that defines a war’s winner by a formal admission of defeat, nor have any sources been provided for that claim. Likewise, the claim that Russia “retained legal control” after 1996 is unsupported by any reliable source, following the Khasavyurt Accords, Russia withdrew all federal forces and exercised no effective authority in Chechnya, which multiple scholarly and reference works describe as de facto independent from 1996–1999 (Britannica; Lieven; Dunlop; RFE/RL). Under WP:SUMMARY and WP:DUE, infobox outcomes reflect the prevailing characterization in reliable sources, not unsourced legal assertions or diplomatic face-saving language.

You are making the same claims repeatedly, please respond to these points:

• Where is the claim "a war’s winner is decided by a formal admission of defeat" substantiated?
• Why is the fact that russian postponement of recognition of Chechen sovereignty proof for ambiguity?

Iask1 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that Russia had already begun to withdraw from southern Chechnya even before the khasavyurt accords, following a highly successful and unprecedented counteroffensive by Chechnya in the last weeks of the war The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Support I really think it was a mistake to remove the result before we came to an agreement, my previous suggestion (in 2024) to do a WP:RfC was ignored and so were all of my arguments where i also provided evidence that the sources used to claim a "stalemate" also claimed Russia was defeated. I am busier this year so i won't delve that much into this topic but i recommend reading my comments in this talk page from last year. Goddard2000 (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I glanced briefly at sources and it doesn't seem like anyone refers to the outcome as ambiguous. NPR - "Russia lost", NYT - "first Chechen war humiliated post-Soviet Russia", Al Jazeera - "The first Chechen war became Russia's Vietnam" . NickCT (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This is contrary the guideline which states the "immediate outcome" not later opinions. -- GreenC 19:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Which guideline? And I don't understand how a treaty means the "immediate outcome" was not defeat. World War I ended with the Treaty of Versailles. The Germans lost that one. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Tentative support. Personally I think it was a defeat but I'm open to changing my !vote if there are sources that consider the result inconclusive. Alaexis_¿question? 21:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. Tovarishch Yuri 🏳️‍⚧️🇷🇺 23:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose/no result for now Support: "Chechin victory (see Aftermath)" Change vote per discussion and amendments to article that have addressed my original concerns. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC) The pertenat guidance is MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, MOS:MILRESULT that gives voice to the template documentation and, WP:VER and associated P&G (eg WP:OR). INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that the infobox is to summarise key facts from the body of the article, the infobox is a supplement to the lead of the article and that the article should remain complete without the infobox. This then, is the greatest obstacle to the proposal.

The article tells us that the war was ended by a mutually agreed ceasefire and, while WP is not a source, the resulting Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty article tells us the ceasefire was a return to uneasy status quo of 1991–1994. The intent of the result parameter is, who won [the military conflict]. Wars that end by a ceasefire agreement are not fought to a military conclusion. If they result in a status quo ante bellum (eg India–Pakistan war of 1965), nothing is resolved - it is inconclusive. While the political and military dichotomy of a conflict do not exist in isolation, a military outcome seemingly different from the political outcome is one of nuance and detail. An infobox is not the place for nuance or detail. Nuance and detail is best captured by prose in the body of the article. That is the primary reason for why the documentation has the option see Aftermath section (or a similar section where the result is discussed in the body of the article). See this discussion regarding the Yom Kippur War.

The result displayed at present is, The result is discussed in the article body. This nebulous statement really doesn't help direct the reader to an appropriate section - mainly because the article really doesn't discuss the result, let alone have a section in the article discussing the result. While the nom of this RfC is making a source based argument that this is a Chechen victory, the most pertinent issue is that this is not a reflection of the article. We are told to write the article before writing the lead. the same applies to the infobox.

The question of this RfC is premature. Write a balance aftermath section (with consnsus) that represents the views on the result expressed in scholarly sources. Then we can have a discussion as to which of the options per MOS:MILRESULT is most appropriate for populating the parameter. In the mean time, because any result (except perhaps inconclusive) is not supported by the body of the article, we should have no result displayed - noting that this is perfectly acceptable and arguably the most appropriate solution at present that is consistent with MOS:MILRESULT. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

This. I've been saying the same thing for years. Work on the body of the article, then we can discuss the result field. I actually tried to delete the entire infobox as being disruptive, it is discouraging editors from explaining it in the body of the article. Why bother, when you can just <tag>Won<tag> the infobox and call it a day. -- GreenC 06:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The procedural objection overstates the barrier posed by MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and MOS:MILRESULT and misreads how they are applied in practice. INFOBOXPURPOSE does not require the infobox to merely restate an already formalized “result section” but to summarize the dominant conclusions of reliable sources, and MOS:MILRESULT explicitly permits identifying a victor based on achieved or failed objectives rather than formal capitulation. The reliance on the phrase “return to uneasy status quo of 1991-1994” does not establish an inconclusive military outcome, since that wording refers to uncertainty about the future rather than parity between the belligerents, and it followed a situation in which Chechen forces had retaken major cities, forced Russia to the negotiating table, and secured the withdrawal of all federal troops and administration. Wars ending via ceasefire or treaty are not inherently inconclusive, as shown by Wikipedia’s treatment of conflicts such as World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Soviet Afghan War, where negotiated endings did not preclude identifying a loser based on objectives not achieved. The analogy to India Pakistan 1965 fails because Russia did not merely halt operations but lost effective control and exited Chechnya entirely, a distinction repeatedly emphasized in scholarly literature that characterizes the outcome as a Russian defeat and Chechnya as de facto independent from 1996 to 1999. While improving the Aftermath section is reasonable, MOS:MILRESULT and WP:SUMMARY do not require exhaustive prose consensus before an infobox summary is permitted, and delaying any result until perfect prose exists elevates process over sourcing. Given the consistency of academic and analytical sources describing the outcome, omitting a result entirely risks giving undue weight to procedural caution rather than reflecting the prevailing characterization in reliable sources, which is precisely what WP:DUE seeks to avoid. I also disagree with your claim about the rfc being premature due to this being discussed now for over a year with no advancements. Iask1 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

INFOBOXPURPOSE does not require the infobox to merely restate an already formalized “result section” but to summarize the dominant conclusions of reliable sources. No, not quite. The body of the article is a summary of sources, their conclusions and why they reach such conclusions. Everything written in an article needs to be verifiable against cited sources. It is not sufficient that sources might exist, they need to be explicitly cited in the article. Per INFOBOXPURPOSE, the article must remain complete in the absence of the infobox.

Russia did not merely halt operations but lost effective control and exited Chechnya entirely, a distinction repeatedly emphasized in scholarly literature that characterizes the outcome as a Russian defeat [Chechen victory]. The article at present does not tell us this, it does not tell us who won [according to sources]. It is incomplete. It is a maxim of INFOBOXPURPOSE that we shouldn't write the article [or parts of] in the infobox. Writing a result in the infobox that is not supported by the body of the article is contrary to this.

MOS:LEAD tells us: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. As the infobox is a supplement to the lead, this also applies to the infobox and is consistent with INFOBOXPURPOSE: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. We also have advice from WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. We should be updating and improving the body of the article before the lead [and the infobox].

WP:DUE is being misrepresented in the argument made. WP:DUE/WP:NPOV is about writing the article such that different views are proportionally represented depending on the extent that they reflect the scholarly consensus. If a particular issue is not touched upon in an article, there is no issue of weight to be addressed in respect to differing views on the issue. The article does not address the issue of the result. Not populating the result parameter is explicitly mentioned at MILRESULT. If the article is silent on who won, then it is appropriate for the infobox to also be silent.

MOS:RESULT and the template documentation it gives voice to tell us a number of things (such as the immediacy of the outcome) but it does not explicitly permit identifying a victor based on achieved or failed objectives rather than formal capitulation.

If, as you say, this debate has been ongoing for over a year, then clearly, editor resources spent on researching and debating the issue would have been much better spent on improving the article. We should not be putting the horse before the cart. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

While I agree with the principles of LEADFOLLOWSBODY and INFOBOXPURPOSE, the assertion that the current article is 'silent' on the result is incorrect based on the text currently in the article.

1. The Body is Not Silent. You state that the article 'does not tell us who won.' The article explicitly details:

Military Collapse: 'Russian dead at close to 1,000... Thousands of troops were either taken prisoner or surrounded and largely disarmed.'

Political Capitulation: The 'withdrawal of all federal forces from Chechnya' and the deferment of Ichkeria's status.

Failed Objectives: The Russian ultimatum was labeled a 'bad joke' by their own National Security Adviser (Lebed) before they were forced to negotiate.

When the body of an article describes one belligerent suffering thousands of casualties, having their heavy weapons commandeered, and agreeing to the total withdrawal of their military forces, the article is not silent on the outcome. It is describing a defeat. To argue that we cannot populate the |result= parameter because the specific string 'Chechen victory' is absent from the prose, despite the prose describing every component of a Chechen victory, is an overly rigid application of MOS:LEAD.

2. The Infobox as a Summary. MOS:INFOBOX states the purpose is to 'summarize' key facts. A summary, by definition, condenses detailed narratives into concise labels.

Narrative: Russia lost effective control, suffered heavy losses, and withdrew all forces.

Summary: Chechen victory.

Entering 'Chechen victory' in the infobox is not 'supplanting' the body it is functioning exactly as intended by providing the standard military designation for the outcome described in the 'Third Battle of Grozny' and 'Khasavyurt Accord' sections.

3. WP:NPOV and False Balance By insisting on leaving the result blank, we are inadvertently violating WP:NPOV. A blank result implies ambiguity, a stalemate, or an ongoing conflict. Since, as you noted, 'scholarly literature characterizes the outcome as a Russian defeat,' omitting this from the infobox misleads the reader by obscuring the decisive nature of the war's end. We are prioritizing procedural hurdles over factual accuracy.

This is why I initiated this RfC. The outcome of the war has been described in the article body for years, both before and after the result parameter was removed, yet the infobox has remained unchanged and there has been no clear discussion of how to proceed, regardless of continued improvements to the article. The original objection to retaining a result cited repeated violations of the infobox, which I agree did occur, but largely prior to the article’s semi-protected status and do not constitute a substantive basis for permanently omitting the result. Subsequently, the rationale shifted to the position that the article must be further improved first, yet the article has continued to be developed for over a year since the result was removed without any indication of what standard would render this RfC no longer premature. At this point, it would be helpful to clarify what specific changes to the article body are required before the result may be included in the infobox, and how long such improvements are expected to continue, given that no clear criteria have been articulated by those opposing inclusion. Iask1 (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Drawing togeather sources to reach a conclusion not specifically stated therein is, by definition, WP:SYNTH (WP:OR) and what the template doc cautions us not to do. Template:Infobox military conflict tells us: Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much, where speculation is a link to WP:NOR - a situation we have here. It is not a violation of NPOV to omit the result. The argument that it is draws too long a bow. Where I wrote, scholarly literature characterizes the outcome as a Russian defeat, I was quoting you. Please to not put your words in my mouth. I have not suggested permanently omitting the result. I have already specifically indicated the changes (though not the actual words) before a result consistent with MOS:MILRESULT can be entered in the infobox - write an Aftermath section that reports the scholarly views on the result of the war. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You stated that I am "drawing together sources to reach a conclusion not specifically stated therein." This is demonstrably false. The sources provided use the specific terminology explicitly:

US Military Academy (Source 12): "The first Chechen war resulted in Russian defeat."

Prague Watchdog (Source 4): Explicitly headlines the result as a "Chechen victory" and states the Russian army was "defeated militarily."

Taiwan National Defense (Source 13): Describes it as a "Pyrrhic victory" for the Chechens.

Institute of Political and Military Analysis (Source 1): States clearly that Russia was defeated.

When a source explicitly says "X Victory" or "Y Defeat," citing that in the infobox is not "speculation" or "synthesis", it is standard Verifiability. Synthesis requires combining unrelated facts to create a new theory. I am simply quoting the judgments explicitly made by military analysts and historians.

I apologize for misattributing the quote regarding scholarly literature to you, I misunderstood your previous phrasing. However, if your primary objection is procedural, that the infobox cannot say "Chechen victory" until the body explicitly discusses that judgment, then i will make the changes.

Since reliable sources do characterize it as a victory/defeat, excluding this view from the article entirely is what creates the WP:NPOV issue. I will go ahead and explicitly present what experts believe in the relevant section, based on reliable sources. After that, would you be willing to change your position to support? Iask1 (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You stated that I am "drawing together sources to reach a conclusion not specifically stated therein." This is demonstrably false. Previously, you were relying on sources in the article to reach a conclusion they did not specifically state. Now that you have added the sources cited immediately above to the article, the article does support a result of "Chechen victory", though it is a qualified victory and "Chechin victory (see Aftermath)" is a more appropriate solution per MOS:MILRESULT. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

UNA-UNSO Belligerent

On many of the non-English language pages you can find the UNA-UNSO listed in the belligerent tab, is there a specific reason they're not listed in the English version? ~2026-15291-80 (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Where is it mentioned in the body of this article. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:VER. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ukraine is a victim of Russia + is oppressed (by Russia) = Wikipedia must be very careful to not bring harm to opressed groups. Average Encyclopedia Fan (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Their participation is well known, the question is whether it was substantial enough to merit a mention in the infobox. The sources in the Russian (ru:Первая_чеченская_война) and Ukrainian (uk:Перша_російсько-чеченська_війна#Участь_українських_добровольців) wikipedias are not super impressive. Are you aware of scholarly sources that discuss the involvement of UNSO? Alaexis_¿question? 13:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

No, that was why I was asking, I think the pages in different languages should be more aligned with each other in that respect. ~2026-15291-80 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)