Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

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

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)

Outdated duration of the War's

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)

"2 years, 9 months, 3 weeks and 5 days" is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Not ten years like the Russo-Ukrainian War article says?

"The Russo-Ukrainian War[d] began in February 2014." 46.188.232.131 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No as this is about Russia's direct invasion, not the wider war. Slatersteven (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's going to be 11 years Hritik Das (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is the Russo-Ukrainian War. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)@

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

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)

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)

Thank you, good edit. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Why is DPRK included in the infobox for the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

DPRK troops are confirmed to be fighting in Kursk, which is in Russia. I don't think any WP:RS say that Russia has used DPRK troops in their invasion of Ukraine, in other words DPRK troops have not crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border to fight in Ukraine.

It also begs the question: if the Russo-Ukrainian War and Russian invasion of Ukraine cover the same topics, why have two separate articles?

It is appropriate to include DPRK in the infobox for Russo-Ukrainian War and Kursk offensive (2024–present), but the DPRK has no place in the infobox for this article. Not until they are confirmed to have crossed the border and actually entered Ukraine to fight. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

We have just come out of an RFC over this very issue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean the RFC on the Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War page? That is a different article, isn't it? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No this one []. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The RFC was in the wrong place then, it should have been in the Russo-Ukrainian War article. Looking at the RFC, I don't see a single source that states DPRK troops are fighting in Ukraine, they are fighting against Ukraine in Kursk. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The scope of this article includes the fighting in Kursk. Personally I favour moving/renaming the article to Russo-Ukrainian War (or similar) because conflict between Russia and Ukraine has extended outside of the borders of Ukraine for some time now - e.g., conflict in the Black Sea, Ukrainian strikes within Russia, and obviously the Kursk incursion. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Like this one you mean Russo-Ukrainian War? Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

As we've discussed on the talk-page over there, reliable sources, or at least some of them, do appear to be using "Russia-Ukraine War" or similar to refer to the expanded conflict that's been ongoing since 2022. The article that covers conflict from 2014 onwards could possibly be moved elsewhere. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"The scope of this article includes the fighting in Kursk."

Then what is the point of having two articles that say the same thing? Perhaps this article should cover the invasion of Ukraine and focus on events that affect Ukraine proper. We have Kursk offensive (2024-present) that covers the fighting in Kursk and the Russo-Ukrainian War article is the whole conflict between Russia and Ukraine that goes back to 2014. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's because reliable sources tend to treat the greatly expanded conflict that's been ongoing since 2022 as a different topic to the conflict that was ongoing from 2014 to 2022. Like I said, I favour re-organising these articles so the present Russian invasion of Ukraine article is at Russo-Ukrainian War, and the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian War is moved elsewhere. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but that is going to be a lengthy discussion. Right now I don't think DPRK belongs in the infobox for this article. The note for DPRK in the infobox states: "North Korea has been widely reported to be supporting Russia with troops since October 2024."

This implies that DPRK troops took part or are taking part in the invasion of Ukraine, and that's not true. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This was discussed in the RFC, and rejected since the scope of the article is not just conflict on Ukrainian territory. FOARP (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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."

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.”

"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." (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."

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

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."

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."

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."

“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.”

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Thank you. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)."

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)

Which has already been discussed, many times. bring something new. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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." [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)

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)

"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)

I think as of now we can summarize the criteria as belligerent. Or engaged in combat. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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.”

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

"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."

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)

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)

"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)

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)

- "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."

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."

"On the 1000th day of Russia’s atrocious war, Europe stands by Ukraine." (quote by Ursula von der Leyen, an expert on EU policy)

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)

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)

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)

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.TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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."

Ukraine is a NATO partner.

"He [Mark Rutte] did not discuss when Ukraine might join the world’s biggest military alliance, beyond insisting that it would become a member."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

• Oppose - Anything requiring a high level of qualification/explanation needs to be kept out of the infobox. We just went through a massive, months-long process of getting North Korea added as a belligerent and they have troops confirmed to be fighting on the front line. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Draft on drones

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also don’t really know whether lumping UAVs and USVs together is necessary or desirable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

question

Non-relevant discussion about a different topic.

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened an investigation into crimes against humanity, war crimes, abduction of Ukrainian children, and genocide against Ukrainians. The ICC issued arrest warrants for Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova and for four Russian military officials." why don't issued arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu? Khokhar1977 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Israel is not involved in this war. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would 'hat' this as it is a forum-violation and also crazy. 2603:6080:2100:5674:9C82:D642:E678:EC5F (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I am collapsing this discussion now. Peaceray (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

DPR and LPR

Moved from Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox#DPR and LPR

 – ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Those are more often described together then separate. On these grounds, agree with the proposal. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you practically never see LPR referenced without also seeing DPR referenced. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So what will the decision look like? CapLiber (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

That's what the infobox is. High level overview. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Puppet states declaring their independence is a contradiction in terms. FOARP (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That's what I'm telling. having declared their independence is not how high-overview (this is what this article should take example from) sources describe them. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

I agree --haha169 (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I support removing them from the infobox because they were never truly independent. Even including Kadyrov’s Chechnya would make more sense—though I'm not actually proposing we do so. --Cuvaj (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The only question remaining is, which flag should we consider using for unified "Pro-Russian separatists" section? CapLiber (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"Pro-Russian" is a layman figure of speech, as I have explained in another comment the consensus among WP:RS for their name is "Russian-backed separatists". If you want to call them "pro-Russian separatists" then you have to find a large number of WP:RS that call them that. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

These should not be in the infobox. All pretence of independence was dropped with Russia's supposed annexations. —Legoless (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but those annexations were many months into the invasion; the infobox does not only reflect the situation right now, but the entire conflict since February 2022. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly (I agree). The invasion article is a part of the greater Russo-Ukraine War. By such arguments, they would also need to be removed from the infobox there. Presenting them in the infobox as dot-points under Russia represents their relationship with Russia. Yes, they are often referred to together but in doing so, they are also being identified as separate political identities (not to be confused with their international recognition). Sources also refer to them separately when the context is talking about something pertaining to one but not the other. Trying to change the representation in the infobox such as putting them on one line is trying to represent a degree of nuance for which the infobox is totally unsuited. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they should be removed from the Russo-Ukrainian War infobox as well. They were never independent, and their militias have been part of the Russian armed forces since the very beginning in 2014. By your arguments, the Wagner Group or Kadyrov’s Chechnya would also need to be added to the infobox here (I'm not actually proposing we add them!) Cuvaj (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not arguing for or against their inclusion in the infobox, I am saying that they should be referred to as "Russian-backed separatists" in the article. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I was not insisting on the wording "Pro-Russian separatists", my question is which flag should we use for representing them. My suggestion is to use File:War flag of Novorussia.svg, since it was widely used among separatist militias in Ukraine during the War in Donbas, both in Donetsk and Luhansk, yet I can't find overwhelming evidence that it has been in use past 2015. CapLiber (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2025

Where is the United States putting millions of sanctions on Russia before the invasion 2605:8D80:401:C7DF:8D9C:7D56:155D:43A4 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SK2242 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian offensives and Ukrainian incursion (April 2023 – present)

@Slatersteven: The timeline text is incorrect, the relevant section being one above, under the heading Battle of Avdiivka. Nothing in the section covers anything before April 2024, while the preceding sections do. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

2024

Since when has December 2023 been in the middle of 2024? Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see my above comment. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"lethal military aid" vs "weaponry"

in the foreign involvement area of this article, captions classify Western equipment aid and Eastern (belarus, north korea, iran) equipment aid arbitrarily. i ask for editors of this page to change it so they have equivalent phrasing so the framing is the same and NPOV is respected. thanks. MerluchWK (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Especially in the early days of the war many European countries were reluctant to send weapons, but gave (e.g.) shelf-vests and helmets (i.e. personal protection gear) instead. At that stage the distinction non-lethal (helmets are not intended to kill someone) military (but they are for soldiers) aid. The use of the term you give as title for this thread follows up on that distinction which only played in Western countries (and to be frank is a rather awkward term). Not sure it is meant to bias against either group of supporters and the term only seems to appear once or twice and only where it is relevant to make the distinction. Arnoutf (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

but they're also giving weaponry too. just use the same term for both. MerluchWK (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"Baseless" vs "without evidence"

Ecthelion83 recently made an edit changing "baseless" to "without evidence." The rationale given was that the word "baseless" is a bit unencyclopedic, which I am inclined to agree with. It is an aggressive, tabloid-y word which does not suit the project well. This was reverted by TylerBurden for no discernible reason. JDiala (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The word baseless and without evidence seem largely synonymous to me (see also ) so I am not partial to either phrasing. I would always go for the shorter (in this case baseless). Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree, they are the same thing, logic in changing it isn't there. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledged that the phrasing was synonymous in my original edit, but you are incorrect that there is no logic in my alterations; the term "baseless" is more frequently used in accusatory or defensive language and carries such a nuance. Therefore it is to me a more conversational term than it is encyclopedic and I feel that its use unnecessarily risks violating POV issues; my aim in altering the language was to make it more encyclopedic and remove POV nuance (i.e. in order to bring it closer to NPOV) while not altering any meanings. You did claim in your reversion that the term "baseless" is more faithful to the reference(s)/reliable source(s), which is a fair rationale, but if that is true, perhaps we should consider the language and nuance/POV in the source(s) being used and consider using other reliable sources that say the same thing but can plausibly be considered NPOV (considering both wp:newsorg and its relevance/application to wp:rs).Ecthelion83 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Its quite curious that nothing is listed for "support of Ukraine in the infobox"

Arbitration enforcement. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Its insulting to EVERYONE'S intelligence that there is simply no support for Ukraine despite plenty of countries actively encouraging their people to volunteer to Ukraine and sending massive ammounts of military equipment to Ukraine, its like one of the most well documented case of support in many years but somehow Belarus is included in support for the invasion and North Korea is an active participant. I know wikipedia isnt forced to base itself around other wikipedia articles but if it was any other war(As the many articles anyone can go check out) the countries sending massive ammounts of military aid would certainly be cited in the infobox. Its quite clear the infobox isnt impartial and the only goal is to reduce the ammount of Ukranian allies to make them seem more "impressive" instead of trying to utilize reliable sources to improve the article, unfortunately the bias is strong with this one. 191.15.15.158 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a large section on support for Ukraine section at Foreign involvement in the main article. We cannot put everything that is in the main article also in the infobox as that would defeat the purpose of that box. (ps please refrain from shouting and aggressive language like "insulting" you will notice your suggestions are taken more seriously if you don't) Arnoutf (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the issue happening right now (scroll up). Unfortunately, as you are not an extended-confirmed editor you may not participate in it, per WP:RUSUKR. However, you can make suggestions to edit the article using the appropriate template. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the general sanctions page, as well as the proper way to make an edit request to increase the chances of your request being considered. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't get why the collapsed "Supported by" section found on other war articles isn't just added. It's not that hard.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 13:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

See the talk page archives as to why. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, because certain editors have blocked it since day one. WP:RS and common practice can be disregarded whenever it doesn't support your POV.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 13:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That has never been given as a reason why by those who oppose this, not once. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Note as well we have an RFC on this, that is where this will be determined, so this thread serves no purpose. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Add NATO and its member countries as belligerents

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)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

You are so dishonest 149.62.206.81 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

not convincing to YOU doesn't mean that consensus was not reached .... 2603:6080:2100:47CB:BC04:46E0:2998:13AA (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

True, you also have to convince everyone else. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Then find a suitable name and add NATO too, or otherwise this only shows our hypocrisy. "Founders and logistics providers" maybe?

Pretty sure you would have gladly added NATO if the situation on the terrain were different. But how when Russia is dominating, right? Markomario (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what's with the lack of WP:AGF for the editor you're responding to, as they said nothing about the situation on the "terrain". I wouldn't call getting territory occupied by the country you're invading as we're seeing in Kursk at the moment "dominating" though.

As a non-extended confirmed editor you should keep in mind you're commenting in a contentious topic, WP:RUSUKR, where "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions". Assuming bad faith and talking about your own opinions about "domination" is not constructive.

Once we're seeing WP:RS telling us how Ukrainian soldiers are burning "NATO" faces to hide their involvement maybe you'll have a point. TylerBurden (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Hiding it is bad. Take this for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065 2001:B07:A3C:95AB:11C7:C052:F4F1:829E (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, what is this, a childish joke or a serious web page where information are supported to be valid and correct? Without NATO Ukraine wouldn't exist anymore, but you refusing to add them as belligerents. Even though NATO trains troops, send money, send weapons, sends even officers to help Ukraine on the ground and provides endless logistics, you didn't add them? Providing logistics is nothing but participation in the war and you know this too. Who is coordinating launching atacms, Ukraine itself maybe? This war will end, but Wikipedia's reputation won't get back. All this only goes on Russian hand and they seem right when calling the West hypocritical. Markomario (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

When RS say they are actually involved in combat we can add them, that is what a belligerent is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The article makes it extremely clear what aid "the West" is giving Ukraine, and what is NOT happening - there are no British, French, etc., troops on the ground firing guns at the Russians. That is "belligerency." I can donate to the aid of those who are burning down in the LA fires, but that doesn't make me a fireman (and God bless them, btw.) 2603:6080:21F0:79E0:C979:D10F:D4D1:95E5 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Article length

The article is currently too long (>18,000 words). In the coming days, I intend to shorten the article per WP:SS: subsections with their own child articles should be summarized in the parent article in a manner similar to the lead of the child article. To preempt possible disputes this could cause, and also to facilitate any other discussion re: article length, I'm creating this discussion section. JDiala (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you should make a draft article that people can comment on and make edits to, rather than edit the main article. That way any potential edit warring on the main article can be avoided. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, will consider. JDiala (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This is highly complex subject, and it needs a large page. While something can be removed (I just removed a couple of pieces), one must be very careful and follow WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any factual evidence of NK involvement?

Other than sources from Seoul or Western countries media, is there clear evidence of NK troops in the conflict? I think there's the risk of falling in the classic propaganda exchange between the Koreas when it comes to fake news (examples are countless). And also in a time where Ukr is seeking military aid from Seoul.

Saw a video showing a couple of asian soldiers in the front but this wouldnt be telling taking that Russia houses various ethnicities.

Why did wilipedia jumped to add NK as belligerent based on a few articles?

Why dismiss Russian media as propaganda and take the Seoul & NATO sources as proof? 2806:107E:D:AA9A:537F:2734:A35C:C669 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say. We have reliable sources that say that North Korea is involved. If you have some reliable sources contradicting that view, please provide them here. There is nothing to discuss if sources are not provided. --McSly (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Other than sources from Seoul or Western countries media..." - You can't demand evidence and then dismiss nearly all of the evidence that actually exists on the spurious ground that it is reported by reliable sources based in North America, Europe, Japan, and South Korea. The sourcing supporting North Korea's involvement in the war was talked to death in the RFC on the matter, and includes media reports, intelligence agency output, and academic analysis. Since then a great deal of other information has come out including captured documents, video footage, and drone footage.

"Why dismiss Russian media as propaganda..." - Good question. The presence of North Korean troops was first reported by ASTRA Media, a Russian outlet. Reports of North Korean participation have also been put out by Kremlin-aligned Russian MilBloggers. Interestingly, I am not aware of any Russian media reports that North Koreans are *not* involved in the conflict - at present the Kremlin is not even denying the presence of North Koreans.

So we have credible reports of North Korean involvement from reliable sources in a number of different countries, carrying on for a period of months. We also have reports of North Korean involvement from media outlets in Russia. We also have the Kremlin not even denying their involvement. I have to ask whether you have any specific reports that cast doubt on the presence of North Koreans? FOARP (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a policy of set of guidelines for determining what a co-belligerent is? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In not sure that helps I guess I was more asking what defines belligerency entails, I see from above discussions; weapons supplying isnt by consensus.

American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

Lists Hessian and other German mercenaries as combatants. This might be an elegant way to present the information that sidesteps the need for a determination.

Assuming, of course, people agree that the sources supporting NK's being in Ukraine and verifiable I guess LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia is concerned its if RS say they are a belligerent. In practice trigger pulling by regular armed forces is the standard most of the world works to.145.40.145.144 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper - Whether or not North Korea is a combatant in this war is not a question for WP policy because that would require us to do original research on the topic. For our purposes it is sufficient that reliable sources state that they are a combatant in this war. Many, many sources were discussed as showing this in the RFC, but here's one just to illustrate this. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please introduce this into the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Im not suggesting OR and it doesnt require OR;

North Korean soldiers 'legitimate targets' for Ukrainian military, US official says

"They entered a war, and they are, as such, combatants and are legitimate targets for the Ukrainian military.  We have seen North Korean soldiers who have been killed in action on the battlefield inside Russia."

Zelenskyy to West: Let us hit North Korean troops in Russia – POLITICO

Ukraine’s partners should permit Kyiv to strike North Korean troops inside Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Saturday, as more than 10,000 combatants prepare to enter frontline combat.

South Korea’s Deepening Dilemma Over Ukraine – The Diplomat

The Times view on Russia’s use of foreign forces: Korea Move

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, November 18, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War

No OR needed LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper - to explain further, I am arguing against the idea that Wikipedia should have its own standard for what is/isn't an combatant. We don't, we rely on reliable sources to make that call for us. Creating our own standard would require OR. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And once again I am not asserting a standard merely providing an alternative remedy so that the page can convey information in a non contentious way LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your reliable sources are all bias and pro NATO and frequently lie and peddle propaganda 149.62.206.81 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

A, Russia is one country, not the media of many separate countries. B, No other country has laws relating to the reporting of this war (in fact in Russia you cannot (legally) even call it a war). C, its not only western sources []. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"B, No other country has laws relating to the reporting of this war (in fact in Russia you cannot (legally) even call it a war)"

Not entirely true:

"Two of Ukraine’s operational commands, in the country’s east and south, released new rules in March governing how media can operate in areas under their control."

"Under martial law, the Ukrainian government imposes certain restrictions on the work of journalists covering the war."

"Ukraine’s new media law has triggered controversy, dividing lawmakers and media professionals. Entering into force on March 31, the bill reforms Ukraine’s media landscape, specifically expanding the powers of the National Council for Television and Radio (NCTR) regulator to allow it to block outlets without a court ruling."

"Major networks pooled their resources into a shared daily programming roster known as the “United News” telemarathon, an arrangement that was soon codified into law and that numerous media-watchers initially saw as a positive development."

"Months after attacks on investigative journalists provoked a public outcry and condemnation, media still face different forms of pressure from authorities, according to Ukrainian editors and press freedom watchdogs interviewed by the Kyiv Independent.The most significant recent cases include censorship attempts and political interference at a state news agency, allegations of journalists being drafted for the war as retribution, and the de facto withdrawal of a Ukrainian public broadcaster from the controversial state-imposed and controlled television news programs called telemarathon."

Therefore yes, martial law in Ukraine limits both access and which stories Ukrainian journalists and news organisations are allowed to publish. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically those are not nationwide laws. Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

More to the point, it's totally irrelevant to the present discussion - North Korea is described as a combatant in this war because that's how reliable sources consistently describe them. Asking that Russian media's viewpoint be included misses the point that Russian media cannot report freely on the subject but anyway has carried reports supporting the idea that North Korea is a participant. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Martial law is. But I used the qualifier "entirely" on purpose. Ukrainian news claims shouldn't be taken as fact, but independent WP:RS should be sought out. There is enough WP:RS outside of Ukraine to justify DPRK's inclusion in the infobox, so we are in agreement there. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Martial law is what? What claims of fact do we have sourced solely to Ukrainian news sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"Martial law is what?"

A law that applies in the whole country.

"What claims of fact do we have sourced solely to Ukrainian news sources?"

The start date of DPRK's involvement/belligerency. The article states that the DPRK has been a combatant since October, while the Pentagon and other sources relying on US officials have DPRK involvement starting in December. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yes Ukriane has SOME restrictions (that seem to relate to operational information) I agree, they do not (however) have laws saying what you can say, only what you can report. Russia has laws on what you can say. And we do not base this solely on what Ukrainian sources say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine just released a video where they interrogate a wounded DPRK soldier. According to people they are speaking a DPRK dialect and the accent is correct. He was captured in Kursk, so it seems that DPRK troops are fighting Ukraine in Kursk. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes there is 2003:C0:2735:571D:E980:8B35:6CE5:D0B7 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

In this "war", NATO is on the side of Ukraine, so in table where you are adding only Ukraine, add whole NATO, Israel, South Korea, Japan 77.46.232.86 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done. The inclusion of supporters is a frequently and hotly debated topic on this page. An edit request for such a controversial issue stand no chance before change in status quo is agreed on. Arnoutf (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

A useful source on who is/isn't a party to this war

Wentker A. At war? Party status and the war in Ukraine. Leiden Journal of International Law. 2023;36(3):643-656. doi:10.1017/S0922156522000760. Key quotes:

• "Supplying arms to Ukraine does not establish a sufficiently direct connection to hostilities, since only the actual use of the weapons causes harm to Russia. For this assessment, it does not matter what kind of weapons or materials are supplied, or whether Ukrainian soldiers are additionally trained on those weapons. Repeated affirmations from Western states that such assistance has not made them parties are therefore in line with the legal framework outlined above."
• "Reports also indicate that the US was aware that its intelligence contribution was part of operations directly harming Russia and that it had a role in the decision-making on these operations. Based on these reports, there seems to be a good case for considering the conditions of co-party status fulfilled. The facts can, of course, not be fully ascertained, and the US contends that it did not share intelligence that was sufficiently granular ‘explicitly to target and kill Russian soldiers’."
• "Russia has launched significant parts of its invasion from Belarusian territory. This could constitute a sufficiently direct connection to the harm caused by the Russian invasion. Accordingly, Belarus’ putting its territory at Russia’s disposal could conceivably make Belarus a party on Russia’s side, depending on how Belarus’ territorial contribution has been co-ordinated with Russia’s military operations, and Belarus’s awareness thereof."

Based on the above there is no real ground for including states as parties to the conflict in the infobox just because they supply weapons and training to Ukraine. There might be based on intelligence sharing, but the author does not appear convinced that this was the case. The author appears more convinced of the grounds for including Belarus since the invasion was launched from there, but again the author does not appear fully convinced.

Of course this is just one author's view, but based on it, I think, if anything, rather than adding anyone else, we might consider removing Belarus from the infobox, since their involvement is something that needs heavy caveating. It made sense in February 2022 when the situation was less clear, but I'm not sure about now. However, this doesn't change anything about how we should describe Belarusian involvement in the body-text of the article. FOARP (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This source is also interesting on Belarus and is closer to justifying a special status for Belarus in our infobox, but it also spends a lot of time making it clear that, in their view, Belarus is not involved "directly" in the war. FOARP (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Iran’s Support For Russia

Why hasn’t Iran been listed a supporter of Russia yet just like North Korea (before becoming a belligerent) and Belarus? Despite claiming to be neutral, they’re literally sending the Russians military aid (in drones and missiles)! Maximations (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

We do not list providers of arms for either party in the infobox. Read the FAQ before posting questions which have been answered previously. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the above, I think we should be looking at removing Belarus, at the very least unless secondary sourcing can be found for a "special status" for Belarus. I definitely wouldn't favour adding Iran, China, or other states that have supplied Russia during their war of aggression. FOARP (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Belarus is fine. It was discussed previously on this page (see the consensus to keep it in the infobox here), and it is different from countries-suppliers: the war was started by Russia from the Belorussian territory. If Finland would allow Ukrainian forces to attack Russia from the Finnish territory, then it would also need to be included. Moreover, Russia and Belarus is nearly the same state. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

China has not supplied weapons to Russia during the Ukraine war. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no consensus among WP:RS that that is the case. Here are some WP:RS that deny weapons were sent:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/public-and-private-iran-insists-it-did-not-send-russia-ballistic-missiles

https://www.reuters.com/world/irans-president-says-tehran-did-not-transfer-weapons-russia-since-he-took-office-2024-09-16/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/11/is-iran-supplying-ballistic-missiles-to-russia-for-the-ukraine-war TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• We have a page Iran and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course they did send their drone instructors to Crimea, some of whom were killed, but this probably does not warrant the infobox inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, WP:CIRCULAR. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That was not an argument (I agree with your point that Iran should not be included), but just a link to a page with info on the subject. As about China, not only they delivered a lot of drones to Russia (just as Ukrainians were buying drones in China), but the military collaboration here goes even deeper . But again, I am not suggesting to include China to the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Drones aren't considered military equipment. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Updating A4 in the Q&A

A recurring question on this page is about including support for Ukraine in the infobox. In the FAQ, this is addressed by referencing this no-consensus RfC about arms suppliers closed in March 2022. I think that that discussion isn't as helpful by now, because 1. the war has changed a lot since March 2022, but I think more importantly 2. use of a "Support" field in situations like arms suppliers was deprecated in this July 2023 RfC. I think a more helpful answer in the FAQ would say that "supporters" aren't normally included in conflict infoboxes (linking to that 2023 RfC); mention/link to discussions around inclusion of DPR, LPR, and DPRK; and clarify that the inclusion of Belarus was decided as an exceptional case. Thoughts? Placeholderer (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely didn't notice there was an active RfC related to this, but I guess this proposal is unchanged, except that if other countries are added to the infobox they be referenced in the FAQ answer too Placeholderer (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between these two paragraphs, why is one allowed in the article but the other isn't?

Allowed: "Zelenskyy also showcased footage which he said showed Russian troops burning the faces of killed North Korean soldiers in an attempt to conceal their presence on the battlefield.

Not allowed: "Polish journalist Zbigniew Parafianowicz related in his book Polska na wojnie an interview with a Polish minister who said that during a visit to Ukraine shortly after the start of the war he saw armed and uniformed British special forces soldiers working with Ukrainian soldiers."

@TylerBurden pinging you, since you seem to have declared yourself owner of this article. You are reverting edits and single-handedly deciding what goes in and what stays out of the article. Your editing is becoming distruptive. WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:STONEWALL TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

See wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Why AGF for the first, but not the second? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yours was the only comment. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I added the second paragraph and it was removed. I'm asking why AGF doesn't apply in that case? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again going to ignore the absurd personal attacks, but you're making a great case for yourself at WP:ANI. Are you familiar with the WP:DUEWEIGHT policy? Doesn't seem like it. Zelenskyy's showcase of the face burning has been widely covered in WP:RS, can you demonstrate that the same applies to this book and journalist that you repeatedly keep adding back after several editors have reverted you? --TylerBurden (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Zelensky showing something as evidence of North Korean involvement in a presentation that was widely reported is clearly WP:DUE. We also include claims made by Putin, even the ones that are very clearly totally false, because they are made by Putin as an alleged justification for the war which was widely reported.

In contrast random claims made by an author as to what an unidentified Polish minister said they saw in 2022, with no real coverage, are much less likely to be WP:DUE.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Some things just aren’t worth mentioning, even if verifiable. FOARP (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"an unidentified Polish minister"

Wikipedia doesn't require that journalists reveal their sources. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have requirements for inclusion that go beyond mere verifiability. In this case, it’s not at all clear why this information is WP:DUE.

Putin's claims that Ukraine has become a base for “NATO infrastructure” are included in the article, not because anyone thinks they’re true, but because Vladimir Putin made that claim as a widely reported justification for the war. FOARP (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think mentioning foreign special forces helping Ukraine in the section about foreign help for Ukraine is giving in undue weight. In fact, the suggested "burning of face of North Korean soldiers" is unnecessary detail that doesn't add anything to the section of North Korean soldiers helping Russia. The section already has plenty of sources about claims of NK soldiers being there, why is it important that their faces are getting burned?

So, in fact, the first paragraph is undue weight on account of unnecessary detail, while the second paragraph adds new information regarding foreign special forces helping Ukraine. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"I don't think mentioning foreign special forces helping Ukraine in the section about foreign help for Ukraine is giving in undue weight" - It wouldn't be if Putin was the one saying it and it was widely reported (and.... yes we do include Putin's claims about NATO infrastructure in Ukraine). But in this case it is instead an anonymous Polish minister saying things that, even if true, do not necessarily mean "foreign special forces helping Ukraine", and are reported in a single source, not widely.

But if you really want to push inclusion of this content, start an RFC on it. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"are reported in a single source, not widely."

Actually, there are at least two english-language sources reporting on it, probably more in Polish. I haven't found a single source disputing it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"In September 2024, Reuters reported documents indicating Russia had established a weapons programme in China to develop and produce long-range attack drones, with assistance from local specialists, for use in the invasion of Ukraine."

Here is Reuters reporting on "documents" that was included in the article.

It is very obvious that the article will quote any "document" or "intelligence sources" as long as it is against Russia or foreign assistance to Russia. But when it comes to foreign assistance to Ukraine, suddenly we need Putin to claim it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So you want to remove that content? FOARP (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Well yes, I just can't cause it will be reverted. If we're going to remove content on the grounds that it is undue and not claimed by anyone noteworthy, then I think we should apply that standard across the board and to all content in the article, not just to one party in the conflict. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The leaks were widely covered in WP:RS, still removed

The book was covered in at least two WP:RS, then someone said it's better to quote the book directly.

"a great case for yourself at WP:ANI."

Stop threatening me and do it already. I welcome the scrutiny. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

”the leaks were widely covered in WP:RS - in a way that cast doubt on their validity by pointing out that the leaked documents had partly been doctored. And we’ve also had more time from the leaks for more reports to come out, and they haven’t.

In contrast, as time has gone on the presence of North Koreans at the front has become an established fact with a heavy weight of evidence behind it from a whole range of sources. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not disputing the inclusion of North Korea, I am disputing the paragraph about their faces being burnt. How can we judge intent behind the alleged actions from a drone video? What evidence is there that those in the video are in fact DPRK soldiers? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to, the source makes that interpretation for us (and we are clear that this is something that Zelensky said, not something we are saying in the voice of Wikipedia, and is clearly WP:DUE because Zelensky is head-of-state for one of the belligerents in the conflict and this was widely reported.

If Putin did something similar, it would also be included most likely. FOARP (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"the source makes that interpretation for us (and we are clear that this is something that Zelensky said, not something we are saying in the voice of Wikipedia"

Why doesn't that reasoning apply to the second paragraph? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it’s not WP:DUE. It’s neither a statement by anyone prominent nor is it compelling evidence due to all the issues everyone has already discussed in great detail. Zelenskyy’s statement is at least from Zelenskyy even if you don’t accept the evidence presented.

Either put this to an RFC or drop the topic. I don’t see any point in going round and round and round the same talking points over and over. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

lol, Zelinski, the president of one of the two combatants is not noteworthy. With that idea I am out of here with a firm, there is your difference. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Who said that? Why even respond if you're not going to respond to the comment?

Zelenskyy is absolutely noteworthy in this conflict, as he is the lesder of one of the warring sides, as you have so astutely noticed. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Then there you have your difference, you have answered your own question, so (as I said) with that I am out of here,. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Would you agree that the following paragraphs should be removed according to the same argument?

"In September 2024, Reuters reported documents indicating Russia had established a weapons programme in China to develop and produce long-range attack drones, with assistance from local specialists, for use in the invasion of Ukraine."

"Reports of an alleged leak of Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) documents by US intelligence sources said that the FSB had not been aware of Putin's plan to invade."

"By November, British intelligence said that recent weeks had "likely seen some of the highest Russian casualty rates of the war so far.""

"On 21 November, CNN quoted an intelligence assessment that Iran had begun to help Russia produce Iran-designed drones in Russia."

"In June 2023, US military intelligence suggested Iran was providing both Shahed combat drones and production materials to develop a drone manufactory to Russia."

etc. etc.

There seems to be a double standard applied in this article. When a "document", "leak", "anonymous source", "intelligence source" say something regarding Russia, it is included in the article, no questions asked. But when one wants to include similar information about Ukraine, suddenly we need Putin himself to claim it.

I am not the only editor to point out serious NPOV problems in this article, and the double standard isn't helping. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

1) If you’re only raising these in the context of information you want to add, not because you actually want to remove them, see WP:POINT.

2) I can see removing at least some of these to deal with length issues with this article, but every one of these is more WP:DUE than the information you are trying to add for the reasons we have already discussed ad nauseam. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This Page is astroturfed by pro-US Propaganda.

Just be honest, not adding the USA or other west european nations to the infobox, but Belarus for Russia, just shows how afroturfed this page is. The United States needs to be involved to fire ATCM missiles into Russia. USA shares intelligence with Ukraine. They give weapons ams training. They have CIA assets on ground. What gives? We know this is not an organic page and heavily cured and controlled by Pro-US interests. 149.62.206.81 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"Afroturfed" - that would be an interesting lawn, for sure. FOARP (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You’re joking, right? 173.67.182.46 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Belarussian territory has been used for attacks on Ukraine. At least do a bit of reading on the topic. BeŻet (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Nobody said they werent, and stop avoiding the topic please. There are several other nations involved in helping Ukraine. Why arent they there? 149.62.208.245 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The general reason is that having countries as "Supporters" in infoboxes was deprecated, so "Supporters" aren't supposed to be listed unless editors decide on an exception. A while ago, some editors on this page discussed and narrowly decided that Belarus should be included as an exception, because of something to do with being an "aggressor" while not being "belligerent", so that's why Belarus is here.

There currently is a discussion on whether or not to make an exception for Ukraine's main supporters, since it had been a long time since the last discussion on the subject and the war had changed a lot. I'll mention though that several people have said that they'd like Belarus to be removed from the infobox. I personally think it's likely that Belarus will be removed, and that Ukraine's supporters won't be included, in order to avoid having "Supporters" in the infobox Placeholderer (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I am a bit confused regarding the two reverts made to my edit and I don't agree with them.

@Manyareasexpert I undid your revert.

1) A published book is considered reliable, WP:PUBLISHED. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge the veracity of a published source.

2) The article includes every sensationalist claim made by Zelenskyy, such as: "Zelenskyy also showcased footage which he said showed Russian troops burning the faces of killed North Korean soldiers in an attempt to conceal their presence on the battlefield."

Then you have Politico's reporting on alleged China deliveries is included "Politico reported in March 2023 that Chinese state-owned weapons manufacturer Norinco shipped assault rifles, drone parts, and body armor to Russia between June and December 2022, with some shipments via third countries including Turkey and the United Arab Emirates."

WP:NPOV might be a good guide in this situation.

@Cinderella157 I undid your revision because the discussion you linked is discussing whether to include the UK into the infobox, it isn't about including the BBC article into the article itself, therefore your reasoning for undoing my revision is not good. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I fully concur with TurboSuperA+'s edits. As I've discussed extensively in the past, this article has a serious pro-Ukraine POV. JDiala (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

A published book is considered reliable is untrue. Being published – and the term has a Wikio-syncratic definition simply reading made available to the public in some form – is a requisite for something to be considered a source, but this does not confer reliability. Editors do determine the reliability of a source and there are dedicated processes for doing this, including WP:RSN.

I have no opinion on the quality of Polska na Wojnie as a source, but it is important that it is not being cited as stated in the text. The direct source is a website called 'DeclassifiedUK.org', which has been discussed repeatedly at RSN including most recently here. The views on its reliability are mixed, though lean towards: heavily biased but generally factual. I would prefer the named source be cited directly, rather than a marginal intermediary.

Regarding the statements introduced into the article, they fail to relate themselves to the conflict in any discernible way. In a similar vein to what I said about North Korean troops in Siberia months ago, the mere presence of special forces in Ukraine is unremarkable. Whether they are worth discussing is dependent upon what they are doing there. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If the presence of the special forces is at all a function of the war (rather than e.g., a pre-existing arrangement), it's absolutely notable enough for inclusion. JDiala (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have cited the book directly in the article. Here is the relevant part from pg. 74:

Minister X: - Without the people, nothing can be done. From the first day of the war we should have been there as much as possible. And the army, and the services, and the diplomats. Other countries didn't cower. I remember being in mid-March in Kyiv. I was returning via the Zhytomyr route. It was a time when the Russians were still in Bucha, and the route was a gray zone. It was possible to run into Russians. We passed the last checkpoint. The Ukrainians told us that we continue at our own risk. And who did we meet next? Ukrainian soldiers and... British special forces. Uniformed. With weapons. They moved with Ukrainians in trucks and off-road vehicles with artillery radars. They were tracking targets. They were learning this war. This type of radar locates the place where mortar or rocket shells fall and are fired.

TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can link with an actual diff, so I can see what was added or removed? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Text added refering to a BBC article, Ukraine war: Leak shows Western special forces on the ground was reverted with this edit summary: Previously discussed at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 15#US/UK special forces in Ukraine. WP:VNOT applies. Article says nothing about what they are doing there. The linked discussion directly addressed the BBC article at about the time it was published. The article specifically states: The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing. The discussion identified that there are many reasons why such soldiers might be present such as embassy security. The consensus at the time was not to use this source anywhere in the article. (ping Slatersteven with some diffs)

The source (refering to strengths in march 2023) has been placed in a way to imply confirmation of events in March 2022, which it does not do. The material was reinstated here before opening this discussion and without achieving a consensus for reinstating this material per WP:VNOT. There is still no consensus to include this particular edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

[], I see no issue with this, the USA seems to have confirmed that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you might review your comments regarding the BBC source when it was previously discussed at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 15#US/UK special forces in Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"The consensus at the time was not to use this source anywhere in the article."

I don't see it. I see consensus that the infobox shouldn't be modified on account of it, not that it shouldn't be a part of the article. I don't see anyone disputing the reliability of the source (BBC) or the veracity of the claim. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a consensus not to modify the infobox but as a result of the discussion, the BBC report was not used at all in the article. The previous discussion identified there were WP:MILL reasons for their presence in Ukraine, which is the pertinent point being raised here. The report states: The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing. One cannot infer from that (as your edit would do), that the personnel were acting in support of Ukraine or that they were present a year earlier. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that the BBC reports some of these leaked documents as having been doctored to say something they did not say in the original, raising doubts as to their accuracy. I also agree with @Cinderella157 that, since there are WP:MILL explanations for why there would be special forces in Ukraine, it could be undue to discuss it here. Whilst I personally wouldn't be surprised if UK special forces were present in Ukraine, we need more instances and reporting to establish this being WP:DUE. I'd also say that the edit was not an accurate portrayal of the report in any event: anonymous Pentagon officials were reported as confirming the validity of the documents in general, but it's not clear that they were conferring the accuracy of the specific documents related to special forces - since at least one of the documents was in fact not genuine (i.e., it had apparently been altered) this is rather important.

This isn't a situation like that with the North Koreans - there has been so much reportage of the presence of North Koreans at the front, including in Russian sources, that this is beyond doubt. FOARP (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we do know that British and other instructors trained Ukrainian forces, mostly abroad. But we need to know more details to include such info. How many such forces were deployed in Ukraine? 10 or 10 thousand? What did they do? Did they just protect an embassy of fought on the front lines? Where? We know all of that about the North Koreans, as this has been widely reported. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The single source and the claim look a little suspicious because these guys might be just the soldiers of the International Legion (Ukraine). Better sourcing would be great. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Politico

Al Jazeera TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

These are all reporting essentially the same thing - leaked documents, some of them doctored. FOARP (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is an RS and it says there were around 100 "personnel" from EU and around 100 from US. It says "The leaked information does not specify which activities the forces are carrying out or their location in Ukraine." It also says that "POLITICO has not independently verified the documents, and there have been indications that some of the leaked pages were doctored." Does it pass a threshold for inclusion to the page? I would rather not include it given the amount of disinformation promoted about this war from all sides. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

By that logic we can remove every claim by Zelenskyy or UA MoD that "cannot be independently verified", starting with the casualty numbers, but also the claim that Russians are burning North Korean faces for example, and others.

You cannot pick and choose which claims to include. That's why we go by WP:RS, if a reliable source reports on a claim, we include it. Otherwise we run into NPOV problems. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The report casts doubt on the documents being valid - points out that they have been partly doctored even - whilst reporting on the documents' content. That's the issue here, not the lack of independent verification. FOARP (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Only the part regarding casualties: "One document, which detailed the number of casualties suffered in Ukraine on both sides, did appear to have been doctored." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The BBC and other sources pointed out that this was the one document that they knew of. This is not high-confidence information. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that disputes the veracity of the leaks or claims they didn't happen? If the leaks were fake, I doubt that so many news organisations would report on it, or that the US would launch an investigation into the leaks. If I created "leaks" in Photoshop with made up information, I doubt the DoJ would investigate them.

"Although some of the files shared online appear to have been doctored, US news outlets including the New York Times have reported that US officials acknowledge many of the documents are genuine and were initially shared online without alterations."

I am not against an edit/addition that says some of the leaked documents were doctored. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I have an RS saying that at least some of the documents in the leak were doctored. That’s sufficient grounds not to include when the only basis is the leak.

Really, this is the kind of thing where if this was as significant as it was presented, there would have been further information beyond this leak. And there hasn’t been in some years now.

Contrast this with the North Korean involvement which has been report after report ongoing for months, including in the Russian media. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying that the infobox should be changed based on this information. However, it does fit into the article, because the article is full of claims. Many claims cannot be independently verified and some claims were denied, yet they still made it into the article.

We either include all claims that appear in WP:RS, or we remove all claims that can't be independently verified. You can't just choose to include claims that make Ukraine look good and Russia look bad. WP:POVPUSH. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

If Zelensky or Putin claims something, that's relevant because they're making that claim, though it should always be made clear where it is just them making that claim. For this reason we've included claims from Putin about a NATO build-up in Ukraine that is totally groundless and without evidence in the article - because Putin made it.

But who is making the claim in this case? Some ostensibly leaked documents, that were partially doctored, and of which there has been no real corroboration in getting on two years. That's the problem. That's also exactly how the RS report them - they do not make this claim, they cast doubt on this claim.

As for POVpushing: sorry if a lot of the facts about this war tend not to be very favourable to Russia. If you want to remove information you don't think is substantiated in sourcing, please go ahead and let everyone know what the edits you propose to make fixing that are. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Not only Zelenskyy, there's also "Ukrainian MoD", "intel sources", etc. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, now can you see the difference between government sources saying something, and partially-doctored documents saying something? Or even a general appearing to suggest something? FOARP (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@TylerBurden

Nobody has complained about the inclusion of the "Poland at war" book. Do you have a WP:RS that criticises the book or denies the veracity of the claims in it?

Assume good faith, WP:AGF.

Also, you don't own this article, WP:OWNERSHIP. Why do you personally have to be convinced for something to be included in the article?

Both @JDiala and @slatersteven said they agreed with the information being included. @JDiala said it should be included, and @slatersteven was not opposed to its inclusion. If you have problems with BBC or the book Poland at war as a WP:RS you should discuss it at RSN, because as it stands now they are reliable sources of information.

Furthermore, removing information from a BBC, Al Jazeera, Politico article, while leaving in stuff like this "Exclusive: Russia has secret war drones project in China, intel sources say" is an example of WP:POVPUSHING and going against WP:NPOV.

WP:ONUS doesn't apply here. No statement of fact is being made, and multiple WP:RS cover the claims. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

No I said I had no issue with it being included, that is not quite the same as saying it should be. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Edited. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Well you sure seem to love coming out swinging at anyone that doesn't agree with you, which was already obvious by your WP:BLUDGEONING above, there is no point in addressing the personal attacks, so I'll just state the obvious, which is that WP:ONUS absolutely does apply here, since you're looking to include the content, which you're apparently willing to WP:EDITWAR to the point of risking a block for WP:3RR for. I suggest you read policy you cite more carefully, particularly ONUS and your ironic usage of WP:AGF, while assuming zero good faith yourself. It's a shame that there seems to be so little experienced editor and administrator activity on this article these days that you can edit war and WP:BLUDGEON your way to inserting your narratives.

You talk about neutrality, while another editor had to add basic context that you omitted such as the ″leak″ being partially doctored. That's something you would think a ″neutral″ editor would include. But if people really consider your two year old exposé WP:DUE (interesting that you don't add newer sources, which you would think would exist if this was so notable), then so be it. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith on your part when I made two separate edits: 1) Including the information from the book "Poland at war", and 2) including the leaks reported on by the BBC.

You used the complaints against 2, to remove 1 and 2. How is that good faith?

The only one in danger of breaking the 3RR rule is you, because I made additions to the article, while you reverted them. It's called the three revert rule, not the 3 edit rule.

Furthermore, you claimed there was consensus among editors when there was none.

Do you have any complaints against including the book 'Poland at war'? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Your reverts in 24 hours: One two three.

My reverts in 24 hours: One.

Once again, your statements do not line up with reality, might explain the narratives you're pushing. As for your book, see below. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think my behaviour is bad and disruptive, then write an ANI. I'm tired of you threatening me and pinging administrators on my Talk page, all in efforts to stop me adding information that you think reflects negatively on Ukraine.

I'm not the only one who has complained about NPOV problems in this article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sidestepping the entire discussion on the reverts (personally I am not convinced presence of special forces is that notable as they may be present as observer or e.g. to protect diplomatic posts/be on standby to evacuate citizens of said countries, the document did not say why they were there), I would propose to change the text to past tense as we do not know the status today to: "According to a leaked "top secret" document, UK, Latvia, France, the United States and the Netherlands had special forces present in Ukraine in 2023". Arnoutf (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that change. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It now says "According to a partially-doctored set of leaked top secret documents..." [the claim]. I would rather not include any "doctored" info to the page even if it was published. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

For accuracy, it has to be mentioned that the documents were partly doctored if we're mentioning this. FOARP (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sure, we must notice it. But then we should probably do not include it at all, in my opinion. Of course if there is a consensus to include (I am not sure), then fine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• We now have five sources spread over two paragraphs of which three specifically deal with the leaked documents and are repeating what is stated in the originally reported BBC article. We have three separate reports from the start of the war, March 2023 and May 2024. Please note that my recent edits to those two paragraphs do not infer my agreement to retain those paragraphs.

The first para recounts an observation by a Polish minister who observed armed soldiers in British uniform with Ukrainian soldiers near the front moving in vehicles with artillery radars. The minister reported these as British special forces. The conclusion that they were British Army appears to be based on the uniform, which as My very best wishes observes, is not conclusive. How were they identified as special forces? Were they wearing ski masks? A combat uniform would not show markings that would identify a unit. The assertion that they were special forces would appear to be speculation. If they were indeed British Army, they were most likely Royal Artillery that operate such equipment. Whether they were there to advise or observe is speculation. The latter does not support the Ukrainian war effort.

The problem with the leaked documents is that: The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing. One cannot infer or imply anything from the documents, that the soldiers' presence is related to the war or that their presence is in any way supporting the Ukrainian war effort because there are other reasonable WP:MILL explanations for their presence.

The third report suggests UK special forces were operating in Ukraine based on doctrinal changes that might be made in the light of direct experience but also might have been made in light of observation. The conclusion is speculation.

Contrary to what TurboSuperA+ appears to believe, per WP:VNOT verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Editors have a responsibility to determine what information/sources contribute encyclopedically to the article and what information/sources are pertinent. Implying or inferring something not specifically stated in sources is WP:SYNTH. We also have WP:NOTEVERYTHING (WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS) and WP:DUE.

These two paragraphs are placed in a section about foreign support for Ukraine. Their placement infers foreign special forces supporting Ukraine. What do we really have from these sources? In summary: There is speculation and unconfirmed reports that foreign military personnel have been operational within Ukraine. While it has been confirmed that foreign special forces personnel have been present in Ukraine, it is not confirmed that they have conducted military operations or otherwise supported the Ukrainian war effort.

When put that way, it isn't very pertinent to the article and particularly, it is not pertinent to a section about foreign support for Ukraine. What might be more pertinent to this section is this NYT article about UK providing in-country training linked from the BI article already : Ukrainian commanders told The Times of London as long ago as April 2022 that special forces were in there to train local recruits on British-supplied NLAW anti-tank missiles. However, that is old news and I am pay-walled from reading the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree with your comments above. There are too few factual details. We do not even know what they actually did in Ukraine if anything. Even if true, how significant is such info for this very general and very long page? Very little, unless someone is trying to make a point that NATO countries are involved here. Yes, of course they are involved, but more significantly by providing weapons, training, money, sanctions to Russia and intelligence, as this page already say. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I agree that the leaks should not be included.

"How were they identified as special forces?"

But they were identified, does it matter how? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You're asking for evidence even when it is present in sources. Why are you singing a different tune here? --TylerBurden (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Zelenskyy seems to know the intent behind the actions of the soldiers on the video. How? Can he read minds?

Also, how do we know those are DPRK soldiers? 1) drone video is low res, and 2) even if we could see their faces, there are many "Asian-looking" Russian citizens who aren't North Koreans. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So were back to arguing that North Koreans aren't in this conflict again? Look, if you really want to remove this content (or include the "NATO special forces" claim? I'm not clear which you are trying to do) then start an RFC on it. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you should read my comments again, more carefully this time.

I specifically say this isn't about North Korea being a belligerent in the conflict.

This is about including Zelenskyy's claim that a drone video allegedly showed Russian soldiers burning the faces of North Korean soldiers to hide their involvement in the war.

I cannot say it any more clearly. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"Zelenskyy's claim..." - There's your answer. A head of state of one of the belligerents made this statement. This is the same reason we include Putin's claims about "Nazism" and "NATO infrastructure". You're getting in to WP:BLUD territory here. FOARP (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

War crimes and attacks on civilians

This section could be improved by double-checking certain images. For does not the photograph of the bombed railway station look strange/not quite right? If proven to have been staged - should not the image be deleted 2.30.22.148 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It was not staged, there were plenty attacks with civilians as casualties before and after. Zemleroika11 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

While there are many attacks (by both sides), is there not an on-going media war taking place? Given this, and how odd the image looks, how can anyone be certain that the photo is for real?

You'll need to find a reliable source to prove that the photo is fake, because original research is not allowed. Galebazz (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

change belarus from supporting to Co-belligerent which they are described as by multiple sources ManU9827 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests are not for controversial changes. The question of Belarus' placement in the infobox is already being discussed at the above RfC. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

ISW's use of "co-belligerent" was already mentioned in that discussion, but I've copied the Euromaidan Press source over to there too Placeholderer (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Suggested Change To Image Caption

On the section "Zaporizhzhia front", there is an image that says "Killed Ukrainian civilians during the Zaporizhzhia civilian convoy attack by Russian Army in September 2022" when it make sense say "Ukrainian civilians killed during the Zaporizhzhia civilian convoy attack by Russian Army in September 2022". It is a minor change, but it bothers me and I am a new user so I cannot edit it myself. SpooklesMan (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Ukrainian civilians killed by the Russian Armed Forces during the Zaporizhzhia civilian convoy attack in September 2022." I think your suggestion still had the issue of having a prepositional phrase separate the killed from the killers. Let me know if you have any other concerns. JasonMacker (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2025

ualosses update to 70,500/65,000 99.68.139.151 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Rename proposal

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

---

While the initial phases of the conflict can be described as a failed full scale invasion, the title is not appropriate and commonly used anymore for the ongoing phase of the conflict. Most major media outlets in many countries except for Russia and Ukraine itself refer to the war either as War in Ukraine or Ukraine war. A recent example from BBC: Ukraine war latest: US and Russia will appoint teams to negotiate ending Ukraine war, US says after talks. 176.1.21.84 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

There is an open discussion above. Please contribute there. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Russia is still invading Ukraine. Just because they haven’t been successful, doesn’t mean that they still aren’t trying. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Rename proposal #2

It is true the war began with russia's invasion of ukraine in 2022 but one factor not given thought of is that in 2024 ukraine invaded russian territory specifically kursk. as this war is now on both sides I argue that the name be changed from "russian invasion of ukraine" to "russo-ukrainian war" or anything of similar scope. To be noted that this title is not biased to either side nor am I. General Phoenix (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

We already have an article called that. Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Critique

We don't use LLMs, which don't know Wikipedia's rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Below is a focused critique of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article as presented, identifying its flaws, gaps, and areas for improvement. Given the article’s length, I’ll prioritize key issues rather than exhaustively covering every section.

---

1. Overloaded with Detail, Lacking Synthesis

• Problem: The article is excessively detailed, packing in timelines, casualty figures, military movements, and international reactions without consistently tying them to a broader narrative or analysis. For instance, the "Events" section lists battles (e.g., Kyiv, Mariupol, Bakhmut) with granular updates but rarely steps back to explain their strategic significance or long-term impact beyond immediate outcomes.
• Why It Matters: Readers drown in specifics—dates, troop numbers, weapon types—without a clear sense of how these pieces fit into the war’s trajectory or Putin’s/Zelenskyy’s overarching goals. This makes it more a chronicle than an encyclopedia entry.
• Fix: Summarize repetitive battle updates (e.g., merge similar fronts into broader phases) and emphasize why key moments (like Kyiv’s defense or Mariupol’s fall) shifted the war’s course, using analysis to connect facts to consequences.

---

2. Bias and Neutrality Concerns

• Problem: The article leans toward a pro-Ukrainian/Western perspective, subtly framing Russia’s actions as uniformly aggressive or unjustified (e.g., "baselessly claimed," "sham elections") while rarely questioning Ukrainian or Western claims. Russian perspectives—like Putin’s historical revisionism or economic motives—are mentioned but dismissed without exploration.
• Why It Matters: Wikipedia demands neutrality, but this tone risks alienating readers seeking a balanced view, especially on contentious issues like NATO expansion or Donbas separatism, where Russian grievances have some basis (even if exaggerated).
• Fix: Present Russian rationales (e.g., NATO as a threat) with more depth, not just as propaganda to debunk, and include caveats about unverified Ukrainian claims (e.g., casualty estimates) to mirror skepticism applied to Russia.

---

3. Incomplete Global Context

• Problem: The "International Reactions" section focuses heavily on Western condemnation and aid (e.g., NATO, EU, US sanctions) but gives scant attention to the Global South’s mixed or neutral stances beyond a brief mention. Countries like India, China, and African nations—key players in trade with Russia or abstainers in UN votes—are underrepresented.
• Why It Matters: The war’s global impact extends beyond the West, affecting energy markets, food security, and geopolitics in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This omission skews the article toward a Eurocentric lens.
• Fix: Expand on non-Western reactions—e.g., India’s oil purchases, China’s drone support, or Brazil’s mediation efforts—drawing from the "Support for Russia" section to show a fuller spectrum of global alignment.

---

4. Casualty Data Discrepancies and Lack of Clarity

• Problem: The "Casualties" section is a mess of conflicting numbers—UN’s 12,340 civilian deaths vs. Ukraine’s 12,000 vs. estimates of 80,000 military deaths—without clear reconciliation or explanation of methodology. It notes both sides inflate figures but doesn’t guide readers through the fog.
• Why It Matters: Casualties are a critical measure of the war’s toll, yet the article leaves readers confused rather than informed, undermining its authority on a heavily scrutinized topic.
• Fix: Consolidate data into a table with sources and date ranges clearly labeled, add a paragraph explaining why estimates vary (e.g., propaganda, access issues), and avoid burying key figures (like 1 million total casualties) in dense text.

---

5. Uneven Coverage of Key Topics

• Problem: Some sections, like "North Korea" under "Foreign Involvement," are disproportionately long and detailed (e.g., specific troop numbers, dates), while others, like "Economic Impact" or "Peace Efforts," are cursory. Environmental damage gets a subsection but lacks depth on long-term implications.
• Why It Matters: This imbalance suggests editorial priorities rather than encyclopedic necessity, leaving critical areas—like economic ripple effects on global trade or failed Minsk agreements—underdeveloped.
• Fix: Trim redundant minutiae (e.g., daily North Korean updates) and bolster thin sections with more analysis—e.g., how sanctions reshaped Russia’s economy or why peace talks stalled beyond stated positions.

---

6. Source Reliability and Gaps

• Problem: References are a mix of solid outlets (Reuters, BBC) and weaker ones (e.g., vague "Ukrainian government" claims, unspecific "Western officials"). Some bold assertions—like Russia’s $250 billion war cost or 1 million total casualties—rely on single sources without corroboration or context.
• Why It Matters: In a conflict rife with propaganda, uncritical reliance on partisan or unverified sources risks misinformation, especially on sensitive topics like war crimes or troop losses.
• Fix: Cross-reference major claims with multiple reputable sources, flag unverified figures (e.g., "alleged" or "reportedly"), and cite primary documents (e.g., UN reports, ICC warrants) directly where possible.

---

7. Temporal Inconsistency

• Problem: The article’s timeline jumps erratically—e.g., "Initial Invasion" ends April 2022, but later sections like "Winter Stalemate" (November 2022–June 2023) overlap with earlier events like Kherson’s liberation (November 2022). The "February 2025 developments" feel tacked on and speculative.
• Why It Matters: This muddies the war’s progression, confusing readers about when and how phases unfolded, especially as it claims to be current to February 21, 2025.
• Fix: Reorganize chronologically with clear phase delineations (e.g., "Early War: Feb–Apr 2022," "Counteroffensives: Sep–Nov 2022") and treat 2025 as a distinct "Recent Developments" section with less conjecture.

---

8. Human and Cultural Dimensions Underexplored

• Problem: While "Humanitarian Impact" notes displacement and heritage loss, it skims over the war’s psychological toll, civilian resilience, or cultural erasure beyond statistics. War crimes are listed but not contextualized with survivor voices or legal outcomes.
• Why It Matters: The war’s human cost—beyond numbers—defines its legacy, yet the article prioritizes military and diplomatic angles, missing the lived experience that encyclopedias should capture.
• Fix: Add qualitative depth—e.g., quotes from displaced Ukrainians, details on Russification policies, or ICC case progress—to humanize the data-driven narrative.

---

Overall Critique

The article is a sprawling, ambitious attempt to document a complex, ongoing conflict, but it buckles under its own weight. It excels at compiling raw information—battles, sanctions, troop counts—but struggles to distill meaning, maintain neutrality, or balance scope. It’s more a first draft than a polished entry, overwhelmed by minutiae and lacking the synthesis needed to guide readers through a war that’s still unfolding. Its Western tilt and uneven depth further erode its credibility as a definitive resource.

To improve, it should:

• Streamline details into a coherent story of the war’s evolution.
• Broaden its lens to truly reflect global stakes and perspectives.
• Enhance clarity and sourcing to navigate the conflict’s murkiness.
• Deepen human elements to match the military focus.

As of February 21, 2025, it’s a snapshot of a moving target—informative but flawed. 78.3.92.198 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Soke of this is already death with "Putin espoused irredentist and imperialist views challenging Ukraine's legitimacy as a state, baselessly claimed that the Ukrainian government were neo-Nazis committing genocide against the Russian minority in the Donbas, and said that Russia's goal was to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine". Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This is difficult to fix because of the complexity of the subject and a lot of published misinformation. For example, #2 ("Russian rationales")... That was definitely not a threat of NATO, as the propaganda has claimed. The most common and simple explanation: that was just a grab of human, territorial and economic resources because Putin thought it will be easy. Another debated factor: the current political regime in Russia is intrinsically aggressive, and therefore will not stop. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Now ask the AI about what specifically should be changed to what, then re-run with the new article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a serious proposal for improvement, especially since it's lacking any reliable source. It appears to be one of twelve AI-created "analyses" that the IP address posted. The first one posted initially said "the Wikipedia-style article" before changing the wording to "this article". Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

sources

sources for this? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If you mean for the article as a whole, here are about 750 sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Is that 740 statements highlighting how Russia positively did carry out war crimes, and ten claims that the Ukraine might have carried them out? 2.30.22.166 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

750 sources for the article as a whole Placeholderer (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Bias toward Ukraine in "War Crimes" section.

The war crimes section on this article exclusively includes war crimes allegedly committed by the Russian forces, and presenting allegations as fact. I believe this is obviously biased, and we should reference Ukraines alleged War Crimes even if there are far fewer, and state Russian war crimes to be Alleged War Crimes, rather than just War Crimes. 2001:8003:3430:8100:9058:A600:5D7A:8A13 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind providing reliable sources that describe such war crimes, or allegations by notable people (e.g Putin)? Placeholderer (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

For one case I direct us to another wikipedia article.

Other sources on this specific torture of POWs include: Reuters, HRW.

A more general article is: Al Jazeera.

Kakhovka Dam: Reuters, BBC (Blame by both sides).

In Kursk: 9 News Australia.

From the Russian Government: Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office in Geneva (On Donbass Shellings.)

And for the Crimean Bridge: ABC Australia, PBS.

Hope this helps. 2001:8003:3430:8100:9058:A600:5D7A:8A13 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

This mostly belongs to another page, War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it is included there already. Here we should only provide a brief summary of the content from the main page. Yes, it could be updated using most recent publications, something published in 2024-2025, rather than 2022. And I would rather focus on proven facts here, rather than the highly questionable allegations by Putin. There are many proven facts noted on this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I think along those lines it would be appropriate to exclude the Budanov statement from this article (it's a pretty WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to include as an accusation). I do think it would be helpful to briefly (as is due) address the topic of Ukrainian war crimes, maybe mentioning that Russia accuses stuff but being clear the extent to which it's supported by independent sources.

For what it's worth I tried to clarify that the ICC probe was into violations committed in Ukraine, not just by Russia Placeholderer (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I will say that, of those accusations, the indiscriminate shelling and POW mistreatment would probably be the most appropriate to include, since civilian infrastructure attacks don't seem to be in the scope of the section (otherwise Russia's infrastructure attacks would be included). The Al Jazeera source is hard to use, since it's an opinion piece Placeholderer (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be false balance. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It would definitely be false balance to have the same amount of text as for Russian war crimes, but I think there's probably a way to fairly address the issue that isn't just not mentioning it Placeholderer (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The extremely few Ukrainian war crimes that there are, are already mentioned though. This is like complaining about there being no Jewish war crimes mentioned in the article about WW2. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Could you point me to where they're mentioned in this article? I don't see mentions in the POW or war crimes section here — but mistreatment of Russian POWs and etc. are definitely discussed in the war crimes article Placeholderer (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A brief summary (a few sentences at most) of Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian prisoners of war probably belongs in this article under #Prisoners of war, as this is where Russian mistreatment of Ukrainian POWs is mentioned. Care needs to be taken to avoid undue weight, though. Jr8825 • Talk 13:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not see false balance anywhere. 99% of RS are talking about the crimes by Russian forces, rather than by the Ukrainian ones. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

While relatively few Ukrainian war crime are highlight, is it not clear that there are is avalanche of back-to-back claims against the Russians? 2.30.22.148 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

When your war crimes can be seen from orbit they are not really "Alleged".©Geni (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, why are people wasting their time in attempting to get some degree of fairness or balance when it come to the war crimes section? For no matter how questionable the bloody images at a railway station might seem, Wikipedia point-blank refuses to admit that the photographs might have been staged. Perhaps to do so could highlight their anti-Russian POV? 2.30.22.166 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

1. "Wikipedia" isn't one monolithic voice; 2. If you would like to challenge the validity of the photos, please provide reliable sources that describe what you mean Placeholderer (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Then again, if Wikipedia would like to defend the validity of a dodgy-looking photo - why not provide reliable information about that image? 2.30.22.166 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on our image policy, but I think WP:FFD is the appropriate place if you have concerns about the encyclopedic usefulness of a file Placeholderer (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hold on I think that's not the place for this type of concern. Let me have a look... Placeholderer (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Having read through a bunch of arcane media policy and not finding helpful guidance I'm left with the impression that this is, in fact, the right place to discuss the factual reliability of images. Anyone with image knowledge: please correct me if I'm wrong!

I'd guess that the same conditions of WP:RS apply. If you're referring to the railway photo from this revision of the article (also being discussed below for reasons other than reliability), it's from the Ukrainian MoD, so if you want to challenge the factual reliability of the image you'd probably want to provide reliable sources that say the MoD posts fake/staged images.

I'll add that Wikipedia policy doesn't generally require all sources to be explicitly cleared as "reliable" by other sources in order to be used Placeholderer (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Some examples of sources saying the war or full scale war only started in 2022

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5153983-pence-denounces-trumps-claim-ukraine-started-war/

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/02/20/7499285/ 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D12F:E70A:5A9A:57A6 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2xngznyego TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not the best example for what you (and I) are trying to demonstrate, even though it contains lines such as three years on, the war has changed and the rhythm built up in three years of war goes on. In above discussions, when presented with quotes very similar to these, certain editors have made the case that such quotes do not necessarily imply that the war began three years ago. I imagine to convince this faction of editors, you'd need something more explicit like the war started three years ago. I do expect that many such quotes will enter publication within the coming hours and you can expect an RM shortly thereafter.

That said, the article you shared does demonstrate the inadequacy of the continuing to use the article title Russian invasion of Ukraine here, as reliable sources continue to diverge from the way we are using the word invasion on Wikipedia. Immediately after the first talks, held in Saudi Arabia, between Russia and the US since the 2022 invasion does imply that the "invasion" was distinctly a 2022 event; the word invasion is noticeably not used in that piece to describe any events after 2022. At a volunteer centre in Kyiv in the first days after the invasion would even imply that the "invasion" was a single one-time action that took place on 24 February 2022. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The language in the articles shared by the Canadian IP serves as an example of what I mean by explicitly identifying when exactly the war started:

his recent claim that Ukraine started the war with Russia, a conflict that has been ongoing for three years.

the statement on the third anniversary of the full-scale war

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-three-years-war-trump-hands-russian-economy-lifeline-2025-02-24/ 2001:56A:6FC1:3AC5:8069:BE1D:D370:99D6 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Close up photo of dead body

• 
  Existing photo
• 
  Suggested replacement

I recently replaced the photo illustrating the war crimes section as the existing one shows a close up photo of a dead body with blood trickling from an identifiable dead person. Citing WP:GRATUITOUS, I replaced the photo with one of the attack with the bodies removed, but the blood and personal effects still present, which is the photo used at the top of our article on the attack. My edit has been reverted TylerBurden, citing WP:NOTCENSORED.

I fully appreciate NOTCENSORED, and do not object to necessary offensive content, such as the photos of dead soldiers and civilians in the casualties section, as these photos are informative and likely the best available to illustrate the subject matter, or in cases such as the video of a man's death in Saigon Execution. However, per our policy on offensive material, we should not favour excessively offensive material over equally adequate material that is less offensive. The relevant parts of GRATUITOUS are:

• "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials."

• "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. Per the image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter."

In this case, we have an alternative photo that shows the attacks without violating the dignity of the dead individual. A close up photo of their corpse is unnecessary and does not have more encyclopedic value than an overview scene of the attack's aftermath. If the aim is additional shock value to convey the horrors of the attacks, then this is an inappropriate form of editorialisation. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I do go with Jr8825 that the need for an (easily) identifiable individual civilian casualty is prolematic. I do see the problem more in lines of privacy protection of/moral decency to the victim and his family than to gratuity though so I would for arguments against this photo more in Foundation:Resolution:Images of identifiable people. Perhaps a relevant moral dilemma question that might bring the morality of using this photo close to home would be whether you would be happy if a recognizable photo of a family member appears in the School shooting article. Arnoutf (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Even factoring in the need to be honest about the brutality of war the wider range of pictures on the page already covers that pretty well.©Geni (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's needlessly gratuitous. People die in wars, shocker. We don't need to see the blood and gore on the encyclopedia. It's not an issue of "censorship". A common misunderstanding is that WP:NOTCENSORED merely posits that offensive material may be permissible, not that it is always necessary or desirable. JDiala (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. I went ahead and changed the image. Feel free to change the description if you think the current one is lacking. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I am strongly against Wikipedia, meant to be an uncensored encyclopedia of knowledge, shying away from graphic content. This is quite clearly not an instance of using graphic imagery for the sake of it, as it is directly related to and showing the results of the section it accompanies, namely attacks on civilians. Why is it better to show an image of the scene after it has started being ″cleaned up″? That blood in the suggested replacement came from somewhere, so dancing around it by showing a later aftermath photo seems less valuable than actually showing what happened.

Now I am sure your suggestion is in good faith, and Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean you can't have human decency, but who are we as random Wikipedia editors to decide if the victim's family does not want the image displayed or not? Because that's what I'm guessing this is, assumption. They could just as easily be in support of it so that people can see the consequenses of such attacks. I'm not convinced (especially not by the version TurboSuperA+ took upon themselves to implement, which conveniently cut out the casualty toll that was added in your original edit) this change is for the better, even though your intentions are likely good. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There are five editors that think the image

should be changed. This is not the first time you went against editor consensus and I think WP:OWN might apply. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

So no actual arguments, just acting as if Wikipedia consensus is a WP:VOTE. I don't think your ″vote″ is as valuable as you seem to think it is, given all you do here is try to push Russian narratives supported by a broken understanding of Wikipedia policy, the same goes for JDiala, who is dropping comments like ″people die in wars, shocker.″, way to show how you're on the right side of morality for wanting to scrubb off the image from the article.

This is long standing content, and evidently I am not the only one who thinks the replacement is not an improvement, so I believe we need to have a stronger ″consensus″ than whatever this is. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

"all you do here is try to push Russian narratives"

Do you have evidence of this? And what is a "Russian narrative", exactly? Anything you disagree with?

The gore adds nothing to the article, it is meant to shock and elicit an emotional response rather than impart knowledge or give context to the text.

I would be OK with removing the picture altogether, because I am pretty sure that people reading wikipedia know what a dead civilian is and they don't need a picture to explain it to them.

Your behaviour is close to WP:SQS and WP:OWNERSHIP. I would also appreciate it if you stopped insulting me by implying I am "pushing narratives" instead of giving my own opinion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, try clicking on your contribution history, which is filled with policy violations, for example violating WP:DUE to insert your favorite NATO special forces in Ukraine theories and edit warring, removing referenced content about North Korea, etc. And that's just on this article, you're clearly a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. It's ironic that you say I WP:OWN the article, because as soon as anyone disagrees with you, you attack them and WP:BLUDGEON discussions to no end, which people can see by simply scrolling up to the RfC on support. I don't see how it is possible to discuss anything with someone who unironically makes arguments like ″people reading wikipedia know what a dead civilian is and they don't need a picture to explain it to them″. I guess we should get to work removing most images on Wikipedia then, since they include things that people know. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

None of that proves that I am "pushing Russian narratives." You didn't say what a "Russian narrative" is, either. Are you accusing me of being a paid actor or do you recognise that my contributions and opinions are my own? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything other than being WP:DISRUPTIVE (violating numerous policies and acting oblivious when called out on it) and WP:TENDENTIOUS (giving undue weight to NATO in Ukraine theories, attempting to remove content about North Korea, applying double standards based on content presented) which I believe you have demonstrated with great efficiency. This is the first time anyone brings up paid editing, so that's quite interesting that you pull that out of nowhere, not that it's the first time. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

"(violating numerous policies and acting oblivious when called out on it)"

Not true.

"giving undue weight to NATO in Ukraine theories"

Example?

"attempting to remove content about North Korea"

Not true. I tried to add content to the article, not remove it.

"applying double standards based on content presented"

Again, not true.

"This is the first time anyone brings up paid editing, so that's quite interesting that you pull that out of nowhere, not that it's the first time."

Implying it is just as egregious as saying it. All your ad hominems amount to a bunch of personal attacks. You're not engaging with the arguments in this topic, instead you choose to insult me, only because I disagree with you. You have been doing this for a while, writing threats on my Talk page and pinging administrators. I ask you, once again, to stop harassing me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 17:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Since there is no point in going in endless circles with you, especially not here, I will end this by simply providing the diffs so that your lies are on record.

Adding undue weight

Removing North Korea content

Removes North Korean content because ″no evidence″, ″evidence″ suddenly no longer matters when it comes to NATO special forces in Ukraine.

It is an interesting tactic to keep making blatantly false statements on a website where every single edit you make is recorded. Goodbye. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

None of that proves that I am "pushing a Russian narrative". Or have you forgotten about that since you throw around accusations hoping something sticks?

Adding a book source is not undue, you just don't like what it says.

You seem to disagree with my edits, but that doesn't make them wrong. I don't think there is a policy that says one must not disagree with TylerDurden. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: is it fair to say your opposition to my change is that you feel the replacement image is too sanitised? I chose it simply because the other article was using it. I believe the current image is unnecessarily (i.e. gratuitously) obscene and I'm sure we can find an alternative photo which still conveys the war crimes adequately. There is a whole category on Commons of civilian deaths that we can draw from.

Alternatives include:

• 
  Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, lower resolution
• 
  Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, blurred
• 
  Bucha mass grave
• 
  Bucha mass grave (2)
• 
  Bucha bodies
• 
  Bucha executions
• 
  Bucha civilian
• 
  Avdiivka market

Jr8825 • Talk 02:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Too sanitised no, I oppose because you yourself admit that the reason you want to change it because you consider it too graphic, and I disagree with the insinuation that it is included without justification. Graphic content should be justified yes, and in this case it is since it accompanies relevant content. We don't shy away from showing the horrors of war on other articles like World War II, Vietnam War etc, why should this one be any different? --TylerBurden (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not that I find it too graphic. I think it's "obscene", i.e. morally offensive and disagreeable (at least to most readers) to use a photo of this man's death to illustrate a broad section when other options exist. I don't believe the use of the photo in this context is encyclopedic. The photo labelled 'Bucha executions' above is a far better fit, for example, and it is also very graphic. Jr8825 • Talk 03:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

How is the picture not encyclopedic? It's easier to look at ″faceless″ bodies, that arguably makes them less impactful and encyclopedic. I think it would be morally offensive to keep using the image if people who actually knew the victim objected to it being displayed, like I said before this is going on assumption that could just as easily be incorrect as correct. This is Wikipedia editors taking offense on behalf of a person who is dead. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I may hold European moral values here, but with such a recognisable picture my point is that we need explicit statement there is no objection from next of kin before showing it, instead of assuming it is ok unless someone complains, which is the position you seem to take. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Very odd comment about what continent your ″moral values″ are attached to, please stick to the topic which is the image and the policies relating to it. I think your suggested approach is very unrealistic for an encyclopedia like this, the image has been on commons since April 2022 without issue. It is valid with or without the outrage of a handful of Wikipedia editors with no relation to the person depicted. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

What exactly are "European moral values"? As an Englishman, I would love to know. 2603:6080:21F0:7210:C125:1D13:123C:710D (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with TylerBurden that the existing picture is better as it provides more insight.Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

What insight does it provide? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

What is the exact additional insight provided by the easily recognisable face of the victim (the recognisability makes the image seriously problematic to me). Given the current timing of the war most next of kin and friends are probably alive (which makes it different from e.g. WWII). Nobody so far has given a reason for the additional insights provided by this recognisability. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• WP:IMGCONTENT tells us: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. MOS:IMAGEREL tells us Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative; each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose. ... Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate.

The section where the image under discussion appears is War crimes and attacks on civilians. The death of civilians in war is not ipso facto an attack on civilians. the Kramatorsk railway bombing (as it is described in the caption) is not necessarily an attack on civilians or a war crime. Railway infrastructure may be a reasonable military target and the death of civilians unfortunate but proportional. The section where the image appears makes no mention of the Kramatorsk railway bombing that would establish context, that the railway station was not a reasonable military target and/or that the action was not proportional. We as editors, with a knowledge of the subject might know this but the reader does not. This particular image does not satisfy the cited P&G in this case. It should therefore not be used here. This image appears to be more about coatracking the caption, which is not a reason for retaining it. We write the article (prose) in the readable prose. A image caption is not readable prose.

There are lots of images that might serve to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter ... [and] have a clear and unique illustrative purpose. Dead civilians, even lots of bodies in a grave, do not necessarily do this - it is common to use a mass grave in a war zone. A picture of a mass grave does not tell us how or why they came to be there. However, the image of those bound an killed (even if not of the greatest quality) illustrates something that is pretty clearly a crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

In my view most of the objections to the specific photo included is that it shows an easily recognisable face which may be very tough on people who know the victim and is hence (in my view) morally problematic. The additional insight or value of showing a recognisable individual is not justified by anyone so far. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and understand your rationale. I acknowledge the concern. Even so, if the image use here was consistent with the prevailing P&G, it might nonetheless be appropriate to use the image. However, its use in this case is not consistent with the prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Jr8825 • Talk 20:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Having also read the discussion above, I agree that the photo is a candidate for being replaced. My main rationales:

• First, WP:GRATUITOUS closes with the following: "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images." The mere fact that this image is graphic and describes a graphic topic does not alone merit its inclusion.
• Second, as other editors have noted, there is an identifiable face in the image. It is true that WP:BDP only applies to recent deaths, and we are now well outside of the period after which it ceases to apply. Nevertheless, the identifiability of a non-notable person needs to be weighed against the merits of other images that do not have the same concerns.
• Third, the image itself is not notable. Arguably, the Bucha massacre photos included above as examples are more notable; many networks carried those images at the time that the scale of the massacre was revealed. The non-notability of the image is evident, in my view, from the fact that it is not even included in the article about the train station attack itself.
• Finally, also as noted above, the image does not "increase readers' understanding" of the topic of war crimes, nor does it "have a clear and unique illustrative purpose" in its inclusion. A dead civilian after a military attack is tragic, but is not necessarily a war crime absent other factors. The Bucha massacre is widely understood to have been a war crime, and the example images above of civilians executed in basements or placed in mass graves does serve an illustrative and explanatory purpose.

--Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously, the images with bodies are a lot more telling and therefore more informative. No replacement, please. Such is death. WP is not censored. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  There are pictures of people without blood, brains and guts that would also illustrate death. Purpose of gore is to shock, not inform, therefore the image is inappropriate for wikipedia. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

That makes no sense, the purpose of graphic images is to inform readers on graphic realities, this is an article about an invasion in which thousands of civilians have been killed in reckless attacks. Your assumption is one of bad faith. It is just as easy to say that the purpose of replacing the image is to hide such realities, we now have a generic picture of body bags, aka an image of a situation after it has been cleaned up, rather than the direct consequences which would actually inform readers of what such a scene looks like. In other words, moral outrage on behalf of editors with no relation to victims of the invasion and censorship defeats information. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what extra information or context a picture of a dead body with its brain splattered on the pavement provides over a picture of a dead body? If the images are equally as informative, then the picture without gore should be used per WP:GRATUITOUS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:GRATUITOUS, "Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". Yes, it is exactly the purpose to use these images. Personally, I do not see such images as anything "offensive". Offensive for whom? For the perpetrators of the war crimes. Tragic - yes, certainly. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

How does a picture with someone's brains blow out increase readers' understanding more than an image of a dead body without the gore? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

One can not understand the effects of war without looking at such images and videos. Actually, something like Come and See is even more graphic, and informative. This is not just about people being killed. How exactly they have died is important. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

"One can not understand the effects of war without looking at such images and videos."

Are you saying readers won't understand people die in war unless there's a gory image for them to see?

"How exactly they have died is important"

An image of a person's head blown out doesn't give any clues or information in regards to how the person ended up like that. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I said something obvious. Consider the famous photo of Saigon Execution (the head blown out), for example. Such photos are extremely important for understanding the effects of war and many other things. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• A number of alternatives have been proposed that do show bodies (namely the Bucha images) but do not have the same issues as the image in question. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a reason to include graphic images; it is only a protection against excluding images for the sole reason that they are graphic. WP:GRATUITOUS guides editors on whether a graphic or shocking image ought to be included and makes clear that graphic images are not privileged over non-graphic images. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 16:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes, @TylerBurden: you are both against replacing the current image because you feel showing the dead body is more informative than the photo before the partial cleanup at Kramatorsk. What is your opinion on the alternative images I linked above showing the Bucha massacre? Specifically, the images labelled "Bucha mass grave" and "Bucha executions". These also show civilians who have been killed, as well as being from the most well documented Russian atrocity, so seem like a suitable fit for the war crimes section. Do you feel either of these (or any of the others I linked, or from the Commons) are an adequate replacement? Jr8825 • Talk 01:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a 7-3 split with (Jr8825, Arnoutf, JDiala, TurboSuperA+, Geni, Cinderella157 , Delta1989) for replacement and (Myverybestwishes, TylerBurden, Jeppiz) against. The no side isn't even bothering with trying to construct a convincing policy based argument, with their argument (frankly) boiling down to feelings and allegations of bias.

Consensus has been reached in this discussion. There is no need to entertain further filibustering. The edit has been implemented. JDiala (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a 7-3 split with (Jr8825, Arnoutf, JDiala, TurboSuperA+, Geni, Cinderella157 , Delta1989) for replacement and (Myverybestwishes, TylerBurden, Jeppiz) against

Consensus has been reached in this discussion
Contradicting statements.

But I would say Bucha crimes are the most notable for this invasion, so probably some photo representing those would be a better fit. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This has to be the worst attempt at a close I have ever seen, neither you nor Turbo have gained consensus for your uninformative replacements, and you are directly involved in the dispute. If a change is to be made, it should be to something that illustrates the section while staying relevant, such as Bucha which has been suggested by several other editors. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"neither you nor Turbo have gained consensus for your uninformative replacements"

Why are you mentioning me? I made no recent changes to the article. I have asked you repeatedly to stop accusing me of things. Please edit your comment. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Because you made a near identical edit, which JDiala is now claiming has consensus. Neither of you have consensus, even the other people that appear in favour of changing the image have made suggestions still actually showing the more immediate consequences of an attack on civilians, instead of an image of the scene after it has started being cleaned up with minimal context provided. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There is consensus that the current photo is not desirable. 7-3 is a consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. Involved editors can conclude non-RfC discussions. I'm happy to select a Bucha image instead, in fact I'd prefer that and will do that now. The main issue is that there seems to be some filibustering and WP:BLUDGEONING happening here, where we have one person (you) taking up disproportionate text space when in reality your position is a clear minority position. It is particularly egregious when said text space contains little in the way of policy arguments, mostly just accusations and insinuations towards other editors which are better suited for ANI/AE. JDiala (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

″Consensus does not require unanimity″, very convenient for you to cut out the part about WP:CONSENSUS that comes after, which is ″nor is it the result of a vote″. ″7-3 is a consensus″, that is a vote, and contrary to what you say, not one based on policy but on moral judgements and ″I don't like blood and guts on Wikipedia″. I guess it is only bludgeoning when someone argues against your viewpoint, otherwise you would be calling out the actual bludgeoning on this article talk page by TurboSuperA+. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a vote, but in practice the vote tallies do matter significantly. At some point, a decision needs to be made, and a handful of bludgeoning editors cannot bring the entire process to a halt. The pro-replacement side also clearly has the far more compelling policy-based arguments read e.g., Turbo, Delta, Cinderella's detailed rationales whereas the non-replacement side is pretty weak on that (just a vague and unconvincing insistence that a more bloody image is somehow more informative). JDiala (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll comment from experience that it's hard to not look bludgeony when giving a minority opinion.

I'll also comment that in terms of being strictly informative, there is a line to be drawn where not every image has to be a graph or map Placeholderer (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"Because you made a near identical edit,"

That was a week ago.

"the other people that appear in favour of changing the image have made suggestions still actually showing the more immediate consequences of an attack on civilians"

And I agreed that an image with bodies can be used. Your accusations are misplaced. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved: strong neither is appropriate. Some editors, including me, seem to feel that the recognizable face in the current image is just bad taste and not necessary. If the person or the cause of death was noteworthy it would be different but they look like just any victim (no disrespect meant). The replacement image is clearly sanitized. I think both images are clearly biased toward one position or the other.

Speaking of bias, I also noticed a posed image of four Ukrainian soldiers. Sammy D III (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Article size and recent edits

Initial discussion

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

My very best wishes recently added a bunch of ancillary prelude material which is better suited in the corresponding child article, not the main article. The main article size is too large (>19,000 words, far exceeding the limit suggested WP:ARTICLESIZE) so this should not be included in the main article. Note also that a number of editors e.g., Jr8825, Arkon are openly flouting WP:BRD by re-instating the edit without seeking consensus or attempting to engage with the point raised regarding article size. I won't continue the edit war at this time as a courtesy, but it should be noted that the other editors are in the wrong here per WP:ONUS; you need consensus for inclusion not exclusion. JDiala (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@JDiala The content appears to be a brief overview of Russian plans for the occupation of Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion, so seems important and relevant to this article. Jr8825 • Talk 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't addressing the article size issue. I would suggest reading WP:SS and WP:ARTICLESIZE. JDiala (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

From the article size link: Removing appropriate content, especially summary style, and/or reliably sourced and non-tangential information, from an article simply to reduce length without moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting, may require a consensus discussion on the talk page; see Wikipedia:Content removal § Reasons for acceptable reasons. The BRD threat is funny tho. You wholly missed out on the D. Arkon (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

One, there is no threat. The is a bizarre WP:ASPERSION. Second, WP:ONUS. The onus is on the one including content to start the discussion. Third, the quote you copied clearly proposes the alternative solution of "moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting" which I proposed both in this thread and in the edit summary. JDiala (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit.

1) What makes RUSI a good source for Russian plans?

2) "Captured documents" would need several WP:RS discussing them for WP:V, not just RUSI.

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. WP:DUE, WP:NODEADLINE are also relevant. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• That content was added previously by another user , but I summarized it more briefly. It is important to say about the plans by the Russian side for the war, i.e. what exactly they wanted to achieve. That was reliably published. Perhaps this material could be moved somewhere on this page, but this should be said. The size of an article is not a prohibition to improve the content. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not germane precisely who added it. It was added recently enough that WP:ONUS is applicable. JDiala (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Does WP:RECENT also apply? DN (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because you have deleted someone else's contribution and added a WP:whatever does not shield your edit from being reverted.YBSOne (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

As for the plans for occupation they do seem important for the reader to showcase the neo-totalitarian regime in action.YBSOne (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"to showcase the neo-totalitarian regime in action"

This isn't a place to push narratives, WP:SOAPBOX and it certainly isn't a place to push a viewpoint, WP:POVPUSH. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Regime that, by source, wants to exterminate political opposition is a neo-totalitarian regime. YBSOne (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on those wishing to add content to argue why it belongs in the article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Article is about an invasion and added content was about reasons and plans for said invasion and post-invasion so it is relevant to the article. Your combined effort is to remove any Russian wrong doing, even if it is sourced and confirmed. The less the better. Just like JDiala did here to name just one amongst many: Anna Politkovskaya.

According to OSW Russia is a neo-totalitarian regime. No pluralism, no democracy, only repressions. YBSOne (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"Article is about an invasion and added content was about reasons and plans for said invasion and post-invasion so it is relevant to the article."

These aren't facts though, but allegations by RUSI analysts. We also can't include everything, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

"The OSW's key tasks are funded from the state budget on the basis of an annual decision by the Polish Parliament."

They're not independent, and therefore exist to promote a certain view. In this case, that of the Polish government. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Reasons for invasion are notable and important. One of the reasons was to punish pro-democratic opposition ie eliminate them. YBSOne (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusions what they promote based only on their funding. OSW does not exist in a neo-totalitarian regime and therefore can be independent. As opposed to state-owned media in neo-totalitarian regimes like Belarus or Russia. YBSOne (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• We should say somewhere that the military operation and the occupation were planned by Russia/Putin in advance and what they have planned to do. That was widely published based on orders received by Russian military and FSB/police units and other info. This is not only by RUSI which is a great source on this subject. One can use publications by the Institute for the Study of War, for example. I do not see what is the problem with saying it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  I reverted your edit because there is no way to verify this supposed "plan" is real. The RUSI report states the following: "However, these judgements cannot be discussed in the report because the nature of the underlying sources for this data remains classified. For this reason, this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship and it does not use citations. Rather, it should be considered as testimony based on personal observations of the authors." and "The underlying source material for much of this report cannot yet be made public, this should be understood as testimony rather than as an academic study. Given the requirements for operational security, it is necessarily incomplete".

  Your edit uses WP:WEASEL words like "reportedly" without proper attribution. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  @TurboSuperA+ RUSI is a well respected, in fact leading, expert source on military affairs. It reflects a Western military establishment view, but bias does not mean unreliability. The fact that it explains that the origin of its information is confidential sources is evidence of its rigour, not its weaknesses... in an authoritarian regime, leaking incriminating evidence of planned abuses is obviously highly dangerous business.

  I think the content added is important to this article as I explained above, even if it would benefit from attribution. You've now edit-warred to revert 3 different editors who think it's important, citing various policies about process (inaccurately in my view) but not engaging with the substance of the content -- it feels a bit like "I just don't like it". Jr8825 • Talk 22:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please read my comment again. The authors of the report wrote themselves that it is not academic and it consists of opinions. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  If the source is notable and carries WEIGHT, even if it is an opinion, it might be worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article as long as it's properly attributed. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The WEIGHT here is actually very low as this has received scant attention from reliable secondary sources. JDiala (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the seeming lack of coverage, but who know whether it will get picked up by media in the US or Europe. Therefore, I think WP:RECENTISM might be a valid concern. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It's quite unlikely that it will get picked up. It's over two years old. JDiala (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Ha! I think that's a very good point. Granted, what's going on there is horrific, but as editors WP:RGW always applies. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• You are clearly WP:SYNTH that a classified source is the same as non-existent source. It is not. Read your own quote again and focus on underlying sources for this data remains classified and source material for much of this report cannot yet be made public. YBSOne (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  You should focus on: "this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship and it does not use citations. Rather, it should be considered as testimony based on personal observations of the authors." and "this should be understood as testimony rather than as an academic study."

  Not every opinion related to this war belongs in the article. Especially not one based on questionable evidence that has only been picked up by the Kyiv Post and Sky News, but has received no academic attention. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Stop manipulating and shortening the text to your desired section and don't SYNTH the meaning that isn't there: However, these judgements cannot be discussed in the report because the nature of the underlying sources for this data remains classified. For this reason, this report should not be considered a work of academic scholarship. Because they are secret for now they cannot cite and therefore issue this disclaimer. YBSOne (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  How can you accuse me of shortening and manipulating when it was me who posted both of the quotes? I only "shortened" it in my next comment because you want to focus on a single sentence while ignoring the rest. The authors write the report is not academic, but opinion and testimony. Why that is doesn't really matter.

  Perhaps you should read WP:SYNTH yourself, as you are making a judgment that the report is more than an opinion based on your view, ignoring what the authors of the report say. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  The onus is also on you to demonstrate reliability. Prima facie a Western think tank very closely linked to the Western military-industrial complex seems to be a lower quality source compared to say academic scholarship or non-partisan journalism, as there are usually serious conflicts of interest involved. If the material is to be included, it's probably important to attribute it and usual WP:DUE considerations apply. Importantly, it seems that these shocking war plan revelations somehow escaped reporting by reliable sources like NYT, AP, CNN etc. ... if so many reliable news orgs are ignoring this it's probably a sign that it is not that important, not that interesting or potentially just unreliable. This combined with article size considerations and WP:SS conventions where only critical information is included in the main article (when a correspondingchild article exists) gives a pretty clear case to exclude. Not seeing much in the way of engagement with my policy arguments here. JDiala (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  closely linked to the Western military-industrial complex can you prove it or just using talk pages as a forum for your anti-west propaganda? Remind us is this another democrat partisan article? YBSOne (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please stop treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, WP:BATTLE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please stop treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, WP:BATTLE YBSOne (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• "there is no way to verify..."??? It satisfy WP:V as something described in multiple RS. More importantly, no one ever disputed that Russian forces wanted to quickly seize Kyiv (they almost did it) and in fact established filtration camps. They did hunted and arrested former Ukrainian activists at the occupied territories. There is nothing questionable here. I do not understand why this is such a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I hope we are done with this disruptive edit warring. If not, the course should be clear to all involved. To clarify a point, this edit was reverted shortly after it was first added. Therefore, WP:VNOT/WP:ONUS do apply. There needs to be a consensus to re-add the material before it is re-added. Given this is contentious, a consensus needs to be clear and I would suggest it not be one unilatterally declared by one of the participants herein. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Fine, let's vote then. YBSOne (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's not how it works, WP:!VOTE, WP:NHC, WP:CONSENSUS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If I may jump in... to address the issue of article size I propose shortening the passage from:

The Russian plan for the war reportedly included seizing Kyiv and defeating Ukraine within ten days. After this, Russian troops would transition to "mopping-up" operations at the newly occupation authorities and their annexation. Filtration camps for Ukrainians were reportedly planned, and people involved in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity were to be put on trial and executed.. According to captured copies of orders issued to Russian units, all Ukrainians would be divided into four categories: those to be "liquidated", those "in need of suppression and intimidation", those to be encouraged to collaborate with Russia, and those whom Moscow had established as already being willing to collaborate.

to:

Russian war plans reportedly included defeating Ukraine within ten days; zachistka cleansing operations; establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians; and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity.

with option of a clearer attribution. I think a shorter passage would also help mitigate the concern about weight Placeholderer (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

There has to be clearer attribution since it is based on opinion. I don't know why this particular opinion needs to be added though, WP:DUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING especially since it wasn't covered much by WP:RS. Just because it is uploaded to the RUSI website is not enough. If we included every single opinion on the war, its supposed plans or desired outcomes, the article would be endless.

There is no evidence or WP:RS that corroborate the RUSI report, and the supposed plans were not carried out. I don't think the article needs to be laden with someone's "what if" scenarios, the article is about the war and how it happened, not n possibilities of how it could have happened. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree that the article doesn't need "what if"s, but a short summary of actual plans would be a step above that. As for being carried out, Kyiv was attacked, Bucha massacre was apparently considered zachistka and is in that article, and filtration camps were established & widely reported and have their own article. In the shorter version the only distinct claim is pretty much that those were planned (not very extraordinary) and the bit about executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity Placeholderer (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"a short summary of actual plans would be a step above that"

But they aren't actual (confirmed) plans, but opinions of analysts. I'd agree to the inclusion of the paragraph if the attribution said something like "According to analysts from the British think tank RUSI..." (or something to that effect).

Also, Sky News and Kyiv Post are reporting the claims made in the RUSI document, they aren't reporting on any alleged plans in that document since they haven't seen it (they are like tertiary sources who trust the secondary source implicitly). The authors of the RUSI document aren't reporting anything either, but stating their opinion. The paragraph should avoid wording like "reportedly" when talking about the plans:

For example, "Russian war plans reportedly included" should be written as "are claimed to have included" (or something to that effect).

I would like to say that I am willing to collaborate to find a compromise, but I find it difficult in this case. I won't fight the inclusion with attribution and I certainly won't be 1AM. However I ask that you reconsider if this is actually a good addition to the article in the context of WP:DUE. Ignoring sides and narratives, does this information add anything of real value, does it impart relevant knowledge to readers who wish to learn about the war? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ it's not an author's personal opinion, it's a report by several researchers and experts published by a highly regarded think thank on military intelligence. It does need attribution, however, as I acknowledged above, because it's not a neutral source (the researchers are linked to the Ukrainian and British military). Again, that doesn't mean it's propaganda or false – Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that follows established/respected sources; in-text attribution so our readers are aware of the source is the solution per WP:BIASED. The reason we reflect Western narratives more is a mixture of following sources with good reputations and common sense – academics and journalists inside Russia do not currently have much freedom. We need to work to avoid bias, but at the same time, we don't need to treat Russian state narratives equally (or at all, if they are only parroted by Russian politicians/media, and not in reliable sources), per WP:FALSEBALANCE and fringe.

I restored the text once because it wasn't clear to me at the time what the substance of objection was (article size isn't a good reason to remove content multiple editors believe is important), but I'm happy to get stuck in and workshop the text. I agree restoring the text isn't productive until we establish consensus. IIRC, I've read about these plans in other sources as well. I'll do some digging as more sources may help strengthen the weight argument for inclusion (although I personally think it's already met). It belongs in a high level summary about Russian approaches to areas it has occupied, so perhaps we can do some broader work here. The article as a whole needs to be gradually rewritten in the long term anyway to follow summary style. Jr8825 • Talk 17:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"it's not an author's personal opinion, it's a report by several researchers and experts published by a highly regarded think thank on military intelligence."

In the RUSI report they state that the report is not an academic work, but made up of opinions. I am not talking about bias, or Western narratives, I am saying that opinions should not be admitted as statement of facts but treated accordingly. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• "the supposed plans were not carried out". No, they have been actually carried out, as a matter of fact. That's the point. They did try to quickly seize Kyiv, exactly as was planned. They did conduct repressions against the civilian population at the occupied territories, exactly as was planned. No one ever disputed these facts. This is pretty much a non-controversial and widely published info. Is it significant enough to be included? I think yes, and based on the editing so far, most people agree with me except only two. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  "they have been actually carried out, as a matter of fact. That's the point."

  WP:OR. Do you have a source that says Russians carried out their plan (or attempted to) as laid out in the RUSI report? Saying there are similarities between what's in the report and what one has read somewhere else is WP:SYNTH. We need a WP:RS that connects the two. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

No, the inserted text in the article does not include any OR, and it does not say explicitly: "...and these plans have been accomplished". They did try to accomplish them as a matter of fact, but failed to take over Kyiv, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"it does say explicitly: "...and these plans have been accomplished""

Who says that? Which plans have been accomplished?

"They did try to accomplish them as a matter of fact, but failed to take over Kyiv, for example."

What you said there is WP:OR, we need a WP:RS to say that Russia attempted to carry out the plan laid out in the RUSI report. You can't say yourself "This thing Russia did is exactly the same as what they wrote in the RUSI report", that is by definition WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• As a note of order, JDiala claimed that I included this material in the beginning of the thread. This is not true. It was someone else . I only made a shorter compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion has been overcomplicating itself, so I've trimmed the passage to address article length concerns and added attribution. If anyone is unsatisfied with this version, let it be known! Placeholderer (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. Thanks for your efforts. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm only willing to compromise up to including claims along the lines of Russia planning on winning quickly, which is relevant and not disputed. I wouldn't even be opposed to including said claims without attribution since they are, again, not disputed. The more bombastic claims about "filtration camps" and "hit lists" however should be excluded as they are speculative and totally undue relative to their reporting by mainstream sources. JDiala (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Although Russia’s tangible goals in February 2022 were not explicit, analysis by Mykhaylo Zabrodskyi, Jack Watling, Oleksandr V. Danylyuk and Nick Reynolds, based partly on captured Russian papers, shows that much can be established. Russia aimed to swiftly establish full control over most of Ukraine, with the installation of a puppet regime in Kyiv together with “the coerced cooperation of regional governors and local authorities” in the occupied areas. and so on. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Russian plans are confirmed by many academic sources and should be included. Those who would like to "trim" this important and highlighted by many academic sources information should trim "Events" section instead.

Aiming for the advantage of surprise, Russia attacked Ukraine from the north, east and south, with wide- ranging objectives, such as capturing the capital and seizing major cities across these directions to occupy as much of the territory as possible within a short time. Within a few days, these objectives were revealed to be too broad for the Russian military to achieve. The inability to destroy expected military targets of C2 and recruit Ukrainian military leadership in the first few days as was done in the Crimean scenario was one of the many Russian miscalculations. Similarly, political leadership did not leave Ukraine but remained to defend and f ight for it. The Russia-Ukraine War - Google Books

Russia’s goal of capturing the city of Kyiv within two to three days was as ambitious as it was fanciful. Russian soldiers were is sued with parade uniforms to hold a victory parade on the Khresh chatyk, Kyiv’s main thoroughfare, resembling that of the Nazi pa rade in conquered Paris in 1940. The plan to quickly capture Kyiv was based on Russian intelligence ignoring three factors and a fourth because of a reliance on biased sources. Fascism and Genocide - Google Books

Rather than embark on a more costly direct assault on the city, Russia’s strategy to achieve a regime change in Kyiv hinged on encircling the capital, fomenting chaos through acts of sabotage, and reinforcing ties with pro-Kremlin politicians who could take power in Ukraine. Putin's War on Ukraine - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

We're not talking about the general fact that Russian planned on winning quickly, which is not disputed, we're specifically talking about the more bombastic RUSI claims. JDiala (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think you can call portion of the source "bombastic" and just remove what you disagree with? While you already have established a clear pro-Russian bias in your edits, you should no longer edit such contentious topics, again may I add. YBSOne (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Explanations have been given repeatedly. WP:DUE requires coverage balanced relative to reporting by reliable sources. The idea that Russia wanted to win the war quickly is reported by many reliable sources. The idea that Russia wanted to execute and throw into concentration camp Ukrainians for sport following a quick victory is a rather bombastic claim made by only RUSI, a think tank which as discussed above is biased, and which lacks significant breadth in coverage from other sources. The lack of coverage here is deeply concerning. Further as Turbo has pointed out the anonymous and apparently speculative nature of the sourcing here raises more eyebrows. As for me and my alleged bias, well you're the one soapboxing on this thread as has been pointed out to you, so really a pot calling the kettle black here. JDiala (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It's less WP:EXTRAORDINARY to have a historical claim that something was about to happen if that thing did in fact happen Placeholderer (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

(with the actual happening being covered substantially enough to, in the case of filtration camps, have its own article) Placeholderer (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed this when Placeholderer linked it above. There are additional sources that demonstrate weight there, such as a UN press release demanding an investigation about reports, an i investigation and coverage in the BBC and Guardian, among others. Jr8825 • Talk 00:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The timing is absolutely key here. If I told you that the US developed a camp to detain Arabs it suspected of terrorism during the War on Terror, that would be true. It's Guantanamo Bay. It I told you that the US planned this out prior to 9/11, that would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY. JDiala (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a false comparison because 9/11 wasn't planned by the US Placeholderer (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The point is that conduct happening during a war is different from preplanning something before the war, which is the issue at hand here. Making that logical leap is very SYNTH-y. JDiala (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean to say they're equivalent, I mean to say it's less extraordinary to suggest something was planned if that thing happened Placeholderer (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Compromise attempt 1

There may be more to follow, but perhaps we can start with . Should it be included? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Having read the discussion, I see no reason not to Placeholderer (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to jump ahead and ask if anyone other than JDiala is opposed to this version, having addressed the initial issues of length and attribution Placeholderer (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be , to which I guess TurboSuperA+ may object? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

They said "I'm OK with it" Placeholderer (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's OK with the proper attribution. I still have WP:DUE concerns, but I don't think it's worth having endless debates about. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I had overlooked this. JDiala, are you aware of any other user than yourself (if you are) who might be opposed to this addition? And if you oppose it, would you mind summarizing the reasons in one or two sentences? Trying to get an overview. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of claims amounting to that Russia thought they would win the war quickly, and support the exclusion of RUSI claims regarding so-called "filtration camps" and "hit lists" in the event of said victory, this due to WP:DUE concerns. I have discussed this here and here and in the edit diff you linked.

I will concede that my position is a minority position, at least currently, and I am the only one with this view. Everyone else appears supportive of inclusion of all the claims provided attribution is provided, which is a proposed compromise. At the same time, per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, it is not just a vote and the arguments do matter. I do not believe anyone has properly engaged with my concerns on the DUE-ness of this rather obscure material in this already very bloated article. JDiala (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Funny, now it's not a vote. I suggest that unless you can give a very good reason for your snarky WP:ONUS violation here, the content (which was restored broken formatting and all) is removed asap as it is an obvious violation of WP:DUE, an actual Wikipedia policy and not a guideline that doesn't even say what you claim it says. It is especially interesting that you have spent the last few days here immediately following your edit complaining about ONUS violations, article length and saying content should be in child articles. If this ″rules for thee but not for me″ behaviour isn't WP:TENDENTIOUS I don't know what is. I can imagine that in whatever media it is that you consume, coverage of these alleged Ukrainian war crimes are more widespread than the actually recorded Russian crimes, but that is not the case in WP:RS, so this content is clearly undue and should be removed or replaced with content that actually belongs here on the main article. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought you would mention the voting thing. See, here's the difference. I actually have policy arguments. You do not, either in this thread or the other one. You did not have policy arguments in the other thread, just a nonsensical claim that viewing bloody dead bodies somehow makes the encyclopedia more informative, mixed with a bunch of personal attacks directed towards me and Turbo. It's not the same thing. There is no equivalence between editors who edit responsibly per policy and editors like yourself and YBSone who use talk pages to attack others and promote their political agenda. I mean, just take an honest look at this thread. Half of it is your friend YBSone soapboxing about how evil Russia is. This is not serious editing. There is no equivalence.

On your other claim that my edit of the image is an ONUS violation, that is also false! Because that discussion had run its course. It was ~10 days since it started and the consensus was manifestly clear. You are allowed to add in disputed changes after discussion regarding said changes ends up with a clear consensus. JDiala (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@JDiala Since you are either not reading posts properly or do not understand WP:ONUS and WP:DUE, I will make it very simple for you. Explain how this edit is #1 not a violation of WP:ONUS (restoring content after it has been disputed on valid grounds) and #2 WP:DUE (including Ukrainian mistreatment of Russian POW's while excluding the widely more covered Russian mistreatment of Ukrainian POW's in a section about war crimes). Since you are apparently such a Wikilawyer now, this should be easy for you. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's not due to mention a report of plans for well-documented stuff Placeholderer (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't "well-documented". It is basically a think tank opinion piece. I'd suggest reading WP:DUE in more detail because it's quite clear you don't understand it. The point is to represent views in proportion to their prevalence in WP:RS. Obscure think tank claims which have not been validated or even reported on by mainstream journalists are quite undue. JDiala (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect (haha), I'll just copy/paste what I said elsewhere: "As for being carried out, Kyiv was attacked, Bucha massacre was apparently considered zachistka[24] and is in that article, and filtration camps were established & widely reported and have their own article. In the shorter version the only distinct claim is pretty much that those were planned (not very extraordinary) and the bit about executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" Placeholderer (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@JDiala, I'd like to focus on discussing the sourcing for 1) filtration camps and 2) arrest lists, as you argue here and above that content summarising these is not adequately supported in reliable sources.

To begin with, RUSI is not obscure. It is linked to the British military establishment, so it may not be impartial, but it is a well established and notable source. You say above that RUSI's report has "escaped reporting by reliable sources like NYT, AP, CNN". According to Google Scholar, the 2023 report linked and discussed below (which details filtration camps, lists of Ukrainians, arrests and torture) has been cited 42 times since it was published in March 2023. Manyareasexpert quoted a book published by Taylor & Francis in the discussion above that directly referred to the RUSI report, and the AP investigation I mention in the next paragraph also quotes Jack Watling (an author of both the 2022 & 2023 reports) and RUSI. The evidence seems to indicate this report is well cited and influential.

Secondly, you say that "bombastic claims about "filtration camps" and "hit lists" ... should be excluded as they are speculative and totally undue relative to their reporting by mainstream sources". I think we have shown this isn't the case, and that the sourcing extends well beyond the RUSI report: another editor pointed out we have a well sourced article on filtration camps, and I've picked out a number of notable sources from that article in this diff. I also picked out some of the sources the 2023 RUSI report cites below, which includes an AP investigation into arrest lists.

Please could you take a look at the sources I've linked, and let me know what your thoughts are? Do you agree with my analysis, and if not, what is it you disagree with? Jr8825 • Talk 03:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Jr8825, I appreciate your detailed reply and willingness to respond to the substantive issues. I will address your claims, but before I do so I'd like to briefly highlight precisely what it is that I am opposed to including. According to the Royal United Services Institute, Russian war plans included ... establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity is the edit I most recently reverted.

For context, the Revolution of Dignity involved an estimated 400,000–800,000 protestors. The least charitable (but nevertheless very plausible) interpretation of the quoted sentence would suggest that Russia intended to execute all of these protestors. This would be a genocide. The quoted sentence above therefore would indicate to the reader that Russia literally pre-planned a Nazi-like genocide against the Ukrainian people. This connection would be further entrenched in the reader's mind with the reference to "camps", immediately conjuring images of Hitler's extermination camps.

This is a wildly strong claim. True, even today there are allegations that Russia is attempting a genocide in Ukraine, but such claims remain highly contentious and legalistic and even the most radical such claims do not allege that Russia is or plans to execute close to a million civilians.

The position that I hold is that the inclusion of content even hinting at this requires exceptional evidence. This is supported by our policy e.g., WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I do not believe that the source provided meets this standard of exceptionality. 40-50 citations is not that impressive; these are typical numbers for average academic papers. I can find papers claiming Ivermectin treats COVID with 50 citations, it doesn't mean much for the DUE-ness. The citations in this case are also from no-name journals. Also, a citation is not necessarily an endorsement of everything in the paper per se. I brought up higher-quality sourcess like AP/NYT and the like, because the quality of the source matters. I think it's reasonable to assume that if there was indeed compelling evidence of such a genocidal plan, the highest tier of reliable sources like AP/NYT would report on it.

One compromise I am willing to consider would be as follows. Replace "executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" with "executing political opponents." The genocidal connotation here is a bit less strong and bombastic.

That being said, I must say that this comment will be my last here. It's obvious that this issue has caused a great deal of disruption to the article, and I am also in the minority here. I'll let the rest of the community decide on the appropriate outcome at this point. JDiala (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll respect your decision to step back from the article if you wish, but I'd add that although this descended into disruptive edit warring, being a minority of one is not always a bad thing if it encourages scrutiny of sources. I disagree with your argument about the content being an extraordinary claim (if you'd like to continue discussing that, I'm happy to explain why), but your objection to "executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" led me to examine the RUSI reports more closely to see whether they explicitly say this. The 2022 report does (page 22), but the updated 2023 report doesn't quite; it again mentions the existence of a top category of "those deemed leaders of Ukrainian nationalism who were specified for physical liquidation on a high-priority target list, or for capture to enable show trials" but it doesn't directly mention Euromaidan in that context (as the 2022 report does) -- although it does mention plans to "hunt down" leaders of the Revolution of Dignity on page 18. Either way, the text is clear that not everyone involved in Euromaidan was a target for execution/trial, only those deemed ringleaders. The AP article on arrest lists does not mention the Revolution of Dignity either. So I agree that your suggestion "executing political opponents" would be an improvement over the original text unless more sources are found, or perhaps a clarification about leading figures is added. Jr8825 • Talk 05:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I will say that I didn't read through the source before trimming the passage, as I meant to straightforwardly crop what previous editors had said. However, the relevant passage from the 2022 report is "For [people on Russian hit list], the FSB had conducted wargames with detachments of the Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) to conduct kill-or-capture missions. In many cases, the purpose of capture was to put individuals involved in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity (often referred to as the Maidan Revolution) on trial to be executed". However^2, I do think "trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" as included isn't a faithful paraphrase of that, and so I support rephrasing along the lines of plans including "a hit list of Ukrainians to kill" or some more elegant phrasing. One point is that the report doesn't specify "political opponents" Placeholderer (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I do agree that the proposed edits make extra-ordinary claims. The RUSI report appears to be based on information provided by the Ukrainian armed forces, while the AP analysis is based on UK/US intelligence. The militaries of UK, US and Ukraine are not exactly WP:INDEPENDENT sources. While I think the information should be included, I also think our wording should reflect the source of this information.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

So the current state seems to be "clear consensus for the addition of and one-against-multiple-others for ". I'm aware this is not a vote. I'll have another look before the protection ends. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a follow-up to that RUSI paper where they actually provide confirmation for those plans - Preliminary Lessons from Russia’s Unconventional Operations During the Russo-Ukrainian War, February 2022–February 2023 | Royal United Services Institute ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The relevant section is pp 20-27. Page 21 talks about plans for occupation based on categorisation of high priority individuals. Pages 22-24 talk about the actual operation of Russia's occupation in the areas it seized, including arrests, torture and filtration camps. The report includes inline citations, largely to confidential interviews with Russian and Ukrainian officials. However, page 21 citations include an AP investigation about lists of Ukrainians to be arrested, page 22 cites various news reports about torture chambers (we have a separate article on this) and page 24 cites news reports about arrests of mayors and a New Yorker investigation on filtration camps. Jr8825 • Talk 00:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd add that the sourcing appears adequately extensive that at least some of the added content, e.g. filtration camps and the existence of arrests lists, may not need attribution once we have reviewed the range of sources. Jr8825 • Talk 00:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

So far this discussion has invoked WP:ARTICLESIZE, WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:SS, WP:ASPERSION, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:DUE, WP:NODEADLINE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POVPUSH, WP:WEASEL, WP:BIAS, WP:IDLI, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM, WP:RGW, WP:SYNTH, WP:BATTLE, WP:VNOT, WP:!VOTE, WP:NHC, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:OR, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Duplicates from different redirects notwithstanding, I propose we add on WP:SNOW and go with this near-unanimous-support version[32] Placeholderer (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Following a constructive point, I no longer think this[32] is the best proposed phrasing Placeholderer (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Since my earlier comment, I have more closely considered the points of this discussion. In considering VNOT, material should be added in a way that presents a coherent narrative and not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. The subject text would be added to the section Putin's invasion announcement. The section is telling us about Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine. It would read as follows (noting some discussion that would amend the exact wording).

"Putin said he had no plans to occupy Ukraine. According to the Royal United Services Institute, Russian war plans included defeating Ukraine within 10 days; zachistka cleansing operations; establishing filtration camps for Ukrainians; and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity. The invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech."

The argument for adding the material is to show that there was a plan to invade and that, in saying he had "no plans", he was lying. It is the existence of the plan and not the details of the plan that are pertinent to showing that he was lying. It might be better written as:

"Putin said he had no plans to occupy Ukraine. However, according to the Royal United Services Institute, there were Russian war plans for the subjugation of Ukraine. The invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech."

This then focusses on the rationale for citing the source without adding detail that disrupts the narrative (as much). The details of the plan are a footnote to the fact that the plan existed. The detals could be added as a footnote. However, the fact that [t]he invasion began within minutes of Putin's speech ipso facto means there was a plan. Afterall, 100,000 Russian troops didn't just spontaneously assemble at the border and commence to invade. The lie is self-evident by virtue of the action. Making it explicit is redundant. Interjecting this into this section disrupts the continuity of the narrative. If this material were to have a place in this section (by this or another name), it would need to be substantially rewritten such that the material became a coherent part of the narrative.

Some comments here are that we should tell the reader what the Russian plan was. An appropriate place for this would be a section about the Russian invasion plan. This is not uncommon (see Operation Barbarossa#Axis invasion plans as an example). Unfortunately, while such a section could be written, it does not presently exist. Furthermore there is a concern that an opinion as to what the Russian plan was, does not mean that this was the Russian plan. Evidence after the fact does not mean that what happened was a plan made before the fact - post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Filtration camps is mentioned in the section Prisoners of war and such a plan would intrinsically constitute war crimes, for which there is also a section. It is possible that the plan might reasonable be incorporated into these sections of the article.

In short, I do not see that it is appropriate to incorporate the disputed text into Putin's invasion announcement but it might be reasonable to incoperate it into the article elsewhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The subject text would be added to the section Putin's invasion announcement
What if we would not concentrate on this particular section name, for the reason being that academic works really pay little attention to this particular detail.
The possible solution would be to just rename the section to something like
An appropriate place for this would be a section about the Russian invasion plan. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The issue/s I have identified have nothing to do with what the particular section is called but what is written in that section and where it is proposed to add the text. In a section about the Russian invasion plan, Putin's announcement is not about the plan but the start of its execution. It would not be coherent. It is not just a case of delete one name and insert another. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• I am fine with the compromise version by Placeholder or something similar. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  I also second the Placeholderer's proposed phrasing. YBSOne (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  I would now implement this if Placeholderer hadn't retracted their support 05:40 above. What now? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  I propose replacing "and trying and executing people involved in the Revolution of Dignity" with "and capturing or killing Ukrainians on a hit list" to (imo) more faithfully paraphrase source. But I'm not opposed to the other version being used as a placeholder ;) Placeholderer (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much! The compromise version is now live (Special:Diff/1277522736) and I guess My very best wishes and Ybsone can agree and implement that change if it's uncontroversial. I'm out with this, I think it doesn't need moderation or administration at this point anymore. Some may argue it never did, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Trying and executing? Or "trialling" and executing, putting to trial and executing? YBSOne (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Trial" is a noun, not a verb. In English, when someone is on trial, they are being tried. ToBeFree wrote it correctly. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• I would propose something like this: "Information originating from intelligence of Ukraine, US and UK, which was later analyzed by RUSI and AP, indicated that Russia planned to..." Or, "RUSI and AP stated that Russia planned to...based on information they received from the intelligence agencies of Ukraine, US and UK." Or some other wording. But its important we say where RUSI and AP got their information from.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Is the United States' response to the Georgia war WP:DUE for this article?

I removed a mention of an opinion to the US response to the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, but this removal was reverted. Given the already very long article length (far exceeding standards set in WP:ARTICLESIZE), and the non-relevance of this particular material (as I mentioned in my initial edit summary "why is the reaction by a third, uninvolved country in a separate war over a decade prior to the current one so relevant to mention in this article?"), and general WP:DUE concerns, I think this is an obvious edit.

From my perspective, it's obvious that this is being maintained for pro-Ukraine bias reasons. America is the 21st-century Chamberlain, apparently, and we need to make that clear. Note that some editors are WP:STONEWALLING to maintain a pro-Ukraine bias. It's getting increasingly clear at this point where even routine edits which go against the pro-Ukraine status quo are reflexively reverted with pretty dubious policy rationale. Nevertheless, I will keep it professional and follow WP:BRD. JDiala (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Why Georgia war is mentioned, at all? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have to engage with the points others are raising, with reference to WP policy, rather than comment with these strange rhetorical questions. You have a history of doing this. JDiala (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

That pattern of behavior is called Sealioning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

You expressed your opinion that this addition is not relevant. No proof was provided to support this opinion, and there is a reliable source discussing the subject and, contrary to your opinion, mentioning the issue. Answering the question above, we may have another proof. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no engagement with the argument provided. I don't know if this is an English-as-a-second-language issue, but regardless this is not an excuse for stonewalling. JDiala (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Another thing I may suggest instead that sources do mention Georgia and Ukraine's April 2008 supposed NATO plans, damaged with the August war, which this article could more elaborate on. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I will also ask what relevance does this have, do RS make a direct link or is this in fact wp:or ? Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

First of all, who is "The West"? And why does "The West" need to have a response to every conflict on this planet? It is not necessary to add this information, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Furthermore, the sentence is written as a fact when it is a claim made by someone and it is added in without proper attribution. Why is that person's opinion relevant? WP:DUE

And as JDiala mentioned, WP:ARTICLESIZE. The article is already massive, adding things with dubious relevance only makes the article longer without adding to its usefulness. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit is the answer to the question of why it's relevant. I've added another source and wiki-linked the West . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an obvious WP:POVPUSH. Taras Kuzio works at the University of Kyiv, and Stefan Jajecznyk-Kelman was a participant in the 2014 revolution. The cited book also didn't get any significant WP:RS coverage, it is only listed in libraries and book stores. Again, you're writing their claims as facts, WP:WIKIVOICE. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Aren't we have 3 sources now reporting the same viewpoint? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I slightly edited the passage and tagged the unattributed quote. I don't mean that edit to be an endorsement of keeping nor removing the passage Placeholderer (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what answer the article should give to the question on by whom the US "was accused of appeasement and naivete". D'Anieri is not elaborating on those. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Didn't know for sure if the quote was directly from D'Anieri. Added attribution required "for all quotations, anywhere in article space" Placeholderer (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not see this addition as an improvement, as is. At best, I think it requires an attribution and a more explicit explanation as to what this has to do with the invasion, but I'm leaning towards UNDUE. Cheers DN (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Which addition you mean? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This one that was only added in the last few weeks. I'm unaware if there was a consensus to add the paragraph on the Russo-Georgian War to the Background section, which notably goes past 2014 all the way to 2008. Where is the explicit connection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Is there anything specific other than Putin likely having a Napoleon complex? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Where is the explicit connection to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
The West's weak response in 2008—and later in 2014—contributed to Russia's assessment of Western warnings against 2022 invasion as not serious,[37][38] and, according to political scientist Samuel Ramani, encouraged further Russian aggression.[39]

This one that was only added in the last few weeks
I see it was in the article in January at least. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this part you mention is more appropriate, but do you know if there was consensus to add? Thanks for the correction on the timeline. Feel free to share the diff if you have it handy. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that the quoted text (The West's weak response in 2008 ...) makes the significance/relevance much clearer whereas the present paragraph does not. If we are to retain a reference to the Russia-Georgia war the paragraph needs to be rewritten, though the response to 2014 Ukraine is probably sufficient. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)