Talk:War in Donbas

Was it paramilitaries or not entirely?

In the lead, it says it was started solely by paramilitary. Some early Russian backed fighters can be described as paramilitary. But the forces involved were never purely paramilitary and calling them that alone is misleading. Paramilitary implies no organised state involvement. That's not true in this case. Individuals like Igor Girkin were Russian military intelligence officers and arguably not paramilitary. There were state linked actors present at the start. So it is initially a hybrid model of local uprising and Russian state support. Tho Russia denies it, I think it's safer to say Russian-backed fighters which indicates state support without asserting direct state command. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

If the war is subsumed…

Then the war is ongoing… So it didn’t end in 2022. Because if it did end in 2022 it has become apparent that Russia is the victor in this “subsumed” section of the conflict (as Wikipedia dictates it be organized). Perhaps a swift edit is in order?(or several) ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Petition to merge the Russo-ukrainian war article with this one, if the war is in fact “subsumed”. Alternatively, we can edit the “status” section of the conflict to indicate the fact that Russia is winning as it was stated earlier in the article itself that, “Ukraine was unable to fully recapture the land” ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

lit. “Ukraine's military launched an operation against them, but failed to fully retake the territory.” ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a phase of the broader Russo-Ukrainian war. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The phase ended in 2022. The war didn't, but this specific phase did. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The article says the conflict is “subsumed” but also that it ended in 2022. Thank you for acknowledging that there is a hypocritical stance on this article! ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that the 'War in Donbas' is a phase of the wider war and that was what ended when when it was subsumed by the wider russian invasion in 2022—blindlynx 17:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If it’s ended then why does it say “subsumed”? It’s a pretty simple question no one here seems to have the answer to… ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The phase ended when the conflict was subsumed by the full scale invasion. I'm not sure what the problem here is. —blindlynx 01:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Subsumed means it’s continuing (aka NOT OVER), … how am I the only one that understands this as a contradiction when it clearly is one? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Subsumed means to be absorbed into. It was absorbed into the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 03:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Then that means it didn’t end in 2022 and the status needs to be updated. It’s either one or the other. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, if this is a conflict that resulted in the subsumption of the larger “Russo Ukrainian war” then the two pages should be merged, because currently it reads as it is subsumed yet “ended in 2022”. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if I eat a pizza slice, the pizza's existence is ongoing, and I am winning the war against the pizza. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 03:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If you have one cheese pizza and one pepperoni pizza and the pepperoni pizza is missing 2 slices, the cheese pizza would be the one with the most pizza out of the two, no? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

with your logic, we should merge The eastern front with WW2. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 00:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying the eastern front was a different war entirely? Wow ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

So, you understand English well enough to understand a pizza analogy but not enough to understand basic assertions? Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 19:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

So, you fail to understand why I created a thread about an article that claims something could be subsumed if it also ended in 2022? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2026

There's a spelling error in that following sentence: "This pahse ended when the war was subsumed by the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022". It's "phase", not "pahse". StarshineRosalina (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Done ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 07:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Storming of the buildings on April 6, 2014

Maybe also interesting: The storming of the buildings on April 6, 2014, in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv was coordinated by Russia.

While the buildings in administrative capitals were indeed seized and controlled mainly by the locals, the simultaneous seizure of the buildings in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv on April 6 and the following proclamation of separatist republics there was directed and coordinated from Russia. One of separatist leaders from Kharkiv, Sergei Yudaev, describes in his memoirs how he met with Russian representatives in Crimea and learned from them about the planned storming of government offices in Donetsk and Luhansk. The operation in Kharkiv, planned by Russian ‘curators’ for that same day, had, according to Yudaev, to distract the Ukrainian authorities from concentrating their resources on liberating the buildings in Donbas.

--Jo1971 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot log in to Academia for some reason, but your conclsuion seems to contradict the author's takeaways

“

1. Russia's military actions from 2014 to 2023 focused on seizing key cities in Donbas, reflecting strategic continuity.
2. Two major books argue for local agency over Russian influence in the Donbas conflict's origins, emphasizing internal factors.
3. Aratyunyan highlights local grievances and agency, suggesting that initial separatist actions lacked Kremlin orchestration.
4. Arel and Driscoll assert that a civil war model explains Donbas' conflict emergence, with Russia as a secondary actor.
5. Evidence indicates that Russia significantly influenced the conflict's initiation and early developments, contradicting claims of local primacy.

”

He paints a much more nuanced picture. Also, it seems like Yudayev wrote his memoirs in Ukrainian prison so perhaps we should take his account with a grain of salt. Alaexis_¿question? 19:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That "takeaway" was written by AI, not the author. The quote Jo1971 gave saying that "the simultaneous seizure of the buildings in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv on April 6 and the following proclamation of separatist republics there was directed and coordinated from Russia" is from the actual paper. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I cannot see how that contradicts the quote above. He basically writes the same in his book.

Just like Vasiliev, Yudaev from Kharkiv made three trips to Crimea in March and April for meetings with Aksionov’s representatives. He also met Aksionov’s advisor from Moscow, most likely Aleksandr Borodai, who consulted him on the proper course of action in Kharkiv. From him Yudaev learned about the planned operation on April 6, when activists in Donetsk and Luhansk would simultaneously seize government buildings. But it also became clear to Yudaev that Moscow prioritized Donetsk and Luhansk over Kharkiv.

And this is not the only evidence.

A final piece of evidence of the Russian state’s involvement in the events in Donetsk is Viacheslav Ponomarov’s (2014) account of the temporary seizure of the Donetsk SBU building on April 6–7. Ponomarov, who claims to be a key organizer of the Donetsk SBU seizure, openly admits that he visited annexed Crimea for consultations at an unspecified time between mid-March and April 6. This is in line with the account of an anonymous Crimean militiaman with the nom-de-guerre Trifon, who also says that Ponomarov came to Crimea in the second half of March and asked for support. Trifon was a member of an armed group that would come to the Donbas and take control of towns north of Donetsk on April 12–14.

--Jo1971 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've managed to download it. The thrust of the review is

“ Despite the book’s strengths, the absence of Russia’s agency from their causal narrative (and from the initial two stages of their game-theoretic model) ultimately leaves their story woefully incomplete. Throughout the book the authors claim that they “could not find convincing evidence” of Russia’s role in starting anti-Kyiv protests in March. They even assert that, outside Sloviansk, Russian agents did not initiate any other assaults on “sites of state power.” While Aratyunyan merely questions the extent to which Russian agents, like Girkin or Borodai, acted on behalf of the Russian state, Arel and Driscoll seem to largely dismiss them all together. ”

WP:DUE is the relevant policy here. We should give more weight to these two books written by experts and published by reputable published rather than to this review. Alaexis_¿question? 15:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The other books are also written by experts and Oxford University Press and Ibidem Press are also reputable publishers. --Jo1971 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

References