Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

Attack on hospitals

https://www.firstpost.com/world/ukraine-hospitals-generate-master-plan-to-save-newborns-from-russian-military-11756941.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-ukrainian-hospital-newborns-receive-28670609

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-63588749

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63727260 Rambo XTerminator (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2022 (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. What specific text are you requesting be added and where? Cannolis (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Article naming in 2023

Has there been any discussion yet about the name of this article when it's 2023? As we are now in the final month of the year, and most certainly the war continuing into the new year, what will we be naming this article?

I think because of this, there will have to be a separate Russian Invasion article detailing the early events during winter in February/March, and everything after to be Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present) (or War in Ukraine (2022-present). WR 12:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Russian Invasion is seen my many editors as part of the Russo-Ukraine War article; the 2022 Russian Invasion article is presently in the middle of a consolidation phase which seems a little different than its origins as an Invasion as 2023 approaches. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The conflict since February 24 can be divided into several different phases. A number of sources theorize that there is a slower tempo during the wet fall season, but that it’s likely to heat up when the ground freezes, and/or when a portion of the Russian mobiks finish military training (while others suppose the Russian will keep sending them in piecemeal), or in springtime. On the other hand, Ukrainians continue pressure in the northeast and are conducting an op in the Kinburn Peninsula, Russians keep pounding at Bakhmut, and Ukrainians are likely conducting shaping operations for the next phase now that their artillery has increased its reach into Zaporizhzhia oblast.
I haven’t seen any source saying it “is presently in the middle of a consolidation phase.” What does that mean? When did it start?  —Michael Z. 16:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The Russo-Ukrainian War is in its ninth year. This view reflects consensus in reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 16:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
You know, when 2022 is over we can just create war in Ukraine 2023. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The annexation phase, if everyone has not noticed, has pretty much signaled what appears to have been a halt to further Russian expansion into Ukraine. To continue statements made throughout the international press since the annexation, then the annexation signals Putin's effective creation of a land bridge from Russia to Crimea which, if consolidated, would represent a substantial gain in his 'special military operations' against Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Wasn’t Russia’s last significant advance (not “expansion”) the occupation of Lyman at the end of May? They’ve been pounding at Bakhmut since August, and continue to do so now.
The Azov coast was occupied in June, after the occupation of the ruins of Mariupol, but there is still no “effective land bridge”: there is a single-track railway line that’s in range of not only Ukraine’s GMLRS but regular howitzers. Main resupply must come through Crimea, which is why the damage to the Crimean bridge was key.
I don’t know what you mean by “continuing statements” and “consolidating.”  —Michael Z. 04:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Russian forces’ withdrawals actually started in March with their defeat at the Battle of Kyiv. The Kharkiv oblast rout was in September, and the liberation of Kherson in November. I believe they may have lost control of more territory in Ukraine than they still occupy. So to say that their advances have halted only recently does not accurately reflect reality. —Michael Z. 16:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The annexation of the 4 oblasts seems to be a definitive move by Putin; he does not appear to want to return them and seems as tenacious to keep them as with Crimea 7 years ago. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
you mean the “annexation” of territories Russia can’t keep because it never managed to take and is actually losing in Kherson, undermining its own occupation of Crimea by making it one among the partially occupied claimed territories? It’s definitively a self-defeating and idiotic move made out of desperation.  —Michael Z. 15:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It will remain the invasion of February 24, 2022. I don’t think it needs to be renamed. But if it must, then how about 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine?  —Michael Z. 04:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree here on the renaming issue with Michael; the other option might be to call it something like the Annexation of the 4 oblasts. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if any change is needed as well but 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine is probably the most reasonable one. BogLogs (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm personally more of a proponent of a move to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–2023), but whichever title is chosen, it's definitely a good idea to plan for this ahead of time. XTheBedrockX (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the reasoning behind this? At this point 9 months into the war, it can't be an "invasion" anymore, the invasion is already gone past and this is the longer war phase. Read the first lines of Invasion: An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity, generally with the objective of either: conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. --WR 14:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure it remains an invasion. Russia just forcibly conscripted another 300,000 plus to aggressively enter Ukraine with the aim of conquest. It continues bombing civilian infrastructure to force surrender and extend its illegal influence.  —Michael Z. 15:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree, but let's see what the general consensus here is. --WR 18:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Re: argument that “9 months ≠ invasion,” while it’s true that many articles titled invasion of represent events lasting only days or weeks, there are exceptions:
 —Michael Z. 18:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The guidance for article names is to use the WP:COMMONNAME as determined by usage in sources. We may only choose another name when the sources give us no guidance on how an article should be named. WP reports history, it doesn't create the history. That the invasion spills over into 2023 does not ipso facto change how the event is known nor does it give us licence to change the name because we believe that we can make-up a better name. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well the article title needs to distinguish this nine-month phase of the eight-year war in the entire context of history, according to the WP:CRITERIA. Few sources have that requirement, so they refer to “the Russo-Ukrainian war,” “the war in Ukraine” or whatever. So it’s not that simple.  —Michael Z. 15:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In light of that I think the same applies to this article: a separate "invasion phase" article of the early days of the war followed by an article of everything that followed. --WR 14:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You want to write a new article to change a title you disagree with? Naming tail wagging encyclopedia dog.  —Michael Z. 15:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not as simple as me disagreeing with the title, logically speaking it must change when the date rolls into 2023. I propose a split with the invasion events to stay here, and the rest to go into another a new page War in Ukraine (2022-present). As for Russo-Ukrainian War, there are plenty of examples of "wars within wars" that could guide us, see for instance the 1982 Lebanon War (i.e. Israeli invasion) within the Lebanese Civil War. Another proposal could be moving the current Russo-Ukrainian War article to Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-2022), and the rest to the latest "phase" to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present). --WR 18:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you articulate the rationale for a split according to the criteria at WP:SPLIT? What would be the scope of the two new articles? Even if this makes sense, I believe there would still have to be a main article covering the conflict since February 24, with a title that we can agree on.  —Michael Z. 18:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't researched the titles of comparable articles, but it makes sense to me at least that Russia invaded in 2022. We are now in the aftermath/consequences of that invasion. I have an open mind on the subject of splits, but I do think it is important to maintain perspective and in some main article explain the relationships between 2014, the Frozen War, and 2022. Elinruby (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders

Left to right: Aleksandr Dvornikov (Commander of Field Operations), Sergey Shoigu (Defense Minister) and Alexander Zhuravlyov (previous Commander of Field Operations, reassigned under Dvornikov after 8 April 2022)

I think that on both sides it should include the commanders of forces, such as on the Russian side it should include Sergei Shoigu (Minister of Defence), Valery Gerasimov (Chief of the General Staff), and Sergey Surovikin (Commander of Forces in Ukraine), and on the Ukrainian side it should include Oleksii Reznikov (Minister of Defence, Valerii Zaluzhnyi (Commander-in-Chief of Armed Forces), Serhiy Shaptala (Chief of the General Staff), and Serhiy Nayev (Commander, Joint Forces Command). As well it possibly should mention other people mentioned in the article of the Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. -CIN I&II (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, entries in the infobox should summarise key points in the article and consequently an entry should be supported by more than a passing mention that would show that a commander's role was key. The present entries reflect this. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed.
Per {{Infobox military conflict}}, the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted.
This article is not about the eight-year war, but a campaign larger in scope than a battle. Its military leaders are prominent and have been covered by multiple feature articles in the context of the conflict. They should at least be identified. If they have not yet been mentioned in this article, then they are a good example of key specialised information [that] is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.  —Michael Z. 15:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently, Shoigu, Surovikin, and Zaluzhnyi are mentioned in the article. Gerasimov, Reznikov, and Syrskyi can also be listed in the infobox for balance and completeness.  —Michael Z. 15:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Adding all 6 of them might require adding the Ukrainian counterparts as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I listed three of each there. —Michael Z. 17:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The last time I tried to get a multi-image of the three top Russian commanders into the article, then the Talk page reaction was not very responsive a few months ago. If the transition in the special military operations is now towards Russian occupation being solidified, then it seems like the major military action is nearly at a close and moving into a consolidation phase for the Russians. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The reason why I had specifically specified each of them there was to list a still somewhat small but still semi comprehensive list for the highest up people for this specific case, especially since it could get both them and their counterparts in each nation. The main reason for it is that the article states "commanders and leaders" within the infobox but then can be odd to a reader when it only states concerning the two heads of state of each nation, when it is very different for other nations. -CIN I&II (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I understood it that way, and I think it’s a good proposal. I would add Surovikin’s predecessors too. —Michael Z. 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I think that adding Zhidko and Dvornikov would be a good idea as well, since the commander of Russian Forces in Ukraine has changed during this invasion specifically. CIN I&II (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
If they have not been mentioned then they should not be included. This is not a case of key specialised information [that] is difficult to integrate into the body text. It does not conform to the spirit or intent of the exception the guidance would create nor the examples given. The key roles of Putin and Zelenskyy are evidenced by the article. If the roles of others are similarly key, there is no good reason (particularly given the number of contributors here) that they too could not be integrated into the article in a way that would evidence that their role has been key. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to write the article in the infobox and that an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
It totally is key specialized information and does conform to the spirit and intent of the guideline. You’re right, there is no reason they could not be integrated (except possibly length), but they haven’t been so far.  —Michael Z. 03:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE notes specific exceptions to a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text as ISO codes and the parameters (physical properties) used for chemicals. In the latter case, such properties are by their nature usually presented in tabulated form. This exception would apply to data in general that is normally tabulated. ISO codes in the language template are again, a specific piece of "data" that probably would not otherwise be written into prose but everything else in that template should be summarised from the article. Commanders do not meet with the spirit and intent of the guidance. In agreeing that there is no reason why they could not be integrated into the article is inherently an acknowledgement that they do not fall to being an exception. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Hm, no. It doesn’t say that.
In fact, commanders are exactly that kind of data: some of them may be difficult to integrate because there’s not much to say about, e.g., Shaptala and Nayev who no one’s ever heard of, but a table of commanders on either side is integral to the subject, and that’s exactly why the infobox has commander1 and commander2 fields literally intended to create a table of commanders. —Michael Z. 06:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Hm, what exactly doesn't say what? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It gives examples but doesn’t explain in detail any of what you’ve inferred from it, about “tabulated data,” &c.  —Michael Z. 21:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
One only needs to look at articles on chemicals to realise that most of the information that appears in the infobox of a chemical is numerical and would normally be presented in tabulated form. It would therefore not be reasonable to have two duplicate tables in an article. If one looks at the nature of each exception, with a mind turned to why are these exceptions it is not too difficult to grasp the reasons as I have explained. The guidance is making a distinction between specialised information (such as ISO codes) and general information in an infobox. Commanders and leaders are not specialised but general information. Information about commanders and leaders should be integrated into an article and thereby establish which commanders have been key or significant to a battle or war. To say that it would be difficult to integrate some that you would include because there’s not much to say about [them] is a self-defeating argument - there is not much that would show that they are key or significant. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
That a lot of dancing around the language. Sure, a chemical compound has a list of possible specialized data points, meaning they only apply in the field of chemistry. And so the respective infobox has spaces for them.
In exactly the same way, a military conflict has a list of data points specialized to military history. TO&Es, chains of command, casualties, etcetera. The infobox has spaces for them, literally including fields for commanderN. This is specialized in that it would not, for example, be appropriate an article about a chemical.
The docs say to enter “the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted.” This article is in between a battle and a war: it’s about a major phase of a war. It’s nowhere near seven names and currently lists no military commanders. It is a glaring omission.  —Michael Z. 16:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
[M]ost of the information that appears in the infobox of a chemical is numerical and would normally be presented in tabulated form. It would therefore not be reasonable to have two duplicate tables in an article. If there is any dancing around the language, it is an attempt to claim that commanders are somehow specialist (and not general information) that would fall to the same type of exception at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Template:Infobox military conflict states that these fields are optional. It does not mandate that these fields must be filled to any extent nor does it override the superior guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. And incidentally, both presidents are the supreme (ie ultimate) commanders of their respective militaries. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE we don't write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
But neither is military, and one of them does not meddle in his military’s activities.  —Michael Z. 14:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The guideline is not specific only to chemicals. The passage you quoted there is not defining specialized. It is merely an example.
You claim to have unique insight on the meaning of the infobox guideline: “exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox.”
Specialized means it only applies to the subject. Like physical properties for chemistry. Or like a full roster of top command staff for a military conflict. That is all.
But if you insist specialized is defined by “information that is difficult to integrate into the body text,” then the top officers that are not mentioned in the text are directly and literally that.  —Michael Z. 14:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Leaders/commanders is not a term/concept specialised to military conflicts but applies in many other societal contexts outside the military. In articles on military conflicts, it is generally quite reasonable to write an article such that it is evident from the body of the article that certain leaders/commanders were key or significant to the conflict. You appear to opine that in this particular case (not military conflicts generally), for whatever reason, it is too hard to write this article in such a way and that consequently makes this information specialised so that its inclusion can be supported as an exception to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However, such information is not generally considered specialised such that it cannot be written into military conflict articles generally. The case fails since it relies not only on this being an exception to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE but an exception to military conflicts generally. Therefore, it is not meeting the spirit and intent of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE generally or the exceptions it would make and, in consequence, such a case would appear to fall to WP:PETTIFOGGING. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I think you are wikilawyering by creating your own non-consensus interpretation of the guideline that you foxiest first mentioned here, to prevent perfectly normal and reasonable information from being placed in the infobox. Several of these commanders and leaders have seen broad coverage in direct relationship to this conflict and ought not be omitted.  —Michael Z. 16:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
And I don’t know of any infobox from a different subject area that has specialized “commander” field. Do you?  —Michael Z. 16:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The statement is now: Several of these commanders and leaders have seen broad coverage in direct relationship to this conflict and ought not be omitted. If the article can be improved, then it should be improve and then the infobox can be changed when it reflects the body of the article. But if you insist specialized is defined by “information that is difficult to integrate into the body text,” then the top officers that are not mentioned in the text are directly and literally that. This is a circular definition and a fallacy of definition. Arguments that rely on logical fallacies are characteristic of a WP:PETTIFOGGING case. Foxiest - what do you mean? Given your comments, there appears to be only one course and that is to seek comment from the broader community on what is an exception to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE in this context. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Are you stating that you are opposed to Michael asking to include Shoigu and Dvornikov to the Infobox; both of them are mentioned in the current article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
You *first mentioned. Spellcheck turned a typo into “foxiest.”  —Michael Z. 16:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Also the title for that section of the infobox is "Commanders and leaders". It is a little strange to list only the two national leaders when prominent military commanders are well known and easily added for readers background information. BogLogs (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Sergey Surovikin was appointed as commander of the Russian invasion in October 2022.

For one, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, AFU C-in-C since July 2021, is notable, purely because of his role in this article’s subject. Time called him one of the world’s 100 most influential in the world and put him on the cover. There are several prominent articles about him, based on his military success in this conflict.[2][3][4][5]

The article currently is not organized either to the main military commanders or the Order of battle, though it does follow the Invasion based on its three Phases, now moving into what appears to be its consolidation phase. Shoigu is mentioned 3 times in the article as a whole and 5 times in the Bibliographic references. Dvornikov is mentioned as the new field commander for Phase two though he is eventually displaced. That's the only mention I've found of the commanders; this Invasion article was not written in a form which would highlight the field commanders by preferential treatment of some kind. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Of course it’s not organized “to the commanders,” because it’s a history of the invasion. That’s why mention of them is spotty, and needs to be filled out.
In fact, never mind the infobox: the article needs a “Commanders” section. The fact that the Russians started without a supreme commander is critical information, for example.  —Michael Z. 16:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Should the multi-image be included in this article? Or should the article be left predominantly as Putin's War and Zelenskyy's Defenses. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
A multi-image would enhance the article, but I wouldn’t use just portraits of leaders.
But that’s an insightful question, the way it’s phrased. Putin’s charismatic, personality-based political leadership and military meddling has de-emphasized the role of soldiers, except when blame needs to be assigned. In contrast, Ukraine’s democratic information space gives due credit to professional and volunteer personnel at all levels.
Our infobox contents should not reinforce the Putinist propaganda view by wilfully omitting the military commanders that are normally present in articles about military conflicts.  —Michael Z. 16:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, if we don't want to reinforce the Putinist propaganda, write it into the article. The fundamental advice at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is not to write the article in the infobox. Of course it’s not organized “to the commanders,” because it’s a history of the invasion. Other articles that are the history of a battle or like can still be written to show how/why commanders were key or significant to the event. If this truly is a problem, then fix the article - first. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images is the guidance on choosing images. Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context ... They are often an important illustrative aid [emphasis added] to understanding. In other words, images supplement content on a particular matter. They are not a substitute for content. If there is no content about the commanders and leaders imaged, then there is no relevance established through content. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the article as it is written now, then Phase two placed Dvornikov fully center stage as taking over the Invasion from Shoigu at central command; he is later displaced during the third phase of the invasion. That's how the article currently presents the Russian commanders issue in its current format. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me try this again, User:Cinderella157. You seem to believe the military commanders would belong in the infobox if they’re mentioned in the article. Okay, the following are mentioned in the text of the article, some several times:

So most of these belong in the infobox, right? Well, that’s fine, but it would be unbalanced with another Russian politician and peanut gallery of Russian generals, but only one Ukrainian. Lopsided coverage. So we should add in the other side’s counterparts too, to fill in the subject-specific roster of of military commanders and leaders, no? —Michael Z. 22:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What I have actually said is: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, entries in the infobox should summarise key points in the article and consequently an entry should be supported by more than a passing mention that would show that a commander's role was key. To that statement, you responded: Agreed. For those listed, I see for some near identical statements at different places in the body. Such unnecessary duplication should be remedied and certainly does not count toward establishing significance. Talking head mentions probably don't count either. While it would be best to address any proposition on a case-by-case basis, a cursory examination suggests that only Dvornikov as a clear possibility. Rather than simply adding couterparts for the appearance of balance we should concentrate on the article. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an article should remain complete with the infobox ignored. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I support sticking to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE as laid out by Cinderella157. Bondegezou (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Would it be useful to simplify this general inquiry to the specific question of whether Shoigu should be mentioned next to Putin, and Zelenskyy's Defense minister next to his name. Does adding one name in each column provide a workable solution? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
It seems inadequate to add more politicians and omit all military commanders, including those mentioned in the article.
As far as I can tell, the “infobox purpose” argument is self-contradictory, amounting to military commanders shouldn’t be listed in the infobox articles on military conflicts in which the main subject is not the military commanders.  —Michael Z. 17:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That would be a gross misrepresentation of the guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and how it has been stated to apply to this discussion: ... entries in the infobox should summarise key points in the article and consequently an entry should be supported by more than a passing mention that would show that a commander's role was key. This WP:P&G does not prevent commanders/leaders from being added to the infobox but places a caveat on when it is appropriate to do so. There is nothing self-contradictory in what has actually been said. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand how it would not be relevant to include the military commanders who have lead large amounts of forces in Ukraine in this specific invasion within the infobox. Genuinely I am entirely unable to see how that could possibly not be relevant. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE very clearly states that the infobox as well should summarise the text of the article, which this summarises the chain of command putting it within the infobox, I don't see how it is possibly against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. - User:CIN I&II (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
CIN I&II, I am not voicing a view on its relevance. I am not saying it can't be in the article. You are correct when you say: WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE very clearly states that the infobox as well should summarise the text of the article. Therein lies the crux. If it is not in the body of the article, then you can't summarise something from the body that doesn't exist there into the infobox. My view then draws on the documentation, which refers to key or significant commanders and leaders. The body of the article should show that they are key or significant and by more than a passing comment that they simply exist. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
It summarises part of the entire point of the article, if the article on WWII didn't mention Hitler in it he still would be a commander or leader, the infobox is meant to summarise the article which is speaking of the article and the purpose of the article, as well earlier you had gone against adding those who are mentioned in the article, so I dearly do not understand at all what you are arguing, the only thing that I can actually piece together from your argument is that it shouldn't be in it. As well I would say especially that the heads of the entire Ukraine area from the Russian side would qualify as commanders and leaders, especially as well the other people mentioned. They very much are key and significant to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine CIN I&II (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict

Please comment at the subject RfC.

Are you posting an RFC which is asking for editors of Lady Gaga's songs in Media, for example, to comment about including military commanders in an invasion article Infobox? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
If consensus can not be reached after multiple good faith attempts between editors an RfC is the way to go. All editors are welcome to support the building of wikipedia wether they focus on pages like this or even Korean pop bands. BogLogs (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
That is not an RFC about this article and its content in the infobox. It is an RFC about an obscure interpretation of one point in a separate guideline, to feed into a poorly formed argument to prevent us from agreeing about the content. If there is no consensus on this question, then there should be an RFC on this question here.  —Michael Z. 17:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Summary of views

For the question of whether to list some military commanders in the infobox, this is what I glean from the discussion above to date. Please feel free correct the list if I got your position wrong. —Michael Z. 17:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You can add me as a “no” too, as per my comments above. Bondegezou (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks correct though I did want to say that still that these kinds of things aren't votes if I remember the discussion on the move request for the page Charles III. - CIN I&II (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree, but the discussion is long and I was starting to lose track of who was saying what.  —Michael Z. 18:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion is long, yes! I think the key point I take from the Manual of Style on infoboxes is that we should focus on getting the article content right. The infobox content should then be easy, as it summarises what is in the article. If you think the relevant commanders and leaders are not covered well, fix that in the main article body. Once you've done that, any necessary changes in the infobox will be trivial. Having long discussions about the infobox are often a sign that the article body is not getting the appropriate attention. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Are you or anyone in this discussion going to add any of these military commander images into the article with an appropriate caption? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The comment by Bondegezou pretty much goes to the question of images in much the same way. The purpose of an image is to support particular text (a caption is not part of the readable prose but serves to establish a link between an image and the text it supports). Images are a supplement to text, not a substitute. If there is no text to support or supplement, there is no case for the addition of a particular image per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Fix the main article body. Once you've done that, any additional images in support of the text will be trivial. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
What is “fix”? Seven military leaders are mentioned in the body. Yet you oppose listing them in the infobox. How ought it be fixed to satisfy you?  —Michael Z. 15:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I see above you said Dvornikov is “a clear possibility” to list in the infobox. What exactly does that mean? We should add one former theatre commander is acceptable to you or not? You think it’s suitable to include a spotty list of effectively random individuals? Or you think we must fully outline the role in this conflict of every single one before any can be listed?
I think either possibility is an overly narrow interpretation and overly literal application of the infobox guideline that constitutes a refusal to add key points about the subject, directly contradicting its intent and the spirit of common sense.  —Michael Z. 15:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
If CIN, Bogslogs and Michael are serious about this, then shouldn't one of you at least try to add Dvorkikov's image somewhere in the Phase two section of the article where his name is already prominently mentioned. It seems that Cinderella would need to see the Dvornikov material augmented, at least by adding such an image, before allowing the Infobox issue to be settled. Can someone add his image in the Phase two section? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
While I would want to 100% do that, I don't have the ability to since the page is protected, I cannot edit the main article about it all. -CIN I&II (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Reduce archive size?

I saw that the talk page archive size was made to 800k when the talk page was very active. However, it seems to have mostly died down, and there isn't the sheer volume to justify massive archives. RPI2026F1 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Reduced the max archive size down to 400k. Hopefully, this makes navigating newer archives easier. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

DLNR are not belligerent parties

The DLNR “people’s republics” have never been independent belligerents. A court in The Hague has found that “from mid-May 2014 onwards, the Russian Federation furthermore had a decisive influence on appointments in senior positions within the DPR and was involved in coordinating military actions as well as in performing military actions on Ukrainian territory. . . . the situation from mid-May 2014 onwards was one in which the Russian Federation exercised overall control over the DPR.”[6] Our own article on Russian people's militias in Ukraine says their illegal armed groups have been under command of Russian officers since 2015. In the military organization, they have been the 1st Army Corps (DNR) and 2nd Army Corps (LNR), subordinated to the Russian 8th Combined Arms Army.

The status of these militias is similar to that of Wagner Group mercenaries or Chechen Kadyrovites, but with less political autonomy as they are directly subordinated to the Russian Ground Forces under Shoigu and Putin.

Since the September 30 “annexation,” Russia and its people’s republics no longer offer any pretence of independence, sovereignty, or autonomy, and their militias are being integrated into Russian Armed Forces.

Leaving “Donetsk People's Republic” and “Luhansk People's Republic” under “Belligerents” along with Russia and Belarus is misleading and non-WP:neutral point of view. They should either be:

  1. Removed from the infobox, as not a sovereign party to the conflict, or
  2. Changed to DPR People's Militia and LPR People's Militia, as the now-unambiguously Russian military formations are formally called, and moved from “Belligerents” to “Units involved.” [updated]

 —Michael Z. 17:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if they were not independent, they indeed fought, it doesn't matter if they were controlled or not by Russia (indeed i agree that they were Russian-sponsored), they were still insurgents and belligerents, someone also apparently put them under Russia and with a note that they were annexed, that's enough for now, as for the subordination part, it may indeed be true that their army is mainly under Russian control (although there exists some independent groups like Russian imperial movement, cossacks, etc), but like i said, they were already put under Russia in the infobox. SnoopyBird (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Even in Russia, the militias’ status is the same as the 3rd Army Corps (Russia), or its subordinate volunteer battalions that were raised from particular Russian regions. They belong in the infobox under Units involved, (“the units or formations involved”), not Belligerents (“the countries whose forces took part in the conflict” per the docs for {{Infobox military conflict}}).
Your examples, RIM, Cossack units, are also units or formations, not countries.  —Michael Z. 19:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Yet again, i know, their army is under Russian control, but they were indeed an insurgent group that actively fought Ukraine, so no real reason to remove it, also, i never said that RIM or Cossacks are countries, but i said that they are independent formations of the DPR and LPR armies. SnoopyBird (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
DLNR aren’t countries.
Neither their militias, nor RIM, nor Russian Cossacks are independent, but all Russian-controlled. Those are reasons to remove them from “Belligerents,” because they aren’t belligerents, but “Units involved.”  —Michael Z. 00:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree, DPR and LPR aren't really countries, they are insurgents and terrorists, but de facto they are (or were as they were annexed by Russia) proto-countries of some sort (to some extent), they had a government, recognition, permanent population, etc.
Also, their militias, while probably controlled by Russia, did have some degree of autonomy, especially RIM, mercenaries (like Wagner, Rusich, etc) and the Cossacks (they werent officially included under the command of the "people's militias" of donbas, so, to that extent, they also werent really part of the Russian-controlled forces in the region), if we are going to go by that definition, then we might as well do the same to several other articles that list insurgent groups and terrorists as belligerants, "units involved" is for individual units, not for proto-countries/insurgents/terrorists (basically what DPR and LPR are).
SnoopyBird (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, this is an article about an international conflict between two states, with involvement of a third, Belarus. The main belligerents are states, and “state-like entities” might belong in this category if they were some kind of independent actors. Right?
But the Russian Armed Forces, Armed Forces of Ukraine, DNR People’s Militia and LNR People’s Militia, RIM, Russian registered Cossack units, pro-Russian Cossack units, etcetera, are not parties to the conflict. Militaries, paramilitaries, militias, mercenary organizations, and their constituent formations and units, all are subordinate to some political power or acting for some power’s goals. If they are to be shown in the infobox, they would belong in the “Units” box. Okay?
If the DLNR are to be treated as quasi-states (not bronze-age proto-states), then they should be explicitly qualified “before October 2022.” Agree?
But they are not, and never were. They never had a defined territory (funny: now Russia doesn’t). They were deemed under the overall control of Russia by a court of law, which means Russia as a state is responsible for their war crimes. The “annexation” (humiliating Syria and North Korea by nullifying their “recognition”) shows that they were always the Kremlin’s Potemkin states.  —Michael Z. 01:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Jesus, you are misinterpreting everything i said, this discussion is pointless at this point, WP:SNOW stuff, nobody will accept this, because it has already been agreed before. SnoopyBird (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
SnoopyBird: Heightened feeling on this Talk page can be taken in stride. I'm assuming that the break away regions might need some special editing in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I agree that while the "separatist" governments may initially have been exactly that, and their leadership was local, this has not been the case since well before the invasion, and is very far from SNOW. The military units in particular are commanded by Russians. I am confident that this can be sourced, if anyone actually disputes it. I am not advocating a particular remedy, but they should not be treated as separate countries. That is what the entire war is about. Elinruby (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The initial political and military leadership from May to August 2014 were sent from Russia: Alexander Borodai, Igor Girkin, and others. These two have personally said it was a Russian effort. When the military mission to take “New Russia” with only covert Russian forces failed, they were ordered back to Moscow and replaced with Ukrainian figureheads.  —Michael Z. 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Primary purpose seems to have shifted somewhat to the issue of the annexation of all four oblasts; at this point all four seem relevant to Russian military operations. (See the previous discussion on this Talk page with User:Entropy from November). ErnestKrause (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Are you implying that Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts should be added as belligerents in the infobox? Indeed they have similar status in Russia as partly occupied “annexed” territories. However it is the DNR 1st Army Corps and LNR 2nd Army Corps that are now units of Russian forces, and are fighting in all parts of the occupied territories. There is no sovereign entity there.
Do you mean @Entropyandvodka? They wrote a lot above. What of it is relevant?  —Michael Z. 19:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Other opinions are that Putin is a megalomanic bent on restoring the borders of the former USSR. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Overrepresentation of non-Russian minorities in RF forces

Quick question: is there already an article or article section about the current invasion dedicated to the alleged overrepresentation of non-Russian minorities in RF forces? This is widely claimed in RS, with some saying it's a deliberate strategy by the Kremlin to get rid of "ethnic minorities" such as Buryats to make the country more ethnically Russian. I can't find am article or section about it though. Am I missing something or should we write it? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian mobilization#Implementation has a sentence on it. Juxlos (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Are there any numbers about this in terms of the number of soldiers? How many troops in the Russian forces are ethnic and how many non-ethnic? Are there any reliable sources you are using? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Juxlos that may be a good place to add more information, yes, but the overrepresentation of minority soldiers was already reported well before the September mobilisation began.
@ErnestKrause There are plenty RS making such claims of recruitment efforts focusing on minority groups since the beginning of the invasion in February 2022, and especially when the mobilisation began in September 2022 that mostly men from minorities were targeted. But there is virtually nothing in the way of official figures (those provided by the RF government on virtually any matter have been suspect by experts ever since the invasion began), and estimates by outside observers are difficult to make and verify. Sometimes experts or politicians draw conclusions (which may or may not be accurate) from these estimates.
Here is an early, pre-mobilisation example from The Guardian, "Coffins in Buryatia: Ukraine invasion takes toll on Russia’s remote regions" (30 March 2022):
[Funerals] as well as reports by independent local media outlets, indicate that Buryatia, and other republics far away from the Kremlin, have been disproportionately affected by the conflict. “It is becoming clear that a lot of the soldiers who are dying are from the poorer ‘ethnic minority’ republics like Buryatia, Kalmykia and Dagestan,” said Pavel Luzin, a Russian military expert. (...) If these numbers are accurate, the three republics of Buryatia, Dagestan and Tuva alone would make up almost a quarter of all the official Russian war deaths.
Post-mobilisation example from The Guardian, "‘A way to get rid of us’: Crimean Tatars decry Russia’s mobilisation" (25 September 2022):
The largely Muslim Crimean Tatars make up about 13% of Crimea’s population. There is no official breakdown of who has been mobilised but extensive anecdotal evidence suggests Crimean Tatars have been targeted disproportionately. Crimea SOS, a Ukrainian rights organisation, estimates that 90% of mobilisation notices have been given to Crimean Tatars. “This is a conscious effort to destroy the Crimean Tatar nation,” Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said during his nightly video address on Saturday.
Example from the BBC, "Ukraine war: Protests in Russia's Dagestan region against new draft" (26 September):
Recent analysis by the BBC's Russian service showed that at least 301 soldiers from Dagestan have died, 10 times more than in Moscow. The true figure is likely to be far higher.
Some are less specific, but connect it to unrest in the autonomous republics where these minorities are prevalent, and/or how minority separatist groups, Ukraine or Western governments or groups are using these claims of overrepresentation as a reason to urge minorities to resist serving in the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine. Example from Reuters, "Zelenskiy urges minorities in Russia to resist Kremlin mobilisation" (29 September 2022):
Non-Russian groups -- mainly from the Caucasus in the south of Russia and from Siberia -- are over-represented in military contingents sent to Ukraine and violent protests against the mass mobilisation have erupted in some areas gripped by poverty.
It seems like this is a viable topic for a section in an existing article, but which? If, however, we decide it deserves a standalone article, what should the title be? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Some of this has been discussed on the Talk page and in the article previously; where do you think such an edit would fit best in this article? Do you know off hand what is the estimated percentage of ethnic troops fighting for them, is it 10%, 20%, or 30% of the total number of troops? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't find this in the talk pages and the archives when I searched for 'minorities' (it's mostly about 'Russian-speaking minorities' in Ukraine, and once about some 'Greek-speaking minority'). I'm not even sure if this main article is the best place. I've given a few examples of estimates above; most of them rely on estimates of minority group soldier deaths versus total RF forces deaths vis-à-vis total numbers / percentages of inhabitants of the Russian Federation and Crimea by ethnicity. E.g. if we assume everyone is an equally capable, trained and supplied soldier, then the estimate that almost 25% of all the official Russian war deaths concerns soldiers from just three republics where non-Russian minorities dominate the population, is a pretty significant statement. (But perhaps they are less supplied, less trained and less capable, e.g. due to language barriers, than their Russian-speaking counterparts, so there are other factors to consider before we jump to conclusions).
In any case, from the perspective of death percentages, a new section in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War seems a good option. In the Crimean Tatar case, however, it's based on estimates of mobilisation notices; that might fit better in Humanitarian impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Effects on Russian forces. Because a lot of the RS are about the mobilisation specifically, 2022 Russian mobilization#Implementation (or perhaps a new subsection of 'Implementation') might also be a good choice for most of the data. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
This first sounded like a reference related to things like the Ossetia ethnic troops discussed several months ago here. Given your latest comments, it seems like you are discussing the Russian Armed Forces in general with respect to the current ethnic demographics represented in their armed forces. It looks like the edit should first be considered for addition to the Wikipedia Russian Armed Forces article. If that is successful, then you might re-open a thread on this page again. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess you're right. It has more to do with the Russian Armed Forces as an organisation than the invasion as an event. I'll see if I can find a place to put this information. Incidentally, I've previously written about the participation of female soldiers on both sides at women in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which shows an increase on the Ukrainian side but a sharp decrease on the Russian side. For some reason, there are pressures within the RF government, military and society to prevent women from serving in combat roles in which they could die, but to stimulate men from non-Russian minorities to serve in combat roles in which they could die. Curious patterns. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Add UK to "Supported by" for Ukraine. A senior general admitted

A senior general has admitted that UK troops are present in Ukraine performing covert operations

source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-marines-deployed-on-high-risk-covert-operations-in-ukraine-r7b50gv3p RandomPotato123 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a different issue. What they are suggesting is that we add "United Kingdom" to the "Belligerents" section of the infobox, under the heading "Supported by" - same as Belarus now for Russia. RS (Times) says The Royal Marines have taken part in covert operations in Ukraine, a senior general has admitted for the first time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
We are discussing western support in the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
But aren't we discussing a different kind of support there - money and weapons, political support, etc.? Sorry, but the RfC is rather long and I thought that that was the issue, and that the status quo was to include in the infobox only active military support, such as that provided by Belarus, which could also qualify as "participation in hostilities", i.e. being a "belligerent". Under that assumption, the UK should also be included like Belarus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
yeah you're right. The RFC is more focused on weapons and ammunition support RandomPotato123 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
OK then we do not use headlines, the body of the article does not say the UK was involved in combat operations. All it says is that "During both phases, the commandos supported other covert operations in an extremely sensitive environment and with a high level of political and military risk”. That could mean any number of things, but neither the General (nor the source) says they were party to the conflict. Nor does it even say they engaged Rusian forces, even indirectly. (Slatersteven talk) 17:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Was Belarus involved in actual combat operations in Ukraine? Slatersteven your argument sounds like activism to me. Clutching at straws so that this article continues to be the laughing stock of the world with "no one supporting Ukraine" in the infobox. There are memes about this article all over the internet. 2.138.200.92 (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. The report is vague and any interpretation of what it means by comparison with Belarus would be speculative and WP:OR - for now. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, in a sense as Russian forces attacked from their territory, so yes they were part of the conflict. And adding western support to the info box is what the RFC is about, this is about this specific issue. And also read wp:soap and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
What? NATO personnel are literally manning HIMARS in Ukraine as per reliable sources. No one is righting great wrongs. There is a specific issue with this article being in breach of policy because it is hijacked by activist editors. 2.138.200.92 (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The source does not say that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
You may be confusing an advisor watching/suggesting to a Ukrainian soldier with NATO personnel firing missiles. And as stated, the source DOES NOT say that. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

Some words (Notably the words Million, and Billion) are missing captialization. 74.15.45.30 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The words 'million' and 'billion' do not receive capitalization except as sentence initial words. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: Per MOS:SENTENCECASE ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection and restrictions for non-ECP users on this talk page

Tamzin has identified at the RM above that non-ECP users are restricted in how they might post to a talk page of an article when there is ECP in place and specifically in that case, that they may not make edits to an move discussion. More fully, the restrictions are:

... 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.

Some non-ECP users may have been unaware of the restriction and have made posts to restricted discussions on this page in good faith. If this is the case, such editors should probably consider striking their comments.

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.

The distinction between constructive comments and other project discussions that are not specifically listed may require some clarification. I would suggest we make a clear notification of the restriction as we have done at "Supported by" in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only discussions in talkspace that count as "internal project discussions" are RMs, RfCs, and content-review stuff like GANs. Would support placing some sort of clarifying banner on the RM. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

New articles are needed

— Baba Mica (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. There won't be enough Reliable Sourced material to make them more than stubs. Wait for history to be written. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Avoid combining two different localities into one single battle. Super Ψ Dro 21:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree for Velyka Novosilovka and for Krasnohorivka because it is just an introduction and it is not yet known whether the fighting will flare up or die down after the Ukrainian counterattack, but I do not agree for the battles at Bilohorivka and at Pervomaiske and Vodiane because there is a lot of material for them and the fighting for Bilohorivka and Pervomaiske is very fierce and intense and much fiercer than for Pavlovka, which is 98% under the control of Russian forces. The Battle of Bilohorivka and the Battle of Pervomayskoe and Vodiane are almost identical in intensity to the currently fiercest and most topical battles of Bakhmut and Avdeyevka and Marinka. — Baba Mica (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The ultimate goal for fighting at Pervomaiske and Vodiane is to surround/defend Avdiivka. Fighting there should be included at the Battle of Avdiivka's article just like for example the Battle of Sievierodonetsk includes fighting at Syrotyne or Voronove. Super Ψ Dro 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree, but maybe put the more relevant articles that have more news up be cause i think it might be a bit cumbersome. Ozziebro (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

My first time doing this, I hope i did it correctly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B404:9B01:614F:D9D9:E2E8:B144 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

In the Refugee crisis section under the Humanitarian heading, can you please add between Russia and the Czech Republic, that Britain has accepted 146 379 new refugees, as well as extending the ability to remain in the UK for about 40 000 Ukrainians already in the UK to a stay of up to 3 years, making it about 190 000 Ukrainians residing in the UK as of 21 June 2022, under the Ukraine Visas scheme, with broadly similar entitlements as the EU: three years residency and access to state welfare and services, as for a citizen.


In my opinion, our contribution to providing safe harbour is far less than Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe, but I believe deserves a mention!

Source (home office data): [1] 2A00:23C4:B404:9B01:614F:D9D9:E2E8:B144 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Finished the request.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

edit request on 16 December 2022 MAP

Could someone add the moldova incident where a part of amissile hit them on the map because you guys added the Poland one [2]

 Not done for now: You need to be more specific with your request. Also when I checked it wasn't a intact missile it was the debris of one. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. At the moment, there is clear consensus against moving this article. The opposers have given good reasons for their votes, primarily that this isn't the first invasion of Ukraine. Supporters have given relatively weak arguments, and these have not contributed much to the discussion, due to some WP:ILIKEIT comments not backed by policies or guidelines. Because of this, I have decided to close this discussion as not moved. Thanks DecafPotato for starting this requested move, and thanks to all participants, especially ones who striked comments from non-ECP users. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine – When this move was last suggested back in February, there were many (very valid) concerns about WP:RECENTISM and the like, but after close to a year, I think we need to re-evaluate. 1) "Russian invasion of Ukraine" redirects here, so its not as if it will change what people go to when they search the term. 2) People outlined that there have been previous invasions and occupations of Ukraine, but the new title doesn't change some people being confused. People recognize the previous invasions, such as the Ukrainian Front (1939) as a "Soviet invasion of Ukraine", for example, and the 2014 one is not a Russian invasion of Ukraine but a Russian invasion of Crimea. 3) Important events that are clearly the primary topic (see Invasion of Poland) have a title that could be more ambiguous. This article, however, already has a hatnote linking to other invasions of Ukraine if one is confused, and Invasion of Ukraine doesn't redirect here, as it should, given that it isn't the primary topic, but given that this is both the clear (in my opinion) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Russian invasion of Ukraine, AND the fact that it would probably have to be changed to "2022–23 Russian invasion of Ukraine" anyways, as it didn't end in 2022, I just think the move is a good choice. DecafPotato (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Russian invasion of Ukraine is a confusing name. I would propose changing the title to 2022-23 Russian invasion of Ukraine or 2022-?? Russian invasion of Ukraine, depending on how many years this war would last. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:850E:423C:81D8:F30D (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I support keeping the current title, or changing it to something like "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)" Iscargra (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose | This full-scale invasion began in 2022, hence the name, leave it as it is. - DanTheMann15 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - This isn't the first invasion of ukraine and would just cause confusion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extendedconfirmed accounts may not participate in RMs in this topic area. (Action of a discussion participant, not an administrative action.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support Lucasmota0975 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Support Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Support JonasTisell (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Support Kiwicomrade (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
What's with the wall of inactive accounts waking up to leave !votes here with no rationales?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. I've experienced this before. Sarrail (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

:Support Obviously this war will continue well into 2023 so it would be better to get rid of the "2022" part of the page title. DishonorableKnight (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Strike comment of non-ECP user Cinderella157 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. The rationale makes senses here, and I don't have any major reservations for making this page the primary topic. XTheBedrockX (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Note: looking over this again, I will disagree with the claim of Crimea not counting as an invasion of Ukraine. Crimea was unambiguously part of Ukraine at the time the annexation occurred, and 100% counts as an "invasion of Ukraine." In light of this, I'll echo the suggestion other users have made here and support a move to Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mean that Crimea wasn't part of Ukraine, lol. I promise I'm not a Kremlin propaganda account. What I meant is that it was just a smaller part of the country, not the whole thing. It's like if some foreign force invaded Florida. Yeah, it's indisputably an invasion of the United States, but saying the specific region that was invaded is more precise for that title specifically. DecafPotato (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Support Holidayruin (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Support. If it dives into 2024, which I don't want to think about it for now that could be a problem. But changing it to 2022-23...I'll go with the nom. Sarrail (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Sarrail it just says Russian invade Ukraine should be sound title but excluded year should be fine. 114.23.109.154 (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant, per nom. Sarrail (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Not the first invasion of Ukraine. See 2014's. Sarrail (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Support per nom PLATEL (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Note that these roughly 46 articles and these Templates and Categories that I don't want to count may need to also be renamed in the event of a move. The same rationale applies, though, in my opinion. DecafPotato (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would create confusion as we'd need to clarify that this article is only about the full-scale invasion which started in 2022, not the Russo-Ukrainian War which started in 2014. I don't like the framing that Russia's 2014 invasion wasn't an invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't a full-scale attempt at conquering the country, but it was very much an invasion of Ukraine.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    How does this imply that the 2014 invasion wasn't an invasion of Ukraine? I just meant that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" more commonly refers to the full invasion of the country nearing one year long rather than the one-month invasion of a specific territory. DecafPotato (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    I was responding to what you said in your arguments in the original post: "and the 2014 one is not a Russian invasion of Ukraine but a Russian invasion of Crimea" I think saying that "the 2014 one is not a Russian invasion of Ukraine" does "imply that the 2014 invasion wasn't an invasion of Ukraine". In any case, the bigger issue is the confusion about the article's scope as this wasn't even the first invasion of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. After this RM closes, I think a different title like "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022-Present)" or "2022-23 Russian invasion of Ukraine" would have better odds at reaching a consensus. But I would oppose removing the year entirely.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    See other comments: The 2014 invasion of Crimea was an invasion of Ukraine because it's obviously Ukrainian territory. I just meant that it wasn't an invasion of the whole country of Ukraine and thus "Russian invasion of Ukraine" wouldn't be a precise title for that article specifically. and I didn't mean that Crimea wasn't part of Ukraine, lol. I promise I'm not a Kremlin propaganda account. What I meant is that it was just a smaller part of the country, not the whole thing. It's like if some foreign force invaded Florida. Yeah, it's indisputably an invasion of the United States, but saying the specific region that was invaded is more precise for that title specifically. In any case, I can assure you that I did not mean that Crimea was not part of Ukraine, and I'm sorry if it came off that way, but that's not the purpose of this RM. DecafPotato (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Russia invaded Ukraine 8 years ago. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This isn't their first invasion, so a date in the title makes sense. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 18:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not just not the first Russian invasion of Ukraine, but not even the first of this war. If anything we should review the recentist consensus that saw Russian invasion of Ukraine targeted here, rather than to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine, even though that list documents one invasion by the Tsardom of Russia, three by the Russian SFSR, one by Russian troops of the Soviet Union, and three (Crimea, Donbas, full invasion) by the Russian Federation. Note that the invasion of Donbas was widely referred to as the 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' until less than a year ago. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure if this really ought to be the primary topic, or if the notion is an actual example of WP:recentism (see List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine). Certainly the 1918, 1919, and 1920 invasions by Bolshevik Russia are historically very significant. It is nonsense to say the 2014 one is not a Russian invasion of Ukraine but a Russian invasion of Crimea: Crimea is in Ukraine and was invaded across the international border by army and airborne units; and Russia also invaded the Donbas region in 2014 and 2015 not only with various “deniable” forces but also with entire mechanized formations, especially during the Battle of Ilovaisk and Battle of Debaltseve. Whether it will have to be changed for 2023 anyways is an independent question, and not as yet determined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    See above, but when someone refers Russian invasion of Ukraine, they practically always the full invasion of the country that is coming up on one year rather than the one-month invasion of the Crimean Peninsula. I'm not trying to say that Russia did not invade Ukraine in 2014, they objectively did, but I'm saying that when someone wants to refer to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, they don't say the "Russian invasion of Ukraine", they say Crimea specifically. DecafPotato (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    That’s precisely recentism. From 1654 through February 24, 2022, it referred to several things but not that, and still does. The encyclopedic view has to consider what you might seek on Google News Search, but perhaps put more WP:DUE weight on someone researching early Modern or twentieth-century history, for example.
    So, for example, Annexation of Crimea is not necessarily what you assume it is.  —Michael Z. 04:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    Likewise, when people want to refer to the invasion of Donbas, they say the "War in Donbas" or "Russian invasion of Donbas". I'm not saying that Crimea or Donbas aren't Ukrainian, but you'll see very few people post-February 2022 use the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" to refer to exclusively the invasions of Crimea and Donbas and not the full invasion of the entirety of the country. DecafPotato (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well, no. There were Russian invasions of Donbas in 1918, early 1919, late 1919, 2014, 2015, and 2022. The current War in Donbas has been ongoing for over eight years. You “see very few people” because among the most major world news is what is going on now and everyone’s talking about it. But the encyclopedia takes the longer view. It’s a reference, not a blog. It doesn’t give weight to this year just because people are talking about it this year. —Michael Z. 04:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    That's not what I meant. I meant that the 2014 invasion of Donbas is not referred to as a "Russian invasion of Ukraine". DecafPotato (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well, you’re wrong. It’s most often stated as a “covert invasion of the Donbas” or the like. —Michael Z. 03:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Either to just Russian invasion of Ukraine or Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present). Both work for me. Coltsfan (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) sounds good also. However, omitting a year would be confusing. In Correct (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Support really don't like 2022-2023 (or even '24, etc...) Russian invasion of Ukraine as that doesn't make much sense. This seems like the best available title as it is clearly the PrimaryTopic.Yeoutie (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

How about the "Russo-Ukrainian War (2002)"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This war did not start in 2002. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Typo I meant 2022. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The war did not start in 2022. It started in 2014. A phase of the war started in 2022, and the suggested title with name and parenthetic disambiguation is unclear on that, and potentially contradicting that.  —Michael Z. 20:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

How about the "War in Ukraine (2022–present)"? BlueShirtz (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a solution searching for a problem. There is nothing wrong with the current title, unless you're a Putin propagandist who wants it called "special military operation". Ribbet32 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Not one user has even implied that idea, and you need to wp:agf. It will be a problem in (say) three weeks' time when we start adding material from 2023. Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
We already have an article on the wider war, this is about a phase in that war. Just like we have WW2, Western Front (World War II), Battle of France and so on. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to call it a "special military operation," I suggested "War in Ukraine (2022–present)" because it seems like at least half of the news articles about this war refer to it as the "War in Ukraine" or "Putin's war in Ukraine," and it also has some title consistency with articles like War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) BlueShirtz (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. This request appears to be running with 10 oppose opinions and 5 support opinions. This request appears to also be malformed or poorly formed, with a parallel thread about renaming the article directly above it which is/was still open. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose per Tamzin's comments. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Support There has been many small scale russian invasions yes, but this one is the main one. Wikiman92783 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non-ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Support since next month is 2023 - Jjpachano (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

*:I am in Favour of that you proposed. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non-ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose The invasion did not start in 2022. Furthermore calling this the Russian Invasion would play into the Russian rhetoric that the occupied Crimea and Donbass are non negotiable. Viewsridge (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

:I agreed with you that should follow year by year basis. Kiwicomrade (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non-ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

:Support. It is almost the end of 2022, and the war is not ending yet, therefore it would be appropriate to change the name Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non-ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose for 4 reasons:
A. The most important point is that the current name 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is actually fine. '2022' indicates when the current invasion began, thereby neatly distinguishing it from the far more limited military operations in Crimea and Donbas since 2014 (which technically are/were also "invasions"). Even if the current invasion doesn't end before 2022 is over (which it almost certainly won't, sadly), '2022' remains the correct starting year, and it's useful to keep that the same.
B. Dropping the year 2022 means risking all sorts of conflations with earlier Imperial Russian, Soviet or indeed Russian Federation invasions (namely, the 2014 invasion of Crimea and Donbas) of (what is now known as) Ukraine.
C. To those saying that "the Russian invasion of Ukraine already began in 2014": yes, you can semantically argue that, but until February 2022, only the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts were directly attacked; since February 2022, all oblasts of Ukraine have been attacked by the Russian Armed Forces and their allies, if not by ground or naval forces, then certainly by air forces / missile strikes. The operation that began in February 2022 is of a much greater geographical scale, and therefore adding '2022' is a very useful and necessary distinction. Whoever wants to write or read about the entire conflict since 2014 can always go to the articles Russo-Ukrainian War, War in Donbas (2014–2022), and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation; that's what those pages are there for. I'm not in favour of expanding the scope of this article to include the whole 2014–Feb 2022 period just to make that semantical point, if only per WP:TOOLONG. Due to WP:OVERLAP with Russo-Ukrainian War, it would also essentially make 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine a WP:REDUNDANTFORK because they cover the exact same topic.
D. I am open to the alternative suggestions above that we can rename it 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine and change the second year every time it enters a new year before it ends, or Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), but that makes things a bit messy, especially for linking to the article from other pages. Reason A is more compelling to keep the current title than the relatively small advantage that these alternative names would bring.
So on the whole, keeping the current name is best. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per WP:DETCON: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And at WP:NHC: The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Consequently, for comments here to carry weight, they should be made through the framework of WP:P&G and in this case, the policy at WP:AT. I would observe that a majority of responses here are made without reference to prevailing WP:P&G and are not supported by WP:AT or are otherwise irrelevant, as defined by WP:NHC. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2022 (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.

My proposal for the infobox

This is an inappropriate discussion fork in that there is an open RfC (#RfC on Western support to Ukraine) that directly relates and the proposal would presume the outcome of that RfC. For economy, I have also removed most of the parameters from the proposed infobox so that it mainly shows just the changes to the belligerent parameter that are proposed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussions above are extremely long and sterile, they've led to nothing. I thought that directly offering a proposal might lead to more. --Synotia (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

What do you folks think?

I made some effort to rank the aid chronologically ;) as we know, the list goes further than Czechia, but I thought it was enough to make a point. All countries would be listed in the collapsible list, similar to what can be seen in the Gulf War article.

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Part of the Russo-Ukrainian War
Location
{{{place}}}
Status Ongoing (list of engagements · territorial control · timeline of events)
Belligerents

 Russia

Militarily supported by:
 Belarus[b]

Material support:
List
  Ukraine
Material support:
List
Commanders and leaders
Synotia (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I like the additions, but shouldn't there be more people under "Commanders and leaders"? —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s]) 15:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh well, I should have added that too... Synotia (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Probably not, it's been discussed here. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ([ˈd̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s]) 15:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
What are the criteria? Including commercial sales, or only donations? Only offensive lethal aid? Defensive? Non-lethal military aid? De-mining? Reconstruction? Humanitarian aid? Economic support?
The actual list is likely 50 to 70 states. Let’s see what it really looks like. See List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War.
EU aid is separate from aid by individual EU members so they should be listed (e.g., Hungary has refused to even let aid pass through its airspace). Has NATO actually provided aid as an organization?
I’m unconvinced:
  • I’m against the principle of putting states that conduct the normal peacetime activity of trade in military equipment under the “Belligerents” header. If “Material support” belongs in the infobox, then add a new heading to the infobox.
  • This is writing the article in the infobox. All of these are not in the article. Ask @Cinderella157 to interpret WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE for you.
  • This is too long for the infobox.
 —Michael Z. 17:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I should have been more specific – I only included here countries who sent military equipment in response to the full-scale invasion. Synotia (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2022/statistics-on-ukrainians-in-the-uk
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/world/europe/moldova-russia-missile-debris-war.html
  3. ^ Lister, Tim; Kesa, Julia (24 February 2022). "Ukraine says it was attacked through Russian, Belarus and Crimea borders". Kyiv: CNN. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
  4. ^ Murphy, Palu (24 February 2022). "Troops and military vehicles have entered Ukraine from Belarus". CNN. Archived from the original on 23 February 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
  5. ^ Rodionov, Maxim; Balmforth, Tom (25 February 2022). "Belarusian troops could be used in operation against Ukraine if needed, Lukashenko says". Reuters. Archived from the original on 25 February 2022. Retrieved 25 February 2022.
  6. ^ "Missiles launched into Ukraine from Belarus". BBC News. 27 February 2022. Archived from the original on 2 March 2022. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
  7. ^ Karmanau, Yuras; Heintz, Jim; Isachenkov, Vladimir; Litvinova, Dasha (1 March 2022). "Ukrainian Official Says Belarus Has Joined the War, as Russia Pummels Kharkiv". Associated Press. Kyiv: TIME. Archived from the original on 2 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
  8. ^ [1]
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.

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Russian invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26 § Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DecafPotato (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

New

Has there been discussion at all of moving the map into the article and having pictures of the war represented in the Infobox instead? Aaron106 (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The map is up to date. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Iran as Supporting State

Under belligerents, Iran should be labeled as a supporting state considering its reported presence in Occupied Crimea training RUS forces + its significant supply of Shahed suicide drones, to Russia. If Belarus counts, then Iran should too. 2604:7A40:111:C30:BCAF:AC82:5B1A:1AE7 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been, and is currently being, discussed on this talk page currently. King keudo (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
What about North Korea, given that it has supplied weapons to Wagner for use in Ukraine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Same applies. And please sign your comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
There is already an open thread on this discussion, as King Keudo has stated. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

International Legion

Should we add the International Legion of Territorial Defence of Ukraine at the side with Ukraine. I think they are kind of important.

Daeva Trạc (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this not just a unit in the Ukrainian army? Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreement with Slatersteven. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought it is a voluntary army with soldiers from many countries (including Russia). Daeva Trạc (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The International Legion of Territorial Defence of Ukraine is a unit of the Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine), which is a military reserve component of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Western support to Ukraine

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Meet the new RFC, same as the old RFC. When I closed the last RFC on the topic of supporters in the infobox I said Numerically, the sides are fairly close, with no landslide in one direction or another, and the policy based arguments are not any more overwhelming for supporting or opposing. To, I'm sure, no one's surprise, there is No Consensus to include those providing military aid as supporters in the infobox. I will note that among support !voters there was some stipulations for who should be listed as providing support, lending some more weight to the oppose argument that it is a complex situation, and better explained in the article prose. That's basically where we're at now, as well. The lack of agreement on exactly qualifies as a supporter among the option 2 supporters, as well as the lack of any concrete lists of supporters again lends strength to the argument that the extent and specifics of support are better handled in prose where the context can be provided.
Also, can we not do this again in a couple months? There is WP:NODEADLINE, and there is sure to be plenty of academic studies and expert writings that will provide excellent context and sourcing for what, exactly, should be listed in that infobox parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


(first, withdrawn)

Withdrawn by opening user, restarted below. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NO ACTION
Withdrawn by user who opened the RfC. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Should the countries that have helped Ukraine during this war be included in the infobox of this article? Super Ψ Dro 08:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Recently there have been more calls on the talk page of this article to include this information. It doesn't seem strange to me, considering all that has changed since the last RfC. It was started on 27 February and closed on 6 March. Only 11 days of the invasion passed! I'm not sure if any Western weapons had even arrived to Ukraine by then, I would expect they did not.

Now that eight months have passed, it is clear that Western weapons have been key in the turning of this war in Ukraine's favor. There is plenty of sources on this. American HIMARS (note that it was first announced that they would be given to Ukraine on 31 May) have been so relevant that even Zelenskyy has said that they are "changing the course of the war against Russia" [7]. Ukraine has used HIMARS to disrupt logistics from Russian-occupied Kherson to the other bank of the Dnipro, and also to hit command posts and ammunition depots deep into Russian lines. This has caused Russian artillery strikes in Donbas to decrease tenfold [8]; this was one of the few advantages Russia had over Ukraine that allowed it to eventually capture Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk [9].

And there's more apart of the HIMARS. For example, American Javelins were regarded as so valuable during the early months of the war by the Ukrainians that a Saint Javelin meme was born. Many sources talk about its role during the war [10] [11]. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a widely cited institution on invasion articles, attribute an important (though not main) role to Western weapons for Ukraine's success in at the 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive [12]; Ukraine's foreign minister used Ukraine's recovery of most of Kharkiv Oblast as a chance to ask for the supply of more weapons, saying Ukraine would be able to recapture more territory this way [13]. Here are more sources talking about the influence of Western weapons in the war in general [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. We must also not forget Russia's displeasure at this supply of weapons [20] [21].

Western weapons have had an undeniably huge role during this war. But Western help to Ukraine is not limited to weapons supplies. American intelligence is also said to be highly relevant in for example precision strikes by Ukraine on Russian logistical targets [22] [23] [24]. Economic aid has also been relevant [25]. For this reason I would support these countries be included under a "Supported by" section and not only an "Arms suppliers" or similar section. We should include more specific information about how has a particular country helped Ukraine on notes next to the listed countries.

One of the worries of editors who opposed the last RfC was that it would make the infobox too long. This can be easily addressed through a collapsible list. Others said this would imply that the United States and other countries are being listed as belligrants. Clearly this would not be the case if we list them under a "Supported by" section, they should not be included on Ukraine's level on the infobox.

Still, if weapons supplies are said not to be enough to warrant inclusion on the infobox, I'd like that at the very least, the United States should be included for being the biggest supplier of weapons which have caused actual changes on the battlefield, for its intelligence support and for its economic aid. I think this would be unfair however, as British and Polish help for example has also been important. Discussion in this RfC about which countries could be included and which shouldn't may result in a list supported by consensus to include in the infobox. Maybe we could come up with a minimum threshold of support to Ukraine.

I will also note that the common practice in Wikipedia is to include countries that have helped one or another side during a war in the war's infobox, see Iran–Iraq War, Vietnam War, Yom Kippur War, Soviet–Afghan War, Football War, Cambodian Civil War and Korean War as examples. There is no particular reason in my eyes for this article to be an exception.

And by the way, NATO should not be included. NATO does not have any weapons of its own, it is individual countries that decided to supply some to Ukraine. Some countries in NATO have not done so and some countries outside NATO did do so. We could however include the European Union due to its economic aid as it does have large funds under its direct control, the ultimate decision on whether some European economic aid packets are sent or not reside under the EU.

Apologies if the arguments on this opening comment are somewhat disorganized. Super Ψ Dro 08:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, you have made a statement accompanying the RfC question which is not distinct from the question, which is "disorganised" and which is inaccurate. The most recent RfC is at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine. You have not accurately summarised the cases presented. You have not indicated why these RfCs have failed and more importantly, you have not indicated what of substance has changed in WP:P&G or in respect to the arguments made has changed that might reasonably lead to a change in consensus (noting that consensus is not a vote). You have not acknowledged the matters raise in recent discussions. These should be the basis for forming and RfC. If we must have another RfC, then we need to get off to the right sort of start. You (and others) are making much the same arguments that have already been made and expecting a different outcome when "doing the same thing over and expecting a different outcome" is the definition of insanity. If we really must do this again, get off to the right start. Make a novel (ie new) case that might succeed and not the same old stuff. Furthermore, please be accurate in representing what has happened previously. If we have to go through this again, please self-close and try again. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Circumstances have changed. That last RfC which I hadn't seen before was from late April, but most sources talking about Western weapons influencing the war come from later. For example, HIMARS arrived in Ukraine in late June. I do not believe there's a way of ignoring the role of Western weapons anymore. Super Ψ Dro 12:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Super Dromaeosaurus, circumstances may have changed to a degree but my point was: what of substance has changed in WP:P&G or in respect to the arguments made has changed that might reasonably lead to a change in consensus. I can pose this as a question. You are saying (immediately above) that the provision of military aid to Ukraine is of consequence in influencing the conduct of the war. If you look at the RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, there were arguments being made then (and probably in the earlier RfC too) to the same effect - so nothing of substance in respect to the earlier arguments has really changed. The question of the first RfC was: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox? For the second, it was: Should we add "Supported by" for Ukraine in the infobox to list the countries providing military aid? (somewhat less specific than the first). This RfC would ask: Should the countries that have helped Ukraine during this war be included in the infobox of this article?. This is even less specific and very vague. Some editors have interpreted what they believe the question might mean while others have specifically commented on the vagueness of the question. It is clear to me that there will be no clear outcome as a consequence. If I appear to be shutting down discussion then I say this: the essence of history is to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes. Frame a question that is likely to succeed where others failed. Make a strong case based on objective criteria and not opinion. Most importantly, don't rehash what are essentially the same arguments. If they weren't convincing before, they're not likely to be convincing now. While we may have wasted a bit of time now, getting something that might work is better than wasting a lot of time down the track on something that won't. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
PS See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1085009935&oldid=1085009719[this version] of the second RfC, and the initial opening statement which was subsequently changed. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus, that’s blatantly misleading. Just read the first paragraph of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign military sales and aid for starters. I’d like you to strike the disinformation above and inform editors who have already voted based on your long intro, or better yet cancel this RFC and start again.  —Michael Z. 13:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I've read it and the whole section too and I am unsure of the issue. Do you mean that Ukraine had purchased the Javelin missiles before instead of having them delivered? Still, it has received Javelin missiles as a result of American weapon packages [26] [27]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you planning to distinguish aid from sales? Under what headers? (And where does it fall when Germany and Israel prevented other states from tranferring weapons to Ukraine because they have contractual oversight of subsequent transfers? – is that aid to Russia?)
Where to begin? Various military and security aid has been provided to Ukraine since before the start of the war in 2014, and after that in the form of joint training, military matériel and systems, and lethal weapons. The first batch of Javelins was given as aid (from memory, the second or third was purchased, although that may have been using military aid money). Also provided by various states before February 24 were small arms, machine guns, RPG launchers, various other antitank weapons, mortars, MANPADS, and attack drones.
At the same time, France and Germany were trading military provisions to Russia at least until 2020.[28]  —Michael Z. 18:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you planning to distinguish aid from sales? I would consider that only aid should be included, unless maybe some country sold Ukraine weapons that had a relevant role in the battlefield. Which I think has not been the case so far. And where does it fall when Germany and Israel prevented other states from tranferring weapons to Ukraine because they have contractual oversight of subsequent transfers? – is that aid to Russia? that's not support to anyone. If we went for such indirect matters, we could also say Kazakhstan or Armenia helped Ukraine by weakening the credibility of Russia's international alliances. But that's too nitpicky.
We should not list anything from before 24 February, as it does not go into the scope of this article but on Russo-Ukrainian War. The countries that could be listed as supporting Ukraine on both articles are most likely different so separate discussions for the individual articles are probably warranted.
At the same time, France and Germany were trading military provisions to Russia at least until 2020. again, this would not fall under this article's scope. I get that you're implying Russia has probably used Western weapons against Ukraine during this war that it was given before, but I oppose taking this into consideration. What if Russia keeps at least part of these weapons in say 2100 and it starts a war with for example Mongolia? Will we say France and Germany supported Russia against Mongolia? Again I believe this is too nitpicky (in lack of a better word right now). Super Ψ Dro 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The “Belligerents” line is not about weapons. It is a category defined in international law.
Why include aid and not sales? Decisions to allow sales of weapons are political. Decisions to prevent other countries from providing aid are political too, and preventing Ukraine from having Leopard 2 tanks certainly supports Russian military aims.
You mention “weapons” a lot. Are you proposing including lethal weapons only, or battlefield systems and vehicles and ships too, or military equipment like cold weather gear, first aid kits, and hospitals too, or economic aid that lets Ukraine continue running an economy and sustaining its defence too, or humanitarian aid too, or reconstruction aid too, or aid to refugees too? What about opposing the war in a UN resolution? What’s the rationale for including some support but not other under “Belligerents”? —Michael Z. 21:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support inclusion in Infobox. I don't think there's any controversy whatsoever that Ukraine is being supported by NATO states. Ukraine is open about it, NATO is open about it, Russia openly whines about it, neutral countries are clearly aware of it. Sources from all countries can clearly indicate Ukraine received weapons aid from the US and whatnot. When "supported by" has been used in older wars for covert support only revealed in CIA declassifications 40 years later, I don't think anyone will ever look back in hindsight and consider the US/NATO inclusion in the article as Ukraine supporters as inaccurate. Juxlos (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose First off, how? as supporters, as belligerents as allies? Secondly, why only western nations aid to Ukraine (here we go back to we need to either add everyone who is sending arms and advisors or no one), and not aid to both sides? What we rather need is an RFC on inclusion criteria. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    If there are sources on military aid from, say, Nigeria, to Ukraine, I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Western nations are just the most visible. Juxlos (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • That was not my point, I was talking about "aid to both sides". Slatersteven (talk)
First off, how? as supporters, as belligerents as allies? this is stated on the opening comment? and not aid to both sides? because that's not the scope of this RfC. If someone wishes to open a discussion about support to Russia, they're welcome to do so. There's already a discussion for including Iran above (note that many opposing arguments there are that Western help to Ukraine is not listed, these "do not include this if we don't include that" arguments are irrelevant and it's evidently easier to discuss cases individually) What we rather need is an RFC on inclusion criteria. I made a call for discussion to this in the opening comment. I argued that at the very least the United States should be included because of their huge military, economic and intelligence support. Super Ψ Dro 12:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I oppose, the scope is too narrow and violates wp:npov, as we will only be including one sides POV. And no you do not say what kind of aid you mean, you just list some examples. Do we include financial (bit not military) aid? What about humanitarian aid? What about volunteers? Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it's far more worrying that we are currently ignoring Western help to Ukraine when it has had such a relevant role in the conflict. As for the rest, I don't know, my word is not final. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The generally accepted norm, from my glancing view of past articles, is that "free guns" count as support (see Nigerian Civil War), humanitarian aid doesn't (otherwise, Sweden will be a belligerent in every war since like 1900), and non-sanctioned volunteers don't (see Winter War and Swedish volunteers, or the Spanish Civil War and the volunteers that just come on their own). For "what about aid to both sides", see Iran-Iraq War. We can easily keep it as purely military aid, perhaps if given with explicit reason to "defend against Russian aggression" or something. And if sources are wrong today, well, future users can correct it. Juxlos (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    Significant military aid given with the intent of influencing the conflict seems like a good criteria for infobox inclusion as a supporter, though it may need to be spelled out more precisely (such that endless discussions don't form trying to change the definition of military aid). entropyandvodka (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Support as per Super Ψ Dro and Juxlos points it should not be controversial to list western support in the infobox especially given the scale of that support and the open nature of it. As to Slatersteven an open discussion on inclusion criteria would be welcome as well as it has been constantly moved around time and time again.
Additionally for Cinderella157 this is not the first time you have tried to end discussion on this talk page related to wether western support should be listed in the infobox. The points made above, wether terribly novel or not, are more than worthy of discussion by editors interested in improving the page. You are also more than welcome to join in with wether you agree or not rather than continuing to push for procedural roadblocks to discussion. BogLogs (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Support inclusion in Infobox. Belarus is already inserted, even if Belarusian forces have not directly participated (1, 2): I think therefore that other countries, which provided a similar level of support, should be inserted as well. P1221 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I will attempt to start an inclusion criteria debate here. I propose we include countries the support of which is backed by reliable sources as having had a strong impact on the war. Thus, we will be examining cases individually. On the last RfC from April, there was a proposal to include a note on the infobox similar to that of German Wikipedia [29], simply stating that Ukraine has received external help from other countries. I propose the following: individually include countries with huge contributions to Ukraine's war effort, and cover the rest of support in a note similar to that of German Wikipedia. Most Western help to Ukraine has been given by the same small number of countries, see charts here [30] (source: [31]) [32] (source: [33]). On the latter chart, we can see that, by far, the United States are responsible for the majority of weapons supplies to Ukraine.
Western military aid to Ukraine has turned the tides of the invasion, this is an undeniable fact. If most of it was given by the US, it means the United States has helped Ukraine change the war to its favor. This is a logical proposition we can do by ourselves, which is also backed by reliable sources. I want to ask users opposing this RfC if they're able to provide evidence reasoning that American help to Ukraine has not changed the course of the war, and therefore it does not warrant inclusion. Later, we may move on to other countries like Poland, the United Kingdom or Germany. Super Ψ Dro 13:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Western refusal to deter Russia from hostile acts against its neighbours was even more decisive in this 2014–2022 war, by allowing it to start, continue, and escalate. Maybe we should add the following to the infobox under “Belligerents” with a subheader: 2003–2004 (election interference), 2008 (Georgia war), 2013 (pressuring Yanukovych to about-face on EU AA), 2014 (Crimea invasion, Donbas insurgency), 2014–15 (Donbas invasion), 2014–2022 (European-facilitated Minsk agreement), Nord Stream 2 pipelines bypassing Ukrainian gas infrastructure (2018–22), 2020–22 (ignoring Russian invasion force).
Plenty of sources support the huge effect these things had on the war.
Please provide evidence that these things were not decisive.  —Michael Z. 13:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the 2022 invasion, which began on 24 February, so there is no reason to mention 2003/2004 in the infobox. Maybe we can go back to WWI? Mellk (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Background. None of that belongs in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Back at you, with 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement. None of that belongs in the infobox. —Michael Z. 21:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It is irrelevant if those had an effect on the conflict for purposes of this discussion, as they are not entities that could be considered belligerents, or entities that could rise to the level of belligerents if they directly participated but currently only play a supporting role. entropyandvodka (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Belligerent is a category in international law. It is not a “level.” Nothing in this proposal falls within the definition. —Michael Z. 21:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Replace "rise to the level of belligerents" with "be considered belligerents" if you like, but the point stands. None of the things (election interference, other conflicts, etc) in your point that I was responding to could fit the category of a belligerent under any circumstances. Multiple entities in the proposal (countries) could be and have been considered belligerents under some circumstances, which is why your (presumably sarcastic) point was irrelevant. In essence you are arguing that if we are listing countries or entities supporting Ukraine in the infobox under "Supported by" then it follows we should list just anything causal to the conflict in there. That isn't the proposal, does not follow from it, and no one is arguing for that. entropyandvodka (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
No. None of these states could be, have been considered, or are belligerents under the actual circumstances. A belligerent is a participant in an armed conflict, in international law. (Dunno what “have been considered belligents under some circumstances” you mean, as they have not in this conflict.)
Super Dro is arguing that some states that are “backed by reliable sources as having had a strong impact on the war,” echoed by your “rise to the level of belligerents if they directly participated but currently only play a supporting role,” are belligerents. But impact is irrelevant. Other impactful things don’t belong any more than impactful states that do not meet the definition of belligerent.
I am not being sarcastic. I am isolating and extending the argument that level of impact determines something should be listed here. Impact does not define a belligerent, and supporters by some other criteria should not be listed under “Belligerents.” If something else is to be added, then the template should be modified to accommodate it.  —Michael Z. 23:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
By "have been considered belligerents under some circumstances" I mean that countries, under some circumstances, are considered belligerents. Since you weren't being sarcastic I'll address it: your argument is that if other states that are not currently considered de jure belligerents are allowed in the "Supported by" section, then other things could be as well by the same logic, even if those things are not states or other entities that could be considered belligerents under some circumstances. An election result, or a ham sandwich for that matter, is totally irrelevant to the discussion, as there are no circumstances where either would be considered a belligerent. No one here is arguing for things that couldn't be belligerents under any circumstances to be included, so that was a strawman on your part. Perhaps part of the criterion going forward should be that entities listed in this section of the infobox must have the logical capacity to be belligerents, co-belligerents, or non-belligerents, though that never seemed like it needed spelling out.
I agree that a participant in an armed conflict is a belligerent. A key area of our disagreement is what constitutes participation. Since it is common in similar articles to include a "Supported by" subfield, and it is common to denote in that subfield state and other actors that indirectly participate via support, it is appropriate for the United States to be in that field given its level of participation via support. Many readers that will see this infobox will have seen the infoboxes of other conflicts similarly formatted (ie the Soviet–Afghan War, which includes the United States under Supported by) and would rightly interpret the omission of the United States as an incomplete representation of the conflict, if not a misleading or biased one. I have yet to see an argument why this article should be an exception that isn't fraught with WP:neutral point of view problems. Even if this was the only infobox on Wikipedia someone ever saw, it wouldn't be an accurate representation of the reality of this conflict as it is.
That said, I'd be opposed to including the United States if it was not as "Supported by" as this wouldn't accurately represent reality either. I also agree Iran should be similarly included on the other side, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. entropyandvodka (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It maybe time to hear what new voices have to say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion of any significant financial or military support to either side as reported in reliable sources. This is an important aspect of this conflict, which is why we have a large section in the article on it and an entire separate article on the topic. I would be fine with duplicating the Russo-Ukrainian War infobox and just putting "For countries supporting Ukraine, see foreign aid to Ukraine." Why doesn't the invasion article have more detail on this aspect than the wider war infobox! --Jfhutson (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Both Cinderella and Michael have requested above that this RFC be closed and rewritten in a more standard format. I'm supporting their comments to do this. The opening preface in this RFC is much too long to be useful. The Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has plainly stated that the operating principle in Ukraine at this point is that they will provide the soldiers if the West will provide the arms and munitions for them. Kuleba is a realist who understands the difference between a country sacrificing lives to defend its sovereignty as compared to countries which merely provide military supplies and money to support Ukraine's loss of soldiers in the field as casualties of war. Joining with Cinderella and Michael who have requested above that this RFC be closed, and rewritten if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
"Should the countries that have helped Ukraine during this war be included in the infobox of this article?" is the RFC statement and the following comment is a comment in support. The RFC followed the guidance in WP:RFCBRIEF: "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp." Super Dromaeosaurus should do a little cleanup to make the comment a bit more cleanly separated but I'm not going to touch another user's comment. Closing the RFC is unnecessarily disruptive and wastes everyone's time. --Jfhutson (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I did start wondering if I could have given this RfC a more concrete scope or aim, such as only discussing the US' inclusion or specifically trying to come up with inclusion criteria. But a few hours had passed and users had already started discussing, I was afraid it was too late already. I do want to rewrite the opening comment and I am open to suggestions. Super Ψ Dro 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Kuleba is a realist who understands the difference between a country sacrificing lives to defend its sovereignty as compared to countries which merely provide military supplies and money to support Ukraine's loss of soldiers in the field as casualties of war. this is downplaying the role of Western weapons. The opening comment includes some sources discussing their role in the war. I've also read some individuals argue that Ukraine's economy would have collapsed without Western help though I did not find reliable sources on this after a quick search. Now, listing Western countries at Ukraine's level would downplay the role of Ukrainian soldiers dying to defend their homeland indeed. But if we keep Ukraine as the main fighter and list its supporters as supporting it, what's the issue? Super Ψ Dro 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion in the infobox. It is absurd, if not dishonest, to include Belarus as a supporter under Russia without including the United States (and others) under Ukraine when weighing the respective impact each has had on the conflict in their supportive capacity. While I wouldn't be opposed to a listing like "NATO (and others)" or something similar as a means of shortening the list, it makes more sense to list the major contributing nations with the rest linked, per Super Dromaeosaurus's suggestion above, as this may more accurately reflect the nature of the support and avoids other issues about what NATO does officially versus what member states do unilaterally. I also stress the need of a consistent, NPOV-adherent set of criteria of what qualifies being listed as a "Belligerent" vs "Supported by". Though not the only qualifier, significant military aid given with the intent of influencing the conflict should be sufficient to label a state as a supporter. The criteria of "boots on the ground" or "actually pulling the trigger/hitting the drone button" is more in line with being considered a belligerent, not a supporter, given the definitions of these words. It shouldn't be the case that a state supporting Ukraine must rise to the level of belligerent just to be listed as a supporter while a different standard is applied in adding supporters to the Russian side, or that the criteria be crafted to benefit either side. entropyandvodka (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    Belligerent is a category in international law. It’s not “impact on the conflict,” and there are things that have had much more impact like Russian corruption, the difference between Russian and Ukrainian civil society, Ukrainian unity and motivation. The entire argument here is about “weapons” and their “impact,” but it is a very selective criterion, dare I say military-fetishistic one, to want to label states as “belligerents” by arbitrarily deciding their weapons had more impact than a hundred other factors, with no sources to support the idea.  —Michael Z. 21:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    Belarus is included because it has committed the international crime of aggression by providing its territory for criminal acts of aggression. It is perfectly honest to consider an aggressor a supporter of a belligerent by the acts that create a state of armed conflict, and not to include states participating in trade and aid that routinely goes on in peacetime.
    You’d note that Ukraine’s supporters haven’t allowed Ukrainian attacks against Russia from their soil, either by troops crossing their borders into Russia, or stand-off weapons being fired from their territories. They immediately removed all military from Ukraine’s territory when it looked like the Russians were going to invade, and have desisted from making any deliveries of military aid directly to its soil: the Ukrainians have to go pick it up. Deliveries of jets have been scuttled by the refusal of anyone allowing Ukraine to fly fighters from their soil into Ukraine.
    There is no different standard for the sides. (But there is a significant qualitative difference between an aggressor and a legal self-defender in their participation in a military conflict, especially a war of conquest.)
    If “boots,” then Iran is more of a belligerent or supported than any of the states being considered in this proposal, and should be added first.  —Michael Z. 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is much wrong with this proposal, and it comes from a strikingly non-neutral point of view. I’ll directly respond with quotations.
. . . considering all that has changed since the last RfC. It was started on 27 February and closed on 6 March. Only 11 days of the invasion passed! I'm not sure if any Western weapons had even arrived to Ukraine by then, I would expect they did not.
Just a few examples:
  • Saxon armoured cars, 2015[34]
  • Training from March 2015 of over 80,000 soldiers[35]
  • Counterbattery radars, 2015[36]
  • .50 calibre sniper rifles 2017,[37] 2018[38]
  • RPG launchers, 2017[39]
  • FGM-148 Javelin antitank missiles, 2018[40]
  • SP artillery and IFVs, 2018[41]
  • Attack drones, 2019[42]
  • $141.5 million for “maritime domain awareness, secure communications, command and control, marksmanship, night vision disaster preparedness and special operations and territorial defense units,” maritime security, “airfield defense, night vision devices, radars, vehicles and tactical communication equipment,” and plenty more, 2019[43]
  • NLAW antitank missiles, January 2022[44]
  • Stinger antiaircraft missiles February 2022[45]
  • Milan and Javelin missiles, before February 24[46]
  • $100s millions direct military assistance YTD January 26, 2022[47]
Now that eight months have passed, it is clear that Western weapons have been key in the turning of this war in Ukraine's favor.[citation needed] There is plenty of sources on this. No there aren’t. When did the war “turn”? The West was only providing weapons for an insurgency, assuming the Ukrainians could not stop a Russian occupation of the country. Real heavy weapons supply (in contrast to the above) didn’t begin until after Ukrainians demonstrated they could defeat the Russian Kyiv offensive.
American HIMARS (note that it was first announced that they would be given to Ukraine on 31 May) have been so relevant . . . First four systems deployed June 25, four full months into the war, and three months after the end of the Battle of Kyiv. Ukraine said it needed at least a hundred.
regarded as so valuable . . . the influence of Western weapons . . . undeniably huge role . . . intelligence is also said to be highly relevant If things go in the infobox because they influenced the war, let’s list Western integrated chip and other technology manufacturers without which the Russians would have no cruise missiles, aircraft, precision-guided weaponry, sophisticated gun and missile sights, military communications, and drones. Let’s also list the lack of deterrent by the West of Russian economic warfare, political pressure, election interference, and military action from at least 2004 until 2022. And let’s list states that prevented military aid to Ukraine (Germany prevented others from delivering armoured vehicles, notably Leopard 2 tanks from Spain, and Israel prevented transfer of Iron Dome and Patriot air defence systems), and states that provided military systems to Russia (Israel, France, and Germany).
One of the worries of editors who opposed the last RfC was that it would make the infobox too long. This can be easily addressed through a collapsible list. WP:INFOBOX says not to write an article in the infobox. The less the better. Collapsible list subverts the intent rather than facilitating it.
Others said this would imply that the United States and other countries are being listed as belligrants. Clearly this would not be the case if we list them under a "Supported by" section, they should not be included on Ukraine's level on the infobox. No. If “Supported by” is a subheading of “Belligerents,” then it directly implies that it is a subcategory. If non-belligerents are listed, then they must be under a separate heading. But the template does not provide one because that is outside its intended scope.
the United States should be included for being the biggest supplier of weapons which have caused actual changes on the battlefield, for its intelligence support and for its economic aid. Other states have provided more aid in proportion to their GDP.
Why include military aid and not economic support that allows Ukraine to maintain an economy during the war? In this area the EU has been huge, and other states important too.
the common practice in Wikipedia is to include countries that have helped one or another side during a war in the war's infobox, see Iran–Iraq War, Vietnam War, Yom Kippur War, Soviet–Afghan War, Football War, Cambodian Civil War and Korean War as examples. There is no particular reason in my eyes for this article to be an exception.
The practice is contrary to WP:INFOBOX and the docs at Template:infobox military conflict. In the case of this article, it is outstandingly important because one of the top Russian propaganda lines since before the February invasions has been “we are fighting NATO and the West.” Listing members of NATO and the West under “Belligerents” reflects a blatantly and extremely non-WP:neutral point of view. —Michael Z. 20:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
When did the war “turn”? The West was only providing weapons for an insurgency, assuming the Ukrainians could not stop a Russian occupation of the country. Real heavy weapons supply (in contrast to the above) didn’t begin until after Ukrainians demonstrated they could defeat the Russian Kyiv offensive. as far as I know, the Kyiv offensive is regarded more as a Russian defeat than a Ukrainian victory. Russia's plans failed as Ukraine put up more resistance than it expected and withdrew. And I was implying that ever since April, which is when Russia retreated from Ukraine, things changed as Ukraine showed it was capable of fighting Russia, and then the real help started to come.
First four systems deployed June 25, four full months into the war, and three months after the end of the Battle of Kyiv. Ukraine said it needed at least a hundred. how exactly does this disprove that Russian artillery strikes were reduced tenfold, for example? Note that it was a Ukrainian military official who said this, Bohdan Dmytruk.
let’s list Western integrated chip and other technology manufacturers without which the Russians would have no... no, because Russia did not receive any after 24 February. Let’s also list the lack of deterrent by the West of Russian economic warfare, political pressure, election interference, and military action from at least 2004 until 2022. no, as that is not on the scope of this article. And let’s list states that prevented military aid to Ukraine that's not direct support to Russia. It is not comparable to aiding weapons to a country. and states that provided military systems to Russia if this was before 24 February 2022, it should not be included.
Collapsible list subverts the intent rather than facilitating it. I disagree. Not much else to argue here.
If non-belligerents are listed, then they must be under a separate heading. But the template does not provide one because that is outside its intended scope., The practice is contrary to WP:INFOBOX and the docs at Template:infobox military conflict. this has been largely ignored in, well, every Wikipedia article. Other articles chose to include Supporters under a parameter titled "Belligrants". I do not see why should this article become the focus for a discussion affecting a lot of other similar articles instead of the template's page itself. We should follow common practice.
Other states have provided more aid in proportion to their GDP. yeah, I think Estonia or Latvia gave 1% of their whole GDP to aid to Ukraine, but by raw amount of support, the United States remains as the main supplier while Estonia's or Latvia's contributions are more negligible. Why include military aid and not economic support that allows Ukraine to maintain an economy during the war? In this area the EU has been huge, and other states important too. I did mention that economic and also intelligence support could also be taken into consideration here. I mentioned the EU could be included on the opening comment. This RfC has never been restricted to military aid.
In the case of this article, it is outstandingly important because one of the top Russian propaganda lines since before the February invasions has been “we are fighting NATO and the West.” Listing members of NATO and the West under “Belligerents” reflects a blatantly and extremely non-WP:neutral point of view. here I understand your point but I strongly oppose that we should let reality be affected by Russian delusional propaganda. It is true that the United States is helping Ukraine. If Russian propagandists try to use that to save some face, it doesn't mean we should completely stop talking about Western help to Ukraine. Because does this implication that saying the West is helping Ukraine is the same as adopting Russian propaganda points only affect Wikipedia? Super Ψ Dro 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Playing fast and loose with the definition of “Belligerents” is exactly catering to Russian propaganda that depends on undisciplined arguments and lack of critical thinking. (No one is stopping talking about aid to Ukraine, because there’s a whole article to cover it in.) If you really want non-belligerent foreign supporters to be in the infobox, then please add a separate subheading and data row to the infobox. —Michael Z. 21:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
If “Supported by” is a subheading of “Belligerents,” then it directly implies that it is a subcategory. ... In the case of this article, it is outstandingly important because one of the top Russian propaganda lines since before the February invasions has been “we are fighting NATO and the West.” Listing members of NATO and the West under “Belligerents” reflects a blatantly and extremely non-WP:neutral point of view.
These points taken together seem to be the core of your objection. Though I would argue that making it a subcategory directly implies the entity listed is not explicitly a belligerent, but a supporter (hence having a subcategory), a strong case can be made for the United States specifically as being regarded as a belligerent or co-belligerent, [48] [49] [50] per @Jfhutson's point. I think a more focused discussion on that is warranted.
If reasonably established that they are, and if the reason to avoid to inclusion of the United States (and others that would qualify) as belligerents or co-belligerents in a "Supported by" subcategory is not that their inclusion in the infobox doesn't accurately represent reality, but that it serves Russian propaganda, the omission would then be a violation of WP:neutral point of view. That said, I would still argue that an entity in the "Supported by" subcategory need not be a de jure belligerent, but at minimum a significant enough supporter of one to warrant inclusion, as has been the practice in numerous other articles. Making a special exception in the case of this article may be outstandingly important to you personally, but to do so would not be in line with WP:neutral point of view. entropyandvodka (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a few reasons:
  1. The title of the section in the infobox tells Belligerents. None of these 30+ countries is currently a belligerent in this war.
  2. Nothing has changed from the previous RfCs about the same, as articulated by Michael just above.
  3. The arguments by nominator are utterly unconvincing. "We must also not forget Russia's displeasure at this supply of weapons". Yes, this is true. But is that a reason for including the entire "West" to the infobox? And what is "West" ("Western support") Some of these countries, such as New Zealand, are hardly "West".
  4. The nominator failed to provide the list of countries he wants to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
"Belligerent" includes indirect military support. [51] [52] [53]. Using a separate subcategory of "Supported by" helps to avoid any misunderstanding. --Jfhutson (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I reject that referring to a country as a supporter of a belligerent is the same as calling it a belligerent. Technical issues from the infobox should not impact any informational issues.
Nothing has changed from the previous RfCs about the same Western aid to Ukraine is more widely referenced as being relevant for the war than it used to in April.
The point of mentioning Russia asking the West to stop supplying aid to Ukraine was meant to imply that Russia recognizes it affects its war effort because it has impacted the war. And "the West" is just a term I am using in this RfC to facilitate discussion. We should not state that "the West" is helping Ukraine on the infobox.
I've argued the United States should be included, and also any country the individual support of which is referenced by reliable sources as having significantly impacted the war. That is, the US for sure, and maybe Poland, the UK or Germany. I've also argued those countries supporting Ukraine that have not had that much of a role could be grouped together in a note as in German Wikipedia. Countries should be discussed individually. There's sources discussing how American aid has influenced the war but for Bulgarian aid for example, not many sources are found. Some countries possibly are on a grey area. Super Ψ Dro 21:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, one could probably make a stronger case that USA is a co-belligerent (rather than "all these countries are co-belligerents"). But this RfC was not framed such way. But I am not sure because then indeed there is a question about Poland, UK, Germany and so on. And how about Latvia that spent almost a half of its own military budget to help Ukraine? My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
    The RFC statement is "Should the countries that have helped Ukraine during this war be included in the infobox of this article?" Obviously that's a bit vague. But maybe we could get some tentative answer to the question that moves us in some direction away from the currently understood consensus which seems to be that only boots on the ground are included. -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I think that USA is a party to this war already, and that Biden administration only misleads itself and public that it is not, while talking something strange about avoiding any further excessive confrontation with Russia (and Putin certainly thinks the same). But we need some strong and clear cut criteria here. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @My very best wishes on the point about the United States and the need for clear criteria. Perhaps the discussion could hone in on these specifically? entropyandvodka (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose and we might as well close this. No plausible result but "no change" can result from a RfC query that so completely fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Mzajac makes some excellent points that I would probably agree with if we had a viable RfC. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
VQuakr, may you argue how is this RfC not neutral? Super Ψ Dro 21:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: if you don't see how this is incompatible with the instructions at WP:RFCNEUTRAL then you are not competent enough to edit Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
So rather than argue your point, you're going for the ad hominem? entropyandvodka (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This topic can get a little heated but please remember WP:CIV and try to engage with discussion and reason rather than writing off editors with different views. BogLogs (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
VQuakr, if you have any issues with my editing, you're encouraged to file a WP:ANI report. If you are here not to defend your case but to stir useless tensions between editors, do not leave a message in the first place. Super Ψ Dro 13:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. I think, broadly, we should include some of the general nations which have sent the largest amount of military support to Ukraine (United States, United Kingdom, and so on, though I'm uncertain as to which metric it should be measured), or perhaps just a general "NATO" section with a drop-down box. Afterwards, I feel that there should be text reading "...and others" (similar to the World War II article), linking to List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Additionally, we could perhaps list the entire EU (with a link to EUMAM Ukraine in a note) with a drop-down list, rather than NATO.
Broadly, I think that, as including every nation which has supplied any support to Ukraine whatsoever would be overly extensive, as was, as I recall (though I may be incorrect here), that was part of the reason for originally rejecting including Western support to Ukraine. I think in this way, we would be able to accurately show important information in the infobox, while preventing it from becoming overly bloated. In the same vein, I feel that it would be appropriate to add North Korea to the infobox under countries supporting Russia, while noting that is alleged and denied by North Korea and Russia. However, that's not for discussion on this topic.
Mupper-san (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


People keep talking about WW2 or The Korean war, this article is not about a war. It is more analogous to UN September 1950 counteroffensive, an article about a specific phase of a war, and that lists only combatants. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The UN September 1950 counteroffensive lasted all of a week from 23–30 September 1950. The invasion by Russia of Ukraine in ,lands beyond Crimea, has now lasted 8 months and 5 days and is likely to last a great deal longer. For most readers this is likely the one they would come to first for information regarding the conflict. BogLogs (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • This RfC is indeed not really different from any others and is a huge mess. As I am the user who opened it, I will attempt to address the suggestions some users have provided during this discussion and try to reframe the RfC to something more concrete. This should probably have been done earlier (if not from the start), but I think it is not too late yet. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 2022 (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.

(second)

Should we include any country/organization as supporting Ukraine during the invasion on the infobox? Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Any support may be discussed: military, economic, humanitarian and intelligence, and others if necessary. The discussion will be mainly about countries but organizations like NATO and the European Union also come into debate. I suggest several options:

  • Option 1: Do not include any country.
  • Option 2: Do include countries.
    • Option 2A (note): Only include a note as in German Wikipedia [54] stating that Ukraine has received external help from a series of countries.
    • Option 2B (2A + United States): Include this note and also the United States separately, as it is the country that has given the biggest help to Ukraine.
    • Option 2C (2B + other important countries): Include the note, the United States and other countries. Include any country the support of which is noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. Potential candidates are the United Kingdom, Poland, Germany and possibly others; they require individual discussion.
    • Option 2D (every country): Include every country that has helped Ukraine in any way. Thus, the note is omitted.

I propose that editors supporting the inclusion of countries make separate arguments for why should we include any country at all (Option 2) and for which countries should we include and why (defend a subcategory of Option 2 against the others), that is, what is your inclusion criteria. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment from opening user: A large number of users have suggested a change or rewrite to the RfC in order to have a clearer aim. I think it's easier to start over now that discussion is still active than to try to save the old RfC, which had gotten pretty messy and confusing. I have tried to reframe the RfC into options to make the discussion easier and prevent users supporting the inclusion of any countries by simply leaving their support and not clarifying if they think any random country should be included and why. I apologize as this means users will basically have to repeat themselves, but now I offer the chance to express their opinions directly rather than as a counterargument to my initial long comment.
With this being said, I support Option 2C. I've made my case why the United States should be included, and I am not opposed to the inclusion of any country which has managed to significantly impact the war through their support. This is only theoretically though, as no countries except the United States have been individually discussed yet. Not every country should be included, as this will clog the infobox, so we would include the rest into the proposed note. Super Ψ Dro 13:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I was Umming and Arring over 2, but notice that the German wiki also lists a lot more countries as supporting Russia than we do. So have to go back to "if we include supported of Ukraine we must include nations who support Russia". Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
German Wikipedia only includes Belarus and South Ossetia as supporters of Russia. Belarus is included here while South Ossetia was rejected before [55]. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
And? The USA has been rejected before as well. If that is the model we use we use it in full. This should not only be about aid to Ukraine, which violates wp:npov. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
By this I meant there's not "a lot" of countries listed in German Wikipedia to add as Russian supporters here. Super Ψ Dro 07:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I tend to agree with Slatersteven, I'm fine with mentions of the US and UK supporting Ukraine, for example, but only if Iran is added to the Russian side simultaneously. --Galebazz (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven and Galebazz, again, if the RfC is specifically about Ukraine's supporters, there's no point in discussing Russia's. There's already a discussion for including Iran as a supporter of Russia, see Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Iran should be added as “Supporting Russia”. Some of the people who have opposed it did so because we list no supporters for Ukraine. To not include one's supporters because the other's are not included is a senseless cycle that does not actually address the question of whether we should add supporters to the infobox or not and brings us nowhere. Both issues should not influence each other. And anyway, we do list Belarus as supporting Russia. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2C with the following proposal for inclusion criteria to distinguish main listings (ie, Ukraine, Russia) from the "Supported by" subcategory (ie Belarus, United States, Iran):
1. Any belligerent fitting the de jure definition should be listed in the main section. This includes states that participate directly in armed hostilities.
2. Any belligerent, co-belligerent, state or group that significantly participates indirectly in hostilities should be listed in the "Supported by" subcategory.
3. Direct participation in hostilities includes carrying out acts of violence against an adversary.[56]
4. Indirect participation in hostilities includes carrying out operational, logistical, or intelligence functions that are integrated into military operations conducted by an existing belligerent, or supplying an existing belligerent with operational, logistical, intelligence, or materiel assistance that directly contributes to the supported party’s overall military effort in the conflict.[57][58]
entropyandvodka | talk 20:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I think keeping status quo is better. I do not see a consensus of sources supporting any other options, just a lot of different views. According to one of them, Ukraine is even a de facto member of NATO already, and the article 5 has been already invoked [59]. Is it a "majority view"? No. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    If there's no consensus of sources, wouldn't a note reflecting that be the most appropriate option? The total omission of any supporting party, or of a link with a note, implies Wikipedia is choosing a side in a currently debated issue. In other words, the status quo may not adhere to NPOV as it currently stands. entropyandvodka | talk 20:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 2C seems most accurate to the situation and best to give readers a brief understanding of the current conflict before diving into the rest of the article. That said I also agree with entropyandvodka that discussion about the criteria for inclusion in the info box in general is also warranted. BogLogs (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Option 2C, matching with what I stated on the first RfC (including noteworthy countries while linking the full list under an "...and others" link, similar to the World War II page). This prevents bloating of the infobox with countries that have sent little in terms of weapons, while also displaying those who have provided support in a way that makes it understandable for readers.
Mupper-san (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

:Option 2B seems most accurate RandomPotato123 (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Again (as per the last RFC) this is about including Ukrain's supporters only, not a more general question about all belligerent's supporters. So anything but option 1 only adds Ukrainian supporters to the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would similarly like to reframe the discussion to be primarily about criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Rather than have extensive debates about each case with an amorphous criteria, it would be better if we could establish a consensus around consistent criteria first, and then subsequently discuss cases if necessary. A consistent, objective, and neutral criteria should clear up the need for these types of discussions, except when edge cases and grey areas arise. entropyandvodka | talk 18:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 1. Military aid doesn't make a country a belligerent. We already have consensus on this BTW; see WP:REHASH. Limiting this query to only one side of the infobox also raises neutrality concerns. VQuakr (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
    The previous 2 RfCs at the very start of the invasion led to a result of no consensus either way on the matter. Also, adding information about the nations supporting Ukraine does not preclude adding information about the nations supporting the opposing side. BogLogs (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with @BogLogs. If there was a consensus before, there certainly isn't one now. While this particular discussion is focused on the inclusion of Ukraine's supporters, that is likely due to complaints that the previous discussions were unfocused and too broad. Additionally, there are other concurrent discussions about the other side. As to military aid supposedly being insufficient to qualify a state as a belligerent, there are experts in international law that disagree. The scope, nature, impact, and level of involvement a state has in a conflict can make that state a party to that conflict. entropyandvodka | talk 07:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    BogLogs, please cite any such "expert" sources that would assert that military aid provided by any country to Ukraine since the invasion is of such a nature that they (the provider) are considered a belligerent under prevailing international law. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    Being a supporter does not have to make one a belligerent. As shown in the these other conflict pages Korean War, Crimean War, Yom Kippur War, Russian Civil War. I'm glad you are participating in this discussion but just so I can understand your position are you saying that only belligerents, with let's the definition from wikionary as a basis "Engaged in warfare", should be listed in war infoboxs?
    Belarus gave military access for Russia's invasion but they certainly are not engaged in warfare at this point at least by any expert sources I know of. By that reasoning should we remove them from the infobox? BogLogs (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    Their argument is that for any state to appear in the box, as a belligerent or supporter, they must be a belligerent in the conflict under international law (even though the term in international law is party to the conflict). They have not established why Wikipedia infoboxes must conform to such an exacting legal criteria rather than plain language definitions, though I would be interested to see such an argument with regards to the "Supported by" subcategory. What does international law have to say about a "Supported by" subcategory on Wikipedia? In the other Wikipedia pages many of the nations listed in the "Supported by" subcategory may have been legally considered neutral, albeit debatably, in those conflicts. They are still denoted because of substantial indirect participation. If the only criteria for inclusion is the legal status of belligerency, the "Supported by" subcategory shouldn't exist in any infobox in any article. That would be an unreasonable practice, however, as the current norms are informative and useful. The exact legal status of a state supporting a belligerent in a conflict is a murky area of international law, and has been for many decades, as it depends what that support entails. "Aid" can encompass many gradients of participation. The inclusion of a "Supported by" subsection is a great solution to this. A common sense reading of the infobox would be "Here are the belligerents, and here are the states supporting them." Is it Wikipedia's role to be a legal document or an informative summary of reality? Should Wikipedia only be written for IR theorists and a faction of legal experts? Why should the contested status quo here deviate from established norms elsewhere in Wikipedia? Other editors have cited their anxieties about "Russian propaganda" as a reason, but if that's the only basis it violates NPOV, and should throw the neutrality of the page into dispute.
    All that said, a strong case can be made that the United States specifically has violated its neutral status by way of integrated participation in Ukraine's military operations, notably with the near real-time sharing of intel that enabled Ukraine to shoot down a Russian transport plane carrying hundreds of soldiers[60]. Even if we concede (and we don't) that all states appearing in the infobox under "Supported by" must be parties to the conflict, by either metric the United States should be in there. entropyandvodka | talk 18:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for this thoughtful reply entropyandvodka. BogLogs (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    I was not expressing any opinion in this particular thread, I was simply asking for the sources alluded to by BogLogs - which have not been provided. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    Oh yes, you wrote "BogLogs, please cite any such "expert" sources that would assert that military aid provided by any country to Ukraine since the invasion is of such a nature that they (the provider) are considered a belligerent under prevailing international law".
    But I have not asserted this in what I wrote (and I'm not sure of my opinion on the matter as it's written currently).
    Honestly I kinda thought you wrote my name by mistake and intended if for another editor. My position throughout has been that level of support is notable and having a meaningful effect on conflict making it worthy of mention in the infobox. For reference in case it has been lost in the mix of this discussion I believe the best style of infobox for quickly giving readers an overview of the conflict before they dive into the article would be similar to these: Korean War, Crimean War, Yom Kippur War, Russian Civil War. BogLogs (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    BogLogs, you wrote: ... there are experts in international law that disagree. It is to this statement that my request for sources mas made. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    Please read it again, I know you are acting in good faith but I wrote no such comment. BogLogs (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    My apologies BogLogs, the question should have been directed to Entropyandvodka. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry if the chain of this got a little muddy. You requested:
    please cite any such "expert" sources that would assert that military aid provided by any country to Ukraine since the invasion is of such a nature that they (the provider) are considered a belligerent under prevailing international law.
    Here is an opinion that I found useful in forming the criteria in my comment; it makes the assertion that the United States (and many of its NATO allies) are belligerents in this conflict, and argues why. [61] It also cites other sources I found useful, a couple of which I will share below.
    Here is another article quoting an expert making a similar argument. [62]
    Here is an article from an expert with the International Committee of the Red Cross speaking more broadly on the issue of support. [63] Pages 7-8 mention integrated support into military operations (ie, intelligence sharing) being regarded as co-belligerency.
    Here is a paper from a professor of international law analyzing the conduct of the United States in a previous conflict where neutrality was claimed. It specifically names the sharing of intelligence as an act of war. [64]
    There are more papers and debates about the issue of arms specifically, but that should be sufficient to answer your request for now. To me, the United States sharing of intelligence seems to be an even clearer example of participation in the conflict (though the immense amount of materiel supplied probably has had a greater overall impact). The sharing of intelligence and near-real time targeting intel means that US military personnel were actively integrated into Ukranian military operations for the purpose of harming a belligerent. entropyandvodka | talk 21:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user.Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Entropyandvodka, thank you. So, as you would say, there are debates about the issue which (from my reading) would pivot on the disjunction between the principle of neutrality and the doctrine of non-aggression, where the former is long standing and the latter is more modern (as I understand it) arising from the charter of the UN. I would observe that to place any country in the infobox is to speak in a Wiki voice and without nuance - it is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I have made this statement in respect to adding Iran and make it more generally here. Stating: 'The principle of neutrality says X, country Y has done A therefore country Y is a co-belligerent', would be WP:SYNTH. However, if we were to state in prose: 'Author X (and Y) have opined that country A has breached the principle neutrality because of B and are a co-belligerent', is fine. To state something like this in a Wiki voice there should either be a consensus in good quality sources or sourcing that meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL. As you would state, this is a matter of debate so it is not fine to state: 'Country A is a co-belligerent [cite X] [cite Y]', when this is not the consensus in good quality sources and neither rise to being exceptional sources. This would be my criteria. I believe it has been met for Belarus. If it has not, then Belarus should be removed. I don't see that it has yet been met for any other country. When it is, then we might add then to the infobox, which intrinsically uses a Wiki voice. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    You've made some good points. Though I agree that it would be WP:SYNTH to make the claim of belligerency in the manner of sourcing the principle of neutrality, the action of the country, then the conclusion, we do have sources that do this for us. Here's another one.[65] If the article were to include a discussion of this directly, or some kind of notation in the infobox was needed, I agree that only the sources making the claim (and not their supporting research) would be appropriate.
    With regards to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, you also make a good point that the infobox speaks in Wiki voice without nuance, but this is a double-edged sword. Many of the sources I've looked at arguing the opposing view do acknowledge the legally murky area of the United States' actions, and don't deny that the United States is supporting Ukraine; they just argue that it is doing so as a non-belligerent. It seems the case that there isn't an expert consensus on this matter because it's not explicitly spelled out one way or the other in the Geneva Conventions or the UN Charter (which was why the International Committee of the Red Cross put forward the article I supplied). Since the co-belligerent vs non-belligerent status of the United States and some other countries is a matter of dispute, and since the infobox speaks in Wiki voice without nuance, their total omission from the infobox, with no note of any kind, implies that Wikipedia is picking a side of that dispute. This is further confounded by Wikipedia's frequent inclusion of a "Supported by" subsection, which often includes parties that weren't de jure belligerents in conflicts. The omission here thus implies that the United States, for example, is not a belligerent or a supporter.
    Further, there is some room for nuance in the infobox. In its current form, the infobox includes notes for Belarus, Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR (though the notes for these latter two may also have WP:NPOV problems, but we can look at that separately). In the case of a specific power like the United States, they could be included with a nuanced note. It does seem noteworthy to me that the United States has come so far into its involvement that some experts already consider it a co-belligerent. Alternatively, a link to a list or section about foreign support under a "Supported by" subsection would probably satisfy most of the editors objecting to the infobox in its current form, and all the better if that section contains a discussion with RS of the belligerency status dispute, as you suggested in your post. entropyandvodka | talk 21:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    A note for clarity: when I say that the sources arguing the opposing view acknowledge the legally murky area of the United States' actions, I'm referring to whether those actions legally constitute co-belligerency, not whether the actions are legal or illegal. entropyandvodka | talk 21:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. No need for this in the infobox and no country is formally involved. Andre🚐 04:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    The proposal is due to the need that the infobox reflect the reality of the conflict, which includes the participation of other countries in supportive and indirect capacities. The "Supported by" subcategory addresses the informal nature of their involvement. When they are formally parties to the conflict, they should go in the main section as belligerents. entropyandvodka | talk 19:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think it's necessary for the other countries to be in the infobox at all. Andre🚐 15:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    On the basis that their involvement isn't formal? entropyandvodka | talk 18:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    When some context and further exposition is needed, it should be discussed in the article body and not the infobox. Andre🚐 20:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 no, this is an attempt to sneak POV into the article. Volunteer Marek 04:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    What POV would be added by listing the supporting nations in the infobox? BogLogs (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
”rUsSia iS fIgHtiNG aLL oF NaTo aNd THAt’s wHY iZ loOsinG” Volunteer Marek 19:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
That might hold water if the proposal was to include NATO as a main belligerent, but that isn't the proposal so your argument fails. entropyandvodka | talk 20:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh really? So tell me, what are these "other countries" that the proposal wishes to include? They're not in NATO? See, this is how I know there's some shenanigans afoot here - because you're trying to obfuscate and hide what the proposal actually is in order to get it passed. When you have to rely on deception to make your arguments, it's pretty clear that the intent is to violate NPOV. Volunteer Marek 23:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This seems like projection to me. I've been making fact-based arguments for the inclusion of countries in the infobox based on their participation in the conflict. Whether those countries are in NATO or not isn't really the issue. The reality is that multiple NATO countries are heavily involved. If we establish several countries are participants in the conflict, and they happen to be in NATO, is it your argument that they should be exempted from the infobox by virtue of their NATO membership? entropyandvodka | talk 21:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not what we're doing. I don't know why this needs explaining but there's a huge difference between a country providing military supplies (which happens all the time even in peacetime) and a country letting its territory be used as a launching pad for an invasion. Volunteer Marek 23:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This we agree on (though the supply during peacetime and wartime are not the same, as supply during wartime constitutes participation in a conflict). However, military supplies are not the only form of support Ukraine has received. entropyandvodka | talk 21:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Entropyandvodka, I believe “supply during wartime constitutes participation in a conflict” is absolutely false. What is this based on.  —Michael Z. 16:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have phrased that as can constitute, as when there is no conflict to speak of a third party cannot be participating in it. When there is a conflict and military aid is being supplied for the purpose of use in that conflict, then the debate is open as to what level of participation that entails. entropyandvodka | talk 18:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. There is large difference between sending soldiers to fight on battlefields to face casualties, or, to merely send supplies and money for other nation's soldiers to face heavy casualties. The Infobox should respect this distinction of countries who are sacrificing the lives of their own soldiers to preserve their sovereignty as opposed to countries who are not making sacrifices of the lives of their soldiers on the battlefield. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
To add a country as supporting Ukraine does not imply that it has sent soldiers to die on the battlefield. There's no possible room for misunderstanding. The distinction is achieved. Super Ψ Dro 16:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
It does in fact insinuate it. There’s A LOT of room for misunderstanding actually, which is why 1) this is being suggested (intention is for readers to misunderstand, so that a POV can be pushed) and 2) why we shouldn’t do it. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
What misunderstanding is intended by showing that, for example, the United States is supporting Ukraine in their efforts? Is the United States not supporting Ukraine? The United States is an indirect participant in the conflict, so what's the misunderstanding? Being a belligerent or a supporter of a belligerent is about gradients of participation in a conflict.
Is it POV that the United States is assisting Ukraine with immense amounts of materiel and sharing intel that is directly integrated into Ukrainian military operations? entropyandvodka | talk 19:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, let me see if I understood properly. Are you accusing any editor here, ostensibly me, of having some hidden intentions, maybe pro-Russian propaganda ones? Super Ψ Dro 20:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not accusing you specifically of anything - my understanding is that you started this RfC simply because this has been a perennial issue. But if you're asking about the general situation? Yeah, you'd have to be incredibly naive (AGF is not a suicide pact) to think that no one here isn't motivated by desire to push a pro-Russian POV. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you present any evidence of this? If not, it's a fair, but baseless concern, and using it as an argument against this proposal is equally as baseless in my opinion. I believe we should be confident in our (as in Wikipedians') ability to portray reality as it is without fears for accidentally falling for the attempted manipulation of it by some groups. Super Ψ Dro 21:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The “evidence” is “read this whole freakin’ talk page”. Volunteer Marek 23:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
No. No editors here are pushing Russian propaganda. Stop saying that because it's a serious accusation. Super Ψ Dro 07:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh please. AGF is not a suicide pact and I’m not gonna throw common sense out the window just because you make some reassuring assurances. “Russia is at war with entire West/NATO” is central staple of pro Russian propaganda and these repeated attempts (this is, what, third RfC on essentially same proposal? Fourth? All the previous ones failed?) to basically enter that into the infobox fit that propaganda line like a velvet glove. I’m also not the only one to have noticed this with regard to this article and talk page. Come on! You got an editor below claiming that Iran “only supplying drone” (which Russia uses to murder Ukrainian civilians) is not participation in the conflict, but aid to Ukraine is. The evidence that you asked for is all over this page. Volunteer Marek 07:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
By that criteria, ErnestKrause, Belarus would be excluded. entropyandvodka | talk 19:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Russian troops attacked Ukraine from Belarusian territory. Did Ukrainian troops attack Russia from NATO countries territories? No? Then stop playing games. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
That's not the argument I was making. I was pointing out that by his criteria, Belarus would be excluded. I think they should be included, as should the other direct and indirect participants. entropyandvodka | talk 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
And I was explaining to you why Belarus needs to be included while other "direct and indirect participants" are not to be included. Take WW2, period 1939-1941. US is providing aid to Britain and France. But if we were to have an infobox for just that part of WW2 we would NOT include US as a participant in the war (though we would include fascist Italy).
Here is one way to distinguish levels of "support". Is the support provided exceptional to the circumstances of the war?
Countries providing military supplies to other countries happens ALL THE TIME, even in peace time, even when the recipient is NOT involved in any active conflict. It's standard and that's why it doesn't warrant being included in an infobox.
On the there hand "letting a foreign country's troops invade another country from your territory" is SPECIFIC to an actual war. That, by definition, cannot happen in peacetime. So it's. That's why we include Belarus.
Put it another way: if all that Belarus was doing was supplying Russians with ammo (which they are doing) we would not include them. It's also why we're not including Iran. But it's not all that Belarus is doing - the aggression on Ukraine was launched in big part from Belarusian territory. Volunteer Marek 20:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
That's really a silly explanation. And moreover shameful for the reputation of Wikipedia's neutrality. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Oookay buddy. Speaking of silly. Apparently “only selling drones” (used to murder civilians) is not participation but providing other types of military equipment is [66]. But we shouldn’t worry about anyone trying to push POV here. Riiiigggghhhhhtttt. Volunteer Marek 23:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't sure which comment I should reply to and I don't want to reply to each one separately so I'll just reply to this one here. There is nothing in this proposal that precludes adding Iran or Syria or even NK (alleged) as supporters to the other side of the infobox. I understand you are worried about POV here and the image that the war is going as it is because of western support. However this isn't something whispered about behind the scenes, Ukraine and western nations have been very upfront with how much previous and continued support is helping in its defense. Listing it in the infobox of an encyclopedic page I would think does nothing to further Russian propaganda than the already public statements of support do.
Furthermore the goal of wikipedia is to be an un-biased, at least as much as possible, encyclopedia and I'm not sure we can do that if we are always afraid that any edit might support one dictator's propaganda. BogLogs (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah but we SHOULDN'T include Iran or Syria or NK in the infobox as they're not participants in this conflict, even if they do provide weapons to Russia. Of course we can discuss this support in the text of the article. But including these countries in the infobox - just like including US or UK or whatever - would give a false impression to the readers. Volunteer Marek 03:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
"...Belarus needs to be included while other "direct and indirect participants" are not to be included."
So you admit that infobox as it is does exclude other direct and indirect participants in the conflict? Glad we can agree.
As for the criteria of the "exceptionality" of the participation being a basis for infobox inclusion, while it's good that you're at least suggesting a criteria, I think it is a bad one, and arbitrary. If a country regularly violated their neutrality expectations, then an action that should make them a belligerent or a supporter of one might not, as it would cease to be exceptional given that they do it regularly. Conversely, if a country never gave materiel aid of any kind and then did for the first time, the act of giving military aid would be exceptional in their case, and by your standard of "exceptionality" of participation make them a belligerent. See why this is a bad criteria? It is not the exceptionality of Belarus allowing Russia to attack from their land that warrants infobox inclusion, it is that the action makes them an indirect participant in hostilities.
I would again suggest referring to the criteria I laid out above, as it satisfies concerns others have raised about the legal meaning of belligerency, but also resolves the issues that arise with acknowledging significant indirect participation (Supported by), which is both consistent with existing Wikipedia articles and adheres to NPOV. entropyandvodka | talk 01:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
We're not agreeing on anything, so please don't try to twist my words. The only country that has plausibly "violated their neutrality expectations" (wtf these are - please see WP:OR) is Belarus, since Lukashenko allowed its territory to be used as a launching pad for the invasion, as well as the source for missile strikes on Ukrainian cities. And no, what you suggest is not consistent with existing Wikipedia articles. Hell, we don't even list Britain and France in September Campaign. Please take your criteria and read WP:OR instead. Let us know when Ukraine launches strikes on Russia from within NATO country's borders. Volunteer Marek 03:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hell, by your criteria we should add Germany to the infobox as supporting Russia since they've sent military equipment to Russia [67] and German companies are still providing components to Russian arms industry. This would of course be ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 03:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Everything in the criteria that I put forward exists in a source I provided, and another source making part of the same argument (but with the emphasis on intelligence sharing and its integration into hostilities), so it isn't WP:OR. Other editors here have argued for a criteria that would only include de jure belligerents in the box under international law. Under international law, there are legal ramifications to being a party to a conflict or a neutral, which is what I was referring to.
As for the point about Germany, an argument could be made that they are a party to the conflict, but not for the reason you stated. What a private citizen or company does isn't the same as what a state does in its capacity as a state. This is why, for example, volunteers from Britain being on the ground in Ukraine haven't made Britain a party to the conflict, even when those volunteers are active service members of British armed forces. entropyandvodka | talk 19:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • Option 1 or Option 2A
To option 1
  • Option 1 is the status quo I don't see a particular reason to change and there are many reasons to retain the status quo.
  • Extensive lists are not consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - that which cannot be simply summarised belongs elsewhere. They also bloat the infobox.
  • Collapsing long lists still creates an accessibility issue for mobile users. Perhaps it shouldn't but it does and until the mobile environment for WP is changed, it is still a valid argument.
  • The infobox lacks nuance. Adding "supporters" does not distinguish the nature of the support. Consensus has been that Belarus is a supporter because sources (AFAIK) clearly report it as an "aggressor" in law but not as a combatant. I have no objection to adding countries rising to the same level as supporters in a Wiki voice (in the infobox) provided there are WP:EXCEPTIONAL sources. Otherwise, it would be wrong to equate the aid provided by other countries with Belarus.
  • While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is double-edged. It is only a valid argument if it represents "best practice". There is no evidence that "Supported by" is best practice represented by consistent use in our FAs. I am unaware of any that do. The template is widely used and subject to broad scrutiny by the community. Many comments are being made about the role or purpose of "supported by" but these are opinion. There is no such WP:P&G on this issue. It is not a recognised parameter in the template nor is it mentioned in the documentation.
To option 2A: In the most recent RfC, there was an emerging consensus for this option but it did not fit with the RfC question. I am prepared to support this since it addresses many of my afore concerns and has a reasonable chance of flying. The German article would link to "List of foreign aid to Ukraine since 2014" with the piping "supported by foreign aid from other states". Not perfect in that we might have a more specific link (and article) to aid subsequent to the invasion. It doesn't quite distinguish between the "support" provided by Belarus but this is not insurmountable. While WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would discourage such links, we might WP:IAR in this case. Some would conflate my opposition to WP:REHASHING the previous RfCs with what are essentially the same arguments to "shutting down discussion", yet here we have a different proposition that builds upon the previous RfC.
To option 2D (opposed): my comments in support of option 1 would address my reasons to oppose this.
To options 2B and 2C: I would first refer to my comments in support of option 1 and most specifically, that listing any specific country(s) might equate with the actions of Belarus. Some are expressing opinions (WP:SYNTH) that they do. When we have sources to support such a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, that the actions of a particular country rise to a similar level in international law as for Belarus, we might add them to the infobox. This is the objective criteria that is the status quo. It would be inappropriate to apply different criteria (different standards) against each of the two opposing sides. This RfC does not propose objective critera for determining which countries might be mentioned against either side nor a change to the existing criteria, since it is addressing an issue for only one side of the conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Fixed typo/omission "2 → 2A in reasons Cinderella157 (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I think Option 2A is a good compromise consensus position between the different views articulated throughout this discussion so far (though this current RfC is still quite new so time should be given for more discussion and other editors to join with their perspectives). BogLogs (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Is that a second !vote? Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
No, I've already had my vote. I thought it was clear as a comment to Cinderella statement above but in the future I'll write Comment or some other such thing to make it more clear. BogLogs (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your well-thought comment Cinderella157. I'd like to add regarding Adding "supporters" does not distinguish the nature of the support. that notes can be added to specify the kind of support the country has given. I proposed this on the first RfC but apparently forgot to do so on the second. And options 2B and 2C could potentially also be short enough so as to make adding a collapsible list unnecessary. Super Ψ Dro 07:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Super Dromaeosaurus, a possibility but ... Advocating for inclusion it has been stated: ... 70% of users see the infobox first and most check just that. Now I'm not certain of the verifiability of the claim but, if they're not going to read anything else then they're not going to read notes. Furthermore, it is a way of trying to insert intricate detail into a format intrinsically ill-suited for same and would not be compatible with an "at-a-glance" summary per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 1
Option 3 would be adding a new section to the infobox, something like "Foreign support" or "Foreign assistance" and a link to 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Foreign_involvement just like the casualities and losses section of the infobox. This seems valid as all the other major sections are being covered in the infobox except for the foreign support. Given that the foreign support is quite a major and unique aspect of this invasion it seems apt to include it in the infobox, even if in token. I think that it would be too hard to fit any nuanced summary inside the infobox, so just a link to the section covering seems like the best option. I think this is a better compromise than option 2.
Barring that, option 1 is the cleanest. Introducing supporting countries inside the belligerent section just seems like a terrible idea. Pabsoluterince: (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (revised): Given that the purpose of the infobox is to "summarize key features of the page's subject" and provide identify key facts at a glance. The proposed "token' addition that simply points to the section is wrong as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. If the information is not in the infobox, people can read the page to learn more. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I assume this would require a technical change at Template:Infobox military conflict. Super Ψ Dro 07:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, probably a relatively minor one. And probably one that's not wanted ha. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
If such a change is achieved I have no problem, and I don't think other editors will. Super Ψ Dro 11:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This would be acceptable for me as well. BogLogs (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Status Quo I still don't see a need to include this support in the infobox this way. Per other editors, this question leads me to question why we are arguing so intently to add a massive list of countries giving typical aid measures to Ukraine, but not addressing any similar situation with Russia, Belarus and Iran notwithstanding at this moment. King keudo (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Belarus is already listed in the infobox and Iran still has an open discussion regarding its addition above at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Iranian IRGC in Ukraine. BogLogs (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you, I'm aware. I specifically called those out to be exempt from my statement regarding 'addressing any similar situation with Russia'. King keudo (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, I misread your original post. That said though is there 'any similar situation' to be addressed besides Iran and Syria's support which are already being discussed? The argument for me, and I would say this should be a suitable criteria for any conflict infobox, mostly boils down to the size of the aid and the effect it is having on the conflict. Additionally if you are worried it would be some massive list of countries as other editors have mentioned, options 2a and 2b would seem to alleviate that concern. BogLogs (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 This is a classic case of a slippery slope. Once you start, there is no clear case to end. Probably we could argue for the inclusion of 100 countries in such a list. As that obviously won't work, the best thing is to leave it out. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. per ErnestKrause and others There is large difference between sending soldiers to fight on battlefields to face casualties, or, to merely send supplies and money for other nation's soldiers to face heavy casualties. Obviously the level of aid and assistance given by US, UK and others deserves coverage, but this is better rendered in text. At most a 2a option of a textual footnote should be employed. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2B, list the United States with a footnote explaining the support that Ukraine has received. The US is probably the single-largest national government by contributions to Ukraine, and I'm on the fence on including supranational orgs like the EU or NATO as of yet. We do, however, have to set a barrier on what countries to include to avoid creating a slippery slope as some Option 1 backers have mentioned, and I further propose that each individual country going under the Support column be subject to its own discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or possibly Option 2A. per ErnestKrause and Adoring Nanny's reasoning, and also the potential for this to be misleading and create a false equivalency between the support given by other countries to Ukraine and the support given to Russia by Belarus. If people wish for the fact that Ukraine has received aid from other countries to be included then I see no advantage option 2C has over option 2A, as 2A would convey similar information, but in a less potentially misleading manner, and without clogging the infobox --Tristario (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1  This is the only acceptable option, since the way this vote and the options have been structured reflects a non-neutral WP:POV. Every other option is one-sided, asking us to treat the Ukrainian side differently from the Russian side, and encouraging the exceptional mention of the USA. The right way to deal with changing the infobox “Belligerents” is to agree on criteria for inclusion, taking into consideration all factors, especially that this is an armed conflict in progress where misinformation, disinformation, and skewed POV can be harmful. —Michael Z. 16:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
    Would you propose having the criteria discussion as a part of this one or as a separate discussion, since it was secondary to the purpose of this one? If separate, would you want to wait until this RfC is closed or have it concurrently?
    For future criteria, I would propose that it be specific with regards to inclusion in the main section vs the "Supported by" subsection, and that if and when a consensus can be reached it be added to the FAQ at the top of the page with links to the relevant discussion, perhaps headed by a summary of the reasoning behind it. entropyandvodka | talk 20:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    In my opinion, “supporters,” according to most of these definitions, should not be listed under “Belligerents,” which has a specific legal meaning. I would like to see a discussion about adding a separate heading and row to Template:Infobox military conflict.
    Frankly, I’d rather the infobox be updated than keep having these very lengthy repeated discussions here. —Michael Z. 20:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Could we get as a conclusion of this RfC that a new header should be added at the infobox itself? Super Ψ Dro 14:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It is a base idea to confuse an RFC by asking aditional questions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I cannot do anything anymore if people have decided to mostly raise issues about technical or external factors. Surely it is better to get something out of it rather than nothing again. Super Ψ Dro 19:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Part of the RfC was that editors discuss their inclusion criteria. This seems to me to be the most important component of the RfC, not inclusion criteria per specific states, but inclusion criteria in general for any states. Arguing on a per state basis runs the risk of different or arbitrary inclusion criteria being applied to different states. If we could have a focused discussion on inclusion criteria without regard to a specific state, we would be better positioned to reach a consensus now and in the future about the inclusion of specific states. As it is, editors are arguing to include or exclude specific countries based on highly variant and sometimes arbitrary criteria, which seems to doom consensus in many of these discussions. Two opposing arguments may both be valid if their inclusion criteria is different. Focusing the discussion on criteria would also allow us to better address whether the criteria itself has problems that need addressing. If it does in its current form, then the status quo is unacceptable. I'm less in favor of technical changes to the infobox versus developing explicit guidelines with regards to the Belligerent section and Supported by subsection as the infobox currently exists (and is currently used in a large amount of articles). Such guidelines would be very useful even if there were to be technical changes to the infobox, and may further prove useful outside of this article. If the criteria for this article is only to be locally applied, it should still be explicitly stated.
Now my question is: can this be done in this RfC or do we need a new discussion or new RfC for it? entropyandvodka | talk 21:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not trust that editors will be willing to support this initiative without technical changes to the infobox. A new discussion would also require including supporters of Russia even if this may overlap with other discussions. I do not believe this RfC can achieve anything anymore other than a clearer idea of what a more productive and focused discussion may look like in the future. But I don't think it's a good idea to do it immediately after this RfC. Such a thing could risk the imposition of a moratorium. Super Ψ Dro 22:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
My suggestion for the future discussion would be that the criteria be established without regard to specific states or cases (such as the example I provided in my vote earlier in this discussion). It should be clearer, when arguing in the abstract, that if an editor's reasoning for using a particular point of criteria is expressly to include or exclude a specific country that there are NPOV issues at play. entropyandvodka | talk 23:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
How does one propose to do this? The point of Wikipedia guidelines is that Wikipedia:The rules are principles. The goal is not to have bright lines for all content guidelines. Many guidelines are left intentionally up to interpretation and may depend heavily on the circumstances and the topic. Andre🚐 23:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently from this RfC there has been a detailed discussion and numerous points given for different perspectives. I worry that ending this RfC so soon with No Consensus, again for the 3rd time, or simply starting another RfC will only lead to more deadlock. At least in principle would editors be willing to allow a separate section on the infobox, rather than it being in the belligerent section, to list countries providing supporter (Or even a simple note with a link to the section detailing foreign support)? BogLogs (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment Unless there is something new or novel to be discussed on this matter, the discussion will (and has) largely WP:REHASHED what has in essence already been said many times before. While the expectations of Super Dromaeosaurus are commendable, the reality is that this RfC was phrased in respect to specific countries (at 2B and 2C) and was never going to lead to development of criteria. Responding editors are rarely going to behave as the OP might expect or wish no matter how clearly the OP might try to guide the responses in opening an RfC. Many editors will tend to answer the question they wish had been asked and not that actually asked. Furthermore, the likelihood of gaining a clear outcome from an RfC exponentially diminishes with the number of options - and here we have five plus.

To the notion of changing the infobox template: While this article has its own template, it is under sufferance of the broader community as a temporary expedient justified by a high volume of editing to the article (see various TfDs). The parent template is owned by the broader community and any change to it cannot be resolved here (and in particular by this discussion). While a change to the parent template is not impossible it would be my judgement that the broader community is likely to adopt a conservative position. Furthermore, presenting such a change proposal would only be reasonable if there was a clear consensus here to do so (IMHO). My view on a change to the template proper would be conservative.

Based upon the previous RfC (related to this RfC), option 2A was new and might have had a chance of flying; however, this does not appear to be the case at this point in time - largely because there are too many other options (IMHO). Further, I would predict (based on responses to this point) that there will be a consensus against change (ie we will have another RfC with no consensus as the result at the least). If there is consensus in support of option 1, then the matter would be definitely closed for the foreseeable future barring something particularly new. Noting Super Dromaeosaurus's most recent comment immediately above, a no consensus result will have a similar effect unless the closer were to specifically identify a productive way forward as was done with option 2A in the previous RfC. It might be useful to use this comment as the start of a new "discussion" section to separate such discussions from the response section. If there is some will to do this, please feel free. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, or a consensus for option 1, absent some new information, the status quo of not listing the supporting countries in the infobox should therefore hold. Will editors not be content with such an outcome? Why is it important to add this to the infobox? Andre🚐 03:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
For your first question I'm not sure (and I take it, perhaps it was meant rhetorically). If there is no change at all I would imagine some editors would accept the result of the process and others would continue to push in the future for additional changes using this or that argument.
For your second question about why editors find it important to change the infobox you need only look at the reasons given in this RfC or previous discussions and RfCs. Essentially that the article infobox as it is would be more representative of the conflict if the countries proving support would be mentioned in one form or another. I don't want to go on ad nauseam as I've already made these points more then once but this additional information in the infobox would better serve to introduce the readers of the article to the nature of the conflict (just as listing Belarus as well as the unrecognized and now defunct peoples republics do). BogLogs (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)'

Option 2D, or at very least option 2C (Struck sock !vote. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)) Ukraine and Russia have both seen various countries support there respective causes, firstly the Ukrainian side has seen support from the EU, NATO, Columbia, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand as evidence by the Wikipedia article List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Furthermore the Russian side has seen support from some of it's allies, obviously Belarus, as well as Iran and North Korea; the sources are linked below:

North Korea: 1) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/2/north-korea-covertly-shipping-artillery-shells-to-russia-us-says 2) https://www.axios.com/2022/11/02/north-korea-russia-artillery-shells-ukraine-war 3) https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/02/politics/north-korea-russia-ammunition/index.html 4) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/white-house-nkorea-covertly-shipping-artillery-russia-92539247 5) https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-white-house-accuses-north-korea-of-shipping-artillery-to-russia-12736638 6) https://nypost.com/2022/11/02/north-korea-sends-russia-artillery-shells-for-ukraine-war-wh/ 7) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11382055/North-Korea-covertly-supplying-shells-Russia-support-Ukraine-invasion-White-House-says.html

Iran: 1) https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/01/politics/iran-missiles-russia/index.html 2) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/31/analysis-irans-new-weapons-and-its-involvement-in-ukraine 3) https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/26/iran-ukraine-russia-war-drones-missiles-military-advisors-middle-east-nuclear/ 4) https://www.foxnews.com/world/irans-assistance-russian-war-effort-make-country-enemy-combatant 5) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63329266

I support option 2D, but also if we add the supporters of the Russian side of the war. See the sources listed above for support to Russia, and we have plenty of sources showing the Western support for Ukraine. Never have seen a conflict wikipage that doesn't list all factions of each side. At the very least 2C, so it covers all the major countries or organizations supporting whichever side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.16.54 (talk • contribs) (Struck sock !vote. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC))

option d is ": Include every country that has helped Ukraine in any way. Thus, the note is omitted.", again this question is only about those aiding Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

* Option 2C All other articles about wars include those that support one side or another, as we have Belarus on Russia's side (and we may possibly get Iran and North Korea soon too), we should include the more notable countries (such as USA, UK, Poland, France, etc) or add in NATO and the EU (so we don't need to add singular countries), and the note, obviously. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

* Option 2D All countries providing military aid on both sides should be added, in order to be consistent with other war infoboxes and because it is well-established in sources that the aid to Ukraine has had a significant impact on its abilities. An additional section could be added for non-military aid. LandyYecla (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Option 2C The purpose of the infobox is to give a general idea of key facts about a topic. Foreign military support to Ukraine has been essential to its ability to keep up with the war for this long. Its omission from the infobox may leave the reader with an incomplete or misleading idea of the conflict, especially if they do not check the rest of the article, which so many people seem to be assuming never happens. Qowert (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2C This is valuable information that must be reported in the infobox. Usually (or maybe even always?) in the case of infoboxes of other wars Wikipedia informs about Belligerents and Supported by, i.e. countries providing money and weapons. See by way of comparison the Iran–Iraq War, where the US seems to have supported both Iran and Iraq. In this case, the involvement of many countries in support of Ukraine is noteworthy. I honestly don't understand why this wasn't done earlier. There is large difference between sending soldiers to fight on battlefields to face casualties, or, to merely send supplies and money for other nation's soldiers to face heavy casualties - this is correct, but that's the reason why we have two separate lists - Belligerents and Supported by, and I don't get why the latter should be suppressed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: In terms of the level of opinions generated up to now, it appears that 11-12 Supports for Option 1 have been presented with 11-12 Supports for Option 2C. There is a limited smattering of other opinions also available for review; it seems that this RFC may need to be adjusted or adapted in some way if there is not to be a third "No clear result" at the conclusion. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2C Many NATO states have provided free-of-charge weapons, intelligence, and training to Ukraine - the UK even let some Ukrainian soldiers train on British soil. Unlike, say, Iran or Turkey or North Korea's arms sales, these are presented publicly by the countries in question as an explicitly provided aid for Ukraine to beat the Russians. This constrasts with "neutral" humanitarian aid. Juxlos (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

*Option 2C Isn't giving military weaponry and "lethal aid" support? That's the case on nearly every historical war (c.f. the Korean War or Vietnam War), why are we treating this one any differently? ARADPLAUG (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Option 2 A senior UK officer has admitted to have troops on group performing covert operations [1]
So UK should be definitely added RandomPotato123 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2A Foreign military support has been absolutely critical in this conflict, it makes no sense to me to exclude it and break with what we do for most wars. There is a case to be made for mentioning specific countries, but the amount of support is just so broad and the choice of specific countries is just too subjective for me to support listing countries, at least until the "fog of war" dissipates and we get a historian's perspective of the facts on the actual material/support given. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment This current RfC seems to be winding down now with the most recent editor input being Option 2 (of various varieties, with various points and good faith arguments) and the editors earlier on in the RfC process appearing as no consensus or leaning towards Option 1 (additionally with various points and good faith arguments).
Rather than close the RfC with an Option 2 (of some variety chosen) or No Consensus/Option 1 and again seeing this disagreement fought again in the future would there be any possibility of following the example of the Russo-Ukrainian War which simply includes a sub section for Ukraine with "Supplied by: For countries providing aid to Ukraine since 2022, see foreign aid to Ukraine" and Russia with "Supplied by: For details, see Russian military suppliers"?
If this is a possibility that is acceptable to editors please feel free to write Yes or if not No (of course you can write more if you like I'm really just trying to see if any good faith compromise/middle ground is possible on the issue at this time). BogLogs (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
What you can also do is ask for a close at WP:CR Andre🚐 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks but I'm not sure closer is warranted to just yet. BogLogs (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Isn't your suggestion option 2A or a slight variation on it? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I suppose it is similar to 2A in that it is the smallest change from the status quo but It follows the wording directly from the Russo-Ukrainian War page and includes a note for the Russian side that seemed to be a concern for some editors. BogLogs (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

::I still think that a 2C-like solution is the best option, we should maybe do something like the Portuguese Wikipedia (include NATO and EU as supporting Ukraine, so we wont need to include all NATO and EU member countries), but also with a note (like in the German Wikipedia) linking to the foreign support page for further information, although if we are going to do this, we should also include Iran as supporting Russia (with a note about what support is given too). SnoopyBird (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made an sandbox with the proposed content (User:SnoopyBird/sandbox2), leave any thoughts on it if you want. SnoopyBird (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Strike comment by non ECP user. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I've looked at your Sandbox and there is still the issue that the "Supported by" is not 'symmetrical' on both sides; for example, Belarus does provide safe conduct for Russian troops to march through its land in attacking Ukraine, but none of the NATO nations have provided safe conduct to Ukraine troops for attacking Russia. It seems like they are different types of 'Supported by' which do not match up entirely. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and Iran has its military personnel (IRGC) directly involved in Russia and in Russian–occupied territory of Ukraine, while none of NATO and EU do. Nor the non-NATO and non-EU states that support Ukraine with training, weapons, non-lethal aid, humanitarian aid, reconstruction aid, and economic support.  —Michael Z. 16:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 2C per the many reasons given above. — Czello 10:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the above Wikipedia is not a poll. Users who have voted in favor of the ambiguous ballot Option 2C have not stated which countries count as important in their arguments. On top that, there is no reliable source that separates countries providing aid from being important to unimportant (which will result in this being original research). For example, the country of Luxembourg has provided a very considerable aid in comparison to its economy and military, which may be regarded as unimportant when compared to the aid of United States or other countries. Viewsridge (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-marines-deployed-on-high-risk-covert-operations-in-ukraine-r7b50gv3p
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.

International Legion

Should we add the International Legion of Territorial Defence of Ukraine at the side with Ukraine. I think they are kind of important.

Daeva Trạc (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this not just a unit in the Ukrainian army? Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreement with Slatersteven. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought it is a voluntary army with soldiers from many countries (including Russia). Daeva Trạc (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The International Legion of Territorial Defence of Ukraine is a unit of the Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine), which is a military reserve component of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Russia is freezing soldiers’ sperm for free

This seems worth mentioning somewhere, as an implicit acknowledgment by Russia that fighting in Ukraine is a likely death sentence for servicemen. I’m not sure if the best place for this information is this article or one of the other pages about the war, though. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Anecdotal? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Russian troops able to freeze sperm for free - lawyer - BBC News 2.222.6.91 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: RESULT. RM closed. Not moved. RM cannot be initiated by a non-ECP user per WP:GS/RUSUKR. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine – It is appears obvious that this war will continue into 2023 and therefore the name 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be incorrect. 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine seemed to be the consesus on discussion here. Therefore I am putting this request for moving to this title. I know that it is still 2022 and the name shouldn't be changed, but I wanted time to get a consensus before the year change due to how often this article is viewed. Starship 24 (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)—Striking comment — per a community decision, only extended confirmed users may edit or participate in certain discussions relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, including requested moves. DecafPotato (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Support
🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since the invasion began in 2022, 2023 would be incorrect.
The invasion (title of the article) was in 2022. The subsequent war extended into 2023.
The famous D-Day invasion was in 1944. Further conflict continued into the following year, but no one ever says that the D-Day invasion happened in 1944–45.
There is a very clear distinction between an invasion and any extended period of war that may follow the invasion.
If the article title were to be changed, to be meaningful, it would probably need to read something like Russian–Ukrainian war of 2022–23. O'Dea (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The invasion is still very much ongoing and did not end in 2022--the war as a whole began in 2014, however. DecafPotato (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per O'Dea. An invasion has a set time date, in this case 24 February 2022, or just 2022. A war however, which in this case would correlate to the actual war happening in Ukraine, namely the Russo-Ukrainian war. It has been happening since 2014, but has had numerous stages of both high intensity and low intensity. Insurgency and low battles kept ravaging Eastern Ukraine until the major second stage in the war, in 2022, when the Russian government decided to intervene and invade Ukraine officially, from multiple sides. A good example would be WW2; multiple stages where the Nazis had first occupied a large portion of Europe and then the second major stage; the United States gets attacked by Pearl Harbor, and decides to join the war. It's still the same war, just in different stages. I agree with O'Dea to either keep the name "2022 invasion of Ukraine" or rename the article to something more appropriate like "2022-2023 Russo-Ukrainian War". Twistedaxe (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC) —Striking comment from non-ECP editor in-line with WP:GS/RUSUKR. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Also, if we're going to give the entire span, how do we know it's not the 2022–2024 Russian invasion or the 2022–2032 Russian invasion? — kwami (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The current title implies that the invasion spanned only the year of 2022. Unless a ceasefire is agreed upon and signed in the next 14 hours, this will not be the case. The idea behind moving is to keep the title current, not to crystal ball the end of it. Of course, you could also change the title to include a placeholder: (2022-ongoing, for example). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2022 (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.

Article is missing section on war crimes

Even a short one. Volunteer Marek 05:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Check the "Prisoners of war" subsection please. --104.163.138.105 (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't really have anything on this topic and regardless, maltreatment of POWs is only one type of war crime. Volunteer Marek 10:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
IMO, you're welcome to rename the subsection and to contribute by including parts of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine artcile into it. --104.163.138.105 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Drone attack on Sevastopol

The “ Naval blockade and engagements” section doesn’t mention it at all, despite it being mentioned “2022 Crimea attacks“ article (with many sources) 197.234.165.147 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong date of invasion

Why does the article state in its opening sentence that "On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine"?

Russian forces entered Ukraine on Monday the 21st, the same day that Vladimir Putin recognised the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

The Guardian reported heavy movement of troops into Ukraine on the 21st, therefore that date marks the beginning of the invasion. O'Dea (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read the source: Vladimir Putin has ordered his military to enter the Russian-controlled areas of southeast Ukraine following a decision to recognise the territories as independent states. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your point: "Please read the source". I have read the source, and other sources, and I also have personal memory of Russian troops entering Ukraine a few days before the 24th, the day claimed by the article as the beginning of the invasion.
The invasion began on the 21st. You can confirm this independently from multiple sources online, if you wish. O'Dea (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@O'Dea: The invasion began when Zelenskyy recognized his country being invaded. It's not about tanks and recognition, it's about a large-scale offensive which Putin began right after his televised address. --104.163.138.105 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree, the invasion began on the 21st February, the day of Putin's address and – this is the key point – when locals reported heavy Russian troop movements in east Ukraine after Putin ordered them in. These facts are easily verified independently online or in any print media which covered the events. O'Dea (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The article uses Putin's declaration of a 'special military operation' against Ukraine as its genesis. That is: 5:00am local time on the 24th of February 2022.1 This is when fighting, shelling, and a full-scale invasion were initiated. This does mean that many US sources may be dated to February 23rd. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't accepting Putin's declaration of the 24th merely make Wikipedia editors dupes? The war began, de facto, when he sent his troops to invade on the 21st. The physical reality of military action on the 21st is so obviously more credible than any mere words by such a devious, slithery operator as Putin. After all, he calls the war a "special operation" which tells you everything you need to know about his reliability as the independent, verifiable source Wikipedia relies upon. O'Dea (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The source I cited is Ukrainian, which uses the 24th as the date of the invasion as well, as does the Ukrainian language Wikipedia, and the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Oleksiy Danilov: Я можу сказати, коли 24 лютого о 5 ранку, - хоча насправді вторгнення почалося о 3:40, саме тоді на територію Луганської області зайшла перша колона російських танків - то коли десь з п'ятої до пів на шосту зібралися члени РНБО, у нас вже були заздалегідь заготовлені усі нормативно-правові документи, які ми мали прийняти.1 The only difference between our article and Ukrainian sources is that we say 05:00am, while Ukraine says 03:40am. It just so happens that Putin's speech marks the moment of the invasion. Within minutes of that broadcast, shells starting landing on Ukraine's major cities. The thing Cinderella was trying to draw your attention to was the phrase Russian-controlled areas. That's where the troop movements were on the 21st. Russia and Russian separatists have controlled and occupied parts of Ukraine since 2014: Crimea completely, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts partially. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@O'Dea: Again, what date did Zelenskyy acknowledge his country being invaded? --104.163.138.105 (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I can't remember the date of Zelenskyy's acknowledgement any more but that, in any case, is a secondary event subsidiary to the actual event itself which began on the 21st. O'Dea (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're not trying to argue. You're trying to push your own opinion through. In that case, we might as well say that the invasion began with Russian "green men" occupying Crimea all the way back on February 28, 2014. There is a worldwide consensus on when exactly the 2022 invasion is thought to have started and this is final, whether you like it or not. Happy new year, --104.163.138.105 (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
We have extensive content about what happened on Feb. 21 -- Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Invasion. We cover the entry of troops on Feb. 21 under "Invasion", and technically it is invasion, as is any crossing of troops from Russia to Ukraine, but since the troops entered already-Russian-controlled territory, and large-scale hostilities hadn't started yet, it wasn't widely reported as the start of the anticipated invasion. —Alalch E. 18:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The territories weren't occupied by Ukrainian forces so it can't really be called the start of the invasion. Although it is considered part of Ukraine but I'm talking about the on the ground reality and not what is internationally recognised. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"naiming"

The first sentence of the third paragraph reads "The invasion began on the morning of 24 February 2022, when Russian president Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" naiming for the "demilitarisation" and "denazification" of Ukraine." I believe "naiming" is supposed to be "aiming" but I'm not certain. I just know that "naiming" isn't a word in English. Emetzold (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone changed it, thanks for pointing it out.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Policy of Infobox RFCs for 2023; A Steps-and-Stairs approach might save editor contribution time in 2023

  Russia
  Ukraine
  Countries sending military aid to Ukraine during the 2022 invasion
  Russia
  Ukraine
  Countries sending any aid, including humanitarian aid, to Ukraine

As was well written by Scottish in the last close of the RFC for the Infobox, there have now been a total of three (3) highly contentious RfCs and ineffective RfCs dealing with the content of the "Supported By" part of the Infobox. These have been quite wasteful of editor contributor time and I'm proposing to try to control that in some way for 2023 by using a Steps-and-Stairs criteria before any further RfCs for the Infobox are allowed in the future. That is, editors interested in making this type of Infobox modification would need to first take the step of being able to successfully add the Infobox for "Supported By" into the Military aid and support subsection of this article as a preliminary requirement; such editors would need to successfully add this step into that subsection before they can climb the stairs to start a new, fourth version of the main Infobox RfC. In other words, I'm suggesting that the 2023 policy for this page's Infobox RFCs needs to take this intermediate step to demonstrate the usefulness of a "Supported By" edit in the Military support subsection before any further main Infobox RfCs are allowed. This might be able to save much editor contribution time which has otherwise been largely wasted on RfCs in 2022. Any agreements/disagreements would be useful to hear as the New Year starts. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

... editors interested in making this type of Infobox modification would need to first take the step of being able to successfully add the Infobox for "Supported By" into the Military support subsection of this article as a preliminary requirement ... [emphasis added] Sorry but this isn't making sense to me. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella157: Thanks for your clarifying italic; I've added the images current in the Military aid and support subsection of the article. It is the content of these two geopolitical graphs which I believe should be converted into Infoboxes to appear in the Military aid subsection before any further RfC about the main Infobox are generated. Only if an editor is successful in creating the Infobox in the subsection with consensus, can a new RfC about the main Infobox changes to "Military support" be allowed. This would be a useful precondition to avoid doing yet another inconclusive RfC about the Infobox which has needlessly used up so much editor contribution time in 2022. Let me know if those graphs are helpful in explaining this situation. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Change title: “2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine” to “2022-23 Russian Invasion of Ukraine” 2600:4040:ADBF:1400:E55F:B359:3F2F:40FD (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

See move discussion above. Sarrail (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The word "war"

As Putin has officially referred to the invasion as a "war," should we add info in that situation, as it could be considered an important event during the invasion? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The invasion is part of the Russia-Ukraine war article, is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Not exactly. As in https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/22/putin-war-ukraine-special-operation/ by the Washington Post, Putin refers to the 'special military operation' as a 'war.' Should we add an updated in a section on that announcement? QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
A state of warfare has existed since the first day of the invasion; what is needed to expand upon this? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand if it may be considered irrelevant, but the labeling of the conflict as a war by one of its belligerents could be considered an important milestone, as the term has been publicly acknowledged. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the labelling of the invasion as "war" by Putin is only significant in light of his previous labelling of this invasion as a "special military operation". This potentially reflects a shift in the perception and presentation of this invasion from Putin/Russia's perspective. If so, this addition may fit under the section on "Prelude and declaration of military operations". But I think you would need a few more sources than just the Washingtonpost, to corroborate the belief that there is indeed such a shift in perspective. This article is already lengthy. We don't want to clutter it with recent news, which would run counter to WP:RECENTISM HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Another Russian private military company (besides Wagner) has joined the fighting

See [68] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the implication for this article? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't think this news piece belongs to this article. Lacks encyclopedic significance (at least as of now), and doesn't have sufficient support in reliable sources. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Transferring weapons to Ukraine violates the law of neutrality

[69] Supplying states don't qualify as co-belligerents. However they violate the law of neutrality, which justifies proportionate countermeasures by Russia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages exist for discussion of their articles only, not for legal or political debate. They are not for discussing whether Russian countermeasures would be justified or proportionate. O'Dea (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
You're right. My point is not whether Russian countermeasure would be justified. The source I shared shows that there's a third option (significant for both international law and international politics) between being neutral and being a co-belligerent, that is, providing military and financial support to one of the parties to the conflict. Since the recent RfC on the infobox was closed with no consensus, I think we should remove Belarus from the infobox. It's contribution to the hostilities is not greater than US and EU's contribution. If the nature and extent of foreign support is too complex an issue to be adequately addressed in the infobox, then let's remove the "Supported by" class altogether. The infobox as it is now is a mockery of NPOV and casts a (IMO undeserved) shadow on the whole article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry; where does the article you provided compare the actions of Belarus to those of Western nations providing equipment? To say that "It's contribution to the hostilities is not greater than US and EU's contribution" would require a source saying that, would it not? The article you've provided doesn't give any indication as to how they view Belarus compared to Western nations supplying equipment. King keudo (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

All of this comes down to sources, any speculations or legal interpretations are original research. And until Ukraine starts launching missiles at Russia from US or NATO territory, no, the situation is not even remotely comparable to Belarus. Volunteer Marek 05:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. Western nations have clearly helped Ukraine more than Belarus has helped Russia; this stands specially true after the Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine. We either include all of the supporters or none. Now, I am aware that Belarus has indeed committed aggression according to international law for letting Russia launch an invasion through its territory. But as Gitz6666 says, the current situation is an insult to NPOV. Western nations, in the context following the new Ukrainian counteroffensives that changed the situation of the conflict, were never excluded from the infobox after a normal and civilised debate, but by one with users launching personal attacks, writing in upper case and not actually addressing the topic in hand. Therefore, I give myself the freedom to reject logic as well and support the exclusion of a country that should be included in the infobox.
Perhaps this will contribute to have, once again, another debate on the supporters within this war, this time one discussing the supporters of both sides and with users with a mature attitude. Although if the Ukrainian counteroffensives did not constitute enough of a breakthrough, it might be necessary to wait for the end of the war before it is restarted. Super Ψ Dro 22:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
So... any reliable sources for this or is it original research? Andre🚐 23:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources for what exactly? Super Ψ Dro 23:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
"Support" what?? No specific changes have been proposed that I can see. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
It's above in bold. Super Ψ Dro 23:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Please see WP:VOTE. No source has been linked in this discussion that mentions Belarus at all, so I'm having difficulty piecing together what's driving that conclusion. VQuakr (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The source doesn't mention Belarus. But Belarus is unique in this conflict as far as I know. Have invasion forces entered Ukraine from any nations other than Belarus and Russia? That's certainly not neutral-country behavior and a far more significant contribution than provision of defensive armaments. VQuakr (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
That's certainly not neutral-country behavior. You are right, but the starting point of the discussion was that (according to RS) the US, the EU and the UK are not behaving as neutral countries either. So this we know for sure: none of them are, properly speaking, "neutral". However, Belarus's support is highlighted in the infobox as particularly relevant, although it is not obvious whether it is much more significant from a political, military and legal perspective than the support provided by the US, the UK and the EU. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
It is of course obvious that it’s support is much more significant than that provided by the US, UK and EU. At least until missiles start flying from Alaska, London and Brussels towards Moscow and St. Petersburg. Volunteer Marek 05:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe what you meant to say is "At least until Ukrainian missiles start flying from Alaska, London and Brussels...". In fact, if they were US, UK and EU missiles, the situation would not be comparable - the US, UK and EU would be co-belligerents. So we'll have the US, UK and EU in the infobox when the Ukrainian army invades Russia by launching the attack from their borders - right. That resolves my doubt about the existence of a neutrality problem. However, our readers may not understand the subtle similarities and differences, and may not realise the overwheling importance of Belarusian support for the Russian military effort. Therefore I would remove the whole concept of "Supported by" in the infobox. It may be fine for other conflicts, but not for this one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
At least how I interpreted it, the Belarusian support is notable because Russian troops are entering Ukraine through Belarus—a step-up compared to just supplies (though still not Belarusian soldiers, to be fair). DecafPotato (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Belarus was a co-belligerent for the invasion of Feb 2022, as it hosted Russian invasion forces. NATO and the EU weren't particularly involved at that point. However, it appears that Belarus has been scaling back its involvement (or at least attempting to); AFAICT all actual invading forces are now coming from Russian territory, though missiles are being launched by Russian forces in Belarus. Meanwhile, the West has ramped up its support quite considerably, with massive transfers of weapons as well as advisors, shared intelligence and training of Ukrainian forces e.g. in the UK. Even Switzerland has abandoned neutrality. I believe it's a reasonable question to ask whether the Western support of Ukraine is now comparable to Belarusian support of Russia. However, if we do that, we should also consider Iranian and N.Korean military support of Russia. I suspect Iran's support may be comparable to that of Belarus. — kwami (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Would rather Iran is added along with Belarus. TylerBurden (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We ahve an RFC on this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. And a proposal to remove Belarus from the infobox based on a source that fails to mention Belarus seems dead on arrival. VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. The RFC has determined there is no consensus to add the US to the infobox right now, I don't think we need a new RFC to say that there's no consensus to remove Belarus. And I question why it's being proposed. Andre🚐 00:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
It is easy to answer this last question by Adrevan, "why is it being proposed?". In fact, when I proposed to remove Belarus, I explained the reason: If the nature and extent of foreign support is too complex an issue to be adequately addressed in the infobox, then let's remove the "Supported by" class altogether. The infobox as it is now is a mockery of NPOV and casts a (IMO undeserved) shadow on the whole article.
The infobox is a panel that summarizes key features of the page's subject. As it is now, the infobox says that a key feature of the war is Belarus's support for Russia and, a contrario, it says that support for Ukraine by the US, UK and EU is not noteworthy. Anyone who watches the news knows perfectly well that a key feature of the current war is the massive international support (political, financial and military) for Ukraine's cause. Zelenskyy is always saying this [70]. So anyone who watches the news and reads our infobox might question our good faith and competence. Since we already had two RfCs to decide not to report international support for Ukraine in the infobox, let's at least remove the information on Belarus. Otherwise, it sounds like a warning to the reader: "don't trust this article - either they don't know what they're talking about or they don't want to tell you!". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't you think Zelensky, the leader of Ukraine who is trying to appeal for as much international support as possible, is not an unbiased and reliable secondary source for information? Lukashenko has allowed Belarus to be used as a staging ground[71]. The NATO countries have provided financial aid and armaments. However NATO troops and territory are not formally committed. The support is certainly worthy of note but is complex enough that it should be explained in text and not listed as an item in the infobox. If you think this is also true of Belarus we need some reliable sources, something strangely absent in this discussion. Andre🚐 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Also Belarus's support is complex enough that it has to be explained in text and not listed as an item in the infobox. In fact, as you can see, the info on Belarus has a footnote, which contains a relatively long text with three more footnotes. Now, this may occasionally happen in infoboxes but is at odds with the guideline, which states that the purpose of the infobox is to allow readers to identify key facts at a glance. If I'm not mistaken, the only policy-based argument for the two failed RfCs on foreign support was that explaining the nature and extent of foreign support is too complex to be done in the infobox. This may be true and is a strong argument. But I think that the argument also applies perfectly to Belarusian support: four footnotes (three within the first), 52 words and a wikilink to Belarusian involvement in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is simply a poor use of the infobox, and it looks like we are trying to make a point, given the absence of information on the involvement of other countries. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a fair argument. Andre🚐 16:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
As I recall, the main argument there was and remains that Belarus is providing safe conduct for Russian troops who pass through Belarus for the purpose of attacking Ukrainian targets and Ukrainian forces. That's almost the text book definition of what military allies do for their fellow allies. It belongs in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a distinction between support being "too complex" and support being too extensive. Both forms of support will enjoy long footnotes, but only one of these two scenario constitutes an argument for exclusion from the infobox. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Donetsk still occupied by the Russiand

Is it? 2601:249:4480:AC90:942D:F24A:D08D:7D15 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The city or the oblast? because the city and a big chunk of the oblast are, still, this isnt the place to ask questions about the war. SnoopyBird (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Template talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox#Donetsk and Luhansk PRs (in infobox)

Donetsk and Luhansk PRs

The following discussion has been moved here. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Should the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs be removed from the infobox? Neither one claims to exist anymore. WMSR (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Both still exist within Russia. They were annexed, but they did not cease to exist. Applodion (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Donetsk and Luhansk PRs were Russian puppet states formally annexed by Russia. They should be removed from the infobox, otherwise we have to include every subject of Russian Federation --Perohanych (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion @Perohanych @WMSR Here's my opinion on this:
The annexation of the DPR and LPR to the Russian Federation is internationally unrecognized, so in my opinion, we should not treat them as a subject of the Russian Federation, nor should we treat them as separate countries and use the flag icon in the infobox. So what I've done is I've changed the little parenthetical disclaimer in the infobox to say: "34,000 (separatist militias)" in order to reconcile the two situations. PilotSheng (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of international recongition, the facts on the ground are what matters regarding the combatants. Excluding them because they are illegal entities makes no sense; that would be like removing terrorist groups like al-Qaeda from insurgency articles. Whether as separate proto-states, puppet regimes or (now) as republics within Russia, the DPR and LPR have existed and still exist. Both field a very large number of troops involved in this war, and are arguably more significant for the war than Belarus, so they have to be included. Applodion (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Is everyone opposed to the idea of adding the dates into the Infobox for the status before the annexation, and then the status after the annexations? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest something in the magnitude of removing them but adding an inline note which states not only Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, but also Zaporizhzhia and Kherson People's Republics fought on behalf of Russia until their annexation. Without formally writing their names in the belligerent's section as they were considered Russian occupied territories since 2014. Viewsridge (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Fought on which behalf of whom? Was there also warfare against Russia in Mariupol? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
There have never been any Zaporizhzhia People's Republic nor Kherson People's Republic, nor any Russian militias purportedly belonging to anything of the sort.  —Michael Z. 23:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
They were independent for about 24 hours [72] before being annexed by Russia. Viewsridge (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Russia also carried out forced mobilization in occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia [73] before their annexation. Viewsridge (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Neither source says any of the following about Zaporizhzhia or Kherson oblasts:
  1. “They were actually independent.”
  2. “They were called people’s republics.”
  3. “They had military or paramilitary organizations of their own.”
 —Michael Z. 22:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
They should be removed. As “states,” they were Russian fronts from the beginning, and never had political autonomy where the war was concerned. Their militias were always commanded by officers of the 8th Combined Arms Army of Russian Land Forces, and they belong in the infobox under “Belligerents” heading even less than do the Kadyrovites, or Wagner Group, or the South Ossetian volunteer battalion, which at least have been under command of politically autonomous Russian agents.
Specifically, the International Criminal Court found (back in 2017?) that the war was already an international conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This year, the Dutch court trying the Flight MH17 mass murder found that the DLNR militias were under overall control of Russia by mid-May 2014 (a legal term meaning that the Kremlin is responsible for all of their war crimes).
They should certainly not have flag icons hanging off of them, as they do not represent recognizable flags of sovereign states, per MOS:ICON. —Michael Z. 23:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Removing the DPR and the LPR from the infobox is anachronistic. Russia annexing them in September does not retroactively undo their existence prior to that point. Moreover, puppet states are normally represented in infoboxes. Beyond our personal disapproval of Putin's war, I see no reason to censor these two. (For a comparison, consider the following: A month into the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia announces its unification with Artsakh. Would it then have been correct to remove Artsakh from the infobox, although it would by then have fought for a month under its own flag?) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Nope. They were never legal or sovereign belligerents. Labelling them as such is contrary to reliable sources.
At best, their forces could be listed alongside other Russian units under “Units involved.”
Don’t talk about other articles, because they may be wrong, or completely different situations. I don’t know, but here we need to determine how to correctly represent this subject in this article.  —Michael Z. 03:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Support Michael's argument, Mikrobølgeovn's argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Viewsridge (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The DPR and LPR are not labelled as 'sovereign belligerents', they are both listed as operating under Russian control. Viewsridge, you're citing an WP:AADD essay that has no relevance to this discussion. The essay you want to cite, but I stress first that citing an essay is not an argument, is WP:OTHERCONTENT. Furthermore, as that essay states: an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Its difficult to assess these republics and their importance to the article; this has been overwhelmingly a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Shouldn't the Infobox reflect the most important and overwhelming realities of the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The way I see it, arguments in favor of censoring the DPR and the LPR amount to their illegality and them being puppet states. The first is irrelevant, the other is not disqualifying in and by itself. If we remove them, we set a problematic precedent. How about we simply stick to the facts on the ground? Even outright colonies are normally listed as belligerents if they contributed forces. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

For me, the question should be why DPR and LPR, as constituent republics of the Russian Federation (according to Russia), should be given more notability than the other constituent republics. Even if we were to suppose that we should only list constituent republics internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, that would mean including the Republic of Crimea as well, which is clearly a belligerent under the standards of the article (Russia invaded Kherson and other Ukrainian areas using Crimea as a staging area). From the international perspective, all three (Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea) are recognized as a part of Ukraine. When DPR and LPR were not yet annexed by Russia, it made some sense to list them separately. But now that they are just part of the Russian Federation, I would say there's no reason to single them out while excluding the Republic of Crimea and other constituent republics. --JasonMacker (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

They hadn't been annexed by Russia when the invasion was launched. Crimea had been. That is the key difference here: For seven months, the DPR and the LPR participated in this invasion under their own flags. Removing them because they were annexed in September is anachronistic. It would have been different if Russia had annexed them before the full-scale invasion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Because Crimean soldiers were part of the Russian Armed Forces while DPR and LPR forces were not, formally/legally speaking. All this being from the Kremlin's perspective. For several months we had soldiers not formally part of the Russian army fighting Ukraine. In my opinion this is the strongest argument for including the former puppet republics. Though probably another user will be able to word it better. Super Ψ Dro 23:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the suggestion along the lines of that proposed by @ErnestKrause and others is the best way to go. DPR and LPR can be listed as belligerents if they are formally or legally recognized as autonomous states. They should not be listed as belligerents if they are annexed as Russia, as they will be conducting the war as part of Russia, and not as a legally separate belligerent. If DPR and LPR participated in the war at the beginning as formally autonomous states, but got annexed by Russia in the midst of the war, then the most accurate way to reflect their belligerency status in the info box, if at all, is to make the following note in parenthesis in the infobox:
Belligerents
Russia
Donetsk People's Republic (until xx date when it was annexed by Russia)
Luhansk People's Republic (until xx date when it was annexed by Russia)
Does this make sense to all? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm strongly supporting anyone who would like to add that the annexation for each of them took place on 30 September 2022. This is already stated in the footnote there in the Infobox, and its just a matter of refactoring it out of the footnote where it is now, and into the displayed part of the Infobox. The statement is historical accurate and unobjectionable as I read it at this time. I'll fully support any editor who adds this information into the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This information is already included in the two infobox notes, where this is accurately explained in detail. The extra addition of "(until xx date when it was annexed by Russia)" would also be inaccurate, as the DPR and LPR still fight in the war; their armies, though now officially part of the Russian security forces, are still operationally separated from other Russian formations. They are also treated by the Ukrainian government as separate (as the DPR and LPR are terrorist forces per Ukraine, unlike "regular" Russian forces). As I and others said above: Just because they were annexed, does not mean that the DPR and LPR suddenly disappeared. Applodion (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Whether or not DPR and LPR still exists, and whether or not they are still fighting in the war, is not the issue, Applodion. The issue is what is DPR and LPR's legal and political status, when they are fighting the war. If they are separate political or legal units on their own, they can be listed as a belligerent. If they are not separate political or legal units, but belong politically and legally to another warring unit (which is Russia), then they cannot be listed as a belligerent. Whether or not they are operationally linked to Russian formations, or operationally separate from Russia formations, during the war, is irrelevant. Now if the Russia's annexation of DPR and LPR is not internationally recognized, such that DPR and LPR still retain independent statehood, or political autonomy, that's a different story. That will be a strong argument to keep DPR and LPR on the list of belligerents, but I'm not sure if that's the argument you are making. One good precedent for the dilemma we are facing now is the infobox at the wiki page on the Second Sino-Japanese War. In that war, Japan annexed a lot of Chinese cities, and created a lot of formally independent governments (but are in fact, political puppets to Japan). For these puppet states, infobox give them a time period (i.e. year start - year end), to denote when they are created and when they are dissolved as an independent political/legal unit during the war. Long story short, the focus is on DPR and LPR's political and legal status, not whether they exists, or whether they are still fighting the war. If there's a change in their political and legal status during the war, that change should be reflected in the infobox. Does that make sense, Applodion? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Just want to take a step back to point out what is really going on here at the end of the day. It's all about narrative control. DPR and LPR is pretty much under Russia's control since at least 2014. Russia wants to create an optics that there's popular support for its cause against Ukraine. Hence, it made DPR and LPR into independent states, with "international recognition" from its band of brothers (Syria and North Korean, etc), voicing support for Russia's cause against Ukraine. Then the war against Ukraine didn't go well, and Russia wants to show some kind of progress to its people and the world, hence its declaration that it had formally annexed DPR and LPR in September 2022. Either DPR and LPR is part of Russia, or it is not. You can't have the cake and eat it. You can't list them as independent political/legal units, to create a semblance of external support for Putin's cause, and then in the same stroke, consider them as part of Russia, to show that Russia's gaining some sort of victory in this war.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"The issue is what is DPR and LPR's legal and political status" - it's really not. As I said above, the infobox is mostly concerned with who is fighting, not the belligerents' international status - as otherwise we would have to exclude any illegal groups from infoboxes. The argument "Whether or not they are operationally linked to Russian formations, or operationally separate from Russia formations, during the war, is irrelevant" is thus just false; that's literally all what matters. In addition, the infobox currently clearly showcases that the DPR and LPR are subordinate to Russia - regardless of their exact status; any further details are covered in the notes. In addition, the comparison with the Second Sino-Japanese War is weak, as Japan did not annex its puppet regimes; they were integrated into each other. For example, the "Provisional Government" became part of the Reorganized National Government. If we had a similar situation at hand, the LPR and DPR would have merged into a new state instead of joining Russia.
Regarding "Russia wants to create an optics that there's popular support for its cause against Ukraine", this is also irrelevant for this discussion. Look, nobody disputes that Russia tries to portray this war as some kind of weird liberation struggle despite the overwhelming anti-Russian feeling of most Ukrainians. However, the DPR and LPR are not just propaganda pieces - they field tens of thousands of soldiers and are still important participants in this war.
"Either DPR and LPR is part of Russia, or it is not". In reality, confusing quasi-states which exist somewhere between independence and annexation are rather common. The Republic of Artsakh is another example; they are neither fully separate from, nor fully integrated into Armenia. Applodion (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Article scope should be reduced to the invasion

An invasion is a phase of war/conflict. It is the act of entering a region by force. This only occurred in 2022. The conflict is long past that stage. The article content should be limited to that period of time that the Russian were making advances in Ukraine. This has the benefit of reducing the size of this article to conform to WP standards, and it permits a process of maturing the article, without constant expansion with new events and such. I am sure there are aspect of the invasion phase that could be covered better in some way, but with constant extending in scope that is surely neglected. This also obviates the renaming of the article, and leaves a very specific, notable phase documented in its own space. Everything from the start of successful counter attacks and recapture of territory should be moved to a new article for that phase of the war. These pieces should then be connected with the overarching article Russo-Ukrainian War or a similar new one. kbrose (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been following this conflict pretty closely since the invasion last year, but I only saw the Russo-Ukrainian War article for the first time today. (Side note, I don't think I've ever seen it called the "Russo-Ukrainian War" anywhere outside of Wikipedia.) If that is indeed the mother article and this the daughter article, it does make sense to limit the scope of this article to the invasion and expand that article with some of the more recent developments covered in this article. And maybe rename the mother article so people can find it when they search for "russia ukraine war. ~Awilley (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think reducing the scope would be a good solution. I agree article size and the number of templates will eventually be a problem. I think it should be managed with the parent-child WP:SUMMARY style editing, removing detail best covered in sub articles and leaving a good summary for the topic with a hatlink to the child article.  // Timothy :: talk  21:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree. Not sure when the cut off should be though. When the Russians stalled outside Kyiv? The counteroffensives in the south and east by Ukraine? A good example in my mind is War in Donbas (2014–2022) and then Battle of Donbas (2022) with the Invasion being the cutoff.Yeoutie (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
No. There's a new stage of the Russo-Ukrainian War since 24 February 2022. We need a central article to cover all of the events that happened after that day. Breaking the article down into several parts will only complicate things unnecessarily. Besides, Russian forces continued to make small advances in Donbas after the Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive. Particularly around Bakhmut and in Marinka. Where would we include this? Super Ψ Dro 12:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The invasion article here could be shortened somewhat by creating sibling pages for the Phase one of the Invasion and also for the Phase Two of the Invasion; the data in there sections has not changed for several months now. Phase Three on counterattacks and the annexations of the 4 oblasts would be kept in the current article. Is that what you mean? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think what you describe is three phases. There have been changes in focus and operations launched and abandoned, so we can mark some major milestones. But this remains a single invasion because both sides still have the same maximalist goals: conquer Ukraine vs. defeat the invasion. This should remain a main article with unchanged scope, and expanded sections can be broken out in summary style.  —Michael Z. 20:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm against making separate "phase one/two" etc. pages, as it'd inevitably come down to personal interpretation/OR. Jr8825 • Talk 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI, the Russian advance on Kyiv stalled March 8, 2022, and the Russians announced their withdrawal March 29.
However, reliable sources still call the operation an invasion and tell us that Putin’s Russia maintains the invasion goals, including occupying the lost and unachieved territories Putin “annexed,” occupying Mykolaiv and Odesa up to the border of Moldova, and conducting regime change. For example:
  • “Putin also stated that he thinks Russia is ‘operating in a correct direction,’ indicates that he has not set serious conditions for negotiations and still wishes to pursue his maximalist goals” (December 26).[74]
  • “Lavrov questioned whether an ‘acceptable’ politician would emerge under the ‘Kyiv regime,’ apparently restating the Kremlin’s position that Zelensky is not a legitimate political leader or acceptable negotiating partner and recommitting Russia to its maximalist goal to drive regime change in Ukraine” (December 29)[75]
So I believe it’s still an invasion in progress, however poorly it may be going.  —Michael Z. 19:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I think this page's scope is fine as-is personally; "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is a widespread, accurate label for the ongoing fighting. My issue remains Russo-Ukrainian War (I've mentioned this over the year a few times on this page). I think that should be renamed "conflict" and "Russia–Ukraine war" should redirect here, using {{Redirect-distinguish}} at the top of this page so it reads "Russia–Ukraine war redirects here. For the conflict prior to the 2022 invasion, see Russia–Ukraine conflict". Jr8825 • Talk 20:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Sources and legal decisions tell us that the war (=international conflict) is now nearly nine years old. On top of that, having articles named with the rough synonyms “conflict” and “war” that overlap in scope might be even more confusing than what we have now.  —Michael Z. 00:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No, the scope of the page is good, and the "invasion" remains a proper name, unless another more common name will appear. It does not matter if Russian forces were making advances or have been finally evicted from Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Russia is still trying to enter places like Bakhmut by force, and even if they weren’t, this would still be the same war, The current scope is fine. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: infobox under "supported by"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Speedy close with noms consent. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the US and EU be added in "supported by" section of the infobox since they are actively training Ukrainian troops under official programs? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm only making an RfC out of this since the issue seems to have attracted prior controversy. If this was any other page I'd just be bold and do it.
It seems like common sense. We already have an article devoted to the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, did you read the very first section on this talk page - the one that is in purple so that it stands out? Given that an RfC on much the same subject was closed just a week ago and given the comments by the closer, opening yet another RfC on this subject might be seen as disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you want to close it, that's fine by me. I'm completely new to RfC and stuff (I mostly do late-night shortdesc/typo binges on articles nobody wants to read) and I assumed it was better than making a bold edit and getting reverted or worse.
Honestly? I didn't read that section until you pointed it out. I came to this page in the middle, from a link to the RM, and it looks just like any other colored template with a blue light filter. I did, however see the somewhat confusing section immediately above the RM, which got me thinking about "supported by".
Now that I've read it, as well as the linked RfC and the other talk page section about "steps and stairs", which isn't making sense to me either...
So yeah, if you think it's likely to stir up a potential hornets' nest, sure, close it if you want. RfC probably isn't appropriate in retrospect; it was a bit of a noob move.
Although, my proposal is more constrained and specific than the previous one. And it seems to be consistent with other articles. My two cents is that the best solution to all the controversy is to treat it like the 1422 Ruritanian invasion of Graustark. And the WP:NODEADLINE obiter dictum seems like a flawed argument as you could just as easily say WP:NOW. So in principle, I'd rather the issue of "supported by" be ironed out for however long it takes to do so, if it can be done civilly.
But yeah, if I did in fact walk blindly into the hottest sector of the entire bloody article, I'd rather let the infobox be someone else's problem. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
RadioactiveBoulevardier, I thought you might not have seen the history. Cheers Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2023 (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.

Truce

There is a true right now. news Hgh1985 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there this [[76]] says its been rejected. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, it's a one-sided (Russia won't be engaging ; Ukraine may or may not) ceasefire that expires the day after Orthodox Christmas (which is on January 7th). I'm dubious on it being significant. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I doubt either side will be following the truce Galebazz (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Ther is that as well, declaring a ceasefire and actually carrying it out are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Considering the consensus of this conversation I suggest that there be a section for this titled like "2023 Russian truce attempt" after the planned truce occurs (or not) because it's a notable event nevertheless. Luxtay the IInd (talketh to me) 12:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't favour an entire section. There might be a sentence which could go under 'Peace Efforts' but that's not a great heading either as it is only a 36 hour ceasefire being proposed. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-blames-its-soldiers-mobile-phone-use-deadly-missile-strike-2023-01-03/ Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd wait to see if anything actually occurs, then assess if it's notable enough to include. So far it seems like an information operation by Russia which they never really thought would be accepted, and are just doing to make Ukraine look unreasonable. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The "truce" is not really notable, although it should get one line in the timeline article. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The NOS stated 39 Russian attacks in 7 Oblasts took place on Friday. These would all be violations of the unilaterally declared truce. Nobody really believes in it. Like HappyWith said, it seems no more than a Russian attempt to make Ukraine look unreasonable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nederlandse here. Volunteer Marek 23:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, someone went and created the article anyway [77] Volunteer Marek 10:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_11&oldid=1145989329"