Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:33, 13 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian invasion of Ukraine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 14 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022–2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine, No consensus, 31 December 2022, discussion RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), Procedural close (speedy), 18 January 2023, discussion RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present), Moved, 26 February 2023, discussion RM, Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) → Russian invasion of Ukraine, Moved, 14 March 2023, discussion RM, Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine, Not moved (speedy), 2 July 2023, discussion RM, Russian invasion of Ukraine → Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), Not moved, 19 August 2024, discussion Older discussions: RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Not moved, 26 February 2022, discussion RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine, Not moved, 28 February 2022, discussion RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → War in Ukraine (2022), Not moved, 21 July 2022, discussion RM, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine, Not moved, 15 December 2022, discussion

Other talk page banners

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: History / Military / Politics and law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Ukraine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. NATO (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. A news item involving Russian invasion of Ukraine was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 February 2022. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Stephen Harrison (1 March 2022). "How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Misplaced Pages". Slate. On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin issued the order for Russian forces to invade Ukraine. Since then, Russians have killed 352 Ukrainian civilians, including 14 children, according to Reuters. That information is now reflected on the English Misplaced Pages page for the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine," an article that sprang to life mere minutes after Putin's televised address and has been collaboratively written by nearly 740 distinct authors as of Tuesday morning. Jenny Nicholls (12 March 2022). "History is written as it happens by Misplaced Pages editors". Stuff (website). Retrieved 14 March 2022. It has been fascinating to watch two very different Misplaced Pages pages emerge in recent weeks – 2022 Wellington protests, with 151 referenced sources and seven images; and the page 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, with, as I write, 626 references and 33 images. Ina Fried (15 July 2022). "Misplaced Pages blazes a trail to agreement in a divided world". Axios (website). Retrieved 17 July 2022. The Misplaced Pages article (at least the English language one) includes some of Russia's most outlandish claims — such as the idea that the Ukrainian government included Nazis — but authoritatively debunks them as false. The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Ramsay, S. (2022, March 4). Sky News team's harrowing account of their violent ambush in Ukraine this week. Sky News. Archive. O'Leary, N. (2022, March 15). United Nations advises staff against using ‘war’ or ‘invasion’ regarding Ukraine. Sabbagh, Dan; Koshiw, Isobel (28 December 2022). "The battle for Kyiv revisited: the litany of mistakes that cost Russia a quick win". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 December 2022. (2022, March 9). Россия признала нахождение солдат-срочников в Украине - BBC News Русская служба. Bbcrussian. https://www.bbcrussian.com/russian/news-60680182 Jones, Sam; Rathbone, John Paul; Sevastopulo, Demetri (12 March 2022). "'A serious failure': scale of Russia's military blunders becomes clear". Financial Times. Retrieved 12 March 2022. Banco, Erin (2023, February 24). 'Something Was Badly Wrong': When Washington Realized Russia Was Actually Invading Ukraine: A first-ever oral history of how top U.S. and Western officials saw the warning signs of a European land war, their frantic attempts to stop it — and the moment Putin actually crossed the border. Politico Magazine. Mearsheimer, John (2022, June 23). 'The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis' National Interest. Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian war (oldid, history) → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (diff) Copied 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (oldid, history) → Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (diff) on 3 March 2022 Copied 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (history) → NATO and EU reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on 8 March 2022 This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 28 times. The weeks in which this happened: February 20 to 26, 2022 February 27 to March 5, 2022 March 6 to 12, 2022 March 13 to 19, 2022 March 20 to 26, 2022 March 27 to April 2, 2022 April 3 to 9, 2022 April 10 to 16, 2022 April 17 to 23, 2022 April 24 to 30, 2022 May 1 to 7, 2022 May 8 to 14, 2022 May 15 to 21, 2022 May 22 to 28, 2022 May 29 to June 4, 2022 June 5 to 11, 2022 June 12 to 18, 2022 June 19 to 25, 2022 June 26 to July 2, 2022 July 3 to 9, 2022 July 10 to 16, 2022 July 17 to 23, 2022 July 24 to 30, 2022 August 28 to September 3, 2022 September 11 to 17, 2022 September 18 to 24, 2022 September 25 to October 1, 2022 February 19 to 25, 2023 This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2022 and 2023. Section sizes in Russian invasion of Ukraine Section size for Russian invasion of Ukraine (68 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 10,326 10,326 Background 57 24,920 Post-Soviet relations 3,944 3,944 Ukrainian revolution, Russian intervention in Crimea and Donbas 13,718 13,718 Economic aspects 7,201 7,201 Prelude 19,485 24,495 Putin's invasion announcement 5,010 5,010 Events 23,311 178,870 Initial invasion (24 February – 7 April 2022) 557 40,902 Kyiv and northern front 16,277 16,277 Northeastern front 5,155 5,155 Southern front 11,558 11,558 Eastern front 7,355 7,355 Southeastern front (8 April – 5 September 2022) 4,803 43,184 Fall of Mariupol 9,571 9,571 Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk 12,054 12,054 Kharkiv front 2,576 2,576 Kherson-Mykolaiv front 6,446 6,446 Zaporizhzhia front 7,734 7,734 Russian annexations and occupation losses (6 September – 11 November 2022) 5,086 21,629 Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts 2,274 2,274 Zaporizhzhia front 2,780 2,780 Kherson counteroffensive 5,189 5,189 Kharkiv counteroffensive 6,300 6,300 Winter stalemate, attrition campaign and 1st military surge (12 November 2022 – 7 June 2023) 5,343 5,343 Battle of Bakhmut 7,378 7,378 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensives (8 June 2023 – 1 December 2023) 16,221 16,221 Battle of Avdiivka 4,936 4,936 Russian offensives and Ukrainian incursion (April 2024 – present) 442 15,966 Russian spring and summer offensives 6,543 6,543 Ukrainian offensive into Russia 2,959 2,959 Late 2024 Russian advances 6,022 6,022 Battlespaces 109 46,847 Command 4,178 4,178 Missile attacks and aerial warfare 3,201 17,883 Crimea attacks 4,118 4,118 Russian attacks against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure 10,564 10,564 Naval blockade and engagements 17,661 17,661 Ukrainian resistance 7,016 7,016 Foreign involvement 92 33,412 Support for Ukraine 9,844 9,844 Support for Russia 188 23,476 Belarus 2,774 2,774 Iran 3,273 3,273 North Korea 12,976 12,976 Others 4,265 4,265 Casualties 29,023 29,023 Prisoners of war 9,844 9,844 War crimes and attacks on civilians 9,791 19,090 Abduction of Ukrainian children 1,941 1,941 International arrest warrants 7,358 7,358 Impacts 14 56,798 Humanitarian impact 5,030 5,030 Refugee crisis 20,148 20,148 Long-term demographic effects 10,152 10,152 Environmental impact 7,752 7,752 Nuclear risk 7,429 7,429 Economic impact 93 6,273 Ukraine 3,321 3,321 Russia 2,859 2,859 Peace efforts 16,055 16,055 International reactions 13,653 13,653 See also 723 723 Notes 54 54 References 30 30 Bibliography 759 759 Further reading 3,586 3,586 External links 2,615 2,615 Total 471,100 471,100

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Questions about article title issues and changes? A1: There have been many requests to change the title of this article. The last successful one resulted in a consensus to change the title to "Russian invasion of Ukraine": this link. Q2: Why is Ukraine not a part of the NATO military alliance? A2: In 2008 Ukraine applied for membership to the NATO military alliance and was rejected from the alliance, at the same time as Georgia was rejected from the NATO military alliance. As of 2023 with Finland being added to the NATO military alliance, Ukraine is still not a member of the NATO military alliance. Q3: Why does the article show explicit images? A3: Misplaced Pages is not censored, and articles may include content that some readers may find objectionable if it is relevant and adds value to the article. See the Content Disclaimer for further information. Q4: Can you add X country to the infobox because it is sending weapons to Ukraine? Why isn't NATO in the infobox? A4: A discussion took place to decide whether countries supplying arms should be listed in the infobox, and the outcome was 'No Consensus'. Please do not add individual countries without discussing here first. While consensus can change, please review the closed discussion, and try to bring forward novel arguments. Q5: Can you update the losses claimed by Russia/Ukraine? A5: This generally happens quickly after they are published. Please don't make an edit request. Q6: Why is the map in the infobox outdated/wrong? A6: The map is only as accurate as publicly available reliable sources. Please remember that due to the operational secrecy and the disinformation efforts by all sides, as well as the fog of war, the map may not be able to meet any particular standard for completeness or accuracy until well after the conflict is over. If you believe you can offer constructive feedback which would improve the map, supported by reliable sources, please leave a comment at File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg. There is no use in leaving it here.

DPR and LPR

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

On the one hand they were obviously just an extension of the Russian army, and we've excluded South Ossetia from being mentioned in the infobox on similar grounds. On the other, LPR/DPR formations were treated as being different in some ways by the Russians (e.g., giving them ancient rifles to fight with etc.). I guess I lean towards removing them but it's probably worth having an RFC on this. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

With respect, your assertion that you practically never see LPR referenced without also seeing DPR referenced probably holds true only when it comes to very high-level overviews of the war, and particularly those not written in the regional languages. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

So we should ignore the existence of two effectively independent and separate entities because it is easy to group them together in overly generalized writing? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

No. We should mention them together like "DPR and LPR", because this is how they are mentioned in very high-level overviews of the war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Until the annexation months into the invasion in 2022, they were independent entities (legally), as were their militaries; that they are no longer independent right now doesn't matter at all, as they were when the invasion began. So yes, they should be included. That said, this discussion shouldn't be on this talk page at all, but rather at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, where it will be more widely seen. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

they were independent entities (legally)
They weren't.having declared their independence from Ukraine footnote text should be removed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And why should it be removed? The rebel leaders did declare independence, just not to any diplomatic recognition; the two republics were completely unrecognized until 2022, but they were still entities that existed (as Ukraine certainly didn't control the territory held by the republics). Legally here means that Russia did not claim that the two entities were a "part of Russia" until 2022, and they still maintained a degree of actual independence until then. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The rebel leaders did declare independence
Note the difference
The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic were Russian puppet states, having declared their independence ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• They existed as separate entities at the start of the war. Previous discussions were that they remain in the infobox subsequent to annexation. There have been robust discussions regarding this so there is a fairly strong consensus for the status quo version. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removal, because LPR and DPR were never recognised (internationally, anyway). If they aren't removed, then possible solutions could be: a) to put their names in quotes, b) add "so-called" in front of their names, c) call them either "Donbas separatists" or "Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas", d) a combination of the above. In any case, a change is required because as it currently stands it seems that they are indepdendent, recognised entities, when their "independence" was very, very shortlived before they were annexed by Russia. I don't think there is any talk of LPR and DPR being or ever becoming independent entities. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC) 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is OK as it is, nuance is for the body, not the info box. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Nuance would be still mentioning them as separate entities. I suggest uniting them into single "Pro-Russian militias in Ukraine" with footnote listing Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts and telling the story of their occupation and subsequent annexation by Russia. Military administrations set up by Russia in parts of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts could me mentioned there as well. CapLiber (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the “nuanced” option is mentioning them at all, since it requires footnotes that boil down to saying they were simply puppet-states. That said it would also be good to see whether reliable sources treat them at all as distinct from Russia. FOARP (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think "Russian-backed separatists" is more correct, unless you have a WP:RS claiming they are "pro-Russian" rather than being supported by Russia. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Russian militias in Ukraine" would be the most suitable name since we're talking more about armed groups rather than about political factions. CapLiber (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS overwhelmingly refer to them as "Russian-backed separatists".

- https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/4/ukraine-crisis-who-are-the-russia-backed-separatists

- https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-separatist-regions-crux-russian-invasion/story?id=83084803

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/what-is-the-background-to-the-separatists-attack-in-east-ukraine

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/22/what-are-donetsk-and-luhansk-ukraines-separatist-statelets

- https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/ukraine-war-the-future-of-russian-backed-separatist-territories-189536

- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/russia-plan-to-annex-ukraine-separatist-regions-referendum/101460210

- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-invasion-fears-separatists-military-mobilization-putin-rcna16937

- https://www.politico.eu/article/separatists-in-ukraine-luhansk-region-to-hold-referendum-on-joining-russia/

- https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-donetsk-luhansk-1.6588501

- https://abcnews.go.com/International/tensions-rise-ukraine-russian-backed-separatist-shelling-hits/story?id=82962555

There are many, many more sources calling them the same. Therefore the consensus among WP:RS seems to be that they are "Russian-backed separatists". TurboSuperA+ (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Both the DPR and LPR really were just extensions of Russian forces, which ceased to exist months into the war. Adding them as footnotes makes sense here EarthDude (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add NATO and its member countries as belligerents

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

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

Combat 'boots on the ground'? NO. Advisors, yes. Not the same thing. 2603:6080:21F0:67F0:61B6:3857:A818:52EC (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There are North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine, there are no NATO member countries fighting in Ukraine. Send military advisors and military aid isn't the same thing as being a belligerent. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman: Even if there would be "NATO member countries fighting in Ukraine" it doesn't automatically mean that's involvement of NATO. Eurohunter (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Although that wasn't my point and is sort of off-topic, it is true that no NATO member country has soldiers fighting in Ukraine, but North Korea does. I would have to read the inclusion of NK as a beligerent discussion for more insight beyond this as to why NK was added as a belligerent, but boots on the ground seemed to be a major point. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there an international law definition of belligerency that would be applicable here? NK sends a small number of token soldiers who die as fodder whereas the US basically provides Ukraine's entire military arsenal + teaches them how to operate it. The latter is clearly far more impactful to the war yet the US gets a get-out-jail-card because of some legalese interpretation of what "belligerent" means. Also quite interestingly, Belarus is listed in the infobox despite not providing any soldiers. Odd to list Belarus but not the US/NATO. JDiala (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read some (of the many) discussions before on how we arrived at this decision (in short - soldiers fighting-belligerent, attack sorties from your soil - supporter). Several of those are archived or even on other threads on the current page. Arnoutf (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that discussions were had and a decision was reached does not mean I have to agree with it. The explanations given for why Belarus is more of a "supporter" to Russia than the US is to Ukraine are not convincing and consist of loads of OR from both sides as noted by the closer to this discussion. And, for the record, it seems that the last formal RfCs on including NATO and other Western arms-supplying parties to the infobox were in February 2022 (this and this), mere days after the start of the war, and one ended in no consensus with the closer explicitly suggesting further discussion. I think it might be worthy of re-litigation since the role the West has played in this war has only become more apparent three years later. JDiala (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

From both my searching and recollection the most recent RfC discussion touching on this was closed in November 2023 where the closer noted: Q: Do we need to add any other countries to the infobox? A: With thanks to RadioactiveBoulevardier for his stalwart, impassioned and rather well-argued case for this, other editors don't seem very persuaded, and there's no consensus to add anyone else to the article. We should also note that the term "supported by" has been deprecated (see template doc) but retaining Belarus here was a result of RfC linked in accordance with the RfC by which "supported by" was deprecated. Unless something has significantly changed and unless there is a reasonable indication that an RfC would succeed where it has not previously, opening a further RfC could be seen as disruptive. This discussion so far is not indicating a will to change. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any factual evidence of NK involvement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Revolutionary War - Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

Im not suggesting OR and it doesnt require OR;

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

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

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

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

South Korea’s Deepening Dilemma Over Ukraine – The Diplomat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not entirely true:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Martial law is what?"

A law that applies in the whole country.

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

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

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

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

References

1. https://www.voanews.com/a/new-rules-limit-media-s-ability-to-cover-ukraine-war/7031212.html
2. https://www.reportingukraine.guide/martial-law
3. https://iwpr.net/global-voices/ukraines-media-law-threat-or-necessity
4. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/ukraine_reporters_threats_zelensky.php
5. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pressure-journalists-press-freedom-limitations-204153837.html

question

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

2024

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

Please see my above comment. 🐔 Chicdat   17:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• B-Class International relations articles
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
• Politics and law of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• Top-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class European history articles
• High-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report