Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Map used too many times

The yellow, red and blue map of territorial control is used on way too many articles about the war. For example, the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article has one of these maps despite Ukraine not having recaptured that territory during the counteroffensive. Are there not any better available thumbnails? The Russian Winter Offensive in Ukraine (2022–2023) article also has that same map as the thumbnail despite the offensive only being localized in northern Donetsk Oblast.Maxsmart50 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Mearsheimer critique

Mearsheimer views on Russian war are widely criticized - you could read it in John Mearsheimer if it would not be removed [1] . Thus Mearsheimer assessments here should be followed with assessments of his assessments. Which would make all of it too much for this article. Better to not to have Mearsheimer at all.

This is regarding latest edits [2] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with including criticisms of Mearsheimer. That would be balanced. What I don't want is the total exclusion of Mearsheimer altogether, which was the previous consensus position for the article. The man is one of the most well-known, oft-discussed political scientists in the modern era. To dismiss him altogether simply because he doesn't tout the "Russia-bad" narrative editors here seem to endorse is a blatant violation of neutrality.

"Which would make all of it too much for this article" let's be honest, this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO. It wouldn't be "too much" for the article, you could fit in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. The POV pushing in this topic area is remarkable. JDiala (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The sentence referencing Mearsheimer doesn't even require criticism. It's non-controversial. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It is simultaneously the case that Mearsheimer is a significantly notable enough commentator that his analysis should be included; and that Mearsheimer's analysis on Ukraine has been widely criticized as being absolutely bunk. So no, it would not be better to not have him at all, unless we cannot do so without giving him undue weight or shielding from criticism; in which case it would actually be better. It's much the same as we should be doing for every other formerly respected academic who subsequently dived face-first into the "crank" pool (e.g. Theodore Postol on Syria) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Either way fits the rules. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Several of your sources are incredibly low-quality. One is some random from the Ayn Rand Institute (lol). One is a journalist without professional scholarly background (Katie Stallard). One is Carl Liles, some random unknown master's student from the University of Tartu (also lol). The others are more respected --- but of course scholarly disagreements between respected scholars are not unusual. While Mearsheimer does have provocative views on many topics, there is no evidence indicating he's regarded as a "crank." JDiala (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, but if what you're pushing for is for Mearsheimer's views to be included, then they have to come with appropriately sufficient context for how widely criticized he's been in the context of Ukraine, which may be more than just fitting in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. To not do so would be giving his position undue weight and be just as blatant of a violation of neutrality as the one you were complaining about above. If we can't do that, then they shouldn't be there at all. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's a due weight issue, a full survey of the field might be in order. I personally don't have the time to carry it out, but there are others active on this TP who have the wherewithal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

For a more reliable source I would recommend a well-researched and fairly well sourced video that thoroughly debunks Mearsheimer and others' claims in regards to the invasion, though it is not all that polite.

here A Miscellaneous Scholar (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Better sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Irrespective of controversies over his larger framework, Mearsheimer's specific thesis on the Ukraine invasion (that it was the West's fault because Putin was trying to negotiate in good faith, and it could have been avoided with a pledge to keep Ukraine out of NATO) is shared by very few other scholars.

Actually, I think the page currently leans too far in the Realist direction by exclusively discussing military and diplomatic history in the "background" and "prelude" sections. Liberal researchers like Timothy Snyder argue that the invasion resulted from ideological and political evolutions within Russia itself, not just relations between Russia and other powers. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So why not mention this in 1-2 sentences? Chino-Catane (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think small section "Motives for invasion" is out of place and undue on this page. This is not a part of "Background". These are questionable speculations by a couple of cherry-picked authors on why exactly Putin decided to attack Ukraine. This is an interesting question, but it is already covered at length in several sections of another page, Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There were several justifications by Putin and others: Denying Ukrainian statehood, an emergence of "right forces", genocide by Ukrainians accusations and of course the expansion of NATO. One of the cherry-picked authors (Mearsheimer) focuses on the last reason, "the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO", which is basically a well known motif of Putinist propaganda. Yes, it needs to be described somewhere, but it was described already on another page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, this author is telling [3] that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia was fully justified, and that the justification was one provided by Putin. Author does not hide that his view is contrary to the mainstream views on this subject. Moreover, he is saying obvious nonsense, such as Putin was not bent on the occupation of Ukraine. How come when Russia has officially annexed all these territories (and Crimea) and included them to Russian Federation? This is such an obvious WP:FRINGE or propaganda. So, I am saying this page is not a proper place for including WP:FRINGE and debunking it. Only page Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is. My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not WP:FRINGE. The viewpoint that NATO expansion bears some degree of responsibility for the war is a minority view, but not totally outside the mainstream discourse. JDiala (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on the essence of this (and as described in many sources), Ukraine had absolutely zero chance to be accepted to NATO before the invasion, and Putin knew it. And even now, it has very low chance to be accepted to NATO. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Putin knew it": A living political figure's private thoughts and what they "knew" are generally not regarded as productive avenues of academic research. Chino-Catane (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014. A new state during a war and with an unresolved territorial dispute could not be accepted to NATO. Everyone knew it, not just Putin. In fact, by starting the low-intensity conflict in 2014, Putin effectively prevented Ukraine from accession to NATO. Putin is also well aware that NATO will not attack Russia. That's why he withdraw nearly all Russian forces from the border with Finland and sent them to Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"out of place and undue on this page": I don't see how it is "out of place and undue" to include a short section presenting motives for invasion in an article titled "Russian invasion of Ukraine". It seems that you have a problem with a particular individual. What is your qualm with the sentence, "Neorealist scholar John Mearsheimer assigned the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO."? Chino-Catane (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including some content on the subject of "Why Putin invaded Ukraine", but it should be focused on mainstream views, for example as summarized by the Institute for the Study of War, i.e. [4]. If this will be just a brief summary, then Mearsheimer simply does not belong there per WP:FRINGE.

According to ISW:

Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia’s power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues.

This is mainstream view on this subject.My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to include it (and was reverted), but it is indeed a question how exactly this should be framed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

How is the sentence, "Neorealist scholar John Mearsheimer assigned the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO.", even remotely controversial, especially when it is immediately followed by the presentation of a perspective that is probably praised by most of the editors of this article? There does not need to be any critical assessment whatsoever of that first sentence. Your suggestion that the presentation of a single individual's very reasonable view requires an "assessment of the assessment" is utterly ridiculous. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else, even using the label “realist” or “neorealist” without proper context and explanation is kind of POV, since it implies those that disagree with him are “unrealistic” (in practice of course the exactly the opposite turned out to be true) Volunteer Marek 07:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. These are schools of thought in international relations. A link to the page on realism or neorealism is adequate context for the correct meaning of these words. JDiala (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous. It's not clear to me whether he's a "realist" or "neorealist", or what he's more often referred to in sources as an "offensive realist"; so just applying the label without context, even with a wikilink, doesn't really tell me anything about *why* Mearsheimer is associated with those schools of thought, or why the label is relevant to this article (which is not actually about Mearsheimer anyway). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with providing more descriptive description or omitting those narrow academic terms. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I will remove this and we can discuss the wording here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the structure and wording of the edit. I think if we want a section about the motivation behind the invasion, we can't start by immediately mentioning Mearsheimer's view, as he is a controversial figure. This would be WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We would need at least some sort of introduction describing the landscape of such discussions. As mentioned by other editors, a lot of this is discussed in the article Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which talks about all of the justifications used (often contradictory) by Russia. BeŻet (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Redundancy in BBC Casualty Figures Sentence

Under the "Casualty" section there is the sentence "BBC News has reported that Ukrainian reports of Russian casualty figures included the injured."

I believe this is redundant because it's commonly understood that casualty figures include both the dead and the injured. Specifying that the figures "included the injured" provides no informational value. IStalingrad (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

UNsure that is true. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is. Casualties refers to deaths and injuries. Here's the OED definition for example: a person killed or injured in a war or accident. I've removed the statement because it is wholly redundant. As an aside, the sources are from the early months of the war (March-April 2022), they're really out-dated with regards casualty and fatality figures anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet the BBC saw the need to point this out, thus implying it was not how they were being presented. However the point about these being outdated is better. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is worth considering the context of the BBC articles. The reason the author is underlining the fact that the term casualty includes injuries is that this article is specifically about determining the number of Russian fatalities. It's not that Ukraine is presenting the casualty figure as total deaths, just that the author is trying to estimate total deaths from available figures, and that included Ukraine's casualty estimates as an upper bound of possible deaths. The figures available to the author were: 6,000 claimed by Russia, 25,000 confirmed dead by the BBC, 40-60,000 dead according to the British government, and 200,000 total casualties according to Ukraine. It made sense for the author to clarify directly to the reader that the last figure includes injured given that context, but it was decontextualized here creating the redundancy since we weren't communicating those articles' purpose (to estimate loss of life). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

should north korea be listed beside belarus in the 'supported by' section

north korea has said it will put troops on the battlefield to help out in support roles NotQualified (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

They already sent weapons, ammo and supposedly tanks, but that kind of support does not qualiy to be included on this list. NK troops in my opinion should. YBSOne (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/27/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news9/ NotQualified (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to wait and see if reports of them arriving at the frontlines emerge, but then they would become beligerents. YBSOne (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In short NO (at this time). Weapons suppliers have not been listed as supporter (many European and American countries have supported Ukraine this way), nor have been trainers. If you look back at this talk (and its archives) there has been extensive discussion whether to list Belarus at all - and the fact that it allowed Russia to organise attacks from its country was decisive there (this is obviously not the case for N Korea). Of course if we see regular N Korean troops engaged in the frontlines this may change, but that seems unlikely so far. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It will also depend on the nature of that troops deployment as the "urban rebuilders" may be just a smoke screen for now. YBSOne (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

See talk page archive, for every reason not to. Nothing has changed since the last time this was raised. When troops see combat this can be changed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No. NK is much less engaged on the Russian side than the US and Europe are on the Ukrainian side. BTW, I'd remove Belarus, too, because no Belarusian forces ever took part in combat against Ukraine. We're an impartial encyclopaedia, not a propaganda outlet. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

please do not confuse two issues. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned as support for the use of their territory to launch an attack from. YBSOne (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What you are referencing took place during the first ~40 days of a now ~2.5 year-long war. This epheremal use of Belarusian territory by Russian forces does not justify the infobox implying that Belarus has continuously provided this form of "support" from 2022 onward; we should aim to avoid this perception. I reiterate my call for a compromise based on the inclusion of a parenthetical qualifier:

Russia

• Donetsk PR
• Luhansk PR

Supported by:

Belarus (2022)

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Different issues, Belarus is not North Korea, this is about NK not Belarus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a reply to YBSOne's comment about Belarus. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No, its a reply to this " This epheremal use of Belarusian territory by Russian forces does not justify the infobox implying that Belarus has continuously provided this form of "support" from 2022 onward; we should aim to avoid this perception. I reiterate my call for a compromise based on the inclusion of a parenthetical qualifier:", this is not about Belarus, so please stop trying to make it about it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear note "Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory. Belarusian territory has also been used to launch missiles into Ukraine. See also: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine", no need to explain it further or tag it in different way. YBSOne (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that Belarus has greenlit the use of its territory to launch missiles into Ukraine? As far as I know, they were isolated incidents only, not routine combat, and Russian army was only permitted to assemble in Belarus but never to fire at Ukraine from Belarusian soil. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus has been discussed may time sand the consensus is to include it. here ism a link to the RFC [[5]], nothing has changed since then. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus

I think it's time to remove Belarus from the infobox, here [6] is my reasoning. Rolando 1208 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There's no doubt Belarus significantly supported Russia in the initial invasion, but that was two and a half years ago and to say that Russia is still substantially supported by Belarus now is misleading. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

that was two and a half years ago and to say that Russia is still substantially supported by Belarus now is misleading
I thought that but found out that fresh academic sources still mention Belarus as belligerent so our article should follow sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NOT again, have we just to come out of one of these discussions? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Have we though? The last RfC was 9 months ago!! I think it's time to reconsider it. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, lets have another RFC. But word the question carefully, as not everyone who took part in WW2 was there form beginning to end, but are still listed as belligerents. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how RfCs work. I'm just leaving this is in here so that a more experienced editor can start one. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is an RfC really necessary? Does the explanatory footnote specifying that Belarusian support was really only during the initial invasion not suffice? Removing the mention altogether wouldn't be much better as Russia was substantially supported by Belarus early on, and thus deserves a mention, just not as a full "always has supported". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean it's mentioned in the rest of the article isn't it? But to have it in the infobox seems like too much. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned in the rest of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be in the infobox; why is having it in the infobox "too much" as long as the footnote clarifying support being largely exclusive to the initial invasion remains? Though it is definitely misleading to have the mention if the reader doesn't read the footnote, there is no "initial Russian invasion of Ukraine" article where Belarus would instead be an obvious inclusion, so any support which was given in the initial invasion should be given more weight in my view. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a good solution to this problem was given in the preceeding discussion. We can simply add (2022) around where we mention Belarus' support, as that was when they allowed Russia to invade through their territory. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To illustrate, direct military support only logistical maybe not now, Terratorial support not now, support in committing war crimes maybe, political support yes, economic support yes. THere may be other areas they still offer support as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Economic support how? Belarus has a much smaller economy. It's actually the other way around, Russia gave money to Belarus to support their economy. I'm not sure what you mean by political support? Belarus hasn't been involved in the war for more than two years. And Belarusian people don't seem to support this war either. Most importantly the army hasn't joined the Russians during this whole time. Basically the involvement only happened in 2022, after that, Belarus has been a neutral party in this war. Meanwhile you have other countries who currently sell weapons to Russia and they're not even mentioned in the infobox. Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OLd, but this is what I mean [[7]] have to arms sales and coperation ended? Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Less old [[8]], neither of these are usable, but they do not give the impression there is still ongoing cooperation, in the military, economic and polcrial fields. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have one for 2024? Even the "less old one" doesn't seem very conclusive. Belarus' involvement is very clear in 2022 but after that the most we get is speculation (and possibly even original research). I'd say we remove it from the infobox, if Belarus gets involved again, we can put it back in there. @Kashmiri and @SaintPaulOfTarsus, what do you think about my proposal? Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and @Ybsone too. Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus made it into history, they should stay, for history's sake. "Russia attacked from territory of Belarus" is a historical fact and as such should not be removed, nor should the supporting side. YBSOne (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

But the infobox implies Belarus is still involved. Don't you think that's silly? Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as over 10 Russian divisions are in Belarus - a de facto occupation - Russia will use the territory as a jumping off point if need be (again). 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:4D0E:9735:CDD4:BB18 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No I don't. Just as the map shows past conflict areas, so can infobox, clearly noted, show past (and/or present) supporters. YBSOne (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Territory is irrelevant. The fact that the US has used military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to launch attacks on Afghanistan did not make these two countries belligerents. The UK firing ballistic missiles at Syria from its Akrotiri base did not make Cyprus a belligerent. What matters whether a country's government and military take part in hostilities; not whether alien forces are able to operate there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• History articles are an overall picture, not a snapshot of a particular point in time. Consider how things should appear if the event occurred 100 years ago and was not an ongoing current event. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I get that, however I think it's silly to single out Belarus but then the other countries who are currently supporting Russia aren't even mentioned. It seems to go against NPOV. Rolando 1208 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Undue Infobox to be usable should be short and sweet. Belarus support for Russia is not one of the most noteworthy aspects of the war. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with the inclusion but there is an affirmative consensus by RfC several times. We should only go down that path again if something has changed such that there is a reasonable prospect that the consensus would be overturned - otherwise, just starting up a new RfC might reasonably be considered disruptive given the history of the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't the last RfC nine months ago? The more time passes, the less relevant Belarus' actions in 2022 become. If not, we should be consistent and include all parties, NATO, North Korea, Iran, etc. Why single out Belarus? Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As said at the time, because no one else allowed attacks from its soil, which has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

[[9]], yes Belarus is (in effect) an indirect theater of war. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that the United States should be listed as a supporter of Israel on the Israel Hamas war page? The standards on this website for the enemies and foes of the united states are completely different, and this uneven application of the rules creates a systematic pro-US bias. 90.102.72.109 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

7 Aug 2024 Kursk incursion article?

I assume that by now we have 20kb of text on today's Kursk incursion, despite the near lack of WP:RS, in a new article. What is the article's name? Or is there only a subsection so far? Boud (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC) (edit Boud (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC))

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like I was right about 20kb, though it was really only a wild guess. Boud (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 western Russia incursion and Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present)#6 August seem to be the closest that I could find. Boud (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

One source: AJE - not enough for a new article. Boud (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That is the issue, its kind of a Russian claim. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Map

Hi

We should have an alternate map with Ukraine+Kursk Oblast. Panam2014 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place for map discussion; there's already a discussion about such an issue here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we add Ukraine’s incursion to the map?

I know that we have another article about that, but the incursion is still part of Ukraine’s efforts to fight back against the Russian invasion, so I feel like we should update the map to feature the incursion.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kursk-fighting-80671ef80c36b94dc1114506770cdd56 LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, as this is not about any invasion of Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well it is about the invasion of Ukraine (as this is a Ukrainian attack meant to strike back at and stretch out Russia’s forces invading Ukraine). LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I came here for this very reason--to see what they were going to do about that map. I think Ukraine's response is well within scope, and they should add a 4th color. I propose green, for no other reason than it looking good with the other colors. 2604:2D80:CC12:0:E8CE:E6E4:D343:FC06 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree on all points; all I would add is that the shade of green should be the same general shade as the other colors on the map. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Although they didn't use green, they did add the incursion in light blue and I find this satisfactory. It achieves the goal of showing the incursion, its size, and location in context with reclaimed and occupied territory. The border is sufficient to distinguish Ukraine-occupied Russia from reclaimed territory. 173.22.131.171 (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's too soon. Let's wait a bit to see how it unfolds. Plus, as mentioned in the thread above, there's an article about the incursion in Kursk already. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2024

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 to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. While several comments focused specifically on the suggested move of this particular article, the discussion as a whole shows consensus against making all of the moves proposed here. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Russian invasion of Ukraine → Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)
• Aerial warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Aerial warfare in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Attacks on civilians in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Naval warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Naval warfare in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Nuclear risk during the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Nuclear risk during the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Foreign involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• List of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine → List of deaths during the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Prisoners of war in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Humanitarian impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Humanitarian impacts of the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian War

– Comparing the way Wikipedia currently covers the war compared to reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, War on the Rocks, and Harvard, the reporting on the war by Wikipedia is quite different. Sources generally agree that the Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 but its main phase/escalation has been ongoing since 2022. Reliable sources generally do not use "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as the primary term for the war in its post-2022 phase: "Russo-Ukrainian War", or variants of that like "Ukraine-Russia war" (Sky News), "Ukraine war" (BBC News), are overwhelmingly the main term used. Encyclopedia Britannia has "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as a subsection of the article referring to the period from initial invasion up to around the Battle of Kyiv but uses different sections for events since then; importantly, very few reliable sources use the phrase "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for any recent events so it is simply misleading to use that title to for the catch-all sub-article about all of the events of the Russo-Ukrainian War since 2022.

For this reason, I think it's necessary to move this article (Russian invasion of Ukraine) to be clear that its scope is to serve as a sub-article of Russo-Ukrainian War to describe the events since 2022 in greater detail- and following a move, there would also be a good argument for restructuring this article, moving some content to the main Russo-Ukrainian War article and other articles.

The necessity of a move has become especially clear with the recent Ukrainian invasion of Russia which is clearly a part of the war but not part of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine", but there are also other events in the war which don't fall under the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" umbrella (e.g. the counteroffensive in Kherson, the Kerch Bridge bombing, etc), so overall as this article has grown over time and events have occurred, the present title has become steadily less accurate even aside from its lack of use by reliable sources. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME Adriazeri (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Exceptional evidence would be needed to show that the WP:COMMONNAME of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Also, let's just consider we did move to "Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)". Then what would happen to all the pages in Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Would we label them, for instance, "Timeline of the Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present) (24 February – 7 April 2022)"? That would simply not work. Ultimately, this RM should not have dealt with so many topics all together. For example, the Aerial warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine should not renamed to the proposed title, simply because it only deals with aerial warfare during the invasion, so there is no reason to make the scope unclear. As for the "Ukrainian invasion of Russia", this is, in fact, part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I will also note that the invasion is treated by RS's as an event, not simply as part of a timeline (as the proposed title would imply). It is also clear that the scope of this article is far beyond that of a timeline. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment No evidence is provided by this user for the claim that the WP:COMMONNAME for the war since 2022 is "Russian invasion of Ukraine", whereas I provided WP:RS showing that that term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" was largely only used in early 2022 and is not used for the war in its current phase. Do you have any sources to back up your claim? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with using the sources provided in the initial response. Certainly, the first says "Ukraine-Russia war", and the second says "Ukraine war". But why would that mean that these outlets are referring to the invasion as such? They can label their coverage as the whole war, but that absolutely does not mean they are saying the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is one and the same as the "Ukraine-Russia war", for instance. It is indisputable that RS's consider the invasion to be an event deserving separation from prior events. If you wanted to bring up the topic of whether, for example, we should be omitting some information from this article because it is not part of the invasion, that is a different discussion. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is a broad overview of the Russo-Ukrainian War during its main phase between 2022 and the present; it is not primarily about the initial invasion in the first few months. The sub-articles which I propose moving also cover the entire war between 2022 and now, not just the initial invasion. Reliable sources which refer to the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" use that term for only the first few months in early 2022- so to remove information from outside that period would be to remove the vast majority of this article, which is obviously not desirable.

There are other options for titles this article, e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) or Overview of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), but the fact is that this article is about a period of the war covering two and a half years whereas RS usage of the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" outside of the few months of Russian advances in 2022 is not widespread, so the current title is misleading and doesn't follow sources. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, we could be having the discussion of whether or not to create new articles, and split this article. For instance, creating an article titled "Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present)", and restricting the information contained in the article for the invasion (I will note that I am opposed to this). But that would be an entirely different discussion from the one we are having now. There was an invasion, whether you think the current phase of fighting should be called an invasion or not. The fact that some sources are now referring to the fighting ongoing right now without using "invasion" does not mean the invasion which started two and a half years ago should no longer be called an invasion. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the initial invasion two and a half of years ago shouldn't be called an invasion, but that this article is not primarily about the initial invasion. If this article were moved to another title, in theory I wouldn't oppose a split to create a new article at Russian invasion of Ukraine about the invasion in early 2022.

This article is currently essentially a summary/sub-article of Russo-Ukrainian War describing the progress of the entire war since 2022- it is just incorrectly titled. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the initial invasion two and a half of years ago shouldn't be called an invasion, but that this article is not primarily about the initial invasion. Well, yes, the article certainly is not primarily about the initial invasion. But we should remember that the invasion never ended, it is still ongoing. As far as I can tell, sources are not saying: "The invasion lasted up until this point, after which it is no longer an invasion." This is why it doesn't make sense to make a separate article for the initial invasion, and title the rest of it something else. Gödel2200 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but sources don't tend to use the term "invasion" beyond the initial months even if the invasion never ended, so if we are to reflect the usage of reliable sources for the article title, using the current title to cover the entire period from 2022 until now is inaccurate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The main problem with using sources like this is because both the invasion and the Russo-Ukrainian war are ongoing. The fact that some sources use "Russia-Ukraine war" doesn't mean they are saying the invasion ended; they could just be referring to the war in its larger context. If we were to label the fighting ongoing right now as something other than part of the invasion, we would need a consensus of sources explicitly saying that the fighting right now should not be called part of the invasion. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We have an overwhelming consensus of sources that are clear that the fighting that has been ongoing for the last two years is part of the Russo-Ukrainian War (or a variant thereof). We very much do not have a consensus of sources using "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as the primary name covering the entire war during the period from 2022 until now. Therefore, if we are to follow sources, the title of this article should clearly be some form/derivative of "Russo-Ukrainian War".

It's also worth noting that not all reliable sources even use the term "Russo-Ukrainian War" for the period since 2014- some of them only use it for the post-2022 period (e.g. Al Jazeera). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the well made points made by Gödel2200. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, This article is not a timeline but still needs a specific phase name to describe it. The most common name besides Russo-Ukrainian War is currently in use. I also have to agree with Gödel2200, the Ukrainian invasion of Russia is currently not significant enough in the grand scheme of things to require large rescoping. Simply, that point is pretentious. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this isnt the Russo-Ukrainian war, this is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Lukt64 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - No, this is not just a timeline of the war. Moreover, per Gödel2200, we would then have to rename many other articles downstream (unnecessarily), which could get messy fast. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: while the titling of "Russian invasion of Ukraine" may seem to you to imply that this article, from a grammatical point of view, only covers the initial invasion, that is of course not the case as the WP:COMMONNAME often refers to the "invasion" being the period of the Russo-Ukrainian War from Feb. 2022 onward, (just look at any news outlet's coverage of the subject) including any operations outside Ukraine, despite the scope the name may imply. The title, at least in my view, does not deter us from covering any Ukrainian incursions or non-Ukrainian spillover matters, as for one I already added content about the August incursion in this article without anyone taking issue, and Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory and other "non-invasion" matters are covered by articles in this topic; sufficient sourcing was not provided to prove that events after the battle of Kyiv (the "initial" invasion) or engagements outside Ukraine are not covered under the topic of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment The claim the WP:COMMONNAME often refers to the "invasion" being the period of the Russo-Ukrainian War from Feb. 2022 onward needs citation. As far as I can tell, reliable sources do not use the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the war as a whole but only for the initial invasion in the first few months (as outlined above). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the scope of all these articles is the 2022+ invasion, not the 2014+ war. Rename without rescoping makes no sense to me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The scope of an article is defined by the lead section of the article in conjunction with the title. The invasion (2022+) is part of the Russo-Ukraine War (2014+). The scope of these articles is 2022+ not 2014+ and the Russian invasion of Ukraine article is more than a timeline. The proposal breaks more than it fixes and I don't see there is anything that needs to be fixed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The main article is not a time line. And a timeline article already exists. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think a lot of these "not a timeline" comments miss the entire point of the RM, which is that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not the common term for the war between 2022 and now. The current title doesn't even include the word "war"; this is very obviously a war. If you don't agree with the proposal to have this article be an overview timeline, this doesn't mean the current titles of all of the articles in question are at all accurate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is not a timeline. Moreoever, the sources do not follow the clear distinction given. The Britannica page Russia-Ukraine War dates the start of the war to 2014 and to 2022 in different places. CMD (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment It might be snowing here? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose they are still invading, they are still invaders. YBSOne (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As there was an invasion, now rewrites is another issue, but we do need an article about the initial invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support What is it called by sources? A quick check on a leading media outlet gives "Russia-Ukraine war updates". I won't bother with further checks because I know what the result will be. An equally quick check here shows that some editors appear to be taking sides in the war, which is what the current title is doing. Wars generally have names that are neutral even though one side is the bad guy - Falklands War, First World War, Vietnam War, The War of Jenkins' Ear. There are of course two sides to any war anyway, so neutrality is even more important. Invasions are not the same as wars, they are generally quicker and more specific and often part of a war, if they don't achieve their aim quickly. !940 was a German invasion of France, not the 1940 Frano-German war but had it gone on longer it would have been called a war. This war stopped being an invasion by March 2022. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily disagree; on the other hand, quite a few media push the phrase full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which is actually the Ukrainian official narrative (they present the 2014 Crimea annexation as a limited-scale invasion of Ukraine). So, until we have a consensus how to name this armed conflict, incl. on whether to use that Ukrainian phrase at all, it will be difficult to separate the war from the invasions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think changing the title would oversimplify a complex event. It's more than just a timeline. Waqar💬 15:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A timeline seems to be already present here: (Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine). I think its important to have a comprehensive piece covering the ongoing invasion itself, that is separate from it and the Russo-Ukrainian War article, which describes the greater conflict since 2014. "Russian invasion" is also a very frequently used and common term in for example German media. But also used alongside Russia-Ukraine War etc. internationally. The invasion hasn't ceased. So, technically it isn't wrong. I get your point but in my opinion, for the first two above mentioned reasons its not necessary to change the title. Maybe the articles require improvement as suggested by others, but that's a different topic.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – I understand that the present structure of these articles is confusing, but I do not think that the proposer's solution will be an improvement. Previous experience dealing with this cluster of articles suggests that a reorganisation will be required once the conflict itself settles down or moves into some kind of new phase. At this stage, however, without the benefit of any established historiography, I do not think we are able to make any good decision. Therefore, I oppose this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't a correct characterization of the common name. Most sources describe the escalation following February 2022 as an invasion. JDiala (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Namely, the main article doesn't work as a timeline. Scu ba (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Opposed - For the same reasons made by Gödel2200. Like seriously, what a terrible proposal. EmilePersaud (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Note - why "timeline", without timeline i would support it Braganza (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment @Braganza I proposed "Timeline" because I couldn't think of any better alternative to the current title, but that wasn't the main intent behind the RM at all. The main proposal is avoiding using "invasion" for titles of articles covering a period beyond the initial invasion in spring 2022.

I find it strange that most editors are only discussing that one "timeline" word whilst ignoring all other aspects of this RM. I'm quite happy to withdraw proposing "timeline" for inclusion in this article's title and focus on the rest of the issues with using "invasion" in the titles of articles covering the entire war over a period far beyond the spring 2022 invasion. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose One of the most bizarre suggested moves I have seen, as "Timeline" does not at all describe this article. Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I think it is about time to SNOW close this. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought that a while ago. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose just no. Great Mercian (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose there is already a timeline, see WP:SNOW.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This article isn't a timeline (Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its subarticles are however), and the other proposed titles are too broad for the articles' scope.

Glades12 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Since Ukraine has now invaded Russia the title is surely out of date. This will still be true if Ukraine withdraws from Russia before Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Robert Brockway (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per other users, this page would not work as a timeline. This is definitely WP:SNOW territory, can we get a close? -HappyWith (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the many reasons given by other users. – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is a good proposal, however, as RGloucester notes, we need to rearrange all of our articles on this topic. I think this proposal would make more sense at a future date, and we would have to be careful about it, as the 2022 invasion is a whole new phase of the war, breaking the Minsk accords, which the invasion broke. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2024 (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.

Human Rights Abuses?

Sorry if this this is consider by Wikipedia editors to be overly-direct and to the point, but is not the section on human rights outrages shamelessly one-sided, unbalanced and anti-Russian? For have not the Ukrainians bombed civilians and used civilian buildings as fire bases?

2.27.2.80 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

shamelessly what? Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out - I will update. 2.27.2.80 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You just need to read the UN charter and Geneva Convention. So far in the war, Ukraine has acted within the scope of allowed attacks, and yes. Given the obstacles war brings and, especially cowardly Russian tactics and civilian neglection, including of its own, it is not ot always possible to avoid civilians, that may just pass by a military airfield or a command post. Also there is difference whether it targeted or an intentional homicideor not. Yet, it is all being investigated anyways by the presence of the ICC, which actually is still not ratified. Though, today Zelenskyy did submit ratification documents to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Also there is a more deliberate answer here:

"When civilians die unintentionally as a result of a military attack targeting a legitimate military objective, such as a command post, it is generally referred to as collateral damage.

Collateral damage occurs when non-combatants or civilian infrastructure are unintentionally harmed during military operations directed at legitimate military targets. While collateral damage is not illegal under international law, the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity must be followed to minimize harm to civilians." AlasdarVan (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion in lead?

Should the lead mention Russia's pre-invasion demand for a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine? A proposed wording: "In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine." — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Prior discussion of this topic on this talk page can be accessed here, here, and here. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The current version of the lead mentions two of the reasons which Putin has advanced for Russia's decision to invade Ukraine: (1) a Russian irredentism based on denying Ukraine's right to exist as a state, and (2) overthrowing its alleged neo-Nazi government (which we correctly identify as a falsehood). Equally important and relevant as these are Russia's pre-invasion security demands, issued on 17 December 2021 in the form of an ultimatum to the West, and whose most pertinent item was a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine. Mentioning this point does not imply that it is the genuine reason behind the invasion, to the exclusion of the other reasons, but presents it as one among several, as the reliable sources do.

In reflection of the reliable sources which it cites, the current article body mentions NATO more than 30 times, mostly in the Background and Prelude sections. Here are representative sources which identify NATO expansion as one of the causes of the war, both within and beyond this article:

• News "explainers" from major outlets, which all describe in detail the history of the collapse of the USSR, ensuing NATO expansion, and how this process caused increasing tensions between Russia and Ukraine over decades; all of these sources also describe the December 2021 security demands when discussing the causes of the war. For examples, see NYT, CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Vox, Bloomberg, US News, and NPR. Most of these mention the "irredentism" and "denazification" points on either equal or lesser footing to the NATO expansion point.
• U.S. think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations: "Why did Russia launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022? [...] Some Western analysts see Russia’s 2022 invasion as the culmination of the Kremlin’s growing resentment toward NATO’s post–Cold War expansion into the former Soviet sphere of influence. [...] Other experts have said that perhaps the most important motivating factor for Putin was his fear that Ukraine would continue to develop into a modern, Western-style democracy that would inevitably undermine his autocratic regime in Russia and dash his hopes of rebuilding a Russia-led sphere of influence in Eastern Europe." See also this article, which is specifically on the NATO point.
• International relations scholars including both John Mearsheimer, a leading figure in the realist school, and Joseph S. Nye, a leader of the liberal school. Mearsheimer puts more emphasis on NATO expansion (see [10]), while Nye puts less but still examines it at length (see [11]: "the intermediate cause was a refusal to see Ukraine as a legitimate state [...] The prospect of NATO enlargement was a lesser intermediate cause").

I support the proposed wording. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Goszei – You might be better served by presenting your proposed wording with the RfC question. It gives concreteness to the change that you are hoping to effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. — Goszei (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Doesn't matter if you disagree with it or think it's a pretext. The reality is that it is an aspect discussed heavily in reliable sources (as demonstrated by Goszei above), perhaps more than any other individual causative factor, and thus warrants inclusion in the lead. I will add another source in as a datapoint, a book I am currently reading, The Story of Russia by famed historian Orlando Figes released in 2022 following the invasion. The following is on p. 292-293.

"At the Bucharest conference in 2008, NATO had declared that, along with Georgia, Ukraine would become a member of the alliance once it met the necessary requirements (among them better measures to combat political corruption and ensure the rule of law). The declaration was opposed by several NATO leaders, especially the German chancellor Angela Merkel, who warned that it would be seen as a dangerous provocation by Russia. But George Bush forced the measure through. In his final months in the White House, he was desperate to leave a legacy of promoting US interests and democracy in the former Soviet Union. He was supported by the east European member states, which were most alarmed by Russia’s growing aggression. They saw Ukraine’s NATO membership as ‘an important historic opportunity to cage the bear’, in the words of Lech Wałęsa, the former Polish president.

NATO’s involvement in Ukraine set alarm bells ringing in Moscow. After the invasion of the Crimea, the alliance gave $3 billion in military aid to the Ukrainian government, helped it to modernise its weaponry and trained its troops in joint exercises in Ukraine. The war had strengthened Ukraine’s national unity. But it also gave rise to a violent hatred of Russia reflected in the cult of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist leader who had fought on the Nazi side against the Soviet army in 1944–5. Bandera streets and squares were newly named. Statues of the partisan leader were erected in cities such as Lviv and Ternopil. The Bandera cult was a gift for Moscow’s propaganda about the threat of ‘Nazis’ in Ukraine.

Putin saw the role of NATO in Ukraine as a direct military threat. In an hour-long address to the Russian people on 21 February 2022, he claimed that Ukraine would ‘serve as an advanced bridgehead’ for NATO’s forces to attack Russia unless Moscow intervened. Under the guise of its training missions, NATO, he declared, was building bases in Ukrainian cities like Kharkiv, near the Russian border, from which its nuclear missiles could reach Moscow in a few minutes. ‘It is like a knife to our throat,’ he said. From a Western point of view this seemed mad and paranoid. NATO, after all, was a defensive alliance and had no reason to attack Russia. But as Putin saw it, it was the conclusion to be drawn from his reading of the history of Russia and Ukraine." JDiala (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes the NATO (a defensive alliance) is such a threat that we have to invade Ukraine so now we (Russia) can border with 9 NATO countries instead of 5. "Putin saw" is clearly his pretext not a "causative factor". YBSOne (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't Putin invade Finland for their accession in NATO? No "advanced bridgehead"? No "alarm bells"? NO "dangerous provocation"? Weird right? Almost as if Kremlin didn't work on destabilisation and propaganda against Finland. YBSOne (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

In a new book, the historian Orlando Figes argues that the war on Ukraine is only the latest instance of a nation twisting the past to justify its future. YBSOne (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to read more than just the by-line. The reviewer criticizes Figes for blaming NATO’s expansion for creating “the very problem it was meant to counteract” because in Feifer's view it goes against his own case for the importance of invented enemies to Russia’s self-image. It's clear from that review that 1) Figes does place emphasis on NATO's role in the conflict and 2) that Feifer disagrees with that analysis. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. My point is that just because a historian reports what is Russia/Putin saying does not mean it is a causative factor. When we know that Putin just wants to recover/recreate his belowed Soviet Union and any sovereign states like Ukraine not sharing his idealistic vision need to be punished for their independence and forced into submission. Also on the outside they need to create fake image of being the ones in the right, "fighting nazism", "rescuing russian-speaking civilians" Allegations of NATO provocation and aggression etc. YBSOne (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Putin didn't invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia's power, eradicate Ukraine's statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues".105" YBSOne (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting that now quoting a source that quotes a beligerent (Russia, Putin) is a reliable source, but when a source quoted an Ukrainian official it was not reliable. Interesting. YBSOne (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So think tanks which form part of the "reliable sources" as you put it Goszei have provided above are reliable when providing reasoning for Russia invading Ukraine, but not when questioning Russia's great power status.

Hopefully whoever closes this RfC will take such editor inconsistencies into account when evalutating the input of said editor. TylerBurden (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a bizarre personal argument, especially in an RfC . Address the content, not what I may or may not have said in an unrelated discussion. To address what you wrote, note that Goszei provided a number of sources including standard newspapers, which no one disputes are reliable, in addition to scholars like Mearsheimer and Nye. The CfR source was just among many. On the issue of think tanks, the most important thing for me is consistency. If we're going to accept think tanks are reliable for anti-Russia material, then to be consistent it makes sense to accept them for anti-NATO material. JDiala (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You speak about consistency? You've proven to be anything but, which is exactly why I added this analysis so that the closer knows how you present sources differently based on motive. TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No, but in case of inclusion it needs to be stated that it was just a pretext to feed the zombified masses ie disinformation, and real reasons were different ie Russian imperialism. YBSOne (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, its a blank cheque, what is it we intend to say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I had asked Goszei to place their proposed wording with the question. They want to introduce a sentence to the lede approximating: In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I answer the question as it is still asked. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the proposed wording to the RfC text. The mention should certainly be no longer than a sentence clause. — Goszei (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"vote" now struck. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is part of the war's background. See the well-developed article World War II, where there's a dedicated section on the developments up to several years prior to the war's outbreak, including German demands. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Our WWII articles do not give dues to Nazi Germany's pro-war propaganda, as is being proposed here with Russia's pro-invasion propaganda. Unless most RS view Putin's demands on Ukraine's NATO bid as legitimate, we shouldn't treat them differently from Hitler's violations of the Versailles and Locarno treaties. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. A significant number of high-quality sources, as detailed by Goszei and JDiala, suggest that Russian fears over NATO's eastward expansion may have contributed to the origin and (with the 2022 invasion) to the escalation of the conflict with Ukraine.. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if supported by reliable sources. No matter whether Russia meant their demands or not, including them is notable and encyclopedic. If reliable sources say that the demands were disinformation, of course that should be added, but I don't see that as a reason to remove the demands entirely. JSwift49 00:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes To me, it is irrelevant whether Russia actually considered this to be a cause of the invasion or not. If we mention that Russia massed forces in late 2021, we should also mention the demands Russia made accompanying that buildup. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No because this claim by Putin was pure propaganda and disinformation. It had nothing to do with the actual reasons he decided to attack Ukraine. As the Institute for the Study of War frames it [12]:

Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia’s power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues.

My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Which statement are you claiming is disinformation? That [i]n late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's border ... or that it ... issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Russia ... issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine.. The demand for a ban on the future expansion of NATO was disinformation/propaganda by Russia/Putin because it was framed as a reason to attack Ukraine. It was not a reason at all (see quote from the ISW above). Now, we uncritically repeat the same in the lead without saying it was disinformation/propaganda, thus giving it some legitimacy, which misinforms a reader. This is not a good summary of content on the page, but rather placing an irrelevant propaganda claim to the lead. Yes, such claim was made by Putin, but it does not belong in the lead, especially in such context. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That's ISW's opinion only. The hard fact is that such a demand has been put forward and has been widely publicised in the sources as well as responded to by governments. We're an encyclopaedia, mind you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Putin publicly demanded a ban on the future expansion of NATO. He did it long before the invasion. It was merely a demand, not an ultimatum, because Russian government publicly asserted they have no intention to attack Ukraine. But why on the Earth this should be included to the lead? That would make sense if it were an actual reason for the invasion. But it was not - according to many RS, including ISW, which probably one of the best sources for such claim. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Quotes from the ISW source you have cited: "Putin then issued an ultimatum to the US and NATO in December 2021 that aimed to force the West into surrendering Ukraine’s sovereignty on its behalf and abandoning partnerships on NATO’s eastern flank. [...] Putin's 2021 ultimatum to NATO and the West was an actual ultimatum, not the basis for a negotiation." — Goszei (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it uses such wording, in the most general meaning of the word, i.e. demands with threats, rather than a specific demand with a specified timeline for specified consequences. More exactly, as this source says, Putin published an essay saying that Ukraine has no right to exist unless it will be a puppet state of Russia, etc. Yes, true, that is what Putin said and what he meant. But it was all about subordinating Ukraine to Russia, not about membership of Ukraine in NATO (which would never happen as Putin was well aware about). Why include NATO to the lead? My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We should mention NATO in the lead because it has been conclusively demonstrated that the subject dominates discussion of the war's causes in reliable sources (newspapers, think tanks). We can argue back-and-forth and present sources which disagree on the degree to which it was pretext or propaganda, but the truth is that reliable sources do not simply dismiss the topic out-of-hand. Reliable sources, including the ISW article, instead fully engage with and examine the topic from a historical and scholarly perspective, which is all that is required to mention it here. — Goszei (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Where exactly this wording should be included in the lead? Without saying it, this is basically not a valid RfC. At the first glance, it is out of context everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I see: it probably suppose to replace the phrase In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders but denied any plan to attack. That sounds good and true. Indeed, they denied any plan to attack. But it means there was no any ultimatum by Putin as the proposed change about his demands misleadingly implies. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes but qualify it as a claim by the Russian side, balancing it with our reliable sources indicating that the real intentions were primarily Russia's revanchism and imperialist ambitions. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  If so, then it should be "no" because the suggested text does not include any such clarifications and therefore partly misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree with the wording "expansion of NATO to Ukraine". That's the wording used in Russian propaganda. It implies that NATO is engaged in expansionism into countries against their will, when actually Ukraine willingly applied to join. Better wording would be "a ban on Ukraine ever joining NATO" or "barring Ukraine from ever joining NATO", with a link to Russian opposition to Ukrainian NATO membership. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, if we have this we must make it clear this was a demand that Ukraine not be allowed to if it asked join NATO. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but it should be also noted that his demands included some unrealistic requests such as removal of NATO troops and bases from certain NATO members. BeŻet (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  If so, then it should be "no" because the suggested text does not include it. Yes, of course it included a lot of unrealistic claims, and no one on the Russian side expected that other countries will satisfy such demands. That was pure propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: Russian invasion of Ukraine

I noticed that the map legend currently says "Formerly occupied by Russia," but it uses the same color to indicate areas where Ukraine has advanced into internationally recognized Russian territory. To reflect this accurately, I suggest updating the legend to: "Formerly occupied by Russia (includes areas now occupied by Ukraine in Russia)" or using a different color for areas now occupied by Ukraine in Russia.

Thank you! M.K.Dan (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Done (changed to "Formerly occupied by Russia or Ukrainian-occupied Russian territory") for now until better colors are used in the article's map. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo under International aspects -> foreign involvement -> Ukraine support. The section reads:

NATO members such as Germany reversed policied against providing offensive military aid to support Ukraine

I guess it's supposed to be 'policies' instead. Atanásio (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

PP

Will we need PP? Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I already requested it. Jdcomix (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So, yes we did. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Chechnya as a belligerent

Chechen republic ichkeria (at least as a government in exile) has had forces fighting for Ukraine in the war, should they be added as a belligerent? They also have a ministry of defence if I am not mistaken The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall there had been some of the garrison troops in Kursk, but avoided real combat. I think we need some good RS to say they are now active combatants. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not just in Kursk, but within Ukraine itself. Forces loyal to the Chechen republic of ichkeria (not the subjugated [[Chechnya|Chechen Republic]]) have been fighting alongside Ukraine in important battles like of Kyiv, Kharkiv, and bakhmut. Though as a state it has been defeated 24 years ago, the armed forces continue to operate in-exile and use the weakening of Russia in the war to possibly reestablish their state

https://thechechenpress.com/video/16908-naznachenie-komandira-obon-vs-chri-v-ukraine.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-chechens-common-enemy-russia/32136592.html The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So they are mercenaries? Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say mercenaries. The best way I could describe is that the armed forces of the country are fighting alongside Ukraine, but their country itself is occupied and has been for 2 decades The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Valid point. Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and chechen opposition is important to the war and fighting against putinism and its own independence. Link to their involvement in the war, both since 2022, and 2014.

Read more: On 18 October 2022, Ukraine's parliament recognized the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as a temporarily occupied state. AlasdarVan (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria holds no territory, is recognized by no country except for Ukraine, and there's no more than several hundred volunteers fighting under its name. It's not significant enough for the infobox, but can be mentioned in the body. — Goszei (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a "key" fact without nuance that should be placed in the infobox? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  CHRI does fight for Ukraine, and if I am not mistaken it was also recognised as an “occupied territory” by Russia. Either in the infobox or in the foreign support section The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  This does not address the question asked. However, others are addressing the question - ie it does not rise to be a key or significant fact that should be incorporated into the infobox (eg Goszei) and I would tend to agree. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• No, this is not an independent country. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why do we mention the Luhansk PR and Donetsk PR in this context then? AlasdarVan (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Good point! One could argue they should be included because of the International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. There was nothing like that with Chechen Republic. But I agree with you: I think they should be excluded because they were either a part of Russia (de facto) or Ukraine (de juro). My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  They were region in revolt against Ukraine, thus they are part of the reason for this war. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)