Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

adding North Korea as a Belligrent because of them sending troops into the war. 84.231.3.144 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See multiple threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

In the invasion article's talk page you asked for more sources than the State Department one, and more were given. From South Korea and Ukraine and Blinken, all characterizing North Korea's involvement as "combat". How is that still not sufficient? --haha169 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

See multiple threads above, we do not need 15 discussions on this, one is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Because there is no actual proof. South Korea never confirmed that North Koreans are in Kursk. Training in Russia doesnt make them part of the conflict just as Ukranians training in UK doesnt make the UK part of the conflict.

Most, if not all the intel, seems to come so far from Ukraine, who shares intel with the US.

This is a very well documented war with daily footage from plenty of sources, if there is going to be 100 000 soldiers as claimed its just a matter of time we start seeing videos of POW or combat footage.

Remember, Wikipedia must be based on facts to keep the neutrality, the second that the first video appears it will be added. Pacience. ReflexSpray (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC North Korea

Should we add NK as a beligerant? Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why you keep opening topics?

Please, stick to one. Also, if you have actual verifiable footage please share it.

We need anything that falls into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

So a side of the war (Ukraine goverment and allies) do not fall under this category.

Remember that Wikipedia Project depends on its reliability, backed by facts. ReflexSpray (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Discussion presently underway at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on inclusion of North Korea in infobox. Do we really need a second RfC on this topic?

ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 02:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think yes, as this is more appropriate in this article as it covers the whole war, not just Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 22:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Participation of the North Korea troops is undeniable. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion.110 and 135 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• comment - I see only supports here, and the other RFC has closed with North Korea being added, so I assume it will be uncontroversial to add North Korea. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • comment - Agreed. Considering the aforementioned, it shouldn't be an issue to add here.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Re:McSly talk contribs 340,014 bytes −8,070 Revert. Same remark as before. And the whole section looks like complete WP:OR.

Two discussions started by user who has been topic banned afterwards Rsk6400 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My edit om 2024-11-24 is not WP:OR. I am a very experienced wiki-editor, and I went into a great length to provide reliable citations for my edit: added a section "== Analysis of the causes and results of the Russo-Ukrainian War by political scientists == . I demand, that every deletionist provide a similar level of justification for their next move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) Hello @Walter Tau:, first. as a "very experienced wiki-editor", the fact you don't seem able to format this section correctly, that you forgot to sign, and that you just included your section in the article twice without even noticing it [1] (also very badly formatted), I would qualify your statement as dubious at best. Second, the procedure in case of disagreement on a change is to follow WP:BRD. As a "very experienced wiki-editor", I find surprising that you don't know that. Lastly, the reason I reverted your changes is because it is clear WP:OR for example with statements like "This statement is a lie", it contradicts the main article linked in the section Russia–Ukraine_relations and contains unacceptable statements such as "This section addresses some of the alternative views on the Russo-Ukrainian War, which are required per Wikipedia’s Point of View policy]". I'm going to delete the section again. As a "very experienced wiki-editor"", I'm sure you are aware of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW. --McSly (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Analysis of the causes and results of the Russo-Ukrainian War by Political science| political scientists I claim, that the article as written violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy= means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, ALL the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Please note, that I do not insist on adding anything about Douglas Macgregor's and Scott Ritter's views (although I support others, if they want to write about them), but I cannot disregard John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and several other political scientists (as well as of journalists such as Gabrielle Krone-Schmalz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pZKTbgftHQ) I shall start with addressing the statement by Manyareasexpert on 2024-11-26T10:35:23 : “undo back to consensus version - objections raised in talk, edit war”. Let’s talk about the consensus first. Here is a citation from the Talk Page for Russian invasion of Ukraine on ca. 31 October 2024 (UTC): Some comments: This article about the invasion itself doesn't need to cover anyone's perspective on why the war started. It should, and I think currently does, focus on the war instead of political science. There's no section in the article about "reasons for the war" apart from where it's key to the subject, for example, the announcement of the "Special Military Operation". While analysts are mentioned, like "Analyst Vladimir Socor called Putin's 2014 speech following the annexation a 'manifesto of Greater-Russia irredentism'", it's within the context of specific topics. However, the Russo-Ukrainian War article which you had edited is a different situation. There, there's much more talk about perspectives on stuff (though I'm not sure that I agree it should be that way), and I think it would be appropriate to consider including Mearsheimer's views there. As such I propose moving this discussion over to the Russo-Ukrainian War article. I think that article does have some problems worth addressing (there are some tags I'd put in myself but don't have clearance yet). We should also heed IP's warning that this is heading into WP:FORUM, and if we do move over try to talk about specific proposed additions/removals. Placeholderer (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC) So, Placeholder proposed on 2024-10-31 to move this discussion from Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian War. This THE ONLY CONSENSUS, that have been reach to the best of my knowledge. And this is exactly what I am trying to do this week. The text of the section, that I proposed to add/restore can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Walter_Tau/sandbox . Walter Tau (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Why do we need this discussion on two pages? But it does seem more relevant here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC) It's already answered above Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#c-McSly-20241125031500-Re:McSly_talk_contribs_340,014_bytes_−8,070_Revert._Same_remark_as_before._And . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC) What is the exact question, that is answered above? Where exactly the "here" is? By the way, what I am trying to now are Wikipedia:CONACHIEVE and WP:BOLD in order to achieve Wikipedia:5P2 and to avoid WP:WAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) The section telling you why they reverted you? Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC) The reason your edits were reverted is given there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC) @Walter Tau: Please sign your comments. You are not trying to avoid an edit war, because you were edit warring already. If you claim to be an experienced editor[2], you should not ask to be explained the meaning of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:DUE. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC) @Slatersteven:@Manyareasexpert:@Rsk6400:: Dear colleagues: could you please provide web-links to support your statements "your edits were reverted is given there"? Where exactly and what are those reasons? As far as I recall, the ONLY consensus, that was reached on the Russian invasion of Ukraine page was to move this discussion to Russo-Ukrainian War.Walter Tau. It seems now, that you are playing the game of 1) avoiding a fair discussion on the Russian invasion of Ukraine page by asking to move it to the Russo-Ukrainian War page, and 2) then falsely claiming on the Russo-Ukrainian War page that the question has been addressed on the Russian invasion of Ukraine page. This is an interesting approach, that reminds me of WT:SPECIALSTYLE, but I am not sure, if Wikipedia has an exact name for it.Walter Tau (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC) @Walter Tau You're topic banned, you may not want to immediately violate your ban. TylerBurden (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC) I can AGF that they essentially had an edit conflict and hadn't seen the notice yet. But yes, they are no longer welcome to participate in Russo-Ukrainian war topics due to persistent tendentious editing. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC) You may have been topic band, but I will still answer your question for future defense [[3]] is where a user tells you what their objection was. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC) @Walter TauDo not surrender to them, editors like ManyAreasExpert are known for being incredibly biased in their editing, use a different account if means be, don't be afraid of being called a sock puppet for standing up for what's right. Usanamepolicy (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC) He is topic banned, this is over. Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC) It's only over if he decides it is. Usanamepolicy (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC) As he is banned, he does not fact not get to make that choice.As such this can go nowhere. So keeping it open is waisting users' time. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of naming this and the 2022 invasion article

While I don't want to reopen that can of worms nor do I have the authority to, I do want to cite a similar situation just for context purposes.

Japan invaded Manchuria under mostly false pretexts in September 1931, taking advantage of internal conflict in China. Manchuria was turned into a puppet state in mid-1932 and Japan would continue to fight in the nearby border regions and especially Inner Mongolia until March 1933, leaving the ground work for another puppet state to be eventually formed and serve as the pre-text for a full scale invasion of China proper in 1937.

The 1931-1933 war is generally* (*mostly, usually) considered it's own war as the Chinese Military did not initially respond and the area was involved in separatist fighting hailing back to the fall of the Beiyang Government to the KMT in 1928, and Japan did not yet invade China proper. The full scale war started in 1937, marking the Second Sino Japanese War and the start of that theater of what eventually became WW2.

I and other people have suggested multiple times to reserve the name Russo-Ukrainian War for the full scale invasion in 2022 which saw Russia actually intend to go after the full country and Ukraine respond with full force instead of the crippled response in Crimea. I'd argue there was a war from February 2014 - February 2015, War in Donbas and annexation of Crimea. Then a low intensity conflict with occasional flareups like Kerch Strait and Avdiivka that lasted from Minsk II to February 2022. Then the full scale Russo-Ukrainian War.

This is closer to how the articles were originally organized, this page was originally 'Russian Military Intervention in Ukraine' up until the late 2010s after Kerch and while this next statement is purely anecdotal I do recall both at the time and right before the full scale war a lot of people generally agreed that if a full scale invasion happened that would become the war page.

I could cite other precedent as well. Nagorno Karabakh, for example. You had full scale war in the late 80s and early 90s leading to a separatist puppet occupation. It was never resolved, but it died down. There were occasional flareups, in the early 2000s, an especially nasty one in 2016, but it was a frozen conflict. Until it wasn't in 2020 and war broke out. Then a couple more years of low intensity conflict until the blockade and the 23 hour overrunning of Artsakh. We don't just call that whole thing one war.

Or Sudan. First Civil War was primarily about separatism, it happened, there was a peace deal, but a ton of stuff was unresolved and low level fighting continued afterwards. Then it escalated back into a full scale war again, cue second war. More separatist violence, a new front in Darfur opens as the escalating violence ignites problems there, eventually peace in the main front is reached and a few years later peace in Darfur. Low intensity conflict continues, there's still border disputes with South Sudan and a few factions of separatists who aren't stepping down, there's still militia groups locally active in Darfur, there's still problems. Then last year it escalates again, this time originating from the Darfur front, but this in turn reignited the separatist conflict in the south too.

I just want to point out that changing the titling is precedented and lines up closer to the general public understanding of the conflict. Splitting it and using 'conflict' for the overarching thing and saving war for the specific high intensity periods is the norm. I lead with Japan as it lines up the best, but there's Nagorno Karabakh, Sudan, Libya, Afghanistan, lot of similar cases. This isn't coming from a place of trouble or hatred, I deeply respect the Ukrainian cause, I have blood from that region on my fathers side. This is coming from a place of linguistics and academic consistency. The current titling scheme is highly inconsistent with these other conflicts, it's misleading to the situation implying a decade of equally intense fighting rather then what it actually was, and a lot of the discussion on it has been overly politically charged rather then focusing on other cases of how we title and discuss as people these sorts of things.

So if it comes up again for an official vote, I'd say make this 'Conflict', use 'War' for the 2022 onward full scale war, and split War in Donbas into a section for the high intensity 2014-2015 war and the low intensity 2015-2022 war, it's long enough as it is. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(I also want to note along with what I already said, the 2014-2015 war was mostly fought between militias and groups not fully controlled by either government, as well as police and guard forces. The first half was almost entirely those groups, and while by the second half Russia had the 'little green men' and the Ukrainian Army had mustered, the bulk of the fighting was still being done by LDR/DPR separatists and Ukrainian militias like Azov. Russia also never admitted to actually being involved(outside of Crimea where the Ukrainian Military did not resist), the official line was those were just suspiciously well armed separatists who happened to show up on the borders miles away from the actual separatists. Meanwhile after this both sides reigned in the groups and centralized. By the end of 2015 the LDR/DPR leadership had been purged and they had been integrated into the Russian Military Command, most of the actual separatists or moderates or people just too popular removed. And Ukraine ended up either dissolving or integrating many of the militia groups, removing extremist elements(like the original 2014 Azov and some other lesser known groups) while integrating the larger militias. The Ukrainian and Russian militarys proper never officially fought publically(even if they totally did), the bulk of the fighting was done by militias on both sides as well as Ukrainian guard and police, and neither side ever fully commited to a war footing(Russia denied the whole time and only sent a limited special forces segment and equipment, Ukraine treated the first half more like a policing action and even when they commited serious forces at the airport and Debaltseve there was never a draft or full scale war economy) and it never spread past Donbas and Ukraine.) TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

TheBrodsterBoy, Manchuria actually has its own population which is somewhat (ethnically) different from Chinese Han. The population of eastern Ukraine is no different from the rest of Ukraine. Your proposition has intention to justify the Russian legend about the Russian insurgency in Ukraine over the fact of the diversions by Russian special operation forces. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not my intention and I thought i made that as clear as I could without just screaming 'I have a Ukrainian grandfather' into the heavens a bunch of times. Both your responses just seem to be straw manning me, again, this is a linguistic and organizational argument. Russia invading places bad, Japan invading places bad, ethnic cleansing bad. I shouldn't have to cover every paragraph of my case with this just to avoid this and yet here I am.

Also Manchuria was not really significantly ethnically different from Mainland China by the 1930s, the Manchu had been a minority for centuries at that point and had lost the bulk of their culture to Chinese colonization and conversion. There were more Mongolians there then Manchus at that point, let alone Han Chinese. It's not counted because the conflict didn't spill over into the rest of China for a while, Japan stopped. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

TheBrodsterBoy, occupation of Georgia as well as Ukraine started soon after the Russian military maneuvers: Caucasus 2008, Zapad 2013, Zapad 2021. (Understanding Russia’s Great Games: From Zapad 2013 to Zapad 2021).Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

yes and TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that a reorganisation of this page and the Russian invasion of Ukraine page is probably in order. This is particularly in light of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" page having a scope that covers conflict outside the borders of Ukraine, particularly within Russia (both the Kursk incursion and also strikes within Russia) and the fighting in the Black Sea. Whilst these topics all should be dealt together, "Russian invasion of Ukraine", whilst an OK title, is no longer completely 100% accurate and it would be nice to see a better title.

I also agree that the Japanese invasion of China is probably a good example of where previous encroachments 1931-35 turned in to an all-out attack in 1937, but what I would say is that Wikipedia has to follow the lead of reliable sources, so I would like to see whether reliable sources are taking the approach of calling the conflict since 2022 "Russo-Ukrainian war". I think it's likely that they either do or will in the future given the completely different scope of the conflict after 2022, but we should still have evidence to support this. FOARP (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's what news outlets are calling their coverage of the war in Ukraine at present:

• BBC - War in Ukraine
• The Times - Russia-Ukraine War
• New York Times - Russia-Ukraine War
• Financial Times - War in Ukraine
• Guardian - Ukraine
• The Telegraph - Ukraine
• The Economist - War in Ukraine

"Russia-Ukraine War" would seem to be favoured once you exclude the vague "Ukraine" and "War in Ukraine". FOARP (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War is basically just an academic version of that, it caries the same meaning. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:C898:250E:6215:475 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would like to point out that we also use Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) to describe skirmishes that started in October 2023, and 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon to describe an all-out war that began a year later. Another example could be Gaza–Israel conflict (ongoing since 1948) and Israel–Hamas war (started on October 7th). Therefore, "conflict" is a better term than "war" for the events that took place between 2015 and 2022.2A02:A31D:E1C6:6D80:1576:B326:71D3:AD54 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Support to be shown as for other wars

in Wikipedia page of wars show "support" with a list of countries, some of which only allegedly provided weapons. However, in the case of the Ukraine war, there is "no support" even if both sides, an particularly Ukraine had very large and overt "support". The anomaly is difficult to understand. It's more like an editorial choice of a militant newspaper than that of a fact-based encyclopedia 152.37.118.129 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Not on all pages, as it is generally deprecated, and thre needs to be special (exceptional) circumstances. As reading every thread about this here would tell you. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)