Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

RfC: Adding countries as supporters of Ukraine to the infobox

The last RfCs on the topic were over two years ago:[1] [2] [3]

Question: Should countries be added as supporters of Ukraine to the infobox?

Option A: No.

Option B: Yes, add United States, United Kingdom, EU and NATO.

Option C: Yes, add United States, United Kingdom and individual countries as merited.

Option D: Something else. (please explain in the comments) TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option B. While "supported by" is deprecated, exceptions can be made in case there is special/extraordinary/exceptional support that warrants inclusion.
WP:RS have called the support given to Ukraine "unprecedented". Checking the Cambridge dictionary, synonyms of "unpredecented" are exceptional, extraordinary, unique.[1] The Collins dictionary agrees with this, and also adds unusual and abnormal.[2] But not only is the support unprecedented, it is also "vital" and "critical".
  • For the United States:
"Since February 2022, the U.S. has provided an unprecedented amount of equipment to Ukraine."[3]
"the United States is providing Ukraine vital military assistance to defend itself"[4]
  • For the UK:
"the United Kingdom has provided unprecedented aid to Ukraine"[5]
"Ukraine and the United Kingdom have signed a new unprecedented security agreement."[6]
"Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to put Ukraine in the "strongest possible position" on a trip to Kyiv where he signed a "landmark" 100-year pact with the war-stricken country."[7]
Some analysts have suggested that the war continued because of the actions of Boris Johnson.[8][9][10]
  • For the EU:
"The European Union (EU) and our 27 Member States remain united and determined in our unprecedented support for Ukraine."[11]
"The European Commission stands firm in its commitment and solidarity with Ukraine. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the EU and its Member States have mobilised unprecedented economic, humanitarian, and military assistance to Ukraine and Ukrainians"[12]
"This crucial funding will help Ukraine keep its administration running, pay salaries, pensions, and provide basic public services, as it continues to defend itself against Russia's aggression."[13]
  • For NATO:
"we need to do everything possible to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs in terms of training, in terms of equipment, to prolong the fight and to prevail in this fight"[14]
"Mark Rutte branded Ukraine his "top priority" as he formally became NATO secretary-general at a ceremony in Brussels on Tuesday."[15]
"NATO's secretary-general said he wants to discuss ways to put Ukraine in a position of strength for any future peace talks with Russia"[16][17]
"Rutte praised Ukraine's resilience in the face of Russia's military onslaught, emphasizing the alliance's resolve to ensure Ukraine prevails."[18]
  • The scope of the assistance to Ukraine:
70% of weapons Ukraine used in 2024 came from abroad, ~30% from EU, ~40% from US.[19][20]
"The document noted that a record influx of foreign aid in December allowed Ukraine to cover state budget expenditures"[21]
"More than 100,000 servicemen of the Ukrainian Defense Forces have already been trained in the territory of partner countries, says Deputy Chief of the Main Department of Doctrine and Training of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Yevhen Mezhevikin"[22][23]
"Ukraine's allies were preparing for a lengthy conflict."[24]
"Austin announced the creation of a standing Ukraine-focused "contact group""[25]
According to Wikipedia "By March 2024, mostly Western governments had pledged more than $380 billion worth of aid to Ukraine since the invasion"
For context/comparison, the value of lend-lease assistance given to the Soviet Union was $180 billion (in today's dollars).[26]
EDIT: I'd like to address the two arguments that seem to be against inclusion: 1) "The Supported by is deprecated" - That may be so, but "Supported by" exists in the infobox already, it is against WP:NPOV to include it for one side but not the other; 2) "addition requires there to be special/exceptional circumstances" - Please read my comment above, because WP:RS call the support "unprecedented", which satisfies the exceptional requirement. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as nothing has changed, and Russia was a beligerant in WW2, so its not comparable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two years ago you were in support, to quote you: "I have no issue with including it. It helps the reader to understand just how isolated Russia is.[27] Wikipedia doesn't exist to make Russia, or any country for that matter, look bad. Please consult WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct the one thing that has changed is we now deprecated "supported" in fnfoboxes, what I meant is that nothing has changed to overturn that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed adding them as a beligerant at that time, and only supported "support" if we added it, we did not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that blogs and forums are not RS. Also why not all aid, why not Poland or Iran? In addition, Belraus in fact was used in the invasion, which is why its included, because it sits between support and beligerant. As (as pointed out is every RFC about this, and Belraus and North Korea) how do we determine what is and is not significant aid (we go back to Iran, lets add china)? No new arguments have been presented from the last time this was raised. Nothing has changed on the ground. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Note that blogs and forums are not RS."
    There are 27+ links, to which are you referring?
    "how do we determine what is and is not significant aid"
    We go by what WP:RS say. WP:RS call the support "unprecedented", "vital", "critical", "crucial", and so on. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These do not all mean significant, I can give an unprecedented amount, that would not however be significant. How about vital [[4]], so again why not add China? Or "comprehensive strategic partnership” [[5]] so why not Iran? This is the point, where do we draw the line, or do we end up with a bloated info box, Poland, Germany, France? It will be a mess. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first link [6] talks about China as a "vital [economic] partner" as the article states that China has not given any weapons to Russia. Your 2nd link [7] talks about Russia purchasing weapons from Iran and the article is mostly about Syria, rather than the conflict in Ukraine.
    There are WP:RS calling the military assistance to Ukraine significant or significantly increased, however:
    "Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, bilateral military assistance has been significantly stepped up"[28]
    "Over the course of 2023, European allies and partner countries have significantly increased their investments in assistance to Ukraine," and "European countries have significantly increased the pace of security assistance to Ukraine in 2023, spending nearly the same amount on security assistance in just the first six months of this year as they did during all of 2022."[29]
    "the United States is sending Ukraine a significant new package of urgently needed weapons and equipment to support the Ukrainian military"[30] TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Option B is not valid in any case given that Nato, EU are no countries (and overlap) and in addition would suggest either ALL Nato, EU countries do support (they don't) or that the organisations do (they do not as they do not have much own budget but rely on member states). Option C would be a nightmare as the word "merit" would lead to endless (my country does, does not contribute, my country contributes X% of GDP, but my country does more monetary value.... etc etc ) debates. In any case if we were to include weapons supplies as support than we should also expand the Russian supporter sides with each and every country that supplies weapons (and possibly even all those that help Russia evade UN sanctions), which would create yet another endless discussion stream. Arnoutf (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "in addition would suggest either ALL Nato, EU countries do support (they don't)"
    That can be explained with a footnote.
    "In any case if we were to include weapons supplies"
    It is much more than weapons supplies.[31]
    "From 2014 to 2022, the US employed a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to support Ukraine, encompassing humanitarian, judicial, economic, and security sector assistance. For security and defense, the US leveraged a diverse array of tools, including the European Deterrence Initiative (formerly the European Reassurance Initiative), USAI, the Global Security Contingency Fund, FMS, FMF, and International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs."[32]
    There is also sharing of intelligence between US, NATO and Ukraine.
    "The United States provides some intelligence to Ukraine on Russian forces in Russia,"[33]
    "Indeed, in Ukraine the United States has gone particularly far in bilateral intelligence sharing—a level of exchanges associated more closely with the Five Eyes countries or Israel—while Ukraine remained somewhat guarded in its disclosures. Nevertheless, the course of war during 2022 has revealed other information domain aspects where U.S. —and international—assistance has proved significant."[34]
    "American and British intelligence disclosures in the prelude to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine were at an "unprecedented scale", according to some observers." and "When Putin decided to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO was unified, and in that sense, the Anglo-American campaign was successful in rallying Allies."[35]
    Do you have a source saying the support for Ukraine is "just weapons"? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnotes would bloat it all and that is what I try to avoid. And no I do not have a source just weapons (also there is military training), just as much as you have no sources that Mars aliens do not support Russia. It is unlikely that there are sources for all things that do not happen. Arnoutf (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Support Option B There's no good reason to include Belarus but not the US. It's frankly intelligence-insulting to neutral readers. JDiala (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How many Ukranian attacks on Russian territory were launched from US soil? If that number=0 there is your good reason (There is plenty of evidence Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory were launched from Belarus soil). Arnoutf (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, this is intelligence-insulting stuff. Everyone knows the US is far more intimately involved in the conflict than Belarus is.JDiala (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Supplying weapons is not the same as active combat.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just allow, people to say their point,. and then we say ours, and not turn this into a huge tit for tat argument. someone has to read this and make a choice. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • A/No. - I don't believe anything has changed since the last RfCs, besides North Korea's direct involvement in combat operations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - We've been through an entire cycle of removing information that needs caveating from the infobox. Let's not reverse that work - the infobox is there for the most basic information, not stuff that requires a lot of explaining or is peripheral. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting how concerns of peripherality arise for NATO but not NK/Belarus. Serious NPOV concerns here. JDiala (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're so concerned about NPOV, how come whenever these expand infobox suggestions come up it is always just add ″NATO″, interestingly never accompanied by also adding countries aiding Russia like Iran and China. For whatever reason, the expansion is only desired if it means Ukraine having more support added, and this desire only seems to have grown more desperate since another belligerent actually joined the war with thousands of boots on the ground, except it was on Russia's side. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --TylerBurden (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Iran's and China's material involvement in the war allegedly in support of Russia is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the United States support of Ukraine. JDiala (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's laughable to claim the entirety of NATO, including countries like Hungary and Slovakia, are Ukraine supporters. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I am coming round to the point of view of removing Belarus too. I understand the POV that Belarus's involvement is special, since the invasion was launched from Belarussian territory and so-forth, but I would like to see whether e.g., academic analysts treat it that way.
    Too often on Wiki we have essentially editor-created standards for things that should necessarily be decided by reference to reliable sources. Reliable sources are very clear about Russia and North Korea's involvement in this conflict, less so about Belarus. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option B. Giving 100's of billions in military aid is strong support. China/Iran seem to be willing to sell weapons to Russia but they don't give Russia 100's of billions for free. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (Summoned by bot) per arguments of Arnoutf and FOARP. 'Belligerents' has a fairly precise meaning which should not be muddied IMO. It's questionable whether Belarus should be included IMO, since allowing access to one's territory is still fairly passive involvement and does not constitute 'boots on the ground' or 'pilots in the sky', which constitute active involvement of one's troops. I don't see a reason to alter the norm here the infobox is there for the most basic information, not stuff that requires a lot of explaining or is peripheral per FOARP.Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood the RfC. The RfC isn't asking whether to add "belligerents", but whether the support given to Ukraine warrants an exception to the deprecation of the "Supported by" heading. Editors have agreed that Belarus has provided significant, exceptional support to Russia and therefore is included as a supporting country to the infobox. This RfC is asking if an exception should be made to add other countries to the infobox as well. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand it perfectly well, "supported by" is a sub-heading within "belligerents". I'm saying that for many reasons the box should not have that sub-heading. There are sound reasons for it having largely been dropped. It muddies the waters IMO and leads to endless discussion/dispute about the level and kind of support needed for inclusion. Clearly Ukraine is receiving massive diplomatic and material support and that should be recorded in text, but IMO not in the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pincrete - I too am coming round to the idea that Belarus should probably be removed, though this is a separate disucssion. Their position in this war is ~not entirely dissimilar~ to that of Sweden in WW2, and we never chose to include Sweden as a "support" or whatever. In an article about a war, only the actual belligerents should be included, which in this case is Russia and North Korea on one side, and Ukraine on the other. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A The Support field is poorly named. The issue is that 'Support' is a vague term, what level of support is 'Support'? What supportive actions constitute 'Support'? Would a loan on favourable terms be enough, unrestricted access to buy military equipment from the companies in a certain country, what if a country allowed private companies in its territory to train soldiers, what about something like Lend-Lease? These are all rhetorical questions, but it shows how complicated it would all become. The deprecation of 'Supported by' was meant to stop this, I don't see why it should be resurrected here. If the European countries (not EU as not all EU countries support Ukraine) allow Ukraine troops to invade St. Petersburg from Estonia, or there are reliable reports of those countries troops being on the front line, then there would be reason for a change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also EU has no military, almost no foreign policy (except on trade and general matters). Pincrete (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect. Defence forces of the European Union TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a complicated topic area, but these are not an EU army per se. Instead they are essentially EU-authorised groupings to which member-states provide personnel and equipment. The situation is similar to UN forces - there are UN forces set up by UN member states, but there is not a UN army per se. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    UN is listed as a belligerent in the Korean War despite not having an army per se. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is defensible given the specific context of the Korean war (i.e., all forces fighting under a unified UN command authorised by the UN security council) and is backed up by how the conflict is described in reliable sources (see, e.g., Britannica: "The United Nations, with the United States as the principal participant, joined the war on the side of the South Koreans"). No reliable source describes the EU as a beligerent in the Ukraine war. FOARP (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't saying EU is a belligerent in the Ukraine War in the same way UN was in the Korean War, I am pointing out that "not having an army per se" doesn't preclude a party from being included in the infobox. Another example is the DPR and LPR, many editors have argued that the two aren't a recognised State/sovereign entity, yet they are present in the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest that if you want to discuss this further that the two of you moved it to a discussion section, or under your own comments? This doesn't have anything to do with my comment, only Pincrete's reply to my comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (no). There were several RfCs on this page about it (here, here, here and more). All arguments are there. Nothing has changed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (oppose) nothing has changed since the last RFC—blindlynx
  • Option A The only thing that has changed since the last RfC is that North Korea has joined the war as an actual belligerent on Russia's side, unsure how that would translate to support being added for Ukraine, since NATO/Western/US/Japanese and whatever else is constantly being shouted about on this talk page reaction has been lukewarm. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. The US and other Ukrainian allies have specifically and deliberately avoided actions that would classify them as belligerents in the war. Their support should be noted in a foot note since it is important to both the conduct and understanding of the war but they shouldn't be listed as supporters in the Infobox itself. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D: I'm sympathetic to the arguments above that "support" is vague and that the supporters section of the infobox has been deprecated, and therefore should not be used. But we currently, on this page, are using it. I don't think that the support Belarus has given Russia is more exceptional than the support the US and NATO have given Ukraine. Either limit the infobox to belligerents or don't, but don't half-ass it, because that's far more deceptive than either option. Loki (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support removing Belarus. The reasoning for including them was basically OR (i.e., "this is my own interpretation of the facts, which is why they should be included as X"). Clearly they are a particularly important country supporting Russia, clearly launching an invasion from Belarus makes them way more complicit in this war than any country that isn't already listed as fighting on Russia's side, but that doesn't make them a belligerent. But none of this justifies including them in an infobox that really should only list actual belligerent states, which Belarus still isn't. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree Pincrete (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you start an RfC on removing Belarus, I will support it, for the sake of consistency. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A I don't think that the magnitude of arms supply is a useful benchmark, but rather the effect of the arms supply on the course of the war, even if the magnitude is unprecedented. A billion dollars in military gear would make a much bigger difference to Bob's Neighborhood Guerrillas than to Ukraine. And I think the effect of foreign arms supply in this war isn't much different than in other wars with other suppliers — there have been plenty of belligerents in conflicts that get bankrolled by foreign governments Placeholderer (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "rather the effect of the arms supply on the course of the war"
    70% of weapons used by Ukraine came from foreign aid, this is according to Zelenskyy himself. I think it is safe to assume that the war wouldn't continue without foreign military support. That is quite significant. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean to say is that the thing that is described as unprecedented is the quantity of support, not the effect of the support, and that the effect of the support is not unprecedented Placeholderer (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the effect of the support is not unprecedented"
    I can't think of another war between two countries that continued because one side received enough military support to fight the war.
    "there have been plenty of belligerents in conflicts that get bankrolled by foreign governments"
    Do you have some examples? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, the mujahideen and Hezbollah Placeholderer (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those are countries, the situation is a bit different. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, but there are some (maybe less explicit) examples, like Israel or the Allies before US entry. Heck, throw the US in there.
    There are also territory-holding pseudo-states like the Houthis or Rojava. Some, like Abkhazia/South Ossetia or Idlib, end up blurring the line between country and non-country Placeholderer (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I don't mean to assert that each one of these examples would've lost a war if not for foreign "support", I just mean to give a general sense that military dependency has been a thing Placeholderer (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Abkhazia/South Ossetia article there is a "Supported by" heading in the infobox. It makes me wonder if "Supported by" was deprecated just so that NATO countries wouldn't have to be included in the infobox of this article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it pre-dates the deprecation in that infobox and didn't get updated — could be worth changing after this. Infoboxes where "Supported by" got removed explicitly because of the deprecation include Sudanese civil war (2023–present) and The Troubles Placeholderer (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option A: No YBSOne (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) lists no supporters War in Abkhazia (1998) it was added today (How odd). Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add "See {{sectionlink|Support for Ukraine}}". Per WP:Infobox the Infobox should summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article, and we have a whole section on support for Ukraine. This solves the issue of arbitrarily determining which countries to include, and is consistent with how we deal with the aftermath parameter when the situation is too complex to essentialise. Also, leaving the parameter empty gives the reader a false impression. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/unprecedented
  2. ^ https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/unprecedented
  3. ^ https://www.gao.gov/blog/ukraine-aid-important-so-oversight-funding-and-assistance
  4. ^ https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/use-of-presidential-drawdown-authority-for-military-assistance-for-ukraine
  5. ^ https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3856626-britains-aid-to-ukraine-already-over-25b.html
  6. ^ https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayina-ta-velika-britaniya-uklali-bezprecedentnu-bezpekovu-88281
  7. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgem31jekvo
  8. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/22/boris-johnson-ukraine-2022-peace-talks-russia
  9. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/ukraine-war-could-have-ended-in-2022-if-it-wasn-t-for-boris-johnson-russian-ambassador/3414740
  10. ^ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
  11. ^ https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253
  12. ^ https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-reaffirms-support-ukraine-and-its-people-after-1000-days-war-2024-11-19_en
  13. ^ https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-leaders-agree-eu50-billion-reliable-financial-support-ukraine-until-2027-2024-02-02_en
  14. ^ https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_232051.htm
  15. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/1/rutte-declares-ukraine-top-priority-as-he-takes-over-as-nato-head
  16. ^ https://www.voanews.com/a/nato-chief-aims-to-put-ukraine-in-position-of-strength-for-peace-talks-with-russia/7906333.html
  17. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2024/12/18/nato-wants-to-put-ukraine-in-a-position-of-strength-for-any-russia-peace-talks
  18. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nato-chief-for-allowing-ukraine-to-use-western-weapons-without-restrictions/3397692
  19. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/30-percent-military-equipment-ukraine-used-2024-made-domestically-zelenskyy-2025-1
  20. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/zelenskyy-names-percentage-of-weapons-from-1736977398.html
  21. ^ https://menafn.com/1109066301/Ukraines-Budget-Deficit-Widens-To-42-Billion-In-2024
  22. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/number-of-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-abroad-1729346310.html
  23. ^ https://kyivindependent.com/general-staff-over-100-000-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-in-partner-countries/
  24. ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-russia-united-states-defense-consultative-group/
  25. ^ https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/04/26/us-allies-to-meet-monthly-on-ukraine-defense-needs/
  26. ^ https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/
  27. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_8#c-Slatersteven-2022-04-27T15:59:00.000Z-Mindaur-2022-04-27T15:21:00.000Z
  28. ^ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/
  29. ^ https://www.usglc.org/the-importance-of-u-s-assistance-to-ukraine/
  30. ^ https://ua.usembassy.gov/united-states-announces-significant-new-military-assistance-for-ukraine/
  31. ^ https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/articles/2025/january/6/us-support-for-ukraine-a-critical-lifeline-for-ukraine-an-opportunity-for-us-business
  32. ^ https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/between-now-and-nato-a-security-strategy-for-ukraine/
  33. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/us/politics/ukraine-intelligence-russia-targets.html
  34. ^ https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/us-assistance-ukraine-information-space-intelligence-cyber-and-signaling
  35. ^ https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/12/16/intelligence-disclosure-as-a-strategic-messaging-tool/index.html

Rename article to Russo-Ukrainian War

The war has been going on for nearly three years and is way past the invasion stage. Still, the article name hasn't been changed to Russo-Ukrainian War to reflect that. This has lead to inaccuracies like North Koreans being listed as belligerents in the invasion, even though they are only participating in the reconquest of the Sudzhansky District, Kursk Oblast, Russia, or related articles having to contain strange phrases like:

On 6 August 2024, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine as part of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Armed Forces of Ukraine ...

instead of the more readable (and sensible)

On 6 August 2024, during the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Armed Forces of Ukraine ...

On top of that, the article for the broader conflict holds the name this page should have. (I may add that it's very unusual for conflicts with ceasefire phases in-between to still be referred to as "wars". In most cases, they are simply called "conflicts".)

Therefore, I suggest, renaming Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict and splitting this article into Russo-Ukrainian War which covers the entire war and (2022) Russian invasion of Ukraine (with or without the year) which just covers the invasion phase, the first three months.

(The fact that the article name isn't WP:COMMONNAME compliant, either, has already been highlighted enough. So, I won't go into that.)

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 23:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. You need some clear way to distinguish the events of 2014-2022 with those of 2022-. Not sure about the COMMONNAME situation, but COMMONNAME can be disregarded on grounds of ambiguity or naturalness concerns which I think apply here. The invasion of Ukrainian territory by Russia is really the defining feature of this war. JDiala (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2014 Annexation of Crimea was a covert invasion of Crimea that saw little fighting and had concluded after about one month.
The 2014-15 War in Donbass was a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine, that lasted about a year and ended with Minsk II agreement. There were smaller skirmishes later, but they were not part of the main war. Compare with Armenian-Azeri skirmishes after the first war ⇾ those didn't extend the war. Similarly, the 2014 Gaza war is distinct from the 2023–present Gaza war, even though there were skirmishes in 2018, 2019 and 2021. (Wikipedia is also unique here in insisting that the Donbass war lasted 8 years.)
The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War started in February 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
All together are the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
THIS. THIS. THIS. (More or less). 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:CC79:793D:B460:23D3 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I entirely support your proposal. When it comes to the period 2022–2025, "war" is definitely the common name, compared to "invasion", which continues to be used less and less over time. Indeed, "invasion" does not seem to be an appropriate term to describe what is going on now, especially with prolonged combat within Russian territory, as you note.
I agree that the end of Russian operations in northern Ukraine in April 2022, which represent the end of their attempts to capture Ukraine's capital, would be an appropriate cutoff point for the "invasion" period, unless a more appropriate date emerges through careful analysis of use of terminology by reliable sources. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 and is ongoing. That is the scope of the article. The Russian invasion of Ukraine from 2022 marked a new phase in the ongoing war. That is the scope of this article. It is neither anomalous nor surprising that the events since 2022 are also referred to as a war since they are part of the ongoing war. Retitling Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict would be an artificial distinction contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. These other conflicts are a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, which is only valid if they represent best practice and are directly comparable. At this point, I see no good reason for change. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying the Iraq War already started in 1990 because of the Gulf War.
    The 2014 Annexation of Crimea and the 2014-15 War In Donbass, as well as subsequent skirmishes, are distinct from the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
    Only Ukrainians insist that it's the same war (for whatever reason).
    ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Cinderella157, we've discussed this over on the Russo-Ukrainian War talk page, but I think it's clear that most reliable, independent sources no longer follow the POV that the post-2022 phase was simply an escalation in a war that began in 2014. Instead, the majority of high-quality, reliable, independent news media sources have switched their coverage of the post-2022 conflict to "Russia-Ukraine War" (or similar), reported 24 February 2024 as the "second anniversary of the war" (or similar), and reported 12 November 2024 as the "1000th day of the war" (or similar).
    Additionally, academic analysis of the conflict tends to refer to is as the "Russia-Ukraine war" (or similar) using a formula of pre-24 February 2022 as "pre-war" and post 24 February 2022 as "during the war". This is particularly seen in statistical analysis (e.g., medical, economic, scientific, or environmental) where accurately defining a start-date to the conflict they are covering is important. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is true that there were a thousand days of warring since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this make a good headline for NEWSORG sources. But NEWSPORG sources live in the present for the next story. I don't think they are a good basis for renaming an article such as this. I doubt they gave much consideration (if any) to how we name the post 2022 events and the 2014 to 2022 events. For this, we should be making an objective survey of good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming. The sources added here do not represent such a survey. If there is no clear consensus, then there is no clear reason to rename these. What we call these articles is much less important than the quality of the content within the scope as defined by the lead. Do we really need to change these titles? Arguably not unless there is a substantial benefit. It is clear that these articles can be easily found. At the time, I would have preferred that Russo-Ukraine War covered the events pre 2022 and Russian invasion of Ukraine covered the events subsequent in much the way that War in Donbas ceases at the time of the invasion. That way, Russo-Ukraine War would have remained relatively stable and complete. It would still be a much better approach. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the academic source describing post-24 February 2022 as “during the war” and pre-24 February 2022 as “pre-war” are pretty clear here as what those period should be described as. It’s certainly true that the way in which we cover these two topics has been decided in a way that probably made sense in February 2022 but makes much less sense now. The present war is undeniably the WP:PRIMARY topic for “Russia-Ukraine War” or similar, not the earlier Donbas war. FOARP (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be missing the point I was making. We are not going to rename Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian pre-war. We need to look at good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming [both events]. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not proposing that move. I am saying that these sources do not consider there to have been a war pre-24 February 2022 in the sense that there was after 24 February 2022. FOARP (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times - "Russia Ukraine War" (paging laboriously through this archive it appears to start in 2022 - for some reason they won't just let you input a page number in the URL)
  • The New York Times - "Russia-Ukraine War" (the earliest article under this heading was 20 July 2023, and therefore it has only been used about the present war, not the conflict 2014-2022).
  • The Guardian - Now using "Russia-Ukraine War" in headlines, though the section is called "Ukraine war". States that this is the section about the conflict starting in 2022, coverage began in January 2022 and was originally called "Ukraine Crisis".
  • BBC - Uses "War in Ukraine", paging back to the earliest page in the archive this section started in 2022. Looking at archived pages from 2015 (e.g., this one) the pre-2022 fighting was typically referred to as "Ukraine crisis".
  • The Telegraph - the URL and section-name (you have to scroll to the bottom to see this) is "Russia-Ukraine War". Paging through to the earliest page - page 285 - this section began in early 2022.
  • Associated Press - Russia-Ukraine War.
  • Britannica - "Russia-Ukraine War" (2022-), though the article is a bit of a mess frankly.
What we can see from the above is that reliable sources are no longer using the name "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the conflict beginning in 2022. Whatever else might be the case, "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not the common name for the present conflict, nor can it really be defended as a descriptive title now either since the conflict has long-since spread outside the internationally-recognised borders of Ukraine (e.g., conflict in the Black Sea, fighting in Kursk).
Additionally, the idea that the present conflict was simply an escalation of the conflict beginning in 2014, is not supported by these sources. Instead, whilst the above sources began their coverage in early 2022 with names like "Ukraine crisis" or "Ukraine escalation", they are now coalescing around the name "Russia-Ukraine War" for the conflict beginning in 2022.
It is true that prior to 2022 *some* sources used "Russia-Ukraine war" for the 2014-15 conflict (though "Donbas war" or similar were more common), but we can now see that this has changed and when sources refer to "Russia-Ukraine War", they are talking about the conflict starting in 2022, and they do not include the pre-2022 fighting as part of the same war.
This was also made very clear in the widely-reported 1,000-day length of the war, which only happened recently if you consider the present war to have begun on 24 February 2022:
For this reason I favour moving this article to either "Russia-Ukraine War" (first choice) or "Russo-Ukrainian War" (second choice), and moving the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian War to a different title such as Russo-Ukrainian conflict. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that prior to 2022 *some* sources used "Russia-Ukraine war" for the 2014-15 conflict Yes, and we see that, as you said, in 2014–15 those using "war" were in the minority, with "crisis" and "conflict" being far more common, especially in non-Ukrainian sources. [10] [11] [12] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Ukrainian POV should be discounted just because it is Ukrainian, but the governing consideration when deciding a page-title is how it is described by reliable sources *in English*. In English it appears that most sources typically refer to the war that began on 24 February 2024 2022 with Russia's full-scale and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, as a separate war to that which came before. FOARP (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that FOARP is referring to the date 24 February 2022. If that is the case then I agree with what FOARP is saying. BobKilcoyne (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, thanks for the correction - yes I mean 24 February 2022. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I fully agree with your reasoning; the Ukrainian PoV should not be discounted, but all I'm saying is that Ukrainian sources would have been more likely to use the term "war" in 2014 than Western sources may have. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we see that, as you said, in 2014–15 those using "war" were in the minority, with "crisis" and "conflict" being far more common
We need to analyze the situation as of today, not in 2014–15.
A quick look at Scholar gives "2014 war" "2014 war" Ukraine - Google Scholar about 2 times advantage against "conflict" "2014 conflict" Ukraine - Google Scholar. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Manyareasexpert - Unfortunately, due to (completely unwanted) changes in the Google algorithm you can no longer rely on Google to provide accurate counts for the number of results that use a particular phrase. Have a look at the results you're getting in your search - they include hits that do not include the phrase "2014 war" at all (e.g., the third hit I see from your search is this, which doesn't use the phrase, and instead is primarily discussing the post-2022 war). Additionally many of these hits are mentioning the 2014 war in Gaza (e.g., this, this, and this). FOARP (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the third hit I see from your search is this, which doesn't use the phrase, and instead is primarily discussing the post-2022 war
There are deficiencies in this quick approach. But we still should not rename 2014 war article as "conflict", given there are solid sources naming it "war".
Also, your source still refers to it as "2014 Russo-Ukrainian war". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"we still should not rename 2014 war article as "conflict" - 1) Why not? As we've discussed a Ghits search is no longer reliable enough to show what the common name is, 2) We have a separate article about the 2014 war - War in Donbas, 3) as is shown below, high-quality reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name Russia-Ukraine War about the conflict which began on 24 February 2022 exclusively, particularly by defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and by defining the period before that day as "pre war". FOARP (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as is shown below, high-quality reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name Russia-Ukraine War about the conflict which began on 24 February 2022 exclusively, particularly by defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and by defining the period before that day as "pre war".
This is not how you show "overwhelmingly".
ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is no longer just imperfect, it sadly just gives no reliable count at all any more.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by citing books and articles published in 2015 (Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine), January 2022 (Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War), 2019 (Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine), 2015 (Hiding in Plain Sight), 2016 (The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine), 2016 again (Journalism in the Crossfire), 2017 (Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine), and 2020 (Energy Resources and Markets).
I think we all can agree that none of these sources seriously impacts the present discussion, which is about what the common-name is for this topic which did not exist until February 2022 is in 2025. FOARP (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is no longer just imperfect, it sadly just gives no reliable count at all any more.
Well, we still need to show a preference in some stats, not just collect a list of preference of ours. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the review of high-quality media sources I collected above covers this, no? Were there other broadsheet newspapers/magazines or high-quality broadcasters I should have included? Maybe Newsweek, the Economist, the LA Times, the Globe and Mail, NBC, CBC? Who else? Because I don't think there's many I missed in this review.
Saying "the sources have to be academic" is not supported by WP:NEWSORG because an ongoing war is not primarily an academic topic, but even with this standard the best that can be said is that academia is equivocal on the topic (honestly I think they're pretty clear on 24 February 2022 as the start of the war actually) so the overwhelming preference of high-quality reliable news media for this being a war that began on 24 February 2022 should be decisive. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the review of high-quality media sources I collected above covers this, no?
It's just the list of your preference, not the preferred wording of a whole set of sources.
And again, we should give preference to academic sources - When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources WP:SOURCETYPES. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s just a list of my preference, then which high-quality broadsheets or reputable broadcasters should I have included that I did not include? Tell me and the odds are I will find an article where they refer to 24 February 2022 as the start of the war. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which high-quality broadsheets or reputable broadcasters should I have included that I did not include?
You either need to analyze the naming preference in all the reliable sources, or in a significant and representable set of all the reliable sources.
Or, to show how the reliable sources say the subject should be called. And there were reliable sources presented saying that events started in 2014 should be called "war" - Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Manyareasexpert-20250122112800-FOARP-20250122112500 ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You either need to analyze the naming preference in all the reliable sources" - I analysed in all of the high-quality broadsheets and broadcasters that I am aware of - and they *OVERWHELMINGLY* cite 24 February 2022 as the start of the war. Which did I miss?
"And there were reliable sources presented saying that events started in 2014 should be called "war"" - all of them predating 2022 or doing so in a way that made it clear they were arguing against a perceived consensus. And even with that, we have an article about the War in Donbas that will remain where it is. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard no. Renaming it as per your suggestion would severely compromise the neutrality of this article by suggesting that Ukraine and Russia are both equally responsible for this war taking place. This war is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, hence the title of this article. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any reasonable reader thinks the name Sino-Japanese War means that China and Japan were both equally responsible, or that the name Iraq War means that Iraq just happened to start a war with itself. Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME of conflicts. DecafPotato (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similarly, we can't refer to an article the scope of which long ago spread outside the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine, and which reliable sources (both in news media and in academia) overwhelmingly refer to the "Russia-Ukraine war", as "Russian invasion of Ukraine".
    We need to find an adequate naming for both then.
    The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books
    ... I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning, no matter the shock and drama of the all- out Russian assault on Ukraine, for the simple reason that the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament. Two sets of agreements, called Minsk I and Minsk II, ended that stage of the war in diplomatic terms a year later, in February 2015. Nevertheless, an undeclared war involving shelling and shooting across the demarca- tion line in Ukraine’s Donbas region continued for the next seven years, killing more than 14,000 Ukrainians but attracting little international attention. That phase ended with Russia’s formal withdrawal from the Minsk agreements and the start of its all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is only one source; WP:COMMONNAME or even simply the "correct" name is not determined by one source, even if the author states his opinion very strongly. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Serhii Plokhy and bought that book when it came out. However, this is Wikipedia, not Plokhypedia. As even Plokhy admits, this is is strictly his own interpretation. This is also a source that was originally published in May 2023 and would have been written in 2022, so we can ask if Plokhy's view is prevailing in 2025 - based on my review of high quality sourcing I don't think so. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know there are more sources for that. See Google Scholar search above, which, while not perfect, do not favor "conflict" term.
    Russia's Overlooked Invasion - Google Books
    The Russia-Ukraine War - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As is hinted at even by the title ("overlooked"), Jakob Hauter's book explicitly states that it is against what they believe the consensus to be:
Extended content
The war in Ukraine did not start on 24 February 2022. It began eight years earlier in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region. In his new book, Jakob Hauter investigates the escalation of violence in the spring and summer of 2014. He demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, the pre-2022 conflict was not a civil war. Ukraine has been fighting a Russian invasion since the armed conflict's very beginning.
There is of course nothing wrong with arguing against a perceived academic consensus, and Hauter's work (a review of open-source documents available on the internet) is surely a valuable contribution, but it is not evidence of what the consensus is right now.
You see something similar in Fedorchak's book - he openly acknowledges that he is arguing against a consensus when he identifies 2014 as the start of the conflict ("In the perception of the global audience... the common perception..."). FOARP (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not substituting "popular belief" and "common perception" with "academic consensus". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely are not taking pieces where it is clear that the author is arguing their opinion against what they perceive as a consensus, as evidence of what the academic consensus is though.
And this is all setting aside the easy-to-demonstrate tendency of media *AND* academia to define 24 February 2022 as the start of the war.
I'm happy to set aside this discussion until the 24th of next months when the media, think-tanks, politicians, and academics will again overwhelmingly herald an anniversary of this war. If they don't that will be evidence that you are correct - but do you really think that is likely? FOARP (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
an anniversary of this war
This is not an argument to rename the 2014 war as "conflict". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone proposing renaming War in Donbas? FOARP (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Russo-Ukrainian War started with the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Russo-Ukrainian war article covers both the 2014–2022 war in Donbass and the 2022–2025 war in Ukraine, in addition to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2018 Kerch Strait incident.
One interpretation holds that this series of events constitutes ten (soon eleven) years of war. Another interpretation holds that the 2014–2022 events in Donbass and the 2022–2025 events throughout Ukraine constitute two separate wars. I would argue that these two framings are not mutually exclusive, and that we do not necessarily need to embrace one and reject the other, acknowledging that both interpretations have their merits, as well as their passionate adherents.
The main issue at hand in this talk page discussion is that a growing consensus of editors regard Russian invasion of Ukraine to be an unacceptable title for an article covering the events from 2022 to 2025. The debate over the future title of Russo-Ukrainian war is secondary, and can be resolved in a number of ways that do not entirely reject the "ten years of war" interpretation. One potential compromise, though it would be confusing, is:
Russo-Ukrainian war → Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–present)
Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
There is also the option of shortening the scope of the former article:
Russo-Ukrainian war → Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–2022)
Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd welcome any of these as an improvement. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through all the previous comments, I should also note that I share your preference of "Russia–Ukraine" over "Russo–Ukrainian" per WP:COMMONNAME. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also raise WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here: the conflict that began on 24 February 2022 is inarguably the primary topic for "Russia-Ukraine war"/"Russo-Ukrainian war", not the invasion of Crimea, nor the Donbass war, nor an over-arching conflict beginning on 26-27 February 2014 (or earlier). To see, this, the ten-year anniversary of the invasion of Crimea last year was barely noted in IRS news media, but the second anniversary of 24 February 2022 and 1000th day since then were widely marked. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in to this discussion to say that I'd support renaming this article to "Russia–Ukraine war" (I don't think "Russo-Ukrainian" is adequately supported in COMMONNAME; those combining forms of country names have largely faded out of modern English). For the overarching conflict beginning in 2014, I think "Russia–Ukraine conflict" or "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" works best, I have no preference for "Russia" or "Russo" in that case. DecafPotato (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to repost a statement I made a month ago on this
☁ TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it got deleted, but TLDR "Look at how we sort Japan's invasions in the 1930s, look at Nagorno Karabakh, look at Sudan, thank you" TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have supported this proposal for years, but it has consistently been shot down by editors who support the status quo. For that reason I recommend that, as this move will affect two highly visible pages, an RFCBEFORE should be followed (like this), to gather sources that support this move. It should be an easy job, since few sources support the current title. Once an RM is opened, I will enthusiastically support. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is basically a WP:BEFORERFC anyway, since it is not a properly-formatted RM discussion. I've found it useful because when you dig in to the sources they're very clear: the topic of this article is a war that began on 24 February 2022. at this point, here in 2025, it is neither strictly accurate, nor does it represent the common name of this conflict, to call it simply Russian invasion of Ukraine. EDIT: if, as seems likely, this discussion is archived without action, I will - if everyone is OK with this - open a proper WP:BEFORERFC on this after 24 February 2025, which I expect to be widely reported as "the third anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war". FOARP (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, we should have 3 articles.
    One for the overarching conflict from start to present, including the long frozen conflict period.
    One for the initial 'limited war', far less involved in scope than the 2022-present conflict, but still notably hotter and more intensive than the frozen period(Feb 2014-Feb 2015, the Ukraine equivalent of Japan invading Manchuria)
    One for the full blown, full scale, war, which started 3 years ago. This one. This one should be Russo-Ukrainian War. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You (the OP) are correct, of course. Russo-Ukrainian War was invented purely by accident, by Wikipedians. It used to be a conflict article, with annual RMs to extend the date. Some years before this invasion, it was renamed in participation of like 3 editors. The title and the idea that there has been a standing state of war since 2014 to 2024 was complete fiction. It's incredible that article has survived with that title so long. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my understanding of the timeline of events (feel free to correct if I'm wrong): Prior to Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, there was a Russo-Ukrainian war article that focused on conflicts such as how Russia took over Crimea, and "civil war" that took place in Luhansk and Donetsk. Then, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, which led to the formation of this article. After Russia failed to capture Kiev, Ukraine began counter-offensives that pushed Russian forces east of the Dnieper River. After that, Ukrainian began counter-offensives in Fall 2022 such as in Kherson and Kharkiv, taking back parts of those oblasts. After reaching success in this, Ukraine executed the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive to take back the remainder of Russian-occupied areas. However, that ended in "operational failure" (to quote the article), and Russian forces continued pushing to capture the rest of the territory that had been annexed back in September 2022. This continued throughout 2024, when Ukraine launched an invasion of Kursk in August 2024. Since that time, Russia has continued to advance in those four oblasts while also fighting in Kursk, which leads to the present day. Now, in 2025, reliable sources no longer refer to a "Russian invasion of Ukraine," but instead a "Russia Ukraine war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" or other words to that effect. So then the question becomes, what should be the scope of this article? Should this article's scope continue indefinitely into the future, with perhaps an end of Russia captures all of Ukraine, or if Ukraine recaptures all currently occupied Ukrainian land? For comparison, look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq article's scope, where the scope of the article is limited by the date when President Bush declared that major combat operations are over. Is that what we are waiting for? Either Zelenskyy or Putin announce something similar? If not, what are the alternatives? I think one straightforward alternative is to limit this article's scope to the year 2022, covering the February invasion, and Ukraine's immediate counter-attacks defeating Russian forces. However, when Ukraine begins launching counter-offensives, it seems like it would be appropriate to not cover them as part of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine," but perhaps a new article such as Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present) that can cover the war beginning from Ukraine's 2022 counter-offensives onward. The current Russo-Ukrainian war article should be renamed to Russo-Ukrainian war (2014-2022), and its scope should be restored to what it was prior to Russia's invasion. For editors opposed to this, my question above (where would you cut this article off?) remains.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that my proposal would solve the current issue with the infobox listing North Korea as a belligerent in the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" when it clearly was not. Russian invasion of Ukraine would list Russia and Belarus on one side, with Ukraine on the other. Then, the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022-present) article can list North Korea as a belligerent.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should Belarus be removed from the infobox?

The 2023 RFC on this topic can be found here.

Belarus is presently listed in the infobox under Russia and North Korea in a section headed "Supported by:". Should this listing of Belarus be removed? FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Options:

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (please define)

Survey

  • Yes - For a number of reasons:
1) Whilst Belarus is clearly an important enabler in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, there is no secondary sourcing analysing all of Russia's supporters and singling out Belarus as a special class of country that Iran and other backers of Russia do not belong to. Listing them as such is therefore WP:OR based on editor interpretation of primary sources.
2) The designation of Belarus as a "special supporter" is something that requires detailed explanation that is not suitable for the infobox. Per the 2023 RFC that deprecated the "supported by" section in infoboxes for wars in general, and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE only the most simple information should be included in the infobox.
3) No sourcing is provided for Belarus being a supporter of North Korea, yet, with the addition of North Korea to the list of belligerents on Russia's side, the infobox now states that they are a supporter of both Russia and North Korea in this conflict.
4) Consistency with high-quality articles such as World War II, where there is no list of supporters, special or otherwise. This despite, for example, the role of Sweden in allowing Axis troops to cross their territory, and the USSR's pre-Barbarossa support for Nazi Germany, having some parallels with Belarus's role in this war.
For all of the above reasons Belarus should be removed from the Infobox, with no other changes to article content. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as we have sources that say they were a belligerent [[13]], [[14]]. We do not need an explanation, just a footnote. We have plenty of sources for them allowing Russia to attack in the body, and this is unlike any other example given, neither Sweden or Russia allowed attacks from its soil. As such it goes well beyond just support, but stops short of being a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does sourcing describing them as a belligerent support the listing of them as "supported by"? FOARP (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows that there is a middle ground. That this is not a black and white issue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Identifying a middle ground that is not stated in a reliable source is WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These and other sources say that Belarus was a direct participant in the war in a lot of different ways, such as providing their territory to Russia to attack Ukraine, hosting Russian military forces and nuclear weapons, giving up to Russia nearly all military equipment and ammunition they had, uniting in the same state, kidnapping Ukrainian children, and helping to resolve the rebellion by Wagner forces. That is why Belarus should be included to the infobox either as an "ally" to Russia or "supporter". My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but we're not saying in the infobox that Belarus is a direct participant in the war. We're saying "supported by". FOARP (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Belarus support Russia during this war per multiple RS? Yes, it certainly did. Hence, this is correct info. Even though I think we need to include Belarus as a "co-belligerent". My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We not only need to show RS cites showing Belarus support for Russia/North Korea, we need to show RS cites for a kind of special support that (according to RS analysis) other countries (e.g., Iran) don't give Russia/North Korea. I actually have more sympathy for a belligerent status than I do for "supported by", but ultimately am against it because it gives us nowhere to go if Belarus ever does directly intervene with their army in this war. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say we need to show RS cites for a kind of special support that other countries don't give Russia. Yes, of course. And such "very special support" is noticed in numerous RS. It includes: (a) providing their territory to Russia to attack Ukraine, (b) hosting Russian nuclear weapons, (c) kidnapping Ukrainian children as a part of genocide conducted by Russia, etc. None of other countries helps in the same way to Russia or Ukraine.My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do RSs treat that as a "special support"? FOARP (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoNeutral - We all agree that Belarus let Russia invade from Balarusian territory, right? If that's not support, I don't know what is. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one's denying Belarusian support for the invasion. The question is whether it makes sense to call them out in the infobox like this given we don't mention any other supporting country (e.g., Iran) and generally don't name supporting countries in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great question. What defines "support"? My understanding is that Iran sold Russia weapons used in the conflict. If selling weapons is "support", we'd probably need to list a whole bunch of people. My sense is that letting another nation's troops on to your territory is more meaningful "support" than simply selling weapons. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously Belarus has given important support, but it's very hard to draw the line in a way that makes including Belarus and no-one else make sense. Particularly, reliable sources don't seem to do this. FOARP (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Drawing the line at "has provided troops" and/or "has allowed use of territory for launching attack" seems like a reasonable line to me.
    Asking for a source that says "These countries count as supporters and these countries don't" is a bit of an extraordinary request. I can't imagine there are many sources for many conflicts that really lay things out like that.
    The problem is that "Support" is always going to be somewhat subjective. For us, and for sources.
    If we follow your reasoning, we'd basically have to eliminate "support" from all infoboxes of this nature. NickCT (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eliminating support from all info boxes was basically what was decided back in 2023. An exception was made for this info box, but I don’t think that makes sense. FOARP (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link the 2023 decision? NickCT (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the RfC's more closely; it's not 100% clear to me why the template RfC calling for the removal of "Supported by" from the template doesn't apply here. While I think saying Belarus "supported" the Russian invasion is probably neutral and verifiable, the rationale for stripping "Supported by" from these templates also seems pretty good. I'm changing my position to neutral. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This page uses Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine. The RfC was about another template. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC was about the manner of usage of 'infobox military conflict', which that template page uses. The RfC also explicitly refers to 'related templates' and applies to them. It does apply here. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I'm inclined to agree with RnD. If you look at the closing rationale for the RfC, all the same reasoning would seem to apply to this template. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC about the Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine was more recent, and specifically about this page and this template. Hence, it ether overrides the previous RfC for this page or simply is an RfC about another template. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC at Template: Infobox military conflict (see here) clearly applies to similar infoboxes such as Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, which incidentally also invokes Template: Infobox military conflict. The closers comment was: ... in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted. However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. A strong affirmative consensus is reasonably interpreted as an RfC. Arguing that the RfC deprecating "supported by" somehow doesn't apply here is splitting hairs. The 2003 RfC referred to in the OP of this herein for retaining Belarus under "supported by" (see [15]) was initiated because "supported by" had now been deprecated and the OP in 2023 specifically linked to that. Per the close of the discussion at Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, the 2023 RfC for listing Belarus created an exception to specifically list Belarus (and only Belarus) under "supported by". There is no reasonable doubt as to the scope and relationship between the two RfCs. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per FOARP, it’s a bit ridiculous to have Belarus there and not the US etc. If it is to stay, Ukraine’s support parameter in the infobox should say Various, see Russian invasion of Ukraine#Support for Ukraine Kowal2701 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as they were a co-belligerent. YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The majority of sources characterize Belarus' actions as "aggression" or "violation of the law of neutrality"[16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. - please have a look at this Times Radio (which I do not endorse in any way, btw) YT video - guest comments about Belarus and Russia : "Why pausing war in Ukraine could signal a Russian invasion of NATO" HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Informative video but does not actually seem to explicitly address the nature of Belarus's involvement in this war or its role as a "belligerent" or "supporter" thereof. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. He speaks of how Belarus's military is now joined at the hip with the Russian Federation's (in so many words.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    20:58-22:47 – His main takeaways regarding the Belarusian military were that it is small and of poor quality, lacks combat experience, and is needed internally by Lukashenko in case of civil unrest. He thus came to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that they would take part in the war.
    8:13 – He spoke of the existence of some "combined battalions" composed of paratrooper companies from both the Russian and Belarusian militaries but did not elaborate on whether or not they had taken part in combat in Ukraine or otherwise acted as "supporters" or "belligerents" in the war.
    18:54 – He spoke of a Belarusian officer publicly warning Belarusian forces in 2022 not to participate in the war in Ukraine, without suggesting that any Belarusian forces had actually done so.
    What am I missing here?
    SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No There have been extensive discussions regarding the status of Belarus in the infobox and most particularly the 2023 RfC. By virtue of allowing Russia to launch attacks from its territory, Belarus is a party to this armed conflict (arguably a belligerent/co-belligerent) but it is unique in that it is not a combatant in that it has not physically engaged in the conflict. Note that the parameter in the infobox is called combatant but those listed as combatants appear under a heading belligerents. The consensus in the 2023 RfC was to list Belarus under "supported by" because of this unique situation. I believe that it probably remains the best solution. The fact that Belarus's support was for the initial invasion but not subsequent does not alter that Belarus has been involved. That involvement remains a key fact. Also, I give no credence to the argument of ambiguity because Belarus supported Russia but not North Korea that is now listed as a belligerent. Infoboxes are blunt instruments that supplement the lead, where such detail is clarified. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Belarus allowed Russia to utilize its territory to launch the initial invasion and missile strikes against Ukraine, but hasn't committed its own troops. The infobox is sufficient as a general overview, with more context in the main body of the article. I would also be in favor of adding Iran under Russia and NATO under Ukraine. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Cinderella157 summed it up well, we have not had some timeline alteration where Belarus uninvolved itself from the invasion since the last time this was brought up. It remains one of the only nations on either side (now with another obvious example being North Korea) directly involving itself in the invasion outside of materiel and economic support. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK but we have North Korea as a belligerent. It appears the majority of posters here supporting Belarus being in the infobox consider Belarus to be a belligerent, not simply a supporter. That being the case, shouldn't we just list them as a belligerent? FOARP (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Extended discussion to be put here. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not again, did we not have of thee a few months ago? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions but no RFC (unless I missed it in my search in which case please feel free to post a link - I only saw the 2023 RFC), and a number of editors in the above discussions have voiced dissatisfaction with listing Belarus, which indicates consensus may have changed. Additionally, adding North Korea to the infobox has created an ambiguity in listing Belarus as a supporter. FOARP (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not think that placing North Korea to the infobox has created any ambiguity. Why? The placing of North Korea is very much obvious and unrelated to Belarus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is right under North Korea in a section labelled "supported by". A natural interpretation is that North Korea is supported by Belarus. FOARP (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No its does not, that is a total misunderstanding of how headings work. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list that reads:
A
B
Supported by:
C
Naturally implies that C supports both A and B. I don't see the misunderstanding here. FOARP (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my say, and suggest readers read wp:bludgeon, nothing has changed since the last RFC. So I am out of here with a firm no, nothing has changed so we should not change anything .Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is nuanced on the topic of removing Belarus. The access Belarus gave to Russia to launch attacks on Ukraine were at that time a substantial and unparalleled support to Russia. So therefor in the first year of the invasion there was clear merit to make the exception to the "avoid support" suggestion and add Belarus. The impact of Belarus support has been less substantial after that initial phase as far as I know. Hence, in the larger scope of the ongoing war, this initial support of Belarus becomes less and less influential in the scope of the entire conflict. Therefor I can imagine that at some stage the support of Belarus does no longer warrants inclusion in the infobox (although it should remain in the main text). That also means in my view that the longer the war goes on, we should be open to review our position in the light of the extended war (hence not focus too much on RfC that were relatively long ago). Whether the moment to remove Belarus is already here.... I have no opinion on that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think their recent hosting of Russian nuclear weapons was such a thing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context – key to the RfC discussion were the ISW, which considers Belarus a direct co-belligerent in this specific conflict[2] and the OSCE which considers that 'use of force' (i.e. initiating combat) triggers party status.[3][a] It is retained under the 'supported by' heading because that had existed from early in the article's history. A more precise heading, if retained, would be 'contested status'. The 'supported by' heading is both misleading and has been a recurring problem: if x's support is listed then why isn't y's? That's a legitimate question to ask, especially with how weakly handled the inclusion of Belarus is presently. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Institute for the Study of War assessed Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in their multiple publications [5]. We could include it as a "co-belligerent (disputed)". My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per ManU9827[21], Euromaidan Press says co-belligerent too[6] Placeholderer (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth considering to add a timeframe (e.g "During 2022") in the infobox to try to communicate that Belarus's involvement was by far concentrated at the start of the war? I feel like there's valid reasoning to include Belarus, but most of it applies only to the initial invasion, and I'm not sure that they're still actively maintaining the exception-worthy support from before Placeholderer (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously advocated for using Supported by:  Belarus (2022); see discussions of July 2024 and August 2024.
The primary argument to include Belarus as a "supporter" is the fact that a Russian army group travelled through its territory in order to invade Ukraine. It is very important to note that this arrangement only lasted for ~40 days of a nearly 3-year-long war – today is day 1,070, so that represents under 4% of the duration of the war.
Belarus's "support" ended with the Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine in April 2022, and to leave this unaddressed in the infobox falsely implies that Belarus's "support" has been continuous through 2025.
That being said, I have some concerns about whether or not this is a level of nuance unsuited for the infobox and whether or not this proposal approaches WP:OR per FOARP above, and I may be leaning towards excluding Belarus from the infobox outright. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this change (appending the year) is necessary and helpful if we opt to retain Belarus as a supporter. Personally I'm in favour of this as Belarus permitting the initial assault of Kyiv to be launched from its territory was a crucial aspect of the initial invasion. Jr8825 • Talk 10:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it was a crucial aspect of the initial invasion. Ironically, as some commenters noted, this help by Belarus played against Russian forces. If, instead of attacking Kyiv, they kept these forces in reserve and/or use them at the South and East of Ukraine, they would occupy a lot more and faster. But who could predict what had happen? My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Every single "No" votes I've seen so far is essentially stating that Belarus is a belligerent. At present Belarus is listed as a supporter, not a belligerent. Should we have another option for simply adding Belarus as a belligerent? FOARP (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes to having another option: By my read, the responses of the "No" voters My very best wishes, Slatersteven, YBSOne, Eluchil404 and Cinderella157 all make the argument that Belarus is a belligerent and/or invoke sources that do; there may be a stronger consensus among the No party to list Belarus as a belligerent rather than as a supporter. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References and notes

References

  1. ^ "RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, DECEMBER 11". Institute for the Study of War. 11 December 2022.
  2. ^ ISW: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-14-2023
  3. ^ OSCE: http://minskdialogue.by/en/research/memorable-notes/legal-status-of-belarus-in-russia-ukraine-war
  4. ^ Chatham House: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/03/identifying-co-parties-armed-conflict-international-law/02-legal-framework-identifying-co
  5. ^ "RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, DECEMBER 11". Institute for the Study of War. 11 December 2022.
  6. ^ "Belarus to keep helping Russia but unlikely to send its troops to join Russia's fighting in Ukraine". Euromaidan Press. 12 December 2022.

Notes

  1. ^ This note is a personal opinion – pre-emptive reminder that WP:OR explicitly does not apply to talk page discussions – from reading and analysing other reliable sources – specifically Chatham House – on determining 'party to a conflict' status. It is categorically incorrect to claim that 'use of force' is the only factor to determining party status. For specific examples where party status can exist outside direct combat, see the following verbatim from Chatham:
    [b]y contrast, if military advisers of one state assist in the planning of specific military operations by another state, to the point that both states are involved in the decision-making process for specific operations in the conduct of hostilities, there can be both a sufficiently direct connection to hostilities and a sufficient degree of cooperation and coordination
    [t]ransporting the troops of another state to the front line or providing air-to-air refuelling to combat aircraft as part of specific military operations in the conduct of hostilities could, however, have a sufficiently direct connection, and would also involve a sufficient degree of cooperation or coordination
    and finally, and most pertinently here of all presented examples, [b]y contrast, when a state allows its territory to be used as a launchpad for specific hostilities against another state or armed group, this may constitute a sufficient connection to the hostilities.[4]
    The point is that this is more complex an issue than merely 'use of force' as the OSCE source presents it.

Bias toward Ukraine in "War Crimes" section.

The war crimes section on this article exclusively includes war crimes allegedly committed by the Russian forces, and presenting allegations as fact. I believe this is obviously biased, and we should reference Ukraines alleged War Crimes even if there are far fewer, and state Russian war crimes to be Alleged War Crimes, rather than just War Crimes. 2001:8003:3430:8100:9058:A600:5D7A:8A13 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing reliable sources that describe such war crimes, or allegations by notable people (e.g Putin)? Placeholderer (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one case I direct us to another wikipedia article.
Other sources on this specific torture of POWs include: Reuters, HRW.
A more general article is: Al Jazeera.
Kakhovka Dam: Reuters, BBC (Blame by both sides).
In Kursk: 9 News Australia.
From the Russian Government: Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office in Geneva (On Donbass Shellings.)
And for the Crimean Bridge: ABC Australia, PBS.
Hope this helps. 2001:8003:3430:8100:9058:A600:5D7A:8A13 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This mostly belongs to another page, War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it is included there already. Here we should only provide a brief summary of the content from the main page. Yes, it could be updated using most recent publications, something published in 2024-2025, rather than 2022. And I would rather focus on proven facts here, rather than the highly questionable allegations by Putin. There are many proven facts noted on this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree, but I think along those lines it would be appropriate to exclude the Budanov statement from this article (it's a pretty WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to include as an accusation). I do think it would be helpful to briefly (as is due) address the topic of Ukrainian war crimes, maybe mentioning that Russia accuses stuff but being clear the extent to which it's supported by independent sources.
For what it's worth I tried to clarify that the ICC probe was into violations committed in Ukraine, not just by Russia Placeholderer (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I will say that, of those accusations, the indiscriminate shelling and POW mistreatment would probably be the most appropriate to include, since civilian infrastructure attacks don't seem to be in the scope of the section (otherwise Russia's infrastructure attacks would be included). The Al Jazeera source is hard to use, since it's an opinion piece Placeholderer (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be false balance. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely be false balance to have the same amount of text as for Russian war crimes, but I think there's probably a way to fairly address the issue that isn't just not mentioning it Placeholderer (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The extremely few Ukrainian war crimes that there are, are already mentioned though. This is like complaining about there being no Jewish war crimes mentioned in the article about WW2. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to where they're mentioned in this article? I don't see mentions in the POW or war crimes section here — but mistreatment of Russian POWs and etc. are definitely discussed in the war crimes article Placeholderer (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A brief summary (a few sentences at most) of Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Russian prisoners of war probably belongs in this article under #Prisoners of war, as this is where Russian mistreatment of Ukrainian POWs is mentioned. Care needs to be taken to avoid undue weight, though. Jr8825 • Talk 13:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see false balance anywhere. 99% of RS are talking about the crimes by Russian forces, rather than by the Ukrainian ones. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While relatively few Ukrainian war crime are highlight, is it not clear that there are is avalanche of back-to-back claims against the Russians? 2.30.22.148 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When your war crimes can be seen from orbit they are not really "Alleged".©Geni (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes and attacks on civilians

This section could be improved by double-checking certain images. For does not the photograph of the bombed railway station look strange/not quite right? If proven to have been staged - should not the image be deleted 2.30.22.148 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not staged, there were plenty attacks with civilians as casualties before and after. Zemleroika11 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While there are many attacks (by both sides), is there not an on-going media war taking place? Given this, and how odd the image looks, how can anyone be certain that the photo is for real?

You'll need to find a reliable source to prove that the photo is fake, because original research is not allowed. Galebazz (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close up photo of dead body

  • Existing photo
    Existing photo
  • Suggested replacement
    Suggested replacement

I recently replaced the photo illustrating the war crimes section as the existing one shows a close up photo of a dead body with blood trickling from an identifiable dead person. Citing WP:GRATUITOUS, I replaced the photo with one of the attack with the bodies removed, but the blood and personal effects still present, which is the photo used at the top of our article on the attack. My edit has been reverted TylerBurden, citing WP:NOTCENSORED.

I fully appreciate NOTCENSORED, and do not object to necessary offensive content, such as the photos of dead soldiers and civilians in the casualties section, as these photos are informative and likely the best available to illustrate the subject matter, or in cases such as the video of a man's death in Saigon Execution. However, per our policy on offensive material, we should not favour excessively offensive material over equally adequate material that is less offensive. The relevant parts of GRATUITOUS are:

  • "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials."
  • "Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion. Per the image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter."

In this case, we have an alternative photo that shows the attacks without violating the dignity of the dead individual. A close up photo of their corpse is unnecessary and does not have more encyclopedic value than an overview scene of the attack's aftermath. If the aim is additional shock value to convey the horrors of the attacks, then this is an inappropriate form of editorialisation. Jr8825 • Talk 00:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do go with Jr8825 that the need for an (easily) identifiable individual civilian casualty is prolematic. I do see the problem more in lines of privacy protection of/moral decency to the victim and his family than to gratuity though so I would for arguments against this photo more in Foundation:Resolution:Images of identifiable people. Perhaps a relevant moral dilemma question that might bring the morality of using this photo close to home would be whether you would be happy if a recognizable photo of a family member appears in the School shooting article. Arnoutf (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Even factoring in the need to be honest about the brutality of war the wider range of pictures on the page already covers that pretty well.©Geni (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. It's needlessly gratuitous. People die in wars, shocker. We don't need to see the blood and gore on the encyclopedia. It's not an issue of "censorship". A common misunderstanding is that WP:NOTCENSORED merely posits that offensive material may be permissible, not that it is always necessary or desirable. JDiala (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I went ahead and changed the image. Feel free to change the description if you think the current one is lacking. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly against Wikipedia, meant to be an uncensored encyclopedia of knowledge, shying away from graphic content. This is quite clearly not an instance of using graphic imagery for the sake of it, as it is directly related to and showing the results of the section it accompanies, namely attacks on civilians. Why is it better to show an image of the scene after it has started being ″cleaned up″? That blood in the suggested replacement came from somewhere, so dancing around it by showing a later aftermath photo seems less valuable than actually showing what happened.
Now I am sure your suggestion is in good faith, and Wikipedia not being censored doesn't mean you can't have human decency, but who are we as random Wikipedia editors to decide if the victim's family does not want the image displayed or not? Because that's what I'm guessing this is, assumption. They could just as easily be in support of it so that people can see the consequenses of such attacks. I'm not convinced (especially not by the version TurboSuperA+ took upon themselves to implement, which conveniently cut out the casualty toll that was added in your original edit) this change is for the better, even though your intentions are likely good. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are five editors that think the image
should be changed. This is not the first time you went against editor consensus and I think WP:OWN might apply. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So no actual arguments, just acting as if Wikipedia consensus is a WP:VOTE. I don't think your ″vote″ is as valuable as you seem to think it is, given all you do here is try to push Russian narratives supported by a broken understanding of Wikipedia policy, the same goes for JDiala, who is dropping comments like ″people die in wars, shocker.″, way to show how you're on the right side of morality for wanting to scrubb off the image from the article.
This is long standing content, and evidently I am not the only one who thinks the replacement is not an improvement, so I believe we need to have a stronger ″consensus″ than whatever this is. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"all you do here is try to push Russian narratives"
Do you have evidence of this? And what is a "Russian narrative", exactly? Anything you disagree with?
The gore adds nothing to the article, it is meant to shock and elicit an emotional response rather than impart knowledge or give context to the text.
I would be OK with removing the picture altogether, because I am pretty sure that people reading wikipedia know what a dead civilian is and they don't need a picture to explain it to them.
Your behaviour is close to WP:SQS and WP:OWNERSHIP. I would also appreciate it if you stopped insulting me by implying I am "pushing narratives" instead of giving my own opinion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBurden: is it fair to say your opposition to my change is that you feel the replacement image is too sanitised? I chose it simply because the other article was using it. I believe the current image is unnecessarily (i.e. gratuitously) obscene and I'm sure we can find an alternative photo which still conveys the war crimes adequately. There is a whole category on Commons of civilian deaths that we can draw from.

Alternatives include:

  • Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, lower resolution
    Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, lower resolution
  • Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, blurred
    Kramatorsk, multiple corpses, blurred
  • Bucha mass grave
    Bucha mass grave
  • Bucha mass grave (2)
    Bucha mass grave (2)
  • Bucha bodies
    Bucha bodies
  • Bucha executions
    Bucha executions
  • Bucha civilian
    Bucha civilian
  • Avdiivka market
    Avdiivka market

Jr8825 • Talk 02:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TylerBurden that the existing picture is better as it provides more insight.Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What insight does it provide? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IMGCONTENT tells us: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. MOS:IMAGEREL tells us Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative; each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose. ... Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate.
The section where the image under discussion appears is War crimes and attacks on civilians. The death of civilians in war is not ipso facto an attack on civilians. the Kramatorsk railway bombing (as it is described in the caption) is not necessarily an attack on civilians or a war crime. Railway infrastructure may be a reasonable military target and the death of civilians unfortunate but proportional. The section where the image appears makes no mention of the Kramatorsk railway bombing that would establish context, that the railway station was not a reasonable military target and/or that the action was not proportional. We as editors, with a knowledge of the subject might know this but the reader does not. This particular image does not satisfy the cited P&G in this case. It should therefore not be used here. This image appears to be more about coatracking the caption, which is not a reason for retaining it. We write the article (prose) in the readable prose. A image caption is not readable prose.
There are lots of images that might serve to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter ... [and] have a clear and unique illustrative purpose. Dead civilians, even lots of bodies in a grave, do not necessarily do this - it is common to use a mass grave in a war zone. A picture of a mass grave does not tell us how or why they came to be there. However, the image of those bound an killed (even if not of the greatest quality) illustrates something that is pretty clearly a crime. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

change belarus from supporting to Co-belligerent which they are described as by multiple sources[1][2][3] ManU9827 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Edit requests are not for controversial changes. The question of Belarus' placement in the infobox is already being discussed at the above RfC. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ISW's use of "co-belligerent" was already mentioned in that discussion, but I've copied the Euromaidan Press source over to there too Placeholderer (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, DECEMBER 11". Institute for the Study of War. 11 December 2022.
  2. ^ "RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, OCTOBER 11". Institute for the Study of War. 11 October 2022.
  3. ^ "Belarus to keep helping Russia but unlikely to send its troops to join Russia's fighting in Ukraine". Euromaidan Press. 12 December 2022.

sources

sources for this? 71.223.155.247 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean for the article as a whole, here are about 750 sources Placeholderer (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk%3ARussian_invasion_of_Ukraine_infobox