This is an archive of past discussions about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think the article needs daily maps of the front line in the end of each subsection of the section "Invasion": front line map at the end of 24 February 2022 (UTC+2), front line map at the end of 25 February 2022, ... and so on. It will be possible to compare front line changes. The subsection "24 February" had the map; why was it removed? K8M8S8 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I actually support this, although longer term it might make more sense to just make it an animation of the progression of the invasion. Melmann10:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@MaitreyaVaruna: But I have some notes. We should use local Ukrainian time (UTC+2). So, 24th February is the date of the beginning of the invasion, not 23rd February. And we should make edit request here, on the talk page, to include your animated map in the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
May I also suggest that the most comprehensive legend be applied to parts of the animations to aid consistency. --Cdjp1 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Almost certainly it was Russian, and probably a mistake. Backsplatter/bystander casualty of the 'fog of war.' An RS will give a detailed report on this sooner or later - Wiki can wait.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Would this incident give Turkey grounds to invoke Article 5 ("An attack on one is an attack on all") of the NATO Treaty which would justify the NATO countries to intervene in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Following its intervention in protests against the government earlier in 2022, Moscow requested that Kazakhstan send troops to assist in the offensive, but Nur-Sultan refused the request, reiterating that it does not recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists
Is completely false. Russia never requested troops from Kazakhstan. The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below:
Senate Speaker Ashimbayev: The conflict zone is not in the territory of CSTO member states. Therefore, Kazakhstan does not have the right under these treaties, under ratified agreements, to send peacekeepers within the CSTO to a conflict zone. "But if any situation arises and a decision is made at the UN level within the UN mandate, Kazakhstan can send peacekeepers to any point in the world if there is a decision to do so," Ashimbayev said. [1]
Which is quite different from what the text in the article says. The fact of misinformation was confirmed by Zakon.kz in its telegram blog [2](In Russian). The NBC article does not have any references mentioned, what kind of credible sourcing is that? The recognition of Donestk and Luhansk was never even mentioned.
Which is why this text needs to be removed from the Other countries and international organizations to avoid misinformation. If somebody has the rights to do so, please do accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
It is more or less a reputable news agency in Kazakhstan, publishing political and legislative news. If that is not enough, factcheck.kz has analysed the misinformation and concluded:
In line with editorial methodology, we conclude that the story is a manipulation. A clickbait was used in the headline, the source data does not correspond to that presented in the story, the author of the distortion does not rely on verifiable sources - there is no evidence of Russia's request to use Kazakhstani peacekeepers in the Russian-Ukrainian war. The report that Kazakhstan's position was welcomed by the US National Security Council is also not confirmed by open sources at the time of publication; it is only available on the NBC website and in re-publications. We do not exclude that such a statement could have been made, but it is not currently available in other publications. [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that NBC has an equal level of credibility with the KZ government hand when it makes such claims and that its publication, unsupported by any references, should outweigh the arguments of the local news agency and local fact-checking organisation? Are you serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
NO, I am saying you started this off with a claim "The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below:", which it was not. As far as I can see there is no statement there denying they were asked for troops, just that they are not sending any. I have no idea bout the reliability of Zakon.kz, and if you want to make an argument based upon another line of reason go ahead. But there has been (as far as I can tell) no official denial they were asked. Slatersteven (talk)
I am saying you started this off with a claim "The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below, which it was not. Could you read it again and see that there was a statement by the Speaker of the Senate, or see at least one link I shared? NBC article was published today at 06:21 Astana time while the comment from the Senate Speaker dated 24 February 11:59. Do you think the government will comment on every news story in the world? I understand that zakon.kz will raise questions from foreigners, but at least read what factcheck.kz has provided (with translation, of course). Logically, a request by the forces would mean that at least some information would appear in Russian sources about this request, but this is not the case. The Senate speaker was commenting on internal speculation, not an official request from Russia.--Fl7wless (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Foreign support to Ukraine
Oughtn't there be a section about in the article about lethal and non-lethal aid supplied or being promised to the Ukrainians from several Western countries? Right now there is nothing about it, it seems to me a not completely unimportant part of the story considering how much Ukraine has been insisting on it? Yakikaki (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I will give the same answer as I did above (and below) Any sources on what that aid is?, because without any we can't have a section that is empty of anything. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
A non-belligerent state differs from a neutral one in that it may support certain belligerents in a war but is not directly involved in military operations... The term is often used to describe a country that does not take part militarily in a war.
In that sense only Ukraine (and not the arms suppliers) should be in the belligerent section.
Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that article is the best example for good practice, having closed an RfC there before where the majority position was not policy compliant.
Personally I'm unsure and going a bit back and forth on this. It does seem the West's most substantial intervention is in punitive economic sanctions (though of debatable severity). The Ukrainian PM mentioned in one comment that some British anti-air weapons were used and were helpful, and that more equipment would be helpful, but I don't know to what extent that's politics or whether Western arms supplies are actually substantially helpful (my understanding is the West is not providing meaningful military assistance in this particular invasion, although in the wider crisis in the past few years it might've, and I'm not aware of any military supplies being sent to Ukraine since the start of the invasion). In which case it would not only be inaccurate but maybe even insulting to imply NATO is doing more than it is. Perhaps waiting for sources to come to a consensus is the best approach. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose listing parties that are not participating in combat operations. The trend towards listing entities that are indirectly involved in military conflicts is understandable, but it leads to a mess of OR, UNDUE, and sometimes outright misleading information being included. Diplomatic and material support can be discussed in the article text. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment:'
Should we add Chechnya to the infobox? Such as
I believe NATO should be removed from the infobox as supporting Ukraine, vocal support is not an act of military belligerency. Viewsridge (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed I am aware, however yes vocal support and action is support, and NATO has made it clear they support Ukraine. Stating otherwise and going against what was announced via NATO is Original Research. While can be argued that the support is inefficient, to classify as support. Such nearly all reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine. If we establish a consensus that reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine, and NATO themselves state so stating otherwise is just OR, not only OR but it sets an dangerous precedent of ignoring citations when felt so.
I do however understand the argument that military source is not currently being provided, however we don't classify military support as being the only thing to add to infoboxes. As an example the War in Iraq (2013–2017), another example being the Russo-Ukrainian War shows many countries that supported the campaign but did not aid militarily. If we define that aid support is important then that classifies as support. Des Vallee (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
What support? What reliable sources? Your edit had three sources. Two said NATO was deploying to NATO states which are *adjacent* to Ukraine, and the third literally says NATO and British troops will not be used to assist Ukraine because it would create an existential threat.[1]ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
details support and 1 Moreover the citations go into detail onto military aid being sent to Ukraine, the third is due to the announcement and other. I think a foot-note may be best while this is being discussed on the situation with Russia, perhaps linking to the reaction section. The info-box needs to make that clear as military support is not the only action towards support, and I concur with Maxorazon. Des Vallee (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Both those sources precede the invasion, one is from 2018(!). I accept that NATO have supported Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War over the years, including the provision of arms and training. But this article is not about the war since 2014, or even the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, it's about the invasion of Ukraine, a narrow scope concerning a military conflict. AFAIK no country has agreed to provide substantive military assistance to Ukraine. I accept humanitarian aid etc is being given, and maybe further weapons shipments (which countries have said they're open to, although I'm not aware of any shipments since the invasion began) but I think that needs to be mentioned in the article body, where it can be properly contextualised to avoid confusion. Though I'm back and forth on this, as I said in the other section, seeing some people, including editors, be confused by the NATO (etc.) additions in the infobox leads me to feel this addition is a problem without proper contextualisation. We know a lot of people just read the lead+infobox and nothing else. To them the suggested presentation could give–and indeed has given–the impression that NATO states are actually doing something substantive to help Ukraine militarily against the Russian aggression, when obviously we know they aren't, as the Ukranian PM[2] and ambassador[3] have said and as everyone acknowledges. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, the source is from 2018 such a source does however detail Military support to Ukraine, and the other is deom the recent. The statement that no country has agreed to send extensive military support is not correct. I do however agree with your statement that it may be best to take the complexities of the situaiton. However the situation has passed. According to this citation 1 NATO forces are already deploying troops.
"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday that U.S. President Joe Biden and his counterparts have agreed to send parts of the organization’s response force to help protect allies in the east following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Speaking after chairing a NATO summit in Brussels, Stoltenberg said the leaders decided to send parts of the NATO Response Force and elements of a quickly deployed spearhead unit. He did not say how many troops would be deployed, but confirmed that the move would involve land, sea and air power."Des Vallee (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The details are unknown but even if it did, it's still direct military support towards Ukraine, if we take an example of say the Congo Crisis, UN forces could only operate in neutral provinces or counties and only fire once fired on, the are still listed as a belligerent. Moreover the article proves the foundation of non-military support in infoboxes as countries like United States, Soviet Union are listed despite not sending in troops, and only providing material support, another example being the Soviet–Afghan War listing supporting nations. Des Vallee (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
That was not a delivery of weapons by NATO as whole (an organization). That was supply of weapons by individual countries: USA, Poland, Canada, etc. NATO includes 30 countries. By including just "NATO" you falsely implicated countries that did not actually supply any weapons. If you believe these countries should be included as supporters in belligerent section, please start new thread and justify your position. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@My very best wishes:This borders strongly on the disingenuous side. The Reuters reference, which was in the belligerent section of the infobox, was the head of NATO explicitly declaring the sending of weapons. Also, as you probably know, there is the article 5, which virtually makes every military action of a member state the action of the whole group. I firmly disapprove that the mention as it was was misleading to the reader. Maxorazon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S. why in fact should I bear the charge of the source as I already supplied it? It is your turn to find such reliable sources backing your position, reverting meanwhile. Maxorazon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
According to the cited source [4], the delivery of weapons is NOT an action by by NATO as a whole (as an organization) and NOT an action by all members of the organization (there are ~ 30 members), as your edit (insertion of NATO in the infobox) implies. Yes, the individual countries did delivered weapons, as this source say. Yes, this source say "NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Friday the alliance was deploying parts of its combat-ready response force". But the combat-ready response force was deployed in countries that are not participants of the military conflict, as someone else already noted above. Please self-revert or you may be reported to WP:3RR or WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Quoting the first paragraph. "the alliance was deploying parts of its combat-ready response force and would continue to send weapons to Ukraine". I see literally the alliance subject of the verb send, with the object being weapons.
I am not trying to antagonize for the sake of it: my hope is to remain as objective as possible while conveying a real change of the attitude of Europeans. Meanwhile your accusation remains baseless, maybe other opinions could further advance the debate. Maxorazon (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S. RaiderAspect has a nuanced view on why he is opposing it in the belligerent section. BlackholeWA supports in the breakaway state section. I repeat, that in my opinion, not mentioning anyone standing besides Ukraine is more dishonest to the reader than displaying NATO help in such contrived terms "indirect defensive military & ISR aid". Maxorazon (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
You always need to read and understand what the source actually say. It say: "Some of the 30 NATO allies announced the type of weapons that they would supply Ukraine, including air defenses, he said, without giving details.". This is all. Everything else (such as relocating their forces) was not in support of Ukraine, but to defer Russia from attacking NATO countries. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
At the NATO pristine source, quoting "We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself and call on others to do the same." I suggest that you revert to displaying NATO as supporting belligerent. Which it is, not recognizing it is some denial of reality. Maxorazon (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, he tells that ""We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine". But who are "we"? After reading the text, it is abundantly clear it is not NATO as an organization, but a few countries (all sources say about it in terms of support from specific countries). That info about supporting Ukraine is already included on the page, and rightly so. But saying this is "whole NATO" in the infobox is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
You are forming original research here. Please refer to WP:OR, we are not as editors supposed to look for interpretations ourselves, the interpretation should be made in the sources. I have cited explicitely two sources backing my position, you have cited nothing and only pretended to be better able to read prose than me. I am calling for help from other editors and already for moderation for help, to revert to the previous state on this topic. Maxorazon (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
That is not a form of organising references I have seen before, is it common on military related articles? As a concern of mine, though, are there references used in multiple sections; and, to which I think the answers are both yes: 1. could there be dup refs in future and 2. could the system be too hard to interpret for other editors to easily add new references in its format? Lots of ways to break up the references without needing to label everything. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
It is not widespread at all. I discovered this way of handling references on the French article of graph theory. I would need to test, you are right, handling cross-references this way could be tedious. And it definitely puts a higher cost on maintenance and addition of new references - the last point could be welcome? Maxorazon (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Maxorazon: I started using index style referencing, based on harv refs, for articles with lots of references. It is not very common, but I get compliments for it, particularly its navigability (real word?). There are other options, though, even a traditional bibliography style can be more accessible to readers. (I posture a lot on how to make the refs just as much part of the article and just as easy to use for readers!) Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Would suggest not trying to optimise refs until the editing on this article calms down. It will just make the article harder to edit, for one, and most people will ref normally which means someone will have to keep coverting into the new format. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Casualties Section
Very good overall effort, especially the top map of invasion progress.
But re Casualties Section:
Very unclearly done, as with "per Russia" etc.. Should say According to who: Losses suffered by who, and so on... 188.65.190.65 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The section may be more representative, if the numbers according to the UK are removed (around the time of writing this point) because it's almost two days old and being included makes it seem like a competing calculation, rather than the practically continuous updates from Ukraine and Russia. To be clear, I'm not saying it's necessarily inaccurate or irrelevant, just outdated. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 00:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Having thought about it, maybe if there aren't more new stats from the UK, within a few days, that's when it may be more useful to move to the article or remove: if Russia don't say, Ukraine say it's over 40, UK say 137, the notably higher count from the UK makes it a more significant comparison point. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 01:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
No, I’m just suggesting that idea. Maybe two countries that are supplying aid to Russia are Belarus and Moldova? Besides, if you want information, just Google “ who is on Russia's side 2022 invasion”. Wtoteqw (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Or maybe not, Until some RS are brought forward discussing this is a pointless debate. We do not speculate on what might be happening. We can't and must not have an empty section just in case. So I am bowing out of this until some RS are posted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
This thread doesn't make sense. What specifically is it that you want people to add into the article? Because Belarus is already listed as a belligrant in the page's infobox. You're also not giving people a concrete source or a concrete part of a source but asking them to search or read them, when that'd be your job. SuperΨDro17:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
To be more clear, what I want added to the article is a section about countries that are shipping arms to Russia to aid in the invasion. Wtoteqw (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Russian forces remaining in Belarus
Has anyone seen any news on what percentage is still left there (or estimates made by the Belarus opposition)? While a great deal of them were placed there pre-invasion for this planned attack, I don't see Putin letting go of his large physical footprint in the country for later re-incorporation into his empire. Also, has there been confirmation of Belarus troops in Russian uniform in Ukraine? That info should absolutely be in the article.50.111.36.47 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Only one third of the troops on Ukraine's border have been deployed. Here's a source [5]. There probably are still some left in Belarus. I saw there were movements in Brest in southwest Belarus but I can't provide a source for that. SuperΨDro18:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
A moving target, quite literally, though there are already different sources claiming it's more like 50%. To be fair I think those were referring to the entire buildup, not just in Belarus. One should keep in mind at any rate that the numbers never only included (mobile) elements supposed to move into Ukraine at any stage. There are of course different sorts of (long range) missile and rocket forces, air force ground personnel, various support, logistics, reserve, etc. Not sure what's meant by a footprint regarding Russia and Belarus: Russian military has always had a presence in Belarus, more or less, and more or less officially. There are even Russian bases in the country (and some joint). -88.70.121.115 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
NATO support
Maxorazon As My very best wishes has stated only a few NATO countries have been providing arms or made a pledge to send arms, I think NATO as an alliances should be removed and replaced with the countries that are actually involved. Also further clarification is needed to state the degree of support, which is thus far only limited to providing weapons. Viewsridge (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The head of NATO has pledged to send arms. Please Viewsridge see the Reuters ref in the infobox. "Indirect defensive military aid" is sufficiently soft in my views. Maxorazon (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
NATO is composed of 30 different countries but only about 10 of them afaik has so far agreed to send weapons, clarification is needed here. Viewsridge (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Are you questioning the chain of command and the legitimacy of NATO head? This is a collective mutual defense, even if only one "marginal" state was sending weapons to Ukraine it would be binding. Maxorazon (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Be advised that the NATO leadership decides what is best sent for defense of Ukraine and what is best left for local defense in Europe - it is a matter of who can provide economically and effectively - it would make little sense for Luxembourg to empty its coffers, so to speak, for Ukraine when Germany, for example, can give so much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.47 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Lukashenko: Belarusian troops are not participating in the operation in Ukraine
"Here I read: "At about 5 a.m., the state border of Ukraine in the area of Russia and Belarus was attacked by Russian troops supported by Belarus." The scoundrels are extreme! Our troops are not taking any part in this operation," BelTA.
Recall that Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he had decided to conduct a special military operation to protect people from bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, bringing to justice those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including Russian citizens.
On Thursday morning, Ukraine's military facilities were subjected to massive strikes. The DPR reported fighting along the entire contact line. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed that the Russian Armed Forces do not strike at the cities of Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Precision weapons only hit military targets. Later, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the suppression of Ukraine's air defense systems.
185.19.176.100 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
We can report what he said, but we'll need objective reporting rather than the statements of a tin-horn, murdering, grasping dictator says for a definitive call.50.111.36.47 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
This [6] is only semi-reliable reference I could find of the issue, if anyone else can find reliable references, this could be added under Russian commander with the (POW) tag. Viewsridge (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
This news:
A Russian tank from a military column was filmed crushing a civilian car in northern Kyiv, skidding across the road over it. The driver, an elderly man, survived and was helped out by locals.[238][239][240]
is likely a fake news as Russian tanks are painted with a white letter (for example the "V"). If you see the video is likely the driver of an Ukranian armored vehicle that lost control.
Please check news before posting and mind that in a war the first victim is the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.32.144 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this incident was covered in detail and proven to be, at the very least, not a Russian Strela-10
It's not 'fake news' - many Russian vehicles entering the war have no markings, confirmed by many sources. As long as RS's support the incident, so must we. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Request for map of airspace sanctions
Can someone make a map of countries that have blocked flights from Russian airlines? Similar to the Financial Times's map on [7] (direct image URL, doesn't require subscription). Scale can be kept to Europe (i.e. countries close to the vicinity of Russia and any common flight trajectories). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Split over into Russia?
A section of the location says there is spillover into Russia due to the Ukrainian missile attack on a Russian base but that doesn't count as a spillover in my opinion because the two nations involved in a war will have possible attacks over. You wouldn't say an Ukrainian invasion of Russia to be a spillover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9300:FC0:0:0:0:4B51 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Please check news before posting
This news:
A Russian tank from a military column was filmed crushing a civilian car in northern Kyiv, skidding across the road over it. The driver, an elderly man, survived and was helped out by locals.[238][239][240]
is likely a fake news as Russian tanks are painted with a white letter (for example the "V"). If you see the video is likely the driver of an Ukranian armored vehicle that lost control.
Please check news before posting and mind that in a war the first victim is the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.32.144 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this incident was covered in detail and proven to be, at the very least, not a Russian Strela-10
It's not 'fake news' - many Russian vehicles entering the war have no markings, confirmed by many sources. As long as RS's support the incident, so must we. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Request for map of airspace sanctions
Can someone make a map of countries that have blocked flights from Russian airlines? Similar to the Financial Times's map on [8] (direct image URL, doesn't require subscription). Scale can be kept to Europe (i.e. countries close to the vicinity of Russia and any common flight trajectories). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Split over into Russia?
A section of the location says there is spillover into Russia due to the Ukrainian missile attack on a Russian base but that doesn't count as a spillover in my opinion because the two nations involved in a war will have possible attacks over. You wouldn't say an Ukrainian invasion of Russia to be a spillover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9300:FC0:0:0:0:4B51 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I have been in constant contact with OSINT and i only want people to know confirmed and correct info i follow and regulary talk to reporters journalists and different telegram channels throught Ukraine i see that the information on here isn't always correct or updated so i would like to fix it 2600:1702:43E0:83E0:15B3:1CCD:5B58:7E47 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: Many countries have provided material assistance. Generally, allies are countries which are willing to engage militarily in the conflict, which is at this point, nobody. Melmann07:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello IP, no, as already discussed in a previous 'Chechnya' section, Chechnya is part of the federation of Russia, it is not a distinct group. And it is some tactics used by Russia as a fear factor, that has been debunked since hours. Maxorazon (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Change “Russian air and missile strikes target military bases, airports, major cities across Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odessa” to “ Russian air and missile strikes target military bases, airports, major cities across Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv, as well as Kharkiv and Odessa” Homiedawg011 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Currently there are five show hide/boxes for materiel losses. I suggest to simply separate the two entirely, so that we list the human casualties first, and then have a single show/hide box for materiel losses. -- Phiarc (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Partly done: Most of this was already covered on the page. I moved it to a more relevant subheading. This is subject to changes other editors see fit. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Chechnya is a part of Russia, why is it a part of the belligerents? If they have sent a force outside the Army, maybe the name of the group should be there? As it stands, it’s a bit confusing as to why it’s there but not Crimea, etcAngele201002 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure, I removed it because it is just silly to have it separate. If Chechnya was to be there, why don't we list all the federal subjects of Russia then? Mellk (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mellk: Because other subjects do not have separate militia like the Kadyrovtsy. They act separatily, of course under Russia's controll, but not the Russian military. Also I mentioned with a tag that Chechnya is a subject of Russia. Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Those units can be mentioned, but I don't think that justifies Chechnya as being separate in the belligerents part. They serve under Russia. Putin would have approved their deployment. Mellk (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Mellk, Chechnya is just one of many republics within the Russian Federation just like Tartarstan, Buratya, and Dagestan, it's all Russia and falls under Russia. More than anything this seems like a PR stunt by Kadyrov, which isn't relevant for the belligerents section. The only real reason I would say it's notable at all is because Chechnya fought Russia twice for independence since the fall of the Soviet Union so there is a bit of sad irony in the fact that they're now helping Russia do the same to a foreign country. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
We discussed it yesterday. Kadyrov's troops de facto are subordinated to Kadyrov personally but formally they aren't separate militia (see subsection "Legalization" of the article Kadyrovtsy), they are National Guard Forces Command units lead by Zolotov. I really don't see any reason to designate Chechnya as separate side of conflict. K8M8S8 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
This is not about Chechnya. If they deployed National Guard Forces or paramilitaries (such as Kadyrovites) that needs to be included, even to infobox, but I did not see much about their operations in Ukraine so far, so probably not yet. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Are vehicles destroyed including military personnel?Are soldiers total amount killed? Does that mean russia has lost more vehicles than personnel? 180.241.155.56 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Referencing issues
There is one sentence under "Russian accusations" that isn't well supported. It says: Several international organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, and the Council of Europe, announced they were unable to find evidence supporting the Russian claims. However one ref is just to a list of reports [9] and none of them mention "genocide" except one Council of Europe report from 1 April 2014 [10] which mentions "genocide" once and that there are "no reports of limitations or perceived threats to the use of Russian language in Western parts of Ukraine". However this sentence in the article implies that all of these organizations actually investigated the claims of genocide and made an announcement addressing those claims specifically. Rather it seems like OR. Mellk (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
From my understanding, whoever wrote this meant that previous reports about the human rights situation in Ukraine show no genocide has taken place, therefore recent Russian claims are baseless, but this looks like OR. Mellk (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Archival period
This is a very active page, with many new sections each day. The time elapsed before archiving has bounced around between 6 hours and 3 days. Personally, I think 3 days is too long, as the page grows tremendously within that time, with 50 or more sections, making it difficult to track and read. Is there some kind of consensus on a reasonable time to archive? WWGB (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that 12-24 hours should be good, and editors can manually archive other completed discussions. 48 hours is definitely too long. >>> Ingenuity.talk();03:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Why did you add the hidden message "there is consensus that 12 hours is the most appropriate" when no such consensus exists? WWGB (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I want to open an RfC on NATO as a support belligerent. How can I link to existing sections, not knowing, in the span of a few hours, if the section will be archived or not? Some already are. Maxorazon (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of people doing manual archiving. There are some discussions of outstanding issues that haven't received enough participation but are ongoing issues nevertheless. I think 12h is too soon and I suppose 3d may be too long. Maybe 1-1.5 days (+ manual archiving as needed)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
24 hours should be the bare minimum. While I generally support 3 days or so on other busy pages, that would be very impractical over here. This 11 hours old section already finds itself in the oldest quartile of this page. IMO, 1 to 1.5 days is the most reasonable option. + Manual archiving as and when necessary. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs)14:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Pipeline and desire for nuclear arms missing
I notice the article, as the heading suggests, is missing a mention of the cancellation of the Nordstream 2 pipeline by Germany on the 22nd of February, and Zelenskyy making the declaration of his wish to import nuclear arms into the country. Is there a reason for this obvious omission? --Lammmywhammy (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
That's even worse, because it is out of order. How would the suspension of the pipeline on the 22nd of February be the response to an invasion that took place two days later, on the 24th of February? Unacceptable for an uncyclopedia that prides itself on only pulling facts from reliable sources. What reliable source would make such a grave error? Lammmywhammy (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Sources have described Russian forces entering the Donbas as the beginning of the Invasion. However, if you believe there is a more appropriate section, then please mention it and we can discuss. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Political allegiance
I've noticed that the Leftist/Social Justice faction has sided with Ukraine, while the Alt-right has sided with Russia. I haven't prepared any RS, although an initial search seems to confirm this. I'd just like to submit this as a possible theme that could be developed in the article, maybe under Reactions. Just a thought! Xcalibur (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Trimming?
At this rate of expansion, the article can become very long. Perhaps we should remove some irrelevant details, such as "a boy get shot" or "a residential building collapsed"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
At this rate of expansion, the article can become very long. Perhaps we should remove some irrelevant details, such as "a boy get shot" or "a residential building collapsed"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Romania is mentioned twice, in two different parts of the "Refugees" section. (I believe Poland was as well a short while ago, but appears to have been fixed.) Whomever is editing this section might want to address this. - wolf06:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Why are we showing UK's casuality estimates just under the russian and ukrainian version? Who is UK to estimate? I'm not trying to be political but according to me the only data that is to be quoted should be of Russia , Ukraine and international bodies such as UN. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanraj13 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Currently each day of the invasion subsections have the "See also" to related battles. Are they really necessary, since they're already in the body and campaignbox? They're also all basically the same - the Kyiv Offensive (2022) ones are in all of them. Juxlos (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
13 guards killed by Russian Warship for defiantly telling them to “Go Fuck Yourselves” after being told to “Lay down your arms” Editdone (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I wrote the same, but also added: It is too small a detail to bear repeating on the overview article which is rapidly becoming burdened (approaching 10,000 words which is the typical marker of an article that probably needs splitting) with the ongoing developments. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Snake Island update
It should probably be included that the Snake Island guards were only assumed to be dead due to radio silence, there was no verification, and that the next day the Russian Defense ministry released photos of Ukrainian border guards held prisoner, stating that among them are the 13 guards from Snake Island. [1][2]User7355608 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The colour-coded map currently shows that China is neutral in this conflict. It may be too early to say for sure but this map will possibly need to be updated as events unfold. China's foreign ministry on 24/2 said Russia's presence in Ukraine is not an invasion, that the coordinated sanctions against Russia were "unilateral" and "illegal", and that the US were the "culprit" in the conflict, "heightening tensions, creating panic and even hyping up the possibility of warfare". https://www.ft.com/content/55d86391-2d05-4eb4-869c-83a7878b8942 To me, this doesn't sound like neutrality. 2001:8A0:5D19:2700:F5:1DDF:9E5A:9581 (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
China also said that it will try to promote peaceful negotiations in its own way. It seems that China hasn't officially take anyone's side yet, even though we know the two are allies. Of course though, we should pay attention to any developments. -- Sentimex (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Why was Russian reservist number removed?
Right now it looks like Ukraine has an equal number of troops as Russia, which is not true because Russia has a huge number of reserves.
The reserves used to be listed for both Russia and Ukraine, but now it shows only Ukraine's reserves.
This seems like a misrepresentation of relative fighting strength. Kai robert (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Can someone who understands the technical side of images more than me take a look at the infobox map, as it doesn't seem to be displaying properly. Also has been raised on the Commons page[11] — Czello11:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It was broken due to an edit war, repeatedly updating or reverting files in a short span of time will temporarily stop them from displaying, some users were attempting to fix it by reverting too I believe, the issue has been addressed and users notified. Viewsridge (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Infobox map not displaying
Can someone who understands the technical side of images more than me take a look at the infobox map, as it doesn't seem to be displaying properly. Also has been raised on the Commons page[12] — Czello11:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It was broken due to an edit war, repeatedly updating or reverting files in a short span of time will temporarily stop them from displaying, some users were attempting to fix it by reverting too I believe, the issue has been addressed and users notified. Viewsridge (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Independent/visual confirmed analysis of equipment losses
There are a lot of proposals on talk that tend to come without sources. I'm thinking it may be worth adding a brief WP:Edit notice that suggests people to provide sources if making edit requests. Wanted to put the idea up for thoughts first though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Support it seems like half of the edit requests don't provide a source at all or provide an unreliable one, and an edit notice could help with that. >>> Ingenuity.talk();13:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
{{legend|#FF6347|Countries that have blamed the invasion on NATO provocation}}
to #ff6600, which is the actual color used in the map file. Currently the color used is more redish than in the actual map files. SixTwoEight (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Per the agreement Article 19, which covers times of war where Turkey isn't belligerent, says Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not, however, pass through the Straits. Turkey is relying on that Article. So Turkey's involvement is on the basis of it being non-belligerent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done we've had discussions on this topic before. Transnistria is an unrecognized state and there was no consensus to add it, and Chechnya is part of Russia and shouldn't be added as a separate belligerent. >>> Ingenuity.talk();21:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
EU as a whole is going to send weapons and ammunition to Ukraine
1) for major announcements, let's wait for a few WP:HQRS to repeat the same info, because I've seen several times where one source has clearly misread a statement and turned it into something it wasn't (not saying that's the case here, but as a general rule, we need to be careful not to peddle errors, esp given the visibility of this article). 2) discussion on infobox above, there's a dispute as to whether arms supplies should go into the infobox or should be contextualised in the body, and I think we can wait a few days than be going back-and-forth per breaking news stories. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a different discussion. It is without debate that the NATO as a whole is not providing arms. Yet it is also without debate that a lot of individual NATO countries have been and are sending weapons to Ukraine. These countries should be listed individually under a "Arms support" section in the infobox IMO. The infobox currently does not match the overwhelming number of WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
add countries giving arms support to ukraine in the infobox
i don't know who keeps removing it, but there is a difference between adding *NATO* in the infobox as a arms supplier and adding *INDIVIDUAL countries* in the infobox as arms suppliers. EpicWikiLad (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I do not think any weapons suppliers (such as Turkey, Poland or whoever supplied weapons to Russia) should be included in the infobox. In the body of the page or summary - yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (7)
@8.48.249.239 I have raised the same question, but I don't think any extended user will try to add this is information on this page, currently, I think Wikipedia is also being a place of propaganda-like stuff, surely if everything settles down. I will retry to add this information to this page. Thecybergulf (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It is hard for a limited number of extended users to execute all requests. Especially if they are not in the form "please add 'this' as per this reliable source link". Becoming an extended user yourself on the other hand is very easy. Maxorazon (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The source mentions only "several students" alleging. This seems a weak claim considering the scale of people trying to leave the country. A stronger and more certain source and some indication of the scale alleged would be necessary IMO to justify inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The background section is in need of expansion to provide the broader context necessary to understand the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. In its current state, the background section provides a very narrow view of the events that led to the escalation of conflict and relies almost exclusively on Western sources which have consistently shown to be unreliable and pursuing a malignant agenda. Secondly, the role of the US in overthrowing the legally elected President of Ukraine Viktor Yanykovicz must be examined, as well as State Department's and CIA's links with extremist elements in Ukraine, including both political parties and militant groups. Thirdly, Ukraine's constant violations of human rights of Russian speakers in the country, the persecution of political opinions on the grounds of it being perceived as 'pro-Russian', and ultimately neutral reporting of the conflict in Donbas, Ukraine's unwillingness to abide by the Minsk Treaty it signed and the constant shelling of civilian infrastructure in Donetsk and Lugansk.
As it is now, the article goes to great lengths to place all the blame for the situation in Ukraine squarely on Russia while ignoring the involvement of Western powers, as well as consistent transgressions of Ukrainian authorities in Donbas and their repression of opposition.
RfC - Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Update 22:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) After 12 hours, in retrospect, I don't think that I did a good job at all summarizing the stakes for this RfC. I mostly enriched my view while doing it. Feel free to close it - it received tremendous opposition. And reopen and new one under a new light. Best and peaceful regards, Maxime. Maxorazon (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Update: Closing RfC to leave place for the new one, godspeed! "Rien n'est jamais acquis, à l'Homme, ni sa force, ni sa faiblesse, ni son coeur, et quand il croit ouvrir ses bras, son ombre est celle d'une croix."Maxorazon (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Overview
There has been edit warring from my side and others's, most notably My very best wishes. There is clearly a divergence of opinions. Among the different WP:RCD venues available, I chose the present Request for Comments modality. I am looking for the emergence of a consensus on this question.
There have been multiple talk sections and users, here, approaching the subject already. I will try to gather most prior views, intellectually neighboring sections, and list them below.
One root cause of the antagonism is that there is no clear WP rule defining, precisely, which parties should be mentioned as belligerents in an armed conflict.
This has raised multiple questions already on the inclusion, or the degree of involvement of Belarus, People's Republics in eastern Ukraine, Chechnya.
The richest contributions to the discussion are, as far as I know:
Belligerent
ProcrastinatingReader: "Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time."
RaiderAspect "Oppose listing parties that are not participating in combat operations. The trend towards listing entities that are indirectly involved in military conflicts is understandable, but it leads to a mess of OR, UNDUE, and sometimes outright misleading information being included. Diplomatic and material support can be discussed in the article text."
Rogue_states_as_official_belligerents?
BlackholeWA: "Now that NATO is added under support with an explanation directly in brackets about military aid (as opposed to a tooltip), I will say that I am actually not opposed to this - although I imagine other Wikipedians will probably have stronger policy thoughts on the matter."
NATO as belligerent
Des Vallee: "Indeed I am aware, however yes vocal support and action is support, and NATO has made it clear they support Ukraine. Stating otherwise and going against what was announced via NATO is Original Research. While can be argued that the support is inefficient, to classify as support. Such nearly all reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine. If we establish a consensus that reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine, and NATO themselves state so stating otherwise is just OR, not only OR but it sets an dangerous precedent of ignoring citations when felt so.
I do however understand the argument that military source is not currently being provided, however we don't classify military support as being the only thing to add to infoboxes. As an example the War in Iraq (2013–2017), another example being the Russo-Ukrainian War shows many countries that supported the campaign but did not aid militarily. If we define that aid support is important then that classifies as support."
Ukraine has been backed, somewhat informally in the past, by NATO member states delivering weapons, NATO itself has opened the lengthy process of adhesion to Ukraine. Within the last couple of days, a shift has started to appear, the Europeans have increasingly made it clear that they were indirectly supporting Ukraine (regime, military), culminating with the previously linked official statement from NATO head on Feb 25th: "We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine".
The support from NATO is now clearer, it is dishonest to the reader in my opinion to still present Ukraine as a sole belligerent on its side, all the more when Russia has such a number of allied belligerents displayed. The latest reverts on the topic have been quite sheer contradiction in the WP dispute scale.
Please add any talk section, about this invasion article, that I would have omitted!
You are welcome to add relevant links to prior WP art and jurisprudence, as I am not a veteran wikipedian. Maxorazon (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
P.S. I am a French taken in sandwich, openly, somewhat engaged, pro-Ukrainian, friend of the Russian people, anti-Putin, friend of the American people. I am against the entry of Ukraine in NATO. I am advocating for EU and Europe to correctly stand its ground between the USA and Russia. I strive for objectivity. Maxorazon (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
This cannot stay out of the debate here eternally. I think that it is not acceptable to self-censure in front of the Russian aggressor, Putin having made almost explicit threats of such nuclear strikes. Maxorazon (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Risk is extremely minimal - this is just sabre-rattling. The Strategic Rocket Forces/Command in Russia is very professional and the marshals know what such a use of nuclear weapons would mean - Putin would be 'removed' in some fashion if he's deemed insane.50.111.36.47 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Right to adversarial arguments
A little part of the intellectual equipment from the pro-Russian position is to be found for example with professor John Mearsheimer's talk, criticizing the current crisis as having been fomented by the US and the West, Russia being in its own right.
Survey
Oppose based on lack of credible sources. Per WP:NOR we're not interpreting or reading into the sources, we're aggregating what reliable sources actually report. Popoki35 (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Support original research is in my view standing your ground after having read the last official NATO declarations. Maxorazon (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. Is the official website of NATO not a reliable source for the position of NATO? Maxorazon (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Its tough, but we could have a support section, then I would change to Support, as they are not directly involved in the conflict, in any way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Support does not mean "support" in the literal sense of "supporting" - else the Central African Republic and half a dozen other largely irrelevant states will need to go on the other side. It means the provision of some kind of relevant military assistance which, as far as I am aware, has not been done officially by NATO itself as an organisation (though some states have obviously done so with its blessing). Ultimately there is a common-sense issue to consider - will putting it in the infobox help the reader and represent the importance of the contribution accurately? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The kind of phrasing "Support does not mean 'support' in the literal sense of 'supporting'" is a little clumsy, with regards to the WP general guideline of staying away from interpretations, don't you think?
I agree that common-sense should be addressed. Which is not the case currently in my opinion. Ukraine's resistance without the US Javelins, military training, and extensive intel during the build-up, could have been much different. And there are several billion dollars coming in support from US and Europe.
A recurring argument, from the Oppose side, is in NATO not being significantly active as an organization. I'd like to point once again that with the article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, if Russia was to attack any NATO member state as retaliation for its country-scale weapon shipments, a collective war declaration would be called upon. This is on top of the last declarations from Jens Stoltenberg, explicitly engaging the organization - not to send troops to Ukraine directly, but explicitly to support the country politically and materially.
I am for what it's worth currently DDOS-ing russian websites from France, and consider myself a belligerent to some extent: etymologically I am waging war, in cyberspace, in some sense. Belligerence is completely subject to interpretations, and currently the views expressed here come a lot from the adversary position. Maxorazon (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I stopped DDOS-ing, having reached a more balanced view on the topic. Maxorazon (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Not all NATO members have begun to provide or agreed to provide arms in the future. Countries which are, or will provide weapons should be added with the clarification made on their level of support, such as Arms Supplies: instead of Supported by:. Which should include Germany, France and others. Viewsridge (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose "Supported by" usually implies direct support of an explicitly military nature such as arms, advisors on the ground or access (to bases or to overfly). Apart from the direct belligerents, in this conflict there are perhaps three levels of support from the rest of the world to either side. Belarus appears to be directly supporting the Russians. Other countries are providing various supplies to the Ukraine. Most of the world is supporting Ukraine politically. Some are supporting Russia. A few are sitting on the fence. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not an extensive list of "who's who in the zoo". That doesn't help anybody and we don't write the article in the infobox. I'm not saying that Belarus should be in the infobox but this appears to be the consensus. Does NATO (HQ - as that very specific entity) reach the same threshold? If the premise of the RfC is that it does, the case is unclear - it is WP:TLDNR (but I did and I'm not seeing it). I could be convinced but I am not convinced. Unsigned: 12:07, 27 February 2022 Cinderella157 talk contribs)
First signing your vote would be great , second if the infobox is not a "who's who in the zoo", then why are there lilliputian rogue states such as Luhansk, and no mention of a force covering hundreds of millions of human beings? Maxorazon (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Suggest procedural close This isn't listed as an RfC (per WP:RFC) and I would suggest not doing so because a) the above is not exactly a non-neutral summary (not due to lack of trying though, can see that the proposer tried to summarise the debate to date) -- editors should be able to make their own points; b) the situation is highly dynamic and RfCs, being a lengthy 30-day process, aren't really appropriate at this time compared to normal forms of WP:Dispute resolution because it is very likely the entire context backshadowing this RfC will change by the time the RfC period is up, hence making the RfC result invalid (by no longer being relevant). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I edited the RfC content to make it more compliant to the RfC requirements - any wikipedian is welcome to do so. I vocally express my disagreement here again: the current situation is not acceptable in my opinion. It is the choice of the Wikimedia foundation to cover hot topics, it it on the former and the wikipedian's responsibility to make timely resolutions on such editing conflicts. Maxorazon (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I am open to another mode of conflict resolution, provided there is one. Maxorazon (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The issue is the dynamic is changing. Before some NATO countries clearly said they would provide arms supplies I might've opposed anyone else in that part of the table. I'm reconsidering the issue more and more. I suspect if we wait a few days to a week the issue will be more clear, so I would propose we consider WP:NODEADLINE on this issue, personally, as it is not critical and we discuss the issue in the lead and body. The main consideration with the infobox is whether information provided is properly contextualised, and that's what makes me hesitant about this change, lest it be potentially misleading and there not be enough space to explain it properly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, no deadline, this does not need urgent resolution - yet this is all very misleading to the reader in the current state, hiding NATO under the carpet is ignorant and dishonest at best. Maxorazon (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Support procedural close per WP:RFCST, there should be a brief and neutral statement. Also, I agree with ProcrastinatingReader that an RfC is too slow a process given the speed at which events are changing. I suggest proceeding with a normal talk page discussion. Jr8825 • Talk13:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe PR is citing NODEADLINE to say that an RfC on such a rapidly changing event is a unnecessary and possibly impractical. Regardless, I would oppose including NATO as a belligerent because of the risk that readers could interpret it as direct military involvement, per Pincrete's argument below. Jr8825 • Talk18:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Only entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. I understand the desire to include ever more information in the infobox, but it is one area where we should be ruthlessly prioritising. Too many conflict infoboxs end up overburdened with minor details, and it simply distracts from the essence of the situation. Ukrainian is at war. NATO is not. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
NATO is one of the main protagonists in this invasion. Ultra-minor facts, such as the displayed allies of Russia, or the names of the commanders of the forces, or even ultra-detailed casualty numbers, are taking orders of magnitude more screen space in the infobox. Maxorazon (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
OpposeOnly entities participating in combat operations should be included as belligerents. Support in the form of spplying weaponry, aid, political support etc should be covered in the text. Doing anything else is opening the door on a mass of WP:OR. I concur that at this stage Belarus probably should not be included given its present level of direct involvement. Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Because NATO is a pact of 30 different sovereign states—each with a different sovereign power (except for UK and Canada), thus each with its own foreign policy. The secretary general of NATO doesn’t decide for sovereign states, because sovereign states recognize no superior. The bottom fact is that soldiers don’t fight for NATO, nor have they any allegiance to it, which in my case can only go to the Republic alone. Only sovereign states can ultimately mantain control of armies, and in fact only sovereign states can legitimately declare war on other sovereign states without breaking the law, being them bound by no law but their own. --Foghe (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose to including NATO as an organization. However, Belarus is an actual belligerent. Providing your territory to attack another country, including rocket attacks is an act of war. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Unless boots (or missiles/planes/whatever) are coming out of an entity (while still flying the flag of that entity) into Ukraine, they aren't a belligerent. There are no "NATO forces" or larger NATO mission to Ukraine, therefore they aren't a belligerent. BSMRD (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Sources do not say that NATO, as an organization, is supporting Ukraine. We should list the countries that are supporting Ukraine, not go making our own generalizations. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose There are times multi-national organizations get involved in conflicts directly under their own banner. NATO did this in the Kosovo War, the UN did this in the Congo Crisis. That is different than those states happening to be a large part of the organizations deciding to send bilateral aid, which appears to be the case atm. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already done - it looks like someone already replaced the URL with the one the anonymous editor suggested. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Done >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done please provide a reliable source when making an edit request. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Partly done: thanks for the suggestion, I've reworded it largely along the lines of your suggestion. Jr8825 • Talk 13:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Partly done: Most of this was already covered on the page. I moved it to a more relevant subheading. This is subject to changes other editors see fit. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Benjamin112 ☎ 23:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Germany, 
France and others. Viewsridge (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
15:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Technical_problem_with_display_of_the_map?){kind=link}
