Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 13 February 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War in Donbas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system. Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Misplaced Pages for more information.

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

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

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

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

"miltiary" ?

66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain what it is you want done? RGloucester — ☎ 02:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Given word is in the article, and is not spelled correctly. Fixed. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

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

this article is ukraine-nato pov why id the russia demomized der us troops is in ukraine mariupol, see this nato troops use ukraines as prox and this article paint picture of nato as a saitn!? whys? if der ukraien is to be represented rerpesent it as what it isl nato coup led by us troops who say out of my face when they want that is what obama says out of my face putin out of my face putin, vut but putin will not out of face wehen uou send troops to corrupt brother slavs in der ukraine there is this article must be pov attach pov atag because no russia sources are here this nato crap 138.16.106.238 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is "there" does not mean that you have to react. If in your haste to do something just to do something then maybe leave it be for the one that has some imagination. Start with using the word "miltiary" within the context of a change order? Is that a good start? Hope it is not too complex.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

complex what you talk it is all to get rid of this nato pov troops they mariupol is evidence no evidence of russia hwere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.106.238 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, haste makes waste. Your haste and what to expect? Waste.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Request not made in a clear X to Y format, seems to just be generalized, and rather hard to understand, bellyaching and espousing of personal views. No WP:RS were provided either. Cannolis (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, haste makes waste. Your haste and what to expect? Waste. Volunteer Marek ? Your inability to comprehend is not a justifiable reason to thwart the actions of others. To challenge to your perceived idea of "person-in-charge" (WP is a volunteer activity, but just to remind you that there is more to this than YOU. YOU may not be the solution? YOU may not be the person to get it down? Maybe, YOU should, "Let it go! Let it go! ........"66.74.176.59 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia as Belligerent, consensus needed.

From previous discussions I discovered that Russia is involved by benefit of the doubt. Why allow doubt if you could simply state that Russia is incriminated and by whom? This is similar to the Neutral Point of View the BBC employs in their reports about the situation. Instead of claiming that Russia did this or that, they always add "according to NATO/Ukraine". It's correct and it's professional. And that counts double for an encyclopedia which, unlike newspapers, is expected to be unbiased.Elite Peasant (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

More precisely we'd have to add "according to reliable sources" everywhere (which, given our policies, would be redundant). NATO and Ukraine aren't the only ones who say this. Pretty much everyone who's not living in complete denial or shilling for Putin says it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Because this encyclopedia is only 10 yrs old, and nobody imagined back than, that all representatives of a big country would keep lying all day about beeing at war. So we have no rules for this case. Alexpl (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica was never intended to be unbiased but a display of what was British and thus what had viability and credibility. Some of the people without an opinion on the subject are those that either through avoidance do not get involved by chance or purpose.66.74.176.59 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The preponderance of reliable sources is enough that it should be acceptable to use Misplaced Pages's voice in describing the involvement of Russian citizens and military hardware. Since there is non-fringe disagreement about the extent to which the Russian government is responsible, those claims should be precisely attributed. I suggest to anyone intending to clean up attributions that it would be least disruptive to do them one at a time. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So the basis on which something is considered reliable here is not based on an objective standard. For example, academic consensus. It is based on personal opinion and that's unacceptable. Conflicts in the 21st century are not just waged on the battlefield but information is targetted as well. Misplaced Pages can not take siddes in this or wikipedia fails its own standards. Someone even had the nerve to call the other side shills, what is this, 4chan? And why are people like Igor Girkin assigned a Russian flag? The flag symbolizes the side a person fight for. Is this article just accepting that Igor Girkin is an agent of the Russian government? Elite Peasant (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the objective standard is WP:RS. No, it's not based on personal opinion. And on a topic such as this, it's a bit silly to talk of "academic consensus".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe this article can truly claim to be following WP:RS. It clearly uses sources with either a bad reputation or a biased stance (for example RFERL or Kiev Post). Second, and this is just my personal opinion, I believe the circumstances have made WP:RS not up to the task. Media has become part of the conflict and only a few sources have managed to largely retain their reliability, for example the BBC. They remain reliable because they do not accept anything as fact based on arguments from authority. There is no reason wikipedia should be unable to achieve the same.Elite Peasant (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you want. Neither RFERL nor Kiev Post have a "bad reputation". You pulled that out of thin air. If you wish you can bring this up at WP:RSN. You can also make proposals to the policy itself at WP:RS. Let me do you a favor, save you time and effort, and tell you right now that there is no chance this will work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if they don't lie (but then even RT doesn't really lie), they are heavily biased which reflects itself in this wikipedia article. We make the choice to propose the viewpoint of one faction as factual, which is given the existing disagreement unwarranted.Elite Peasant (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The parliament of Ukraine adopted a resolution on 27 January 2015 where it recognizes the Russian Federation as an aggressor state. Only annexation of Crimea is nothing less as a direct form of aggression, not to mention the rest of crimes conducted by the Kremlin administration. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nato troops

American Advisors.

There is indeed American Advisors in Ukraine
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/22/pentagon-team-dispatched-to-ukraine-amid-crisis-wi/?page=all
. I dont know why such a Reactionary conduct being displayed by the curious fascist-edit made to the User Above. There are indeed NATO weaponry being used in Ukraine. Wikipedians should really avoid being Biased, despite the man above posted a POV. The reaction sound more like Censorship to me. Really sad. Maybe in a Future NATO troops could intervere and subsecuently this could be added to the Infobox, why all this fear?. Its there a finth column in the 💕??. Some sources for the Infobox regarding losses.
http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_ukraine_opinion_media_watch/2014/11/04/02-06-53pm/kiev_wildly_understating_combat
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/ukrainian-army-death-1/
200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem very well may be the knee jerk reaction that can be present with the editing style of some contributors or are blinded just as through all this discussion there exists a Ukrainian "miltiary". Haste makes waste.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the Budapest Memorandum, signatories of the document are obligated to provide any form of assistance to Ukraine in case of aggression including the Russian aggression. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we update this a bit?

The most recent info is from like a month ago after allLilahdog568 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The newest information is from 31 January...not a month ago. In the intervening period, nitty-gritty goings-on at Debaltseve are documented at Battle of Debaltseve. This article is a summary of the most important events. Look to sub-articles for depth. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015

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

First sentence of the 2nd paragraph: Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government.

Here are two statements intertwined, which is not good itself. 1. "Humanitarian convoy" should not be in quotation marks. Did the russians really send a humanitarian convoy or not? Sources? Basically, bracketing the "humanitarian convoy" in quotation marks is just a FUD, a demagogism. 2. What facts support the statement that Russian artillery and personnel crossed the border? Sources? 37.192.230.67 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources are right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Nothing to do. Sources are there. Quotation marks are there because it is a quotation. -- Sam 10:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Belligerents in infobox

Someone denoted that the Unites States and the European Union are one of belligerents in the conflict. What is it based on?? In such manner another might state that the United Nations or the Council of Europe are also one of the belligerents. The article omits the fact that the conflict rotates around the Budapest Memorandum, according to which all its signatories are required and obligated unconditionally to respect sovereignty of Ukraine and help it in case of aggression. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft dodging and abuse of freedom of press by Ukrainian government according to Amnesty International

According to Amnesty International Ukrainian government arrested a journalist for expressing his views and urged to release him. AI also mentions an epidemic of draft dodging-which I have seen covered in other mainstream new sources.This seems notable and should be covered in some way in the main article, and associated ones regarding freedom of Press in Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the more relevant portion of that source is "the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."

Or how about these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others."Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the more relevant portion of that source. As you are well aware Misplaced Pages is not based on personal opinions, and Amnesty International made main point the abuse of journalistic freedom by Ukrainian government and mass draft dodging(it was covered by even pro-Ukrainian Gazeta Wyborcza recentely). Feel free to start debate on issues you consider important elsewhere(for the record, the video is publicly available and at the end you see these two soldiers bandaged by rebels and escorted to safety, which is probably why AI didn't focus on that too much).

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What personal opinions are you talking about? Those are quotes from the source - a source which you brought up. Are you saying that "unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" for the rebels is not relevant to the War in Donbass and should be discussed "elsewhere"? That's a pretty strange argument. Oh wait, the personal opinion you are referring to must be that little bit of original research in your last sentence where you see it fit to evaluate a primary source - a video - yourself, rather than rely on reliable secondary sources (which, again, you're the one who brought it up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Those are quotes from the source", yes the source in question(Amnesty International) raising the subject of draft dodging by Ukrainian civilians and abuses against journalistic freedom by Ukrainian authorities.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And you keep forgetting these quotes, from the same source: "the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."

Or how about these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others." Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the subject raised by Amnesty International, which is draft dodging and abuse of freedom of journalistic press by Ukrainian government.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So what? It's relevant to this article, isn't it? You can't cherry pick sources for just the parts that agree with your POV and ignore the parts that contradict it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article speaks clearly about abuse of journalistic freedom by Ukrainian authorities and draft dodging.Imprisoning journalist for his declarations is a serious issue, which has been raised by renown international organization like Amnesty International and is relevant to the conflict humanitarian aspect.As with other issues it needs to be covered.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That info is not really relevant to this article which is about the War in Donbass. However, the following quotations from the same source, are relevant:

"the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."

And these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others."

Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stuff about journalistic freedom does not belong here. It belongs at Freedom of the press in Ukraine. It is tangential, at best, to the subject matter here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"That info is not really relevant to this article" I disagree.This is directly relevant to the war, and the violation of journalistic freedom resulting in imprisonment of a journalist unwilling to get conscripted as has been noted by one of the largest organizations devoted to the issue of civil freedoms. As such I believe it should be covered.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, Ruslan Kotsaba is a FSB operative. I suggest you to check his so-called "journalist work". The Security Service of Ukraine should have locked him up during the Euromaidan events as one of major crowd instigators. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, please, consider that mobilization in Ukraine is mandatory (meaning, not optional) and whoever does not have real reasons to avoid it, according to law of Ukraine is subjected to criminal proceedings without exclusions. I suggest you to familiarize yourself with Ukrainian legislation before following with news. Just because some director of whatever international organization express his or her opinion has no weight in regards to dictate on how the Law of Ukraine is to be carried out. On February 5, 2015 former deputy chairman of Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Koshulynskyi was called to serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine where he currently trains to go to frontlines. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The law on mobilization was grandfathered from the Soviet legislation and could be considered to be updated, but it is certainly not discriminatory towards that particular journalist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently in the news there was a lot of "fuss" about issues of mobilization in Ukraine, while pro-Russian separatists are successfully conducting "volunteered mobilization" in the East Ukraine. "Volunteered mobilization" is an oxymoron and could not really be dictated by government, which only shows what the government of so-called Donetsk People's Republic is all about. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New Map needed

We need a new map for the infobox, are there any free use maps out there that are updated? According to the timeline there has been territory gains and losses and we should reflect that rather than showing an outdated 6 month old map. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "six month old map". No changes took place between 31 August and late January 2015, when Ukrainian forces lost the airport battle. That was because of the Minsk Protocol. I agree that a new map would be nice, but we haven't got one. No one is working on one, and there really aren't many sources available at this moment. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not true though, look at the timeline and what is going on around Debaltseve. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you read? I said between 31 August and late January. We're in February now. Now, there are territorial changes (see Battle of Debaltseve, an article I created). There were none for many months. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The map used on this article spans between June and August, 2014 since then reliable sources have reported small gains and losses so no things are not the same (As much as we wish them to be). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, CAN YOU READ???????? Yes, things are NO LONGER the same. They were the same for many months, between August and late January. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Calm down please, you are not understanding I am saying that no they were not he same for many months and we need a new map to reflect these changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The boundaries did not change during the period from early September 2014, when the Protocol was signed, until January, when Ukrainian forces lost Donetsk airport and insurgents pushed the offensive. This is common knowledge. Again, CAN YOU READ??? I'd love to have an updated map, that would show the changes that have happened since late January. We do not have one. RGloucester — ☎ 01:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

BBC has maps that we can use as models to make our own we would have to modify it so it does not violate copyright but it can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said no one is doing it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The percentage of Russian paramilitaries ?

The intro of the article says that "Russian paramilitaries are reported to make up from 15% to 80% of the combatants". These estimates are pretty far from another and I wonder if someone should check the references.--Ezzex (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Chetniks in Ukraine

Why have I been reverted three times when it comes to this fact? How can you revert someone for adding information that is true? Three times. Unbelievable, it's as if this is the new Uncyclopedia.

Here are the sources: The only way that this is false is if these people are not people, but magic space lizards that are not real, like RGloucester , NeilN and Knowledgekid87 seem to believe. And if that's the case then, you better cite your sources. --Ritsaiph (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No one said anything was false. I said that it was WP:UNDUE weight to put a small group of a couple dozen people in the infobox, which is what we determined ages ago. We created a section in the prose to mention the Chetniks and other such groups: War in Donbass#Others. It does not belong in the infobox (outside of the collapsible list, where it is present). RGloucester — ☎ 03:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no input on the matter but if you go about accusing other editors of having a pro Russian agenda your argument is not going to go far, please keep an open mind and assume good faith here (WP:AGF). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ritsaiph: And you are clearly not reverting vandalism so that won't fly. --NeilN 03:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References used

1. "VICE News Capsule - Monday, March 10". March 2014. Retrieved February 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. "Ukraine Crisis: Serb Chetniks Claim Killings of 23 Ukrainian Soldiers". August 2014. Retrieved February 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. "Serbian mercenaries fighting in eastern Ukraine". 2014. Retrieved February 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class European history articles
• Mid-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• Top-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles