Misplaced Pages

Talk:War in Donbas: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:32, 27 August 2014 editMondolkiri1 (talk | contribs)1,968 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:43, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,214 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 12) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long}} {{Gs/talk notice|topic=rusukr}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long|consensus-required=yes}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{UKROM}} {{UKROM}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{British English}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|European=y|Russian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{controversy}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}}
{{calm talk}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y||Russian=y}} {{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject 2010s|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=B
|B-Class-1=yes
|B-Class-2=yes
|B-Class-3=yes
|B-Class-4=yes
|B-Class-5=yes
|importance=top}}
}} }}
{{section sizes}}
{{afd-merged-from|International Coalition in support of Ukraine|International Coalition in support of Ukraine|11 February 2018}}
{{Copied
|from1 = War in Donbass
|from_oldid1 = 981093580
|to1 = Frozen conflict
|to_diff1 = prev
|to_oldid1 = 984749482}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(10d) |algo=old(90d)
| archive = Talk:War in Donbass/Archive %(counter)d |archive=Talk:War in Donbas/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2 |counter=12
| maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize=200K
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader={{talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive=1
| minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft=4
}}
{{Old moves
| list =
* RM, War in Donbas → War in Donbas (2014–2022), '''Moved''', 5 June 2022, ]
* RM, War in Donbas (2014–2022) → War in Donbas, '''Moved''', 17 October 2023, ]
}} }}


== The map is getting seriously outdated ==

Here is a map from Ukranian sources that shows a very different picture of the situation. I know not like to edit the map, but I leave you the link.
http://burkonews.info/terrorist-war-russian-federation-ukraine-eastern-front-summary-august-22-2014/

== Ukrainian-Russian war? ==

Are there enough sources referring to this for what it is, as a Ukrainian-Russian war? OSW ran a piece recently being blunt about it. . Many other sources refer to it as "war between Ukraine and Russian-backed militants" or a "hybrid" or "proxy" war between the two countries. --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
::That's mentioned in the "labelling of the conflict" section. However, it is not suitable for the lead section, as it is PoV and in heavy dispute. ] — ] 15:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
:Disagree. This war is between the pro Russia camp and the pro EU AKA Euro Maidan camp. It is not between Russia and Ukraine. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Oppose. Biased pro-ukrainian sources close for war propaganda. ] (]) 18:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

: Strongly oppose. I see only western or pro-ukraine sources claiming it is a Ukrainian-Russian war. With no undisputable evidence of Russian boots on the ground, I don't see how this could be classified as such. ] (]) 20:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR
:: There is plenty of evidence that Russian boots are on the ground and Grads firing over the border. It's indisputable at this point. --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 20:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The CNN source shows pictures of Russian troops that allegedly are in the Donbass region, but it also states that it can't idependently verify the photographs. So, before there is any confirmation of movements with that sort of dimension, I'm opposed to either renaming the article or changing the description of the Russian role in the conflict.] (]) 21:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
:Such a title (or ] speculation) is not only ], but quite simply ]. Did the Russian Federation enter into a war with Ukraine while I was sleeping? What on earth does anyone imagine a "Ukrainian-Russian war" means? As pointed out by RGloucester, that's fine for the labelling, but blatantly silly for an encyclopaedic article. For further elucidation, see ]. --] (]) 23:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
::Indeed. On a side note, since we're talking about the title (glad to see that editors have come around to calling this a war), "War in Donbass" is not entirely satisfactory, since according to WP, Donbass includes the Rostov region of the Russian Federation. I don't know if this point has been raised before; I'm just mentioning it for the record. I think an implication of your comment is that this is a ''civil'' war, so I personally think that something like "Post-Soviet Ukrainian civil war" would be a better title, but I guess that that's just me. – ] (]) 05:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

* Tim Montgomerie lead writer from The Times of London: ''"In other news: Ukraine and Russia appear to be at war"'' Still undue and fringe? --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 16:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::The proper name "Ukrainian-Russian War" is still not supported by sources, and would be the wrong formation anyway. The correct one would be Russo-Ukrainian War. Regardless, whether Ukraine and Russia are at war is a separate matter from whether "Russo-Ukrainian War" is used by sources to describe the conflict. ] — ] 16:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::: so if it's used by sources it's not "undie fringe complete bollocks", correct? And if used, why is it not shown as an alt in the intro section along with the other variants? --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::::If that name was used by reliable sources, then yes, it would be. But it isn't. Even if people discuss Russia and Ukraine being at war, it has not yet been commonly called the "Russo-Ukrainian War" or variants of that. ] — ] 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::War in Eastern Ukraine is sufficient. To those arguing with Black Future, there is no question that Russia is, at the least, facilitating and, at the most, directing the rebel factions. As has been reported ad nauseam in major papers, the rebel leadership was for a very long time comprised of Russian citizens and the rebel factions continue to use Russian supplied weapons. Black Future is not wrong to bring up this question. However, the name change is not appropriate at this point. Russia is not engaging in an OPEN war and their actions are only SEMI-direct at this point. Their actions are under the cover of official statements of innocence -- although the news media and the majority of the world have called them out on these claims. A name change would imply direct and open engagement, which has, at this point, not materialized. But given Russia's involvement, at some point down the line, a name change might make sense. Now, in response to Iryna Harpy, BlackFuture's proposed change may violate WP:UNDUE but only slightly. His proposal is IN NO WAY violates WP:FRINGE. It's also about a million miles away from "complete bollocks". Your comments, Iryna, are disingenuous and seem to reflect your own personal views. ] (]) 13:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Since my last comment, it seems that the situation in Ukraine has started to change with respect to the extent and nature of Russian involvement. I still don't favor a name change at this point (after all, no one else is calling this the Russo-Ukrainian War), but this goes to the legitimacy of the prior proposal of a name change. It was a reasonable thing to bring up and was rightfully rejected. But calling it WP:FRINGE or complete bollocks was and continues to be ludicrous... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/world/europe/russia-moves-artillery-units-into-ukraine-nato-says.html "The Russian military has moved artillery units manned by Russian personnel inside Ukrainian territory in recent days and is using them to fire at Ukrainian forces, NATO officials said on Friday." "...this is the first time it has said it had evidence of the direct involvement of the Russian military." ] (]) 18:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Many, if not most of the combatants are still Ukrainians, as well as their leaders. The war has still been restricted to Ukrainian territory. And noone is calling it yet a Russian-Ukrainian War or vice-versa. So, War in Donbass continues to be the most adequate title for the article, for now.] (]) 23:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
: '''Strongly agree''' that a new lemma ], ] or ] should be created. The conflict may started as conflicted between Ukraine and Russian-backed militants. But with the Ukrainian bordercities/villages of ], ], ], ], ], ], ... attacked by the ], with no link with the militant held territory and mounting evidence of Russian involvement within the rebel held territory this is undeniable not an internal Ukrainian War anymore. A new article should list the escalating incursions and the attacks from inside the Russian Federation into Ukraine. How else could we call the fact of one country sending tanks, and grads missiles into an other country to occupy villages and towns?? These are a clear acts of war. Acknowledging this isn't an opinion but simple fact. Calling them any different is just Russian propaganda and a clear cover-up attempt. --] (]) 14:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

==Spanish volunteers==

There are some Spanish people in Vostok Battailon. --] (]) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
:Spanish volunteers? Wouldn't they be Ukrainian or Russian migrants in Spain? (since there are sizeable communities from these 2 countries in Spain). I ignore what would be the interest of Spanish people going to fight on the behalf of the insurgents, but if you have any source, mention it, please!] (]) 17:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)::
:: They are Spanish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0K3-KEqyIY&list=UUdnB82ob_V7EXwwcCtB1vUg
:::Well, they look Spanish, they have a Spanish accent or very similar. It might be mentioned, though youtube videos alone are generally not considered as sources.] (]) 17:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
::::3 Spanish left wing guys (those are the ones I see in the video and the photo of the source that was edited) are enough for Spanish volunteers to be included? I only can see 3! I wouldn't be surprised if they were Basque or Catalonian separatists willing to help their fellow separatists in Ukraine... But they don't seem to be so. Though, we have to take into account that Spain is now one of the 3 most Eurosceptic countries in the EU (along with Britain and Greece), and a large percentage has voted for very left wing parties in the last European Election... That might be a possible motivation.] (]) 20:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::This comment about Basque or Catalonian people is out of place. The ways for the independence in these countries are more in line with the way of Scotland. These Spanish guys are from Asturias. ] — ] 10:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Certainly doesn't belong in the infobox. ] — ] 20:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|RGloucester}}Sure, I agree and I'll correct that if it wasn't corrected yet. 3 Spanish guys certainly don't belong in the infobox.--](]) 21:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

According to what I've read, those Spanish volunteers are there with the reported motivation of returning favors from the Russian (Soviet by that time) ] fighting against Franco during the ], between 1936 and 1939, on the behalf of the ]. Many Spanish refugees were accepted in the UK, Soviet Union, Mexico and probably in other countries as well, but many of the refugees that fled to Russia or their descendants returned to Spain, when the economic crisis in Russia during the 90s hit them harshly. These could possibly be some of the descendants of those refugees from the Spanish Civil War.] (]) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

SERBIAN VOLUNTEERS:

there is no confirmed report or information of any Serbian volunteers fighting for Ukrainian side. Statement from Serbian prime minister is not based on any intelligence data or confirmation. It's simply a political statement with purpose to reduce any kind of potential pressure on Serbia because of volunteers who are making it to Ukraine to support separatists. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Your observations may be correct, but you have written them on a discussion about Spanish (not Serbian) volunteers. Could you write it somewhere else, please?] (]) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would if i knew how to create a new talk subject. Anyway i do not know what happened with my revision. However, the statement that Serbian PM made was not confirmed even by Serbian intelligence or anybody else in the world for that matter, nor was a single individual identified fighting as volunteer on Ukrainian side. Hence, his statement is nothing but a missinformation for political and diplomatic purposes, intended to reduce pressure on his government for it's neglect of that subject, the subject of mercenaries and volunteers being allowed to go and fight on foreign soil. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Casualties of separatists ==
650 killed separatists is too low.
I guess it should be few thousands right now.
Anyway the government even doesn't give exact numbers because it cannot count them.
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Pro Russia folks do not keep track of casualty. Pro EU folks only report how many of their folks were confirmed killed, that is, bodies recovered and identified or died of wounds. Missing soldiers are likely more than confirmed killed soldiers. ] — ] 22:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but government and pro-government sources often give information about killed rebels. According to them there are several thousands of them. Maybe we should write about it? Something like "Several thousand killed" (according to the government) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Not a good idea. Unless you want to put it under "Government Propaganda". I remember myself reports of about 20.000+ "dead" insurgents ... only quickly thinking of official reports I can recollect. Information war.] (]) 03:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The highly suspect separatist claims of almost 8,000 dead and wounded plus 3,500 missing are under casualty's,either they should be removed or the governments claims should be added for sake of balance. ] (]) 22:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:Government claims should probably be added, if available. Can you find a source of a senior official making a claim about the number of dead insurgents? As for the "3,500 missing" claims, that is ''not'' a separatist claim and is wrongly labeled as such in the infobox. It is actually a claim from Russian state media, allegedly from a senior Ukrainian official. ] (]) 05:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You can look sources in the Ukrainian wiki. It gives number 3000+ killed rebels and sources <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
It seems a plausible number given the rebels supposedly claimed 1,000 dead before the last ceasefire and the fighting has been much heavier since. http://www.interpretermag.com/pro-russian-separatists-say-their-fighters-death-toll-has-reached-1000/
Can I just cite the Ukranina wiki or should I cite each of the articles on the Ukranina wiki? Also in Ukranian (or Russian, im not sure). ] (]) 20:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Separatits have been boosting their casualties before the truce in order to pressure Russia to intervene, portraying situation as more dramatic. Now that Russian intervention seems more unlikely, they've stopped doing that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== A good graphical breakdown of Ukrainian casualties through August 10 ==

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/victims-of-war-infographic-360259.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Wouldn't say so. This, like many other articles cited, are very biased. They even state that this is "russias war against Ukraine".

::In general the massive citing of the Ukrainian yellow press needs to stop. This article and the timeline are turning into Ukrainian propaganda. ] (]) 13:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

::: Calling yellow press some media seems, at least, an attempt to introduce bias. If you think a source is not reliable/neutral, open a section and expose your reasons and proofs. ] (]) 09:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

== Cossack paramilitary info off target ==

I've removed the link to a spurious recent article entitled "]" from the section subtitled "Cossacks". In the first instance, the use of "cossack" in the reports is predominantly about extremist neo-cons who self-identify as being "cossacks". This makes them about as much cossacks as someone donning a 10 gallon hat and calling themselves a "cowboy". Very few of the population in the ethnic groups known as cossacks have anything to do with the modern-day registered troops. Again, saying that "]" (the traditional ethnic group) and other "cossacks" is the equivalent of stating that the Cherokee and other tribes are on the warpath again. This isn't WWI, and Putin isn't the Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. Presenting individual participants who've been identified as being Don Cossacks and neo-Cossacks as being "Cossacks" is ethnically offensive, misleading ]. The sources don't present their presence in this manner, or merely observe that in interviewing someone he's identified as being a "cossack"... therefore, I suggest that Misplaced Pages does the same. --] (]) 00:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::I confess, I don't know much about the present state of the Cossacks in Russia, only about their history. What exactly makes a "Cossack" a "Cossack" in modern Russia? Is historical usage different from present usage? If an article says that "Don Cossacks" flying the "Don Cossack flag" are doing x, does it not mean "ethnic Don Cossacks", but merely "volunteer members of a troop commissioned by the government"? ] — ] 01:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Essentially, Cossacks ceased to be a genuine military power during the early formation of the Soviet Union (see ] just as a brief outline). The ethnic groups live in reserves and their economy is based on tourism and entertainment (choirs, dancing groups, old-time martial arts displays such as 'trick' horseback riding, etc.). Essentially, they are remnants of the existence their old hosts. Even the fact that Don Cossacks claim allegiance to Russia, while many Kuban Cossacks see their allegiance to lie with Ukraine and wouldn't settle on a truce between themselves is purely tokenism. Certainly, many are still trained in old-school guerilla warfare and go on military parade in their ''traditional'' military uniforms, but they are not the modern registered "cossacks" seen at Sochi, for example. The modern troops are namesakes. Of course there are die-hard militants amongst them who are making a show of flying the Don Cossack flag and collecting like-minded fanatics (i.e., wannabe cossacks) under the banner and fighting for "Mother Russia". So far, only a few have actually been identified as being from the Don Cossack ethnic group. Sorry, but any moron can fly a flag and self-identify as representatives of a glorified hark back to the past. Having checked sources in Russian, Ukrainian, the BBC report and others, only a handful of individuals have been identified. The rest of these ordinary extremists have called themselves 'Terek Wolves Sotnia' (another hark back which certainly does not identify them as being ethnic cossacks in anyone's minds but their own). Hope this helps to clarify a little. --] (]) 04:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the background. To be frank, though, I don't know how to resolve this situation. Do you have any suggestions? Regardless, I'll wait for others to comment. ] — ] 05:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Per the German version of the , {{tq|"The Cossack organizations see themselves as successors of the former Russian Cossacks of Tsarist Russia with the President of the Russian Federation as their new commander in the rank of a Cossack-General."}} I haven't read the Russian article properly as yet, but it also has links to the wrong Cossack organisations (that is, the genuine ethnic groups with news about their latest concert tours, ad infinitum). As far as I'm aware, they don't have the right to use the flags of the hosts they're named after (i.e., the flags belong to the genuine descendants). It's a tricky one as, by referencing the current registered units (such as with the flight 17 audio) and the Don Cossack flag in the infobox, we're conflating completely different realities. --] (]) 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:We could say "Registered Don Cossacks", but I'm not sure that would alleviate your concern. ] — ] 14:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
::Quite the antithesis: Registered Don Cossacks are the modern namesakes. There is no direct evidence of the Registered Don Cossack presence, just suspicions of their presence. They could quite easily be wandering around in their cool camouflage civies looking like all of the other neo-cons who like dressing up as serious paramilitaries and taking 'selfies' brandishing all of their equally cool weaponry while pulling "I'm a hard man" faces which have been lifted from their facebook page. That's speculative as it is denied by the RF. The use of the historical Don Cossack flag is, however, extremely confusing for anyone who doesn't know the difference (which appears to be most of the world). As already noted, the use of the flag along with a few identified individuals is unjustifiable. The majority of the Don Cossack ethnic group are staying at home and have no interest in involving themselves, much less dying for, some "Russian" cause. I can find a few quotes from high ranking members of the community expressing exactly this. The members of the ethnic group there are essentially mavericks and, as such, are not representative of the peoples they belong to. --] (]) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::In other words, the "Don Cossacks" should be removed from the infobox. I believe that the section of "Cossacks" below can be expanded to explain what you mean, but I think it is best that you handle that, if you can. ] — ] 01:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
::::As no one else seems to be engaged on this matter, I'll start by removing the Don Cossacks and flag from the infobox referring interested parties to the talk page. The Cossack section doesn't need much tweaking, but I'll leave that for now as I'm off on a vigil again. --] (]) 03:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od|:::::}}Final note on the subject of Cossacks: after carefully checking over numerous articles regarding any legitimate information as to a Cossack presence, I discovered that the two identified 'leaders' who have joined as independents are Kuban Cossacks, not Don Cossacks. Further to that, they're simply using the Terek Wolves allusion in a ] manner: i.e., claiming that the renegade group continued to exist after their leader (a Kuban Cossack) was executed for war crimes based on high level Nazi collaboration. These 2 identified Cossacks are known for their involvement in the Terek Cossack community. What we have here is a mish-mash of presentation as 'Cossacks'; boasts about being able to just cross the border easily with Cossack passports; non-Slavic journalists trying to explain what is going on while they, themselves, report that they don't actually understand what Cossacks are, and are probably more confused than they were; etc. The majority of 'reports' contradict each other, are mirrors of other blogs, and are confusing issues by essentially mythologising the heroic image of the "Russian" Cossack-warrior. Honestly, it all reads like a Ripping Yarn plot for a video game. --] (]) 04:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

== Reliability of Russian media ==

I would suggest that Russia-based media are highly suspect in general, and even more so in this article. Is there a consensus on such matters? I ask because of the reference to http://rumedia.biz/item/3037. ] (]) 21:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
:There used to be several other sources - there were two articles with quotes from other insurgent leaders, claiming that the number of Russians was around 10% rather than 15%. They were removed some time ago, leaving only this one source; I'm not sure who did it or why. Note also that one of the sources for the "up to 80%" number that the "low estimate" is 20% - not far from that 15% number. ] (]) 05:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:: We have Ukrainian press calling the rebels "terrorists" and Russia an "invader" being cited all the time.
:: If Ukrainian anti-Russian media is considered reliable, then so is Russian media such as RT. ] (]) 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR
:::I would like to suggest to put both Russian and Ukrainian media sources under intense scrutiny. One source should not be sufficient. There should be multiple sources and, above all, both sides must confirm the alleged event, preferably included with references to sources of foreign reporting of the same event. This is to ensure that this article does not become subject to propaganda of any sort by any side. Misplaced Pages has set itself the goal to be unbiased and factual. Citations of sources about alleged events that only use one source of which there is no confirmation by 'opponent' media and/or foreign (e.g. not Russian nor Ukrainian) independent media should be discarded but only if no other sources -- which meet the criteria as just laid down -- can be found and added to the citation, in my opinion. ] (]) 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::There was a source with the figure of 10% but, as it was already from 29 April, another user removed that source and I also found it outdated. Then there was another source (more updated, from 16 July) with the figure of 10% () but I think those 10% are only concerning to all the combatants fighting in Horlivka, according to what I've read (and the translation I've got from it).] (]) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, 90% is the Horlivka (only) commander's estimate of the number of locals involved (although it doesn't really define what he considers to be local people, so I'd be concerned that his statement is too generalised for Horlivka unless there's another source to backing it up. Have you managed to find any more recent estimates that might indicate other figures? --] (]) 04:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: And 50% Russian fighters in Horlivka is the estimate of one of the foreign mercenaries. --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 17:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

== Russia: Leading or supporting role in the War in Donbass? ==
Since there is a user that constantly insists that Russia has a leading role in the conflict (in the infobox, at the level of DPR and LPR), rather than a supporting role, I'd like to ask what are the positions of the editors concerning to that issue, at this stage.] (]) 23:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:Supporting ''only'' (and the extent of the support is low level). If this weren't the case, the world's media would have been on it like a rash. Have you seen anything in ] that even suggests anything other than support? The RF isn't about to commit political suicide. --] (]) 00:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Iryna, how can you say the "extent of the support is low" when Russia has supplied the Novorossia side with all of its heavy equipment, majority of its soldiers, and any and all material support it has? To say that its support is low is just sheer ignorance. --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 00:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Sheer ignorance seems to be believing Ukrainian yellow press in their statement that they're at war with Russia, as you seem to do.
:::: So far there's been little to no evidence for what you say, BLACK FUTURE. The Ukrainian army seems to be very good at losing armoured vehicles in working condition. ] (]) 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR
::::: Calling yellow press some media seems, at least, an attempt to introduce bias. If you think a source is not reliable/neutral, open a section and expose your reasons and proofs. ] (]) 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::So far, I agree with that. But Black Future insists that Russia has a leading role in the conflict. I always have to be correcting his/her edits concerning to some issues. You must already be aware of that.] (]) 00:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: The Russian trolls are out and about it seems. --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 01:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Since you wrote that under my paragraph, was that supposed to be directed to me? Well, you could call me any name you'd wish, but I only have one nationality and it's Portuguese.] (]) 05:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::As Lvivske's comment is threaded to line up with 89.215.172.157's comment, I've assumed he's referring to that IP, Mondolkiri1. --] (]) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I've also imagined that, but then he wrote it in the wrong place.] (]) 00:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


* The RF is shelling from their side of the border, that is not "support" that is active military involvement, and today the Guardian & Telegraph both confirmed that 2 dozen Russian APCs and other vehicles, with Russian plates part of an official Russian convoy...crossed into Ukraine. Between artillery strikes and confirmed invasion, how is that "support"? Is this some bizarre white washing of the obvious? --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 00:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:Concerning to blanking the sources, this time I was the one to blame, so I'm sorry Black Future. I mistakenly deleted the source when I thought I was correcting a deletion of a source.] (]) 01:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::Okay, I can see that Mondolkiri1 made a ] error, for which he has apologised.

::{{U|Black Future}}, the issue of sources has been discussed at length at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In this context, Russian news sources are only acceptable for official statements pertaining to the RF's administration. Ukrainian news sources are also to be treated with the same caution. Unless or until information is supported by other ], it is not added, at which point it can be used as supplementary information (so long as the language remains neutral).

::Per ], we don't use these talk pages as a forum or for ]. Remember that this is an encyclopaedic article, ]. Whatever anyone's personal opinion may be, it is not reflected in the content of the article. The RF is denying involvement and there are no reliable sources stating that the RF is directly involved. There is no doubt that there are individuals and groups within Russia who are assisting with arms, moral and financial backing, but no direct link to anything other than the Kremlin pointing fingers at Ukraine as being a rogue state. 2 dozen Russian APCs and other vehicles does not constitute a battalion, nor does prove that they are under direct orders from the Kremlin. There will be further RS reports on the implications (read as no original research), if other conclusions are drawn, soon enough. Please don't try to jump the gun on any conclusions until they can be confirmed. If you are finding it difficult to remain objective about the subject of this article without violating Misplaced Pages policy, it is probably best that you avoid contributing. --] (]) 03:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Iryna, please familiarize yourself with the sources and the media. I'm not talking about Russian or Ukrainian news sources, I'm talking about official government intel and journalists in western media confirming reports. What part of my comment was "speculation"? You seem to be taking the "plausible deniability" Russian line too close to heart. At this point, based on your comment, you are engaging in ] by what "constitutes a battalion" and who was ordering whom - that is your own original, made up story to justify ignoring the sources. --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Russia is a complicated country. There is the Russian Mafia, which, by what I've read, has (or already had) 3 million members, and one of their activities is arms trafficking. Russia itself is often called a mafia state, but the same is also said about Italy, for instance. And the Russian Armed Forces has an active personnel of 766.000 people and 2.035.000 reservists. Until solid proofs, it's quite speculative to point the finger directly to the Kremlin, no matter how tempting it is to do so.] (]) 05:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::::{{U|Black Future}}, I have read the sources you are referring to. This is not evidence calling for the "Supported by" subsection in the infobox to be removed. I was not towing the 'plausible deniability' line, but trying to make you aware of ] (which is a Misplaced Pages ''policy'') and ]. We are guided by the facts being reported. The current fact is that the RF have pushed the UN charters envelope by crossing into the Ukrainian border, but has not turned it into a direct war with Russia at this point. Thank you to RGloucester for modifying this additional information in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. --] (]) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
*Just want to chime in here, Iryna, as . Poroshenko has to Cameron that Ukraine's army engaged the Russians in question. How are you denying this? You guys are really going to sit here and come up with conspiracies about "maybe it was the mafia"? Hundreds of military vehicles in an officially controlled convoy with Russian air force support, and with official Russian military plates, insignia, et al. - cross the border into Ukraine - and you sit here and pretend this isn't happening? Unbelievable. What happened to you? When did you throw objectivity out the window? --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 15:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
::It was not Iryna that talked about the possibility of the involvement of the Russian Mafia, it was me.] (]) 17:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
{{replyto|Lvivske}} In case you haven't noticed, there's 10 hours between my comment about ] and your accusation of my 'pretending this isn't happening' and ] secondary reportage you're now using. Regardless of what appears to be obvious, we still abide by ]. As I told Black Future, {{tq|"... don't try to jump the gun on any conclusions until they can be confirmed."}} Now there are more RS confirming and supporting that this is just short of being an invasion, it can be included. There is no issue of ''pretending'' anything here: it's a cut and dry case of Misplaced Pages policy being clear and taking precedence over personal certainty (commonly referred to as POV). If you can't wait for sources and keep a level head, perhaps you need to take a breather before casting aspersions as to my integrity. I could have a nuclear missile detonate 50 kilometres away from me, observe it and know it to be the truth: I couldn't write an article about it, or add it to an existing article until it was reported, full stop.

P.S. While you and the media are speculating over whether this is going to be another Crimea scenario, there's also a likelihood of its being a genuine delivery of aid. That'd play nicely into looking like the good guys as far as NGO interests go, while making the Ukrainian government look like paranoid, inhumane bastards. The arms running isn't directly connected to the aid convoy. Are we clear on why speculation isn't appropriate? --] (]) 23:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
:::You responded 5 hours after this was brought up on talk and those RS's existed, dismissing major newspapers outright. Now ''you'' are speculating on arms running and the aid convoy purpose, which as far as I can see has nothing to do with this discussion. Maybe you need to take a moment to realize what's the situation is.--''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I see. You're citing articles timestamped 15.08.2014 14:22 and the CNBC article currently showing as having being posted 12 hours ago were available at 05:40, 15 August 2014?!!! Do you know what the main issue was? Are you actually aware of the fact that Black Future had removed the "supported by" Russia to ''include'' Russia with Novorossia as the belligerents on the strength of the info available? Yes, I certainly know what the situation is... it's short of an invasion, but recognised as being an 'incursion'. Now that's per the sources, neutral and with absolutely no added speculation. --] (]) 01:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Iryna, do you even ''know'' what the word "incursion" means? Here, let me for you: "a hostile entrance into or '''invasion''' of a place or territory", " An aggressive entrance into foreign territory; a raid or '''invasion'''." To say that "it's short of an invasion, it's an incursion" is just mind numbing. --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


*It is safe to say that there are plenty of reliable sources that support the idea of Russian involvement in this war. However, at present, there isn't consensus in reliable sources that this is a direct war between Russia and Ukraine. That's why I presume "supported by" is better. Sure, an armoured column entered Donbass, and this isn't the first time that's happened. This is evidence of what is variously called "involvement, interference, incursion". At yet, though, sources outside of Ukraine are simply not saying that this is a war between Russia and Ukraine. There are in a stage of being dazed, still sorting out developments (] might like to chime in). That hesitancy is summed up by recent article. It is clear that more waiting is in order. ] — ] 05:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::That's a very interesting article and I think your approach is correct. Let's keep an eye open on it and see how the situation develops (it's my position, at this stage).] (]) 06:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

{{od|:::}} {{U|Black Future}}, please desist from removing the "supported by" qualifier. Reportage has not changed as to Russian involvement since you tried this via a ] edit, and consensus was against it. This article is subject to sanctions and, by repeating , you are blatantly edit warring. --] (]) 10:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is from today's newsfeed alone:
* Slate: ] for ]:
{{quotation|We all know that these are armies formed and armed by Russian military and intelligence officers Russia is not sponsoring other people’s terrorism; it is waging an illegal war against a neighboring country.}}
* Strobe Talbott, one of America's top Russia experts and Deputy Secretary of State from 1994-2001, presently President of the ]:
{{quotation|They have already invaded Ukraine. '''I find it maddening and incomprehensible how governments and the media keep talking about the possibility, the danger, the threat of Russia invading.'''

Russia invaded Ukraine early in the spring. They started with the so-called "little green men" -- Russian soldiers without insignia on their green uniforms -- then proceeded with uniforms with epaulets and the annexation of Crimea. '''Russia has been the force behind, and on the ground, with the separatists in eastern Ukraine.'''

It is an invasion that is already well in place. It is detrimental to managing the situation to play along with the '''transparent falsehood''' that the Russians are putting out that they have not invaded Ukraine.}}
Talbott is spot on here and really epitomizes the issue that has happened to Misplaced Pages, with deniers hijacking the page and using logical fallacies to override media consensus, government / supranational opinion, and public opinion to push this square peg into the round hole, pushing this fantasy that Russia is merely "supporting" the war and not directly involved in it. Yes, let's pretend the cross-border shelling isn't happening, that the tanks and troops on the ground don't exist, and Russia isn't involved "because Russia says so." This is so absurd it's sickening. Then again, this very issue how badly Misplaced Pages has been hindered has already been . --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
:Russia invaded Ukraine, in Crimea, of course. There have also been incursions of carriers now in the Donbass. Of course it supports the separatists, though it denies it. And many Russian paramilitaries are there, as well as from other nationalities. Well, that's all already in the article. But it also took quite a long time to move this article from "insurgency" to "war", though many were already stating it as a war. It was the Red Cross designation as a war that let the editors to move the article from "insurgency" to "war", not a couple of editorials. One may have this or that opinion about the issue, but the edits of such an importance shall be supported by sources that clearly enough designate it as a war between Ukraine and Russia. There are from time to time incursions between India and Pakistan too, and that doesn't determine that a war has started between India and Pakistan. There has also been a border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, including with shootings, and that hasn't determined that a war was started between Thailand and Cambodia.] (]) 21:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
::Excellent analogies, Modolkiri1. And, yes, {{U|Black Future}}, of course I know what an ''incursion'' is. Readers will also understand what it means. We are bound by Misplaced Pages policy to follow a conservative line (per ] (AKA not journalism), avoiding ] and ]). There are also a multitude of reliable sources attesting to official positions stating that the situation is ''threatening'' to escalate to a war between Russia and Ukraine. Op ed pieces do not override our responsibility to not run ahead with the ball. Selecting sources that support anyone's ] is ]. Most certainly, such bias does belong in the infobox. Changing the players to include the RF as being directly at war with Ukraine is ]. --] (]) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::: I'm sorry Iryna, but if Ukraine says openly they are engaged with Russian troops in a war with Russia, and NATO admits an invasion ("incursion") has already taken place in eastern Ukraine - then that is a war between Ukraine and Russia. Russia can deny it, and that can certainly be included in an article as well. Equally dismissing sources which describe it as such, both official, journalistic with hard evidence, and analytical, because they don't support your POV or bias is just plain bad ''Wikipeding''. To add to the piling evidence, this was in KP today . Citing frivolous policies like "NOTNEWS" and "COATRACK" (or asking for sources and then calling it "cherry picking" when presented, lol!) when they don't apply to the overarching argument here seems to just be some flippant attempt to wikilawyer rather than follow basic editing guidelines. --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 17:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)



More being added via reliable sources:
{{quotation| state security chief Valentyn Nalivaychenko told journalists in Kiev, “We consider this a direct invasion by Russia of Ukraine,”}}
via Washington Post:
{{quotation|The <u>Russian military has moved artillery units manned by Russian personnel inside Ukrainian territory in recent days and is using them to fire at Ukrainian forces</u>, NATO officials said on Friday.

Since mid-August NATO has received <u>multiple reports of the direct involvement of Russian forces</u>, “including Russian airborne, air defense and special operations forces in Eastern Ukraine,” said Oana Lungescu, a spokeswoman for NATO.

“Russian artillery support — both cross-border and from within Ukraine — <u>is being employed against the Ukrainian armed forces</u>,” she added.}}

At what point do we stop pretending this isn't happening? --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 16:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:OK, this situation was already on the verge of becoming a direct war between Ukraine and Russia. I'll use these sources and remove "Supported by".] (]) 17:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Lvivske}} Thank you for the sources. This was the correct approach in order to consider a direct war as started.] (]) 17:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

== Error on the Luhansk Oblast map ==

On the map of the Luhansk Oblast Krasnyi Luch is to the South East of Antratsyt, but in the reality Antratsyt is to the South East of Krasnyi Luch, as is shown on the Google. Precisely I am talking about this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Lugansk_province_location_map.svg ] (]) 19:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|RGloucester}} That's right. Since I guess you created the svg files and I don't understand very much about it, could you correct it, please?--] (]) 14:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::It's not an SVG, it is coordinates. Change the coordinates to the appropriate ones for each town, and it should be fixed. I haven't got time to look them up right now. ] — ] 14:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

== Allegation of Hungary supplying armoured vehicles to Ukraine ==

Lately Russian sources stated that, according to a Hungarian website, Hungary transports armoured vehicles (including T-72 tanks) to Ukraine on rail. Hungary says the claim is false, and the operation is a normal logistic operation to transport vehicles from one military base to another one.

Even if the allegation is likely false, I think this deserves a mention somewhere in the article. One of the sources related to this: --] (]) 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

:To say what? That Hungary is probably not supplying weapons to Ukraine? Let's not forget that Hungary itself has its own old issues with Ukraine over Ruthenia, which was lost in WW1, and the corresponding region of Zakarpattia is still mainly inhabited by Rusyns (Ruthenians) and ethnic Hungarians. I'm less surprised about the existence of that pro-Moscow website in Hungary than I'd be about Hungary supplying weapons to Ukraine, at this stage, but that's my opinion.] (]) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

::In the simplest of terms, it's ]. Misplaced Pages is ]. --] (]) 01:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable-looking sources both talk about a) an allegation which carries a significant importance '''''if''''' it would be true, and b) official refusal of the allegation. The original website making the allegation is probably not reliable and biased, true, but Russian media did use the allegation. I don't think that mentioning the fact that an allegation was made against Hungary (a NATO member suposedly breaking international law with arms export) and that it was officially refuted by the government, in say, two or three sentences would constitute "undue weight" in a complex article several paragraphs long already with minute details, including daily casualty data and minuscule named villages being sieged/occupied on a day or another. I believe that the sole fact that this allegation and its refutation were covered by both reliable-looking Russian and Western sources and the inherent political implications makes it notable to mention it in the article. And by the way, Hungary wouldn't attack Ukraine to gain back territory as a member of NATO and EU. Let's not kid ourselves with this silly idea. --] (]) 22:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

:Judging by your last line, ultimately, you perceive this as being worth mentioning as a piece of parody. There's another article called ]. I doubt that it's particularly valuable, but if you're determined to ] push content into an article where far more pertinent content has been rejected for lack of value in building a cohesive and coherent encyclopaedic article, it might be worth a try there... although I'd also challenge its value in ''that'' article unless there were a section dedicated to 'silly things being said by all interest groups involved'. --] (]) 04:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would feel honored if you would stop linking me WP policy pages assuming I'm dumb and don't know how WP works as a cohesive and coherent "encyclopaedia". I am well aware that this piece of "silly thing said" does not matter much at large, but I see way more minuscule things mentioned in this and the related articles for supposedly being "encyclopaedic" knowledge, such as telling everyone there is a sole Swedish sniper out there just because he felt like going there. Which doesn't really add much content or essence to the article in my opinion. Also, I'd say accusing someone of "pushing POV" implies a somewhat malicious intent or a need to gain something. On the contrary, it's not ''my'' view that it's worth mentioning, and I won't gain anything if it gets mentioned, this "silly" allegation (or was it just an allegation...? who knows) was the ''thing'' here in the media. Here, as in Hungary. I know that in general, this doesn't really look like something important from a Russian or American viewpoint, but we are actually a neighboring country to Ukraine, a country which is developing a war of sorts with Russia, as it seems. And naturally we are one of the two closest NATO members of Ukraine. You sounded like I'm actually want to insert some bias in the article (POV pushing) for one side of the conflict, when in fact, I just mentioned a media happening. And yet, you bombard me with policy links, instead of just saying you think it isn't worth mentioning. Well, as you wish, cheers. --] (]) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

::], I appreciate the fact that you used the talk page first to gauge the response as to whether this is of significance to English Misplaced Pages. I would also be honoured if you didn't make assumptions about where I'm from and whose interests I represent. Evidently, this is of significance to Hungarian Misplaced Pages, but not to this Misplaced Pages. As regards the listings of one person (another has been added based on one American having joined the Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary), it's difficult to keep on top of extraneous information when so many IPs and new editors are contributing. Again, my apologies for being curt previously. I understand that you proposed this information in good faith. Cheers! --] (]) 01:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Why wouldn't it be important enough for the English Misplaced Pages if it's important enough for the Hungarian Misplaced Pages? Doesn't that go against the spirit of ]? ] (]) 01:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to make one thing clear, I did not intend to imply you are siding with any viewpoint, I meant I understood that this allegation isn't really important from the viewpoints of the key actors in this conflict, meaning the separatist, pro-Russian side (i.e. Russian side) and the Western-backed, NATO and EU friendly side (i.e. American side), although this would needed more precise terminology from me, my bad. Good luck with the article. --] (]) 23:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:Iryna Harpy is really very neutral in her edits, actually, and very interested, since (I guess) she's of Ukrainian descent (from Zaporizhia, I think). Me, I'm Portuguese (so, apparently Ukraine would have nothing to do with me), and I started to edit aviation articles. But, since I started to edit in the beginning of 2014, and maybe also because of the large Ukrainian community living in Portugal, the EU issues, so on, this issue actually caught my attention, apart from all the geopolitical issues involved. And also humanitarian, in which I'm quite interested, as well (as I should be).] (]) 01:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

== Horlivka casualties ==

I am not watching this page and not going to edit it, just came across an inconsistensy. The paragraph which starts "During the third day of the..." first says that on 27 July between 20 and 30 civilians were killed in Horlivka, and later on the same paragraph states that by July 29 (in my understanding, this is equivalent to before July 30, which means in also includes July 27), 17 civilians were killed. No opinion on what actually happened, it is just not consistent: 20> 17.--] (]) 17:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Ymblanter}} Thanks for picking up on that. I've checked the sources and have changed it to 'a further 17 were killed'.--] (]) 02:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

==Luhansk refugee convoy attack==

I started a draft on this, it is a notable subject because as a result DPR rebels have introduced a death penalty and it was condemed by the US, but it needs some work.--] (])

]

== ] and misleading use of 'Foreign volunteers' in infobox ==

Considering that the infobox is ] in terms of clear, common sense usage, I'm proposing to remove the 'Foreign volunteers' sections appended to both sides of the 'Units involved' section.

Every single volunteer from any country outside of the main nationalities of combatants does not need to be accounted for. There are literally thousands of combatants, yet these lists are comprised of the identification of one American national, two Spanish nationals, a Swede, etc. While that is fine for the body of the article (i.e., the Azov battalion incorporates most for the Ukrainian government already), it is ] for the infobox... in fact, it's downright disproportionate and misleading.

If anyone has any reasonable objections to the removal of this sub-subsection, please discuss it here ASAP as I'm about to go ] and remove them. If the sourced information is considered valuable in the body of the article, please consider using it in the relevant section of the article when it's removed from the infobox. --] (]) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

:Maybe this is something that should be quantified. While I agree that, for example, Swedish or Canadian may not be due weight given that there are only 1 of each fighting, it is relevant for larger units like the Serbians (a few dozen at least), Chechens, Russians, etc. Maybe this can be handled with regard to notability? --'''''BLACK FUTURE''''' <small>(])</small> 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
::I've now deleted "Spanish" from the separatists side and "American" from the Ukrainian side, because the sources I've consulted (also in Spanish) display no more than 2 Spanish volunteers and 1 American volunteer. I guess it takes more than that, no? But it would be interesting to know how many, nevertheless.] (]) 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The sources stated the American actually had the ukrainian nationality, although he was born in the USA. I don't know if he had it due to his parents being ucrainian or acquired by other means, though. ] (]) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I'd agree that notability should be the guideline. There are WP:RS sources attesting to an (note the singular) Italian extremist and others joining the Azov battalion, and I'm sure that there are RS reports of individual extremists from countries not currently mentioned on the pro-Russian side. Having each and every instance depicted as if they were representatives of that country is misleading. It really needs to be proscribed to a significant presence only for the purposes of the infobox. --] (]) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

== Missing soldiers, information from government ==

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/08/19/7035256/
12 policemen and 65 military and border guards <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Messy Battle box. ==

There is a source of over 1,000 insurgents dead, but the source states that those are Goverment Claims and that numbers only include dead by air attacks. Another point kyievpost report a Goverment Official showing 1,000 Ukranian Service men captured by separatist.] (]) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
:Obviously the first source is not true. A single airstrike carried out by a puny couple of planes at the most cannot possibly cause 1,000 KIA. As for the second source, 1,000 is the low estimate, and the spokesman clearly said that the actual number is likely much greater than 1,000.] — ] 19:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
::"By air attacks" does not mean a single attack. Helicopter sorties are also air attacks, not only the puny couples of planes. ] (]) 21:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

== Shelled military convoy ==

The German news website Spiegel-Online published a good article about what happened – or didn't happen – at this incident: (If hysteria becomes a loose cannon). A short summarize:
* The convoy existed and was reported by but convoys like cross the border nearly daily.
* The alledged shelling happened in the morning but was not disclosed until evening.
* No evidendence of the alledgedly destroyed convoy were published by the Ukrainian government or independent journalists.
* Ukrainian news-agency has no reports about the incident
All this is not reflected in the article. --] (]) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
:This is called "speculation", and is only found in this one little "exposé". Anyway, nothing in the War in Donbass article at present states that the convoy was certainly destroyed. It merely says that the Ukrainian government said they destroyed, which they did. Speculation and ] have no place in our encyclopaedia. ] — ] 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
:Your insistence on the use of the word "claim" is in violation of the Manual of Style guidelines, and is also stupidity incarnate. Neutrality dictates the use of "said", if someone says something. Do not twist words to imply a lack of credibility on behalf of the speaker. If there is reason to doubt the speaker's statement, merely provide the evidence that said statement was false. Do not, however, use "claimed" to denigrate a speaker in a non-neutral manner. Please read ]. ] — ] 23:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

::I neither speculated nor did any original research, only checked. And it is not only found in this "exposé". Even Shaun Walker who reported the convoy writes: . The aftermath and analysis of this incident ist more interesting than the incident itsself. Strangely it is not mentioned, that Russia strongly denied the incident. The media reported a lot without evidence or verification and one copied the other. BTW: If you talk about "our encyclopedia", who is "we"?<br />
::There is a lack of credibility on behalf of the Ukrainian President. Saying there was a military operation without presenting any evidence, what do you call that? Until now there is absolutely no reason to believe the speaker, that a "substantial destruction" of a Russian convoy really happened. I do not use "claim" in a non-neutral manner. --] (]) 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)<br />
::P.S.: Insults do not replace reasoning
:::"Claim" is inherently non-neutral, except in certain circumstances (see ]). I don't know who "Shaun Walker" is, but he has a horrible name. Regardless, we are ] and have our own Manual of Style. We have a burden to maintain ], which journalists do not. ] about "evidence" is highly inappropriate. We are here to report what happens. If you want to talk about media problems, please go to ]. ] — ] 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Someone, who sneers about the name of a person he does not know, want's to instruct me on "Manual of Style"? And again, whom do you mean with "our/we"? --] (]) 00:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::"Our/we" is in reference to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. "We" also refers to the Wikipedian community. You are engaging in ] editing, EPsi. Familiarise yourself with project before you continue making ]. --] (]) 00:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I asked because sometimes "our/we" is the consequence of overidentification. As long as the article of "The Guardian" is linked as source, background-information is nearby. On my behalf this is settled. --] (]) 01:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I'm pleased that it's settled. For future reference, please try to remember to ]. Thank you. --] (]) 01:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

==Why is Russia listed in the infobox but not the US?==
Tobby72 adding the US as a "supporter" of Ukraine in the infobox, based on several mainstream sources talking about US sending advisers and military gear into Ukraine. RGloucester , saying that this has been discussed tens of times and to "look at the talk page". I've looked, and I don't see much. There were ] ] discussions in early August, and ] in early July. A persistent theme in all three discussions was that they all ended with complaints that thinly disguised editorial bias was behind the decision to include Russia in the infobox as a supporter (despite the official denial by Russia, and a history of debunked claims), while NOT including the US as a supporter (despite the US's official, open announcements about at least a portion of their support - there's likely much more happening behind the scenes, if the past history of US involvement in civil wars is any guide).

I am ''not'' recommending removing Russia from the infobox. When in fog of war, the mainstream views of both sides should be included until the fog clears up.

But I want to ask, why is the US admitting to donating military equipment and advisors (Russia's foreign minister believes them to number ) not enough to put it as a supporter in the infobox? Of course, it's not a no-fly-zone or an invasion, but it doesn't have to be. That's not the established practice in other war infoboxes. See ], ] ("armament support"), ] (where Romania is listed for providing volunteers and ''advisors''), and ] ("combat support", "medical support", "other support").

] (]) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

::I don't know what other articles do, nor do I particularly care, but I do know what the ] say. Infoboxes are a critical summary of key information. They are not endless lists of information. Russia's participation in this war, in whatever form, is well-documented in reliable sources in every respect. Only direct parties to the conflict belong in the infobox. Giving Russia parity with the United States in the infobox is not a conclusion supported by reliable sources, and is clearly an example of ]. A few military advisers and some other forms of non-lethal aid are not equivalent to direct involvement in the conflict. ] — ] 06:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Well, I think it is absolutely "critical" to include the US in the infobox, since the US has played a very important role in this whole affair. If the mainstream Ukrainian view is that this is a direct war against Russia (which is reflected in the current infobox), then the mainstream view of Russian analysts is that this conflict is a proxy war against the US (which is not reflected in the infobox; I see your ] and counter with ]).
:::Moreover, mentioning both the US and Russia in the infobox does not imply that their level of support is identical (just like in the Syrian Civil War infobox, not all of the armed groups listed have the same number of soldiers).
:::I will remind you that the level of Russia's support is not exactly clear, and there are widely divergent views on it. Of the infobox's sources for Russia's participation, the first one listed is an interview with a former American anti-Soviet specialist in which he makes an assertion but gives no proof (not exactly the most neutral source!), while the others talk about the high number of Russian volunteers and leaders (which proves nothing about state involvement, no more than the plethora of Saudi volunteers in the Syrian civil war proves direct Saudi support of ISIS), or disputed evidence (the CIA images released over Twitter, which were immediately disputed by Russian media).
:::In any case, I think that other infoboxes have it right and this one has it wrong. Officially donating military gear to a country during a civil war should be enough to count as "support". ] (]) 06:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

::::Your opinion is noted. It would be ridiculous to include US in the infobox for reasons which are so obvious that I (and probably others) won't waste my time with this.] (]) 08:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Since yesterday it is well-known and well covered by several western media the first death of a US'volunteer.At the section 'Foreign volunteers' USA should be listed , just as it has already been included 'Albania,Azerbaijan etc...No big deal and no reason to hide this and be unbalanced. It is a well-established fact that there was an American volunteer fighting .
:He was a Ukrainian citizen, not an American citizen. In his interview he said he got Ukrainian citizenship before joining Donbas Battalion. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::He was an American citizen as well, I think. But that's beside the point - if I remember right, other editors have already decided not to include a country under "foreign volunteers" if there are only a small number of people from it (as was the case with the two Spaniards on the insurgent side). I don't think it's ever been decided how ''large'' a number of people has to volunteer, though - there's a certain grey area in which whether a country is included or not seems to be based on whether influential editors want to include it or not (or maybe there's been some discussion of this?). Anyway, one person is probably too small a number. ] (]) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::: AFAIK, Ukraine does not allow dual citizenship. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Ukraine does not recognize other citizenships if you have the Ukrainian one, but at the same time it isn't illegal to have other ones. From ]: "Ukrainian law currently does not recognise dual citizenship. However there are citizens of Ukraine who hold dual citizenship. Various estimates put the number of Ukrainians with more than one passport from 300,000 to a few million". BTW although born in the USA, his mother was Ukrainian, so he could have gotten the Ukraine citizenship either as a born-abroad (I guess this one) or being naturalized. ] (]) 19:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: Kyivpost states that he changed his US citizenship to Ukrainian citizenship. http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-620-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-361615.html
:::::: Mr.Anon, you used my signature after your reply. Remember to double-check and/or preview your edits before saving them. ] (]) 08:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the articles (from Toddy72's edit) that can be used to support inclusion of the US under "supporters":
*. '']''
*. ''].''
*. '']''
*

Note the New York Times article in particular. Relevant quotes:

''The Obama administration is already sharing with the Ukrainians satellite photographs and other evidence of the movement of troops and equipment along the Ukrainian-Russian border. But a senior administration official acknowledged late Friday that the data were “historical in nature,” hours or even days old, and not timely enough to use in carrying out airstrikes or other direct attacks.

''“We’ve been cautious to date about things that could directly hit Russia — principally its territory,” but also its equipment, the official said. A proposal to give the Ukrainians real-time information “hasn’t gotten to the president yet,” the official said, in part because the White House has been focused on rallying support among European allies for more stringent economic sanctions against Moscow, and on gaining access for investigators to the Malaysia Airlines crash site.

The nature of the US involvement so far, according to public sources, is:
*Economic warfare support (in the form of sanctions against Russia, and "encouraging" allied countries to enact them - like Bulgaria canceling ] )
*Limited military support (perhaps up to 100 military advisors, some intelligence sharing, some nonlethal military gear. NYTimes: ''$33 million in nonlethal support such as bomb-disposal equipment, radios and engineering equipment, and it plans to provide night-vision goggles'')
*Propaganda support (in the form of releases to the media from intelligence agencies, and consistent downplaying of the Donbass humanitarian/refugee crisis by US spokespeople such as and Marie Harf (who famously said, see , that the refugees fleeing into Russia could just be going to "visit their grandmothers and come back")).
] (]) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly if the foreign backer of one side is mentioned, then the foreign backer of the other side should be mentioned as well. The US government has played a key role in these events through its support for the Ukrainian government. ] (]) 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::Plenty of people have "supported" the Ukrainian government. Should we put every country that opposed Russia's annexation of Crimea in the infobox on the Ukrainian side? You are blowing this out of proportion. America is not a direct party to the conflict, whereas, according to reliable sources, Russia is a direct party. ] — ] 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::How so? Neither the US nor Russia is directly involved in fighting, but both are actively involved through their support of proxies. To ignore the role of one side weirdly distorts the nature of the conflict. ] (]) 00:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Where are you getting this "proxies" business from? That's total POV. ] — ] 04:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Hillary Clinton announced in 2012 that one of the goals of the United States' foreign policy is to cripple Russia's ]. To quote (first quoted in the ''Financial Times''): "''There is a move to re-Sovietize the region. It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that. But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.''" A leaked phone call in February 2014 () showed that the US was hand-picking Yatseniuk to be the first leader of post-revolutionary Ukraine, under whose watch the War in Donbass began. Numerous experts (particularly in Russia, but in the West as well) have alleged that the US strategy follows the template laid out in ]'s 1997 book '']''. Brzezinski (famous for, among other things, creating the Afghanistan mujahideen movement) is today considered to be one of Obama's main advisors on foreign policy (). ] (]) 08:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::What of it, ]? Do you propose to engage in some ] by writing a ] into the content? Read the talk page policy: no soap, please. --] (]) 10:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::If a blog isn't good enough how about ? Also, see my comment below - even the ] now writes that this is proxy war with the US and NATO on one side of it. ] (]) 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. The US sending some ready made meals counts as support? Canada sends non-lethal military equipment at least, as does Poland. Should we include every county that does trade with Ukraine as a "supporter"? Should we include the IMF? Anyone who has ever given Ukraine a loan? We can re-enter this discussion if there ever are American boots on the ground, at the moment, only Russian troops are in Ukraine and no other foreign country. --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous independent reports of Russia providing weapons, training and soldiers to the Ukrainian separatist cause. So its fair to say its a participant. No one else is giving anything anywhere near the level of support. If any sort of minor support was included, you would have to add country's like France to the Pro-Russian side for selling military ships to Russia, etc. ] (]) 21:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article from the ] supporting the view that this conflict is a proxy war between the US and Russia: . According to ], the CFR is the "most influential foreign-policy think tank" in the United States. Therefore, the view that the US is an important party to this conflict can be considered ''mainstream'' even in the West now, and not making any mention of it in the article is a form of unjustified editorial bias. ] (]) 21:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::That's an opinion essay. Please read ]. ] — ] 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I have. How is it relevant? If it is a mainstream view that this conflict is a proxy war (in Russia and now in the West as well), why should that not be included in the article? ] (]) 21:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::::An opinion piece by one professor doesn't make a view "mainstream". Opinion pieces are not suitable for references, as ] states. Regardless, there is mention in the "labelling of the conflict" section of the fact that some people view the war as a "proxy war". ] — ] 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

==Russian- and English-language Wikimedia combat maps look very different==
Compare:
*]
*]

I'm not sure of the reason, it's just something I noticed recently. On the whole, the situation looks a little better for the insurgents on the Russian-language map (Lugansk not surrounded, full control of southern border), although it also shows areas under Ukrainian control that are shown as being insurgent-controlled on the English map (in the centre and north). My suspicion is that the Russian map might be based on more recent sources, but again, I don't know.

For comparison, here are maps from (also: ) and sides. ] (]) 07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:Maybe there are some places that are outdated in one of the maps, like Dmytrivka and Dyakove near the border with Russia, as I noticed. I also noticed that the Donetsk Airport in the Russian map is marked as being disputed, and I haven't really read anything happening there since the ] in May, so in this case it's probably the Russian map that needs to be updated. Other differences could be due to a different interpretation of what's going on, like between being disputed or being under the control of one of the sides. Everything else is not significantly different, I think.] (]) 16:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::Both maps are outdated.
] (]) 19:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:::In addition English-language map based largely on ukrainian government claims, while the Russian-language map - on separatists` reports ] (]) 21:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::According to this source:, Dmytrivka should be orange (cities where there is fighting) on 9th of August, and it was never orange on this map, as far as I remember. But the Donetsk Airport, in the Russian map, should be blue (controlled by the Ukrainian government), if I'm not mistaken.] (]) 23:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::If the informations I've got are correct, someone, please, update Dmytrivka in the English version of the map and update the Donetsk Airport in the Russian version on the map, because I don't know how to edit svg files!] (]) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Now they look correct.] (]) 04:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The new pro-insurgent map shows a large territory close to Mariupol now under rebel control: . Accompanying article: . It seems that the site of the author of those maps is now as "mass media" in Russia, so presumably the maps can now be used as sources in the article in some way. ] (]) 01:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Third side ==

among others there is a third side in the conflict fighting against both the Ukrainian government and the pro Russian rebels.] (]) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:Is there a translation of the article? ] (]) 17:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::From Google Translate: "In the fighting in the Donbass participate saboteurs who fight against the Ukrainian troops, and against the militias. In an interview with "Ukrainian Pravda" said Colonel-General of the Ukrainian army in reserve Vladimir Ruban. There are some third party - we (the official Kiev) now call it so - which scatters these shells and dump on one side or the other," - said Ruban. According to him, and the security forces and supporters of independence Donbass now trying to establish the identity of these people. "We call it a third party. Igor Bezler (one of the commanders of the militia) calls a third party, and in Donetsk says so. Looking for them, "- said Ruban. Colonel-General added that the opposition to participate in, and foreign mercenaries. "And with the Ukrainian and Lugansk and Donetsk. Well, here's how to call it, that Poland is fighting with us, and Sweden? "- Said Ruban. For example, in the headquarters of the People's Militia Donbass August 20 reported that Ilovaiskaya managed to eliminate the American volunteer with the callsign "Franco" battalion of the National Guard "Donbass". Currently Vladimir Ruban directs the Center for the release of prisoners of war. Over the past few months, the general, according to the "Ukrainian Truth", was able to release about three hundred Ukrainian military."] (]) 18:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
:::More reliable sources needed. ] (]) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Well, I don't know if this source is reliable enough or not, but, according to it, there is actually a third (or a second and a half) side in this conflict, though is quite far away from Donbass, in the ]. According to this source: a separatist movement supposed to represent the Rusyns in Zakarpattia, signed an agreement with Novorossiya against the Ukrainian government. I don't know if it's true or not, I recicled the source (since in the Novorossiya article they had said that the Rusyns' separatists had joined Novorossiya, which is not true) and edited the ] according to the source. If I edited this article wrong, I'd be glad to be corrected, and I think this topic could be discussed here, as well.] (]) 00:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::The original interview that the article mentions is , in the Ukrainian ''Pravda''. As for the separatist movement in Ukraine's far West region, there have been scattered stories about it. I don't think they've done anything serious yet though, have they? ] (]) 09:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Odder still, I don't know why they'd want anything to do with New Russia, as the Rusyns strike me as a clearly Central European ethnic minority with historical antipathy towards Russia. ] — ] 13:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It's like that old saying: ''The enemy of my enemy is my friend''. ] was never part of Ukraine until Stalin annexed it to the ] in 1945., - ] (]) 19:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::::The Carpathian Rusyns under Syder and his crew are hardly a third party if they are working with Russia and with the New Russian militants. It would just be another party to the single side of the conflict within all of Ukraine. (just as DNR and LNR are separate forces)--''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 17:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::There is an article about him: ]. I ignore if he's involved or not in that agreement, but according to the description of his activities, it wouldn't be surprising.] (]) 19:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::There's less of the 'enemy of my enemy' involved here than an ecclesiastical connection. He's an Archpriest of a ], so I don't know whether anyone could vouch for it actually consisting of Rusyns (but it would be the connection with Russia). Whatever the situation, if this group crop up in WP:RS they're not a third group: just more volunteers joining the pro-Russian forces. --] (]) 05:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Iryna Harpy}}{{ping|RGloucester}}{{ping|EkoGraf}}{{ping|Esn}}{{ping|Tobby72}}{{ping|Lvivske}}I edited that page according to that source. Should it be removed? Maybe it's not very reliable. I used that single source that was there supporting the inclusion of Ruthenian Carpathia in Novorossiya (which was not the case, anyway, according to the source, so I edited accordingly). I've looked for more sources and it's very hard to find any.] (]) 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, are the only rumblings I've heard from that camp. ("3,000 armed men under his control who have “Kalashnikovs, grenade launchers and sniper rifles.”) --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mondolkiri1}} Well, in light of Lvivske's findings (and my not being able to find anything else regarding the issue to shed further light on these claims), it seems that their aim is to start some form of separatist movement in Western Ukraine, not to join the ranks of those in eastern Ukraine). I'm not even going to try to guess at whether this is merely noise for publicity, or whether anything will come of it. As it stands, it's 'rumblings' and not reality, so it's not even relevant to the 'Pro-Russian unrest' in Ukraine unless it evolves into something more than noises. Even there, this would be a separate issue from Donbass. Based on the wobbly reports of nothing actually having happened, I don't see it has any bearing on this article. Cheers for looking into it and consulting! --] (]) 04:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Iryna Harpy}} Well, so far I can't see any reason not to delete it, since I couldn't find any other source to support it and I was doubting a lot about the reliability of that source. I'll correct it in the ].] (]) 04:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::Done!] (]) 05:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

== A complete list off all pro-government paramilitary forces now fighting in Donbass would be great to have ==

The listing of the ]... Next to politician's ] battalion (fellow Ukrainian politician) ]'s ] party (I had a problem finding a source not from her website that confirmed that). So it would be logic if ] would also have its own para-military force now fighting in Donbass too (even if this only did so to not loose voters to Lyashko and Tymoshenko).... (The same would go for the political parties ] & ]; probably not ] since they usually act not very militant....) Has any source got a complete list off all pro-government paramilitaries forces now fighting in Eastern-Ukraine? — ''']'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;] 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

:The most important:
*Dnieper-1
*Dnieper-2
*Azov
*Aidar
*Donbass
*Right Sector (DUK)
*Kiev-1
*Kievan Rus

:These are really many battalions, but truth is that some of them don't really fight. Some are made only for political PR, like Lyahko's battalion or Svoboda's Sich battalion and it's a question if they really do exist and fight. Also many of them stay in their homeland regions.
:I don't think that they all need to be listed. Only the most efficient and participating in the war. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I agree that they do not need to be listed here. But it would be very good if they were listed on the Wiki-pages of their "home organizations". Per example the article ] does not mention this "Svoboda Sich battalion". I also had never heard of it since the media (also it seems the media in Ukraine and Russia) ignores these "political party battalions". — ''']'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;] 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::This is not my area of expertise, but I'd be happy to see a better summary section of the pro-government paramilitaries, if anyone wants to write it. ] — ] 16:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is about Sich http://nbnews.com.ua/ua/news/124111/ Nobody writes about it because it is PR and it doesn't really exist :){{Unsigned IP|77.123.161.253|07:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)}}
:I couldn't find yet any information about that Sich Batallion apart from that claim on a facebook page, which was revealed on another source. Let's wait until some more substancial information is available, I guess.] — ] 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This Sich Batallion . Although this Twitter account is probably also not a great source....

PS I found the Twitter account via . — ''']'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;] 13:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== Ethnic conflict??? ==

Who claims (except of Russia) that the conflict in Donbas is of ethnic nature? There is no traces of prosecution of Russian or Russophone population by the government forces of Ukraine. ] (]) 13:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually there are many Russians fighting for Ukraine and some Ukrainians fighting for Novorossya.
For example ]
This means that the conflict is not ethnic. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Who says it is ethnic? It is clearly not ethnic in any way whatsoever. Only Russian propaganda sites bring up this craziness. --''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 16:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Someone put it in the "ethnic conflict" category, but that has since been appropriately removed by Mr Grigoryev. ] — ] 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:Ukrainians and Russians are eastern Slavs. Russian speaking Ukrainians are like English speaking German Americans. They are pretty much all mixed in Ukraine anyway. I would say the conflict is about 50 versus 50 with Party of Regions / Communist party and other left wing parties on one side versus Batkivshchyna / Svoboda and other right wing parties on the other side. As with Syria, the conflict is mainly political with a touch of cultural. However, one must accept the fact that just about all rebels are Russian speaking from the east and most of Ukrainian soldiers are Ukrainian speaking from the west.--], 20:52, 22 August 2014‎ (UTC)
::We do not accept this, because it is not true. Lots of normal people who voted for Party of the Regions candidates in elections are opposed to foreigners from Moscow invading Ukraine and killing and torturing Ukrainian people. It is true that the ] and ] people are a bunch of racist neo-Nazis; but so are the ], etc. They are very similar.

::I do not think the Canadian IP understands Ukraine at all. --] (]) 21:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Seems you don't understand Ukraine at all either if you're calling Svoboda and Right Sector "racist neo Nazis"--''']''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Neo-nazis, maybe not, but far-right, yes (like the National-Bolsheviks).] (]) 00:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Okay, let's please calm down about extreme right claims and accusations. There's a lot of mud-slinging regarding political groups, and this isn't the time (or the article) to POV-push any personal opinions. The fact is that the 'ethnic' category has been removed, so let's just move ahead instead of head-butting each other. --] (]) 05:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

== National Guard of Ukraine ==

"a light infantry force. This stands in contrast to the old National Guard, which was a mechanised infantry force."
Not true. NGU has BTR-4, BTR-3, BTR-80 and even some T-64. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

They seem to have a very limited amount of these items, most light infantry units have some comparable equipment, for example US light infantry Division often have towed 155mm guns , HMMWV's and various helicopters. I think the low amount of heavier equipment the national guard seem to posses would classify it as a light infantry force. ] (]) 21:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

:National Guard is supposed to replace regular army units once the latter runs out of men and / or military hardware such as armored fighting vehicles and artillery. National Guard can be thought as Ukraine's counterpart to Syria's National Defense Force.--] 01:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

== "Disputed" neutrality in Humanitarian concerns section ==

{{user|Tobby72}}, I'm not convinced that you are reading what is written in the section you have just tagged with this boilerplate. The separate mentions of "beatings" are from different organisations at different times. There is a UN report, a Human Rights Watch report, and multiple Amnesty International reports. It isn't ] to mention these reports, which come from reliable international organisations. What you did, however, was to remove a report as "duplicate" that was only cited once. It was not "duplicate" in that it was a different report from the various others that mention beatings. I removed your addition of the Oleh Lyashko bit because that very report is already cited in the "abductions" sub-section. Therefore, your addition of the same exact report above was "duplicate". Regardless, calling UN, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch reports "undue" is a very odd assertion. ] — ] 20:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

:Please show me where in the article is the HRW report you have deleted .

: {{cite web | url=http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/22/dispatches-merkel-shouldn-t-let-ukrainian-abuses-slide | title= Merkel Shouldn’t Let Ukrainian Abuses Slide | publisher=] | date=22 August 2014 | accessdate=23 August 2014}}

::Two very similar Human Rights Watch reports:

:'''Lead section''':
:''A report by Human Rights Watch said "Anti-Kiev forces in eastern Ukraine are abducting, attacking, and harassing people they suspect of supporting the Ukrainian government or consider undesirable...anti-Kiev insurgents are using beatings and kidnappings to send the message that anyone who doesn't support them had better shut up or leave".'' — {{cite web | url=http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/23/ukraine-anti-kiev-forces-running-amok | title=Ukraine: Anti-Kiev Forces Running Amok | publisher=] | date=23 May 2014 | accessdate=24 July 2014}}

:'''"War crimes" section''':
:''Another report by Human Rights Watch said that the insurgents had been "running amok...taking, beating and torturing hostages, as well as wantonly threatening and beating people who are pro-Kiev".'' — {{cite press release | url=http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/06/russia-must-recognize-ukraine-rebels-human-rights-abuses | title=Ukraine: Russia Must Recognize Ukraine Rebels' Human Rights Abuses | publisher=] | date=6 August 2014 | accessdate=7 August 2014}}

:Your revert : "This stuff isn't duplicate." - ] (]) 22:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::It isn't duplicate because they are from different reports at different times. One is from May, when the situation was very different, and one is from August. I do apologise for removing the report regarding "Merkel", and this was not intentional. You should re-add that report, but do so in chronology, I.e. as it is the newer report, it should appear below the older one. ] — ] 22:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I've re-added the specified report, and removed the boilerplate in turn. ] — ] 02:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

:The August HRW report about beating and abducting ''refers'' to the May HRW report about beating and abducting. Text: "Human Rights Watch documented in detail that these same insurgent forces have been — taking, beating and torturing hostages, as well as wantonly threatening and beating people who are pro-Kiev." — {{cite press release | url=http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/06/russia-must-recognize-ukraine-rebels-human-rights-abuses | title=Ukraine: Russia Must Recognize Ukraine Rebels' Human Rights Abuses | publisher=] | date=6 August 2014 }}

:I wonder why nobody noticed it yet. was perfectly legitimate. - ] (]) 15:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

== Rebel counter-offensive. Attack from the sea in Novoazovsk? According to Ukrainian sources. ==

Yesterday the Ukrainian ATO centre released a map in which it showed attack from the sea in Novoazovsk. Does anyone know anything more about this and what happened?
--] (]) 13:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk rebels have announced that they are opening up a new front, and are "fighting (their) way to the Azov Sea" according to RIA Novosti. There's also various evidence on Twitter to suggest that rebel offensives are under way, especially near ] and ], south of Donetsk city, and north of Lugansk city in ]. --] 15:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the rebels are in full counter-offensive, videos from Azov Sea,,. There are other reports claiming collapse of Ukrainian forces in the southern front and mutiny by NG in Mariupol, I guess we will have to wait and see for confirmation.--] (]) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:From those 3 videos, I guess only the 3rd is useful, because the other 2 are impossible to see where they were filmed... Could they be the 3rd side, instead of the pro-Russian rebels?] (]) 22:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:If this source is correct, they're also attacking from the sea!... Well, the pro-Russian rebels don't have a navy. Either the source is misleading, or a 3rd side managed to get boats or ships or it's the Russian Army itself that is attacking (in that case, escalating even more the conflict).] (]) 22:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

== Beginning date of the war should be revised? ==

Methinks, since the ATO only started on April 12, the war started later than the currently stated date of April 6. ] — ] 22:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)



== Rebel Counter-offensive and encirclement of Ukrainian troops? and change of Tactics ==

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/746532
The rebels say they have recaptured several cities and have tarpped at least 2000 Ukrainian troops
\self-defense fighters are also cutting off Ukrainian troops from Ilovaisk along the line of the populated areas of Agronomicheskoye, Kuteinikovo, Voikovo and Osykovo according to the Militia


militia headquarters have also switched from military action by small units to full-scale operations by full-fledged formations and army units which escalates the war even further and the rebels are now using artillery giving the rebels an enormous boost

] (]) 11:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

== Donbas or Donbass ==

Isn't "Donbass" the Russian spelling? Shouldn't the article title be based on the Ukrainian spelling, which is "Donbas"? ] (]) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
*Well, the reply probably depends on how "established" the Russian spelling is in English language. I'd suggest that the Ukrainan spelling Donbas is used, as is now the case with what many regarded as the the reasonably established spelling of the city of Kharkov -> Kharkiv. --] (]) 12:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::"Donbass" is used because it is the more common transliteration for the region's name at the moment, which one will find if one looks around at Google News, among other places. Also, given the context of the conflict itself, and organisations like the "Donbass People's Militia", it makes more sense. ] — ] 15:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Both Ukrainians and Russians write in Cyrillic alphabet, so it's the transliteration, not the Ukrainian or the Russian spelling.] — ] 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If it comes down to personal preference, I'd prefer to have "Donbas" (the simpler spelling is usually the better one). If Donbass is the more common one, though, I suppose that's what must be used. Does anyone know why that extra "s" got added on in Russian spelling, anyway? ] (]) 18:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::It is a matter of transliteration, not spelling (UK:Донбас; RU:Донба́сс). Regardless, the "double s" transliteration more accurately reflects its pronunciation in English, so I imagine that is why that transliteration is more common. ] — ] 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Right, but why is it even spelled Донбасс in Russian? Russian spelling is usually pretty good about being phonetic. The extra "с" does nothing to change the pronunciation. ] (]) 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== After having edged into Luhansk city on 18 August, government forces began to advance through the city "block by block" on 19 August. ==

*"After having edged into Luhansk city on 18 August, government forces began to advance through the city "block by block" on 19 August... Ministry said that government forces were "clearing" Ilovaisk of insurgents, and , and later captured most of the city"
This is the last update from a week ago. Do we know what happened since then? Has Luhansk been captured completely already, or are Ukrainian forces still clearing the last remnants of rebels? Is Illovaisk now clear of any remaining rebel forces? Just asking, since a week has passed, perhaps an update is recommended.--] (]) 14:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:It appears to be misinformation. There is no Ukrainian military presence in either Donetsk or Lugansk. The general rule of thumb is pics or it didn't happen. ] — ] 15:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


* ? Can somebody shed a light on this? According to Ukrainian sources they were cleaning Donetsk and Luhansk "block by block" a week ago and now it seems Mariupol is threatened by rebel takeover?--] (])

::We can only report what reliable sources do. Sadly, there has been very little good reporting from Luhansk, as the city has no power or telephony (OSCE observers said that they couldn't send reports as a result). In other words, we don't really know what is happening. As far as Mariupol is concerned, this situation is rapidly developing, but I have read that Novoazovsk is in a , with people hiding in their basements. ] — ] 16:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

*Rebel leaders were talking about launching counter offensive and now rebels are also reorganized from groups to formations backed by tanks,Artillery and even SAMS either way Russian media show its the rebels winning while western media is saying its the Govt winning.So lets see if the Rebels do launch a attack on any major city in the area ] (]) 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, as in any war there are 2 versions, and the "only and official one" will be that of the side that ends winning. ] (]) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

Let's be more cautious with our words. A "belligerent" is an armed group or sovereign state engaged in war or conflict ''as recognized by international law.'' Since no formal Russian military operations have occurred, and since no state of war exists between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, the phrase "supported by" is crucial. Even in cases where a ''direct combat role'' has been played, i.e. the United States in the ], "supported by" is the preferred phrasing. ] (]) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Please read the talk page before making such edits. This has been discussed numerous times. Sources have been provided. ] — ] 01:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::With respect, it's not a question of what "sources say", but of what ''words mean'' and ''what are the applicable conventions''. To use my example above, there's clearly no shortage of ''sources'' about the U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and U.S. special forces on the ground on Mt. Sinjar, yet the phrase "Supported by" is used&mdash;as it is with the Jordanians in ], the Chinese in ], the Italians and Germans in ]&mdash;all of whom provided ''vastly'' more combat and material forces to those conflicts than the Russians are alleged to have in the Donbass. Why, then, are you so opposed to applying the same standard here as in virtually every article on military conflicts?

:::If our positions are irreconcilable, would you agree to request comment from ]? I suspect the answer there will be pretty unanimous. ] (]) 01:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::In the ], USA is listed as a belligerent.] (]) 02:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::Britain, despite a peak troop presence of 40,000, is a "Supporter" in the ]; the U.S., which provided $42.5 million in military equipment to El Salvador and billions to Colombia, as well as all forms of covert operations, is a "Supporter" in the ] and a "Supporter" in the ]. But, again, what is the actual nature of the ''objection'' to the heading? According to international law, Russia is ''not'' a belligerent in Ukraine. It is providing ''support'' to the armed groups&mdash;I believe even the U.S. State Department frames it this way. ] (]) 03:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::I really don't care what the "Military history" project does, or what other articles do. I certainly do not care that another article uses "supported by". I only care about this article. We've had tonnes, and I mean tonnes, of discussions on this subject at this talk page. Ukraine considered the crossing of Russian vehicles into Ukrainian territory ("humanitarian convoy", as admitted by Russia) an "invasion", and an act of war. This act of war warrants the placement of Russia as it is. There are many other reports of similar incidents, but Russia admitted to carrying out this one. Therefore, there can be no question whatsoever. ] — ] 02:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

::::::Thankfully for Misplaced Pages, the article will ultimately conform to editor ''consensus'', and not the whims and desiderata of RGloucester. ] (]) 03:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Likewise, fellow. Likewise. ] — ] 03:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Mondol, the U.S. has been openly carrying out airstrikes against ISIS positions. There is not even the slightest question that the U.S. is directly engaged in combat in Iraq. It is not the case here. Plenty of allegations of support have been made that are at least credible enough to include in the infobox (not exactly confirmed but noting the denial is sufficient in that case), but not a single ounce of definitive evidence has been presented about direct Russian military involvement in the conflict and Russia denies involvement. Absent a Russian admission or some incontrovertible proof, these are just allegations of direct involvement and should only be presented in article text with due consideration for their unsubstantiated nature.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:Russia should not a belligerent. At least not yet. There is no proof that the Russian military is directly involved in the war. If Russia is counted as a belligerent, then so should China be too. After all, China significantly finances the war by boosting trade with Russia.] — ] 05:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::I'm sure that if they come from Russia, speak Russian and have Russian equipment, they can't be Chinese. BTW the tens of Russian soldiers stationed along the frontier don't seem to be doing anything to stop these "non-Russian" militants to cross into Ukraine, either. ] (]) 17:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Regardless of those events, which are not confirmed (and for which I did not suggest we removed the "supported by"), there is an event confirmed by Russia. That is the movement of the "humanitarian convoy", which was viewed as an "invasion" and "act of war" by Ukraine. Russia confirmed that it did in fact move the convoy into Ukraine, despite having no permission to do so. ] — ] 17:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::There has been no declaration of war by Ukraine on Russia or vice versa. Nor have there been declarations of exclusion zones, etc. as the British did during their limited war with Argentina in 1982.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::There are rarely declarations of war these days. Poro called it . ] — ] 19:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Supported by United States" should not be included in the infobox. The two sources do not support this notion. Yes, the US has sent some 8 million $ worth of equipment to Ukraine. A few trucks and some night vision goggles. First, this is a pittance, especially compared to the amounts invested by Russia on the other side. 8m$ is about the size of the Indiana state lottery jackpot. It's about .000002 (yes, that's 5 zeros) of the federal outlays. It's much less than the statistical discrepancy in state government expenditures. It's basically less than the spare change one can find in the White House couch. Given prices of US military hardware that it usually gets charged at, 8 million might get you a hammer and if you're lucky, a few nails to go with it. More seriously, this is an insignificant amount that doesn't even deserve to be called "token". The other source, likewise doesn't support including the above in the infobox - it talks about the *possibility* that US might support Ukraine. "Analysts expect that...", "US may want to bolster..." etc/.

I would genuinely *like* to be able to add "Supported by United States" in the infobox. If only it were true. But for now, like I said, it's just OR. And of course POV pushing.] (]) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, 8$ million is also about 1/10 of what a BUK missile system costs, of the kind that Russia gave to their proxies and which they used to kill almost 300 uninvolved civilians, at one go. And that's just one piece of equipment that Russia gave'em.] (]) 02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:The rebels' guilt in that incident has not been proven. Others believe that it was the Ukrainian side that shot down the plane. , for example. If it was the insurgents who shot it down, it was almost certainly not deliberate (they had absolutely nothing to gain and much to lose) and Ukraine was at fault for allowing civilian aircraft to fly over a war zone. Have you seen ? At 0:31, witnesses speak of seeing a military airplane flying beneath the Boeing before it was destroyed. At 3:12, a man claims that it was common for Ukrainian military planes to hide behind civilian ones. In , uploaded a month before the catastrophe, the same claim is made: At 1:09, the woman says: "''Terrible things are happening. For example an incident that happened recently. A passenger plane was flying by. And a Ukrainian attack aircraft hid behind it. Then he lowered his altitude a bit and dropped bombs on the residential sector of Semenovka town. Then he regained the altitude and hid behind the passenger plane again. Then he left. They wanted to provoke the militia to shoot at the passenger plane. There would be a global catastrophe. Civilians would have died. Then they would say that terrorists here did it.''" ] (]) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::Others believe that the earth is flat and that green little men (no, not those green little men) live on Mars. Why are you giving me a link to some blog? Why are you giving me link to some bullshit conspiracy site? Why are you giving me links to some wacky youtube videos?
::But hey, I learned something from this. Apparently the new conspiracy theory - what is it, like the seventh or eight one that has been put out by Russian media? - is that the Ukrainian "made the rebels do it" by "hiding their military planes behind civilian aircraft". I never cease to believe the stuff people will swallow just to hold on to their pre-set world view. At some point, no matter what one dearly wishes to be true, it's time to let go.
::But this is all immaterial. The comment about the cost of a BUK vs the paltry spare change that US might have given the Ukrainian government (less than the money the Federal US government gives to the '''state''' of North-freakin'-Dakota '''per day''') was obviously meant to be illustrative. There is no substantial support by the US to Ukraine. That stuff doesn't belong in the infobox.] (]) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The BBC is a conspiracy site? Okay. Sounds like the one holding on to their preset worldview might be yourself. ] (]) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::Or put it yet another way. <s>The 7 million, is less than '''one-tenth''' the foreign aid that the US government gave to ... '''Russia''', in 2010 (I'd have to look around for more recent figures)</s> (edited - it's way more than that, see below). Maybe we should put a little indent in there on the rebel side under "Russia" and put in "Russia, supported by United States".] (]) 23:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::Actually I was way off. US aid to Russia (both economic and military) has been around 1.26 '''billion'''. Of that, apparently about 380 '''million''' is military aid (not that matters much, recipient countries can always pretty much choose how they spend the received money).] (]) 23:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Are you saying we should add "'''Supported by the United States'''" to the insurgent side? *cough* ] — ] 23:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm saying that's what Devil Advocate's logic would imply. ] (]) 00:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Where did you get your numbers from about US aid to Russia? Is that for 2013 or for the entire post-Soviet period? Because I did a quick Google search and the first result was . ] (]) 00:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::The 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States published by the US Census, table 1299. The number is for 2008 and the one for 2009 is higher. To get more recent numbers I'd have to make a trip to the library. BUT. These are numbers which don't change much from year to year since they're part of "non-discretionary spending". In other words, it's the money the government has committed itself to spending - like "we will give you X billion over ten years in installments of Y". You'd need a special law to end that kind of spending. If you do get a hold of the SAoUS and find the table note that it says "Annual figures are in obligations".
::::::Hence, even if it came down since 2009, it didn't come down much and no, it's definitely not the number for "entire post-Soviet period". As an aside, I'm getting the sense that editors here don't have a good grasp on how *little* a billion dollars is for a country like US (indeed, for any half-developed country bigger than a city state). Like I pointed out above, the statistical discrepancy/rounding error in the US budgets is more than ten times that. And since a billion dollars is nothing, seven million is really really really really nothing.
::::::Like someone once said (as quoted by Paul Krugman) "Ten billion here, ten billion there, soon you're talking real money".
::::::USAid is just one agency that administers a very small portion of foreign "aid" spending. Mostly stuff to do with human rights and elections. That's why Putin kicked them out. That and precisely because they don't really have that much to give anyway. From his point of view that was a no-brainer. But they've been taking the other money, including the military money quite gladly. They're probably laughing about it right now.] (]) 00:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Treating allegations from Kiev as fact ==

There is a serious problem on this article of editors, many with a pro-Kiev slant, inserting material into this article that treats the reports coming out of Kiev as though they are fact rather than allegations. Most egregious are statements that treat direct Russian military involvement in the conflict as fact. Reliable sources are generally consistent (outside the usual propaganda outlets) in noting these as allegations for which there is no definitive evidence, but insertion of material into this article tends to simply restate what Kiev stated as though it were a proven reality. Kiev is not a reliable source for what is going on in the conflict as their statements regularly conflict with reality and even found to be purely fabrications. U.S. and NATO supporting these allegations does not inherently verify them as they have backed allegations that later proved to be completely false. The most notorious example was a few months ago when Kiev put out several photos it claimed proved Russian soldiers were taking part in the early seizures and the U.S. backed them wholeheartedly until many were found to have false or misleading captions, implying they were taken in Russia when they were taken in Ukraine or the most blatant example of claiming a guy with an auburn beard and one with a black and gray beard were the same person. Reliable sources reported on that fabrication as well. Suffice to say anything coming out of Kiev should be treated with the same skepticism as anything coming from the rebels of Russia.

I should not that these claims are also being used as the basis for inserting several named living individuals into the infobox as "commanders" in the conflict and thus falls under BLP as well.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Er, no one has suggested using "claims" for anything (note that I previously maintained the "supported by" because of the nature of the claims you mention). Russia has admitted to sending a "humanitarian convoy" into Ukraine without permission of the Ukrainian government, and in defiance of a previously made agreement. Ukraine viewed this as an "invasion" and "act of war", as shown in the sources provided. Therefore, whilst it previously did not belong in the infobox for lack of confirmation, there is now confirmation from Russia that it had no qualms with doing something that Ukraine considered an "invasion". In fact, it now plans to send a second convoy. ] — ] 18:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::That is an absurd rationalization. Sending a humanitarian convoy into another country, even without their permission, does not make them a co-belligerent in a war.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::If the country considers it an act of war, then yes, it is "belligerent". ] — ] 18:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::I am sorry, but you are wait out of line here with your edits and comments. I know the fucking rules forwards and backwards. Petroshenko claimed they demolished some Russian column, but no one else (even the U.S. which has regularly backed most of their allegations regardless of veracity) could confirm that it occurred and Kiev provided zero evidence that it did. There are many reliable sources noting this fact. The same with the other things I noted as alleged. No confirmation or definitive proof has verified these claims so they should be noted as allegations from Kiev. Per the guidelines you cited:

:::::{{quote|Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, '''although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined''', such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear.}}

:::::The proclamations of Kiev and NATO are not proof and as such the allegations should be noted as allegations absent confirmation. Kiev has been an especially unreliable source as I noted.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::The text doesn't say that "Kiev" (do you mean the city?) destroyed anything. It says that Poro said that his forces had done so. It also says that defence ministry of Russia said that there was no convoy. These are both statements of fact. Must you resort to profanity? ] — ] 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Pardon me, but I get a little incensed at seeing Misplaced Pages used for war propaganda.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::I wish you'd read the talk page, as I told you to. We've discussed the "US/Canada" matter tens of times. Please read the talk page and revert your placement of those parties in the infobox. ] — ] 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Nowhere on the talk page is there anything resembling a consensus, just one or two people saying in limited discussions with IPs that they do not think it qualifies due to their own personal opinions. The U.S. is sending armored personnel carriers and Canada could not have been any clearer that its military aid was to support Kiev in the war.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::The US is sending armored personnel carriers? I don't think so. The costs would be prohibitive. Plus, if rebels see American armored vehicles, you can be sure Russia would send Kornet anti tank missiles as a response.
:::::If I understand you correctly, you are saying that America is giving armoured personnel carriers to the city administration of Kiev? That's odd. I'd never have thought that Kiev would be allowed a municipal army. Regardless, given this new revelation about "armoured personnel carriers" being sent to the Kiev city administration, I do believe it is appropriate for America to be included. Canada should not be added, as the non-lethal aid it is sending/sent hardly qualifies it for a spot in the infobox. ] — ] 22:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Please don't get smart with me. You know when I say Kiev, I am referring to the national government based there, not the city administration. As to Canada, while I am not deadset on them being there, they explicitly say they are providing support to Kiev in order to aid in its campaign against the rebels.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, just see above for false propaganda claims that Kiev forces are clearing Donetsk and Lugansk "block by block" which were presented as fact in the article. I also remember that early in the war, security services claimed such absurd accusations as rebels are trying to build a ]--] (]) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:There's nothing about dirty bombs in the article and even if Russia didn't consider the actions as an act of war, Ukraine did. Remember that there is a line below stating "denied by Russia".] — ] 21:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This article ] is "nice" too, i think ] (]) 02:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== Training and sending armored vehicles to the Ukrainian forces by the Pentagon counts or not as a supporting role by USA? ==
According to USA Today, "The Pentagon is rushing new aid — including armored vehicles and increased training — to bolster Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists, the Defense Department announced Friday. (...) The gear includes armored personnel carriers, cargo and patrol vehicles, binoculars, night vision goggles and small patrol boats, said Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman. The equipment is valued at $8 million and follows a similar $7 million package of equipment shipped in April." In my opinion, this indicates that USA is supporting Ukraine, not only now, but since April. And there is another source as well, from the Washington Times, corroborating this. This doesn't imply any pro-Russian POV from my side, since, as you might notice, I haven't been particularly benevolent towards the Russian actions these days. And this doesn't imply, anyway, a negative or positive judgement about the American support towards the Ukrainian forces. And I'm not equating or even comparing a supporting role by the USA to a leading role by Russia, by no means, at all! By the way, it wasn't me that included the American support there, in the first place, but I agreed with it. I didn't agree so much with the Canadian support, so I left it out, after it was deleted.] — ] 02:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:See above. Not enough to put in the infobox, though it could be mentioned in text - precisely because the details, including how miniscule this "support" is, cannot be adequately described in an infobox. Hence putting this in the infobox DOES in fact "equate or even compare" the role of US to that of Russia, whether that is the intent or not. And that winds up being POV (not to mention that the inclusion is ORish, since good chunk of what those sources discuss is *potential* or *possible* future support).] (]) 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::It would be possible future support, if they had not written that it followed a "7 million package of equipment shipped in April". And how do you evaluate how minuscule the support is? $8 million (+ $7 million) is minuscule?] — ] 03:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::Concerning to "wind up being POV"... check my edits in the last 2 or 3 days, to see if I'm being "pro-Russian POV" or not, if that's the question!] — ] 03:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

::I do not think we should base it on the amount of support given by the U.S. relative to the alleged amount of support offered by Russia. To me it seems rather lopsided that people are tentative about explicitly confirmed military support for one side, while emphasizing the vigorously denied and generally unproven military support for another side. With Russia we mostly have allegations and evidence from Kiev, which we should not treat very seriously. There are third-party accounts suggesting some form of Russian support, official or otherwise, but quantifying it would be rather difficult. With the U.S. we have confirmed and quantified military support.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 03:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Mondolkiri1}}''if they had not written that it followed a "7 million package of equipment shipped in April"'' - again, see above. And yes, it is very very miniscule. The combined value of the houses on the block I live in (plus maybe the next block) is probably more than that. And it's not like I live in a super nice neighborhood or anything. 7 mil is not even spare change to the US government.
::: 7 million is 7,000,000.
::: Military spending by the US in one year is 664,840,000,000.
::: So 7 million is .00001 of its military budget. Or .001%. Or '''one thousandth''' of '''one percent'''.
::: 7 million is 7,000,000.
::: Total spending by the US government is about 3,500,000,000,000.
::: So 7 million is .000002 of its total budget. Or .0002%. Or '''two ten thousandths''' of '''one percent'''.
::: The statistical disrepancy in the budget is usually on the order of about 11 billion $. That's the money that no one knows where it went, or just rounding error.
::: 7 million is 7,000,000.
::: 11 billion is 11,000,000,000.
::: So 7 million is .00063 of the statistical discrepancy. Or .063%. Or a little bit more than '''one half''' of '''one percent''' of just pure rounding error/money just lost in record keeping.
::: 7 million is so small that it's almost insulting.
::: ] (]) 03:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

:::@Devil's Advocate. ''I do not think we should base it on the amount of support given by the U.S. relative to ''. When on one hand we're talking less than a pittance in some measly aid and on the other hand we have Russian troops entering Ukrainian territory, firing on Ukrainian troops, violating Ukrainian territorial integrity, shooting down civilian planes with Russian made equipment then... yes, then we *should* take into account the relative amounts, since one amount is pretty much zero (or pretty damn close) and the other one is obviously much much much more. It is also FALSE that for Russia's role we "only have allegations from Kiev". We have much more. We have independent journalists documenting Russian incursions. We have statements from other governments. We have video evidence. Etc. etc. etc.
:::So quit flipping the world on its head, and quit POV pushing. With Mondolkiri1 I think there's just a plain ol' misunderstanding, here, with you, the attempt to bias and POV the article appears to be purposeful.] (]) 03:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Well, I guess we shall discuss it a bit more (not just me and you), and if the outcome of the discussion (not based on POV) is to remove it, we remove it.{{ping|RGloucester}}{{ping|Iryna Harpy}}{{ping|EkoGraf}}{{ping|Esn}}{{ping|Tobby72}}{{ping|Lvivske}}] (]) 05:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

::::A discussion about the quality of any given piece of evidence would be time-consuming and a bit forumy, but what I can say is that we have no incontrovertible proof or iron-clad confirmation of official Russian involvement. Plenty of "proof" put forward by Kiev has been discredited by reliable sources, though mysteriously some of those details remain in this article without any mention of that. The persistence and extent of the allegations does merit its inclusion in the infobox, but we cannot quantify it and thus comparing it to the confirmed U.S. aid is not really possible. Unlike with Russia, there is not the slightest bit of doubt about official U.S. support per the sources and it is even quantified for us. Your argument that we should exclude it on the basis of it not being significant enough is ORish. Also, "POV-pushing"? Really? ''You'' are going to throw that at me? .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::''Plenty of "proof" put forward by Kiev has been discredited by reliable sources'' - Once again you are just making shit up and not even bothering to pretend to back it up. Russian soldiers have been captured. Russian vehicles have been observed by independent sources. Russian equipment has obviously been used. Mercenaries from Russia have given interviews. All of this can and has been sourced to "non-Kiev" (wtf that means) reliable sources. Hell, even Russia now admits some of it, quite gleefully I might add. There's overwhelming evidence of Russian involvement or even outright Russian military participation. On the other hand you got this measly 7 million that the US was gonna give to Ukraine anyway (it might actually be *less* than it has given them in previous years) and some talk about how that "may lead to" actual US support. That's about as POV as you can get.] (]) 01:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Also please note that, apart from this one-sided capitalist ''USA Today'' propaganda, there's absolutely no proof that any US armoured vehicles crossed the Russian border :) ] (]) 09:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::VM:Please hold off allegations on who shot down the plane, we need to wait for results of investigation. As to "measly aid"-it was openly and directly used to assist in overthrowing a democratic government in Ukraine that never shelled cities with artillery or conducted air strikes on protesters--] (]) 09:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Those aren't my allegations, it's what reliable sources say. I'm so sorry that reality doesn't fit with your POV. And this measly aid, and it was less than measly, came only in July so it didn't have crap with "overthrowing a democratic government in Ukraine" (sic).] (]) 12:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
] seems to forget that the this "democratic government" was responsible for ]... Also it was ] and ] ]. — ''']'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;] 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:If killing your own citizens is grounds for illegitimacy, then the current government must be at least 20 times less legitimate than the preceding one. And I don't believe it has been established yet who were the Maidan snipers who were shooting from an opposition-controlled building and killed both protestors and police. What happened to the investigation of that tragedy, anyway? ] (]) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You're deviating from the question that I posed.] (]) 18:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

''Finally!'' I think that the sources I mentioned ] should've been enough to make this change, but I'm glad that this new support finally allows the change to be made. I agree with The Devil's Advocate's comment above: ''To me it seems rather lopsided that people are tentative about explicitly confirmed military support for one side, while emphasizing the vigorously denied and generally unproven military support for another side.'' ] (]) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

:Because, again, there is essentially no support by the US. 7 million $ + some cheap talk of what might happen is nothing. The sources certainly do not support including "Supported by United States" in the infobox. And Devil's Advocate is just living up to his username by playing daft. That kind of thing is cute when some 16 year old does it to his teachers, but among grown ups it's just considered annoying and immature behavior.] (]) 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::I made the count, taking into account the GDP nominal of Ukraine in 2013 (IMF) and the military budget for 2014. So. GDP nominal = 176235 million USD x 1.25% (military budget) = 2203 million USD. 15 / 2203 = 0.7%. It's a quite small percentage. But is it small enough to remove it? Well... The discussion is open!] (]) 20:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::Of course, Ukraine at this point, is not only spending 1.25% of its GDP on its Armed Forces. So, those 0.7% come down to 0.3%, 0.2% or even less, I ignore...] (]) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


== Infobox end date ==
::The heavy support given by the US to the present Kiev government (supporting Maidan, choosing Yatseniuk as PM, sending dozens of military advisors, sanctioning Russia to support Kiev, sharing military intelligence - all listed in the topic before this one) more than support the inclusion of the US in the infobox even without this latest tidbit. The overall cost has been much greater than $7 million; if we include the sanctions in the calculations, substantially so (although mostly for the Europeans). ] (]) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::"Choosing Yatsenyuk as PM"? Please don't expand the coatrack any further. ] — ] 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Any support prior to the start of the War in Donbass is not relevant here, in my opinion, since this article is exclusively about the War in Donbass. Sending military advisors and sharing military intelligence can legitimately be included as support. Concerning to sanctions, then you'd have to include Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, so on, so I don't think it's appropriate. Soffredo changed from "Supported by" to "Armament support". I think that's very exclusive, taking into account that the source itself also mentions training and if sharing military intelligence and sending military advisors are to be included, it's an even more inaccurate description of the nature of the support. I will change that, myself, if it hasn't been changed yet. I've asked the help of other users in this discussion, but only Esn has shown up. I'll ask the oppinion of {{ping|Soffredo}}.{{ping|RGloucester}} You intervened now in the discussion, but you didn't address the actual question.] (]) 21:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::US sends "military advisers" to pretty much any country it has diplomatic relations with. It's part of normal diplomatic relations between countries. There's US military advisers in Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, and so on. There's probably some US "military advisers" in Russia. It's just in this case the Kremlin propaganda machine has made a big deal out of it and some "useful idiots" fell for it.
:::::::::And there are numerous sources for the fact that the US has '''refused''' to share intelligence with Ukraine, except for very basic stuff (I'm guessing they let them know what the weather in Kiev is like), partly because they don't want the Russians to catch on to what they really know (I hope).
:::::::::You're of course right on the sanctions.] (]) 00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry. Russia used to be under "'''Supported by'''" and I didn't want to make it seem like Russian involvement was the same as American involvement. '''<span style="color:#4169E1;"><big>]</big>]<big></nowiki>]]</big></span>''' ] 21:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
*I'm neutral, at the moment, and would prefer not to get involved in this discussion. ] — ] 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I understand, {{ping|Soffredo}}. Could it be replaced by "'''Backed by'''" ?] (]) 22:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:Why not simply keep it as it is now ("Support:")? Soffredo's concern is no longer current in any case, since it's no longer being used for Russia. ] (]) 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::Well, right, for now, until further developments in this discussion, I think it shall stay like it is, but I think my suggestion may be worthy to be discussed, nevertheless.] (]) 00:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Nope. This is completely insufficient for inclusion in the infobox. Like I said, you can put it somewhere in the text where the details can actually be explained. Otherwise it's just straight up POV pushing of that whole far-right Russian nationalist myth that this is a war between Russia and the evil "West" which is just trying to keep it down. Far-right crap has no place in an encyclopedia, especially not in the first thing readers will see when they click the article.] (]) 01:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


What's the precedent for a war being subsumed by another war? When there's a battle, there's start and end dates, and you can implicitly tell its part of a larger war, but titling an article "War in <location>" and having an end date in that infobox seems to suggest the "war" ended, when it didn't actually end, that phase of the war was eclipsed by the much larger invasion. Also, I don't think the "Major combat operations phase ended on 20 February 2015" is very relevant, there was sporadic levels of fighting all throughout 2014-2022. ] (]) 19:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I've checked 2 sources and Volunteer Marek is right about USA not having shared any intelligence with Ukraine, at least as of 26 July, though there were plans by the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies (CIA, I guess) to provide some informations to the Ukrainian government. So, as far as I know, sharing of intelligence (as of 26 July) doesn't count. I ignore if there were further developments.] (]) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


OK, I replaced now "Support" with "Military aid", since there is some aid, though it's not very substantial.] (]) 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC) :The solution is straightforward: remove the end date and specify that the conflict was followed by the Russian invasion. ] (]) 14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:You're actually giving a pretty good reason yourself for why this shouldn't be in the infobox (and this is why I hate infoboxes in any kind of controversial articles) - you can't put "it's not very substantial" in the infobox. But omitting it creates an obvious POV problem.
:Here's another, simpler way to put it. If it's not in text, it shouldn't be in the infobox. It's not in the text. Therefore it shouldn't be in the infobox.] (]) 01:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::I asked for opinions about this issue and I obtained almost diametrically opposite answers. As it's described in the article ] "Military aid is aid which is used to assist a country or it's people in its defense efforts, or to assist a poor country in maintaining control over its own territory. Many countries receive military aid to help with counter-insurgency efforts. (...)". According to the article ], "The United States is the largest contributor of military aid to foreign countries in the world, providing some form of assistance to over 150 countries each year.". So, that description is neither an ommission nor an assertion that the United States are giving a substantial support to Ukraine. I'll add the link in "Military aid" for the readers to be able to know what it really means. But the discussion is open!] (]) 03:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::Well, for some reason, until 30 August only administrators can edit it, so I couldn't add the link.] (]) 03:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


::Great idea: I don't know why the "subsumed" thing was totally removed from the article, as if nothing of particular importance happened in 2022. And as for the conflict subsumption: the recent examples include the various ethnic conflicts in Myanmar (Karen , Kachin etc) being subsumed by a all-country Civil war with a new major and largely non-ethnic actor People's Defence Forces. Similar thing happened to ethnic conflicts in Sudan with the inception of 2023 Civil war. These conflicts didn't end, but their context changed markedly. ] (]) 12:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
== Should we remove the 80% number as source doesn't support it? ==
:::I've changed it again to keep the end date but include the explanatory note that the term "War in Donbas" generally only covers events up to the start of the invasion. I've also removed "Major combat operations phase ended", as this seems redundant now. &lt;/]&gt; &lt;] /&gt;&lt;] /&gt; 13:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== Borodai in the lede ==
Right now there is a source used to claim that Russians form 80% of resistance, but the actual source is just an interview with an Armenian fighter, so not an expert analysis. Furthermore the source DOESN'T say that 80% of fighters in Donbass are Russians, just in Donetsk, while in Horlivka they are 50%.
As this is just an opinion on low-level volunteer and not in regards to the whole area, and from July 15 I suggest to remove it.--] (]) 10:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure his words about 50k Russian citizens are lede-worthy. Borodai, as a direct participant, is essentially a primary source and Euromaidan simply repeats his assertions without any analysis.
:I suggest we remove the 15% which is clearly cited to a non-reliable source.] (]) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::How about we remove all percentages as unreliable and mostly propaganda or gossip?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 16:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::How about we stick to reliable sources? ] (]) 16:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::What is so reliable about a random alleged fighter from the conflict giving some percentage estimate to a U.S. government-funded media outlet?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Take it up at WP:RSN.] (]) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


The topic itself - how many Russian citizens participated in the war is important and I'm not against discussing it in the lede. However we should provide a summary of high-quality secondary sources. We have quite a few of them already. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I support including both low and high estimates, even from biased and fragmented sources, as this is an extremely sensitive political issue and neutral sources on this simply do not seem to exist right now. Perhaps this can be expanded to something like "Kievan authorities insist that most of the fighters are Russian paramilitaries, while the leaders of the insurgency strongly deny this, claiming that their forces consist of just 15-20% foreign fighters. Independent estimates have put the number at anywhere from 20%-80%." But I suspect that that would be far too long. As an aside, I notice that somebody has removed the source for the 15% number, which I think was unwarranted... ] (]) 18:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:Ah, it was Volunteer Marek who removed it. I'm putting it back, because that source (with its 15-20% estimate) stated the official position of the Novorossiya leadership. If anyone can find any newer source with an official position about this, I'd be glad to replace it. It ''is'' a little old. ] (]) 18:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


== Composed in large part of Russian citizens ==
In the article those figures are mentioned as "reported", not as actual figures. And they're indeed reported.] (]) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:While I am not particularly opposed to including both figures, I do think that hard percentages are sketchy and do not really belong in the lede. The 80% figure is especially questionable, though some figures greater than 20% have been given out elsewhere. Including the claim further down in the article with a clear description of who is doing the reporting and what is being reported seems more reasonable.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


@], @], regarding source request , this p. 154 says ''In reality, the conflict was fought between, on one side, Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian Ukrainians having national allegiance to Ukraine against, on the opposing side, a minority of Ukrainians with massive Kremlin support having primary allegiance to Russia (Kuzio, 2020, pp. 106–133)''.
::"Some figures greater than 20%" is a funny way of putting it. Pretty much all reliable sources discussing the matter start at 50% and then go up. I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to "between 50% and 80%" but that non-RS figure of 15% has to go.] (]) 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The same source that gives the 80% figure also gives the 20% figure. If you want to remove it for being unreliable, then the 80% figure has to go. ] (]) 20:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


p. 119 '' It cannot be true, as Sakwa (2017a) writes, that Russia sought to extricate itself from the Donbas at the same time as it built up a huge army and military arsenal controlled by GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers and 5,000 Russian occupation troops based in the DNR and LNR. '' ] (]) 01:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I strongly oppose the removal of any ''official'' positions on this matter, either from the Kievan or from the insurgent side. Official positions, from both sides preferably, ''must'' be mentioned in the article. ] (]) 20:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


:The article now makes a very specific claim, that the forces that seized government buildings {{tquote|composed in large part of Russian citizens crossing the border into Ukraine}}. I wouldn't be too surprised if it were true, but the sources you've brought up here make ''different'' claims. They talk about the conflict in general rather than about the initial unrest. They also don't say anything about the Russian citizens being ''a large part'' of the separatist forces, whether in the beginning or subsequently. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
==Very informative August 24 press conference by top rebel leaders==
(with subtitles in English, French and German, translated by ) can be used in the article for sourcing the official positions of the rebel leaders on a number of issues, including future plans, conditions for peace, claims of Ukrainian casualties. The man on the right is ], and the man on the left is ].


== References to TASS ==
I particularly recommend PM Zakharchenko's speech , in which the whole "worldview" of the insurgents is summed up. ] (]) 22:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


This article has several references to ], also cited as “Information Telegraph Agency of Russia,” a biased source that’s unacceptable. TASS may be acceptable for direct quotations of the Kremlin, but not about any facts or events in Ukraine, including statements by Russian militants with whom the Kremlin obscured its true relationship. These should be tagged as unreliable, removed, and replaced with reliable sources. ] (]) 17:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:All the neo-nazis in the comments section cheering him on... quite telling.] (]) 01:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Specific phrases please? ] (]) 17:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:43, 8 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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: 3 months 
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article War in Donbas, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

  • Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

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 sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

  • Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard.
  • Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
  • An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

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.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about War in Donbas. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about War in Donbas at the Reference desk.
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  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUkraine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon2010s High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Section sizes
Section size for War in Donbas (53 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 29,467 29,467
Background 6,488 10,761
Protests 4,273 4,273
Proxy war 2,142 141,516
Militants seize towns 2,599 18,136
Sloviansk 5,281 5,281
Kramatorsk 1,561 1,561
Horlivka 3,636 3,636
Other settlements 5,059 5,059
Government counter-offensive: "the Anti-Terrorist Operation" 28,347 28,347
May 2014: post-referendum fighting 13,125 17,022
Airport battle and fighting in Luhansk 3,897 3,897
Escalation in May and June 2014 1,502 23,283
Luhansk border post siege 1,453 1,453
2 June Luhansk airstrike 2,929 2,929
Continued fighting 4,233 4,233
Russian tank incursion 7,154 7,154
Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down 1,190 1,190
Battle of Yampil 4,822 4,822
July 2014: post-ceasefire government offensive 12,158 12,158
Fighting worsens in eastern Donetsk Oblast 4,768 4,768
Downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 4,308 4,308
Government push into Donetsk and Luhansk cities 31,352 31,352
Open war between Russia and Ukraine 131 128,673
August 2014 invasion by Russian forces 26,812 26,812
September 2014 ceasefire 13,341 13,341
November 2014 separatist elections and aftermath 10,978 10,978
Escalation in January 2015 18,428 18,428
Minsk II ceasefire and denouement 13,387 13,387
January 2017 eruption of heavy fighting and failed ceasefires 22,005 22,005
October 2019 Steinmeier formula agreement and July 2020 ceasefire 7,592 7,592
2021–2022 escalation 14,191 14,191
2022 full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine 1,808 1,808
Combatants 18 24,940
List of combatants 157 157
Russian involvement 22,835 22,835
Military aid to Ukraine 1,930 1,930
Casualties 728 11,841
Civilians 1,929 1,929
Ukrainian forces 1,553 1,553
Separatist forces 7,631 7,631
Humanitarian concerns 8,446 14,624
Displaced population 6,178 6,178
Reactions 16 19,455
Ukrainian public opinion 4,916 4,916
Russia 1,605 1,605
International reactions 413 413
Labelling of the conflict 12,505 12,505
See also 263 263
Notes 26 26
References 30 30
Further reading 661 661
External links 1,992 1,992
Total 384,249 384,249
International Coalition in support of Ukraine was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 February 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into War in Donbas. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of War in Donbass was copied or moved into Frozen conflict with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, War in Donbas → War in Donbas (2014–2022), Moved, 5 June 2022, discussion
  • RM, War in Donbas (2014–2022) → War in Donbas, Moved, 17 October 2023, discussion


Infobox end date

What's the precedent for a war being subsumed by another war? When there's a battle, there's start and end dates, and you can implicitly tell its part of a larger war, but titling an article "War in <location>" and having an end date in that infobox seems to suggest the "war" ended, when it didn't actually end, that phase of the war was eclipsed by the much larger invasion. Also, I don't think the "Major combat operations phase ended on 20 February 2015" is very relevant, there was sporadic levels of fighting all throughout 2014-2022. MarkiPoli (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The solution is straightforward: remove the end date and specify that the conflict was followed by the Russian invasion. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Great idea: I don't know why the "subsumed" thing was totally removed from the article, as if nothing of particular importance happened in 2022. And as for the conflict subsumption: the recent examples include the various ethnic conflicts in Myanmar (Karen , Kachin etc) being subsumed by a all-country Civil war with a new major and largely non-ethnic actor People's Defence Forces. Similar thing happened to ethnic conflicts in Sudan with the inception of 2023 Civil war. These conflicts didn't end, but their context changed markedly. Gorgedweller (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I've changed it again to keep the end date but include the explanatory note that the term "War in Donbas" generally only covers events up to the start of the invasion. I've also removed "Major combat operations phase ended", as this seems redundant now. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 13:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Borodai in the lede

I'm not sure his words about 50k Russian citizens are lede-worthy. Borodai, as a direct participant, is essentially a primary source and Euromaidan simply repeats his assertions without any analysis.

The topic itself - how many Russian citizens participated in the war is important and I'm not against discussing it in the lede. However we should provide a summary of high-quality secondary sources. We have quite a few of them already. Alaexis¿question? 22:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Composed in large part of Russian citizens

@Alaexis, @Nihlus1, regarding source request , this The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Geopolitics - Google Books p. 154 says In reality, the conflict was fought between, on one side, Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainian and ethnic Russian Ukrainians having national allegiance to Ukraine against, on the opposing side, a minority of Ukrainians with massive Kremlin support having primary allegiance to Russia (Kuzio, 2020, pp. 106–133).

Crisis in Russian Studies? Nationalism (Imperialism), Racism and War – E-International Relations p. 119 It cannot be true, as Sakwa (2017a) writes, that Russia sought to extricate itself from the Donbas at the same time as it built up a huge army and military arsenal controlled by GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers and 5,000 Russian occupation troops based in the DNR and LNR. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The article now makes a very specific claim, that the forces that seized government buildings composed in large part of Russian citizens crossing the border into Ukraine. I wouldn't be too surprised if it were true, but the sources you've brought up here make different claims. They talk about the conflict in general rather than about the initial unrest. They also don't say anything about the Russian citizens being a large part of the separatist forces, whether in the beginning or subsequently. Alaexis¿question? 20:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

References to TASS

This article has several references to WP:TASS, also cited as “Information Telegraph Agency of Russia,” a biased source that’s unacceptable. TASS may be acceptable for direct quotations of the Kremlin, but not about any facts or events in Ukraine, including statements by Russian militants with whom the Kremlin obscured its true relationship. These should be tagged as unreliable, removed, and replaced with reliable sources. 142.160.96.197 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Specific phrases please? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: