Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:54, 27 February 2022

This is an archive of past discussions about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Daily maps of invasion

I think the article needs daily maps of the front line in the end of each subsection of the section "Invasion": front line map at the end of 24 February 2022 (UTC+2), front line map at the end of 25 February 2022, ... and so on. It will be possible to compare front line changes. The subsection "24 February" had the map; why was it removed? K8M8S8 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually support this, although longer term it might make more sense to just make it an animation of the progression of the invasion. Melmann 10:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, probably they might be used also in the article Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine P1221 (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@P1221: @K8M8S8: I made a diagram, we should update it every day if possible

MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@MaitreyaVaruna: Thank you! K8M8S8 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@MaitreyaVaruna: But I have some notes. We should use local Ukrainian time (UTC+2). So, 24th February is the date of the beginning of the invasion, not 23rd February. And we should make edit request here, on the talk page, to include your animated map in the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

May I also suggest that the most comprehensive legend be applied to parts of the animations to aid consistency. --Cdjp1 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate all your updates to the map. Made it a lot more informative @Cdjp1: MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@MaitreyaVaruna: Thank you very much for the map! P1221 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Turkish ship attacked

Any clarification on who attacked the Turkish ship and whether it was an accident or intentional? Brookline Fire buff (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost certainly it was Russian, and probably a mistake. Backsplatter/bystander casualty of the 'fog of war.' An RS will give a detailed report on this sooner or later - Wiki can wait.50.111.36.47 (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Would this incident give Turkey grounds to invoke Article 5 ("An attack on one is an attack on all") of the NATO Treaty which would justify the NATO countries to intervene in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Pleae read wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There should probably be a new section on foreign casualties for this and the other vessels (currently Japanese & Moldovan) which have been attacked beyond just the infobox listing. Nvidia has reportedly also been hacked in conjunction with all this - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/25/us-microchip-powerhouse-nvidia-hit-cyber-attack/. - Indefensible (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Great idea. Wtoteqw (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation regarding Kazakhstan's reaction

The following information:

Following its intervention in protests against the government earlier in 2022, Moscow requested that Kazakhstan send troops to assist in the offensive, but Nur-Sultan refused the request, reiterating that it does not recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists

Is completely false. Russia never requested troops from Kazakhstan. The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below:

Senate Speaker Ashimbayev: The conflict zone is not in the territory of CSTO member states. Therefore, Kazakhstan does not have the right under these treaties, under ratified agreements, to send peacekeepers within the CSTO to a conflict zone. "But if any situation arises and a decision is made at the UN level within the UN mandate, Kazakhstan can send peacekeepers to any point in the world if there is a decision to do so," Ashimbayev said.

Which is quite different from what the text in the article says. The fact of misinformation was confirmed by Zakon.kz in its telegram blog (In Russian). The NBC article does not have any references mentioned, what kind of credible sourcing is that? The recognition of Donestk and Luhansk was never even mentioned.

Which is why this text needs to be removed from the Other countries and international organizations to avoid misinformation. If somebody has the rights to do so, please do accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What is Zakon.Kz? Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It is more or less a reputable news agency in Kazakhstan, publishing political and legislative news. If that is not enough, factcheck.kz has analysed the misinformation and concluded:

In line with editorial methodology, we conclude that the story is a manipulation. A clickbait was used in the headline, the source data does not correspond to that presented in the story, the author of the distortion does not rely on verifiable sources - there is no evidence of Russia's request to use Kazakhstani peacekeepers in the Russian-Ukrainian war. The report that Kazakhstan's position was welcomed by the US National Security Council is also not confirmed by open sources at the time of publication; it is only available on the NBC website and in re-publications. We do not exclude that such a statement could have been made, but it is not currently available in other publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

So it is not in fact an official arm of the government, so what they say is not official government statements. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that NBC has an equal level of credibility with the KZ government hand when it makes such claims and that its publication, unsupported by any references, should outweigh the arguments of the local news agency and local fact-checking organisation? Are you serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fl7wless (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NO, I am saying you started this off with a claim "The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below:", which it was not. As far as I can see there is no statement there denying they were asked for troops, just that they are not sending any. I have no idea bout the reliability of Zakon.kz, and if you want to make an argument based upon another line of reason go ahead. But there has been (as far as I can tell) no official denial they were asked. Slatersteven (talk)

1. https://www.zakon.kz/6007784-o-napravlenii-kazakhstanskikh-mirotvortsev-v-ukrainu-vyskazalsia-spiker-senata.html
2. https://t.me/zakonkz/26228
3. https://factcheck.kz/claim-checking/verdict/otkazyvalsya-li-kazaxstan-vvodit-vojska-v-ukrainu/

I am saying you started this off with a claim "The only official statement from Kazakhstan at the moment is below, which it was not. Could you read it again and see that there was a statement by the Speaker of the Senate, or see at least one link I shared? NBC article was published today at 06:21 Astana time while the comment from the Senate Speaker dated 24 February 11:59. Do you think the government will comment on every news story in the world? I understand that zakon.kz will raise questions from foreigners, but at least read what factcheck.kz has provided (with translation, of course). Logically, a request by the forces would mean that at least some information would appear in Russian sources about this request, but this is not the case. The Senate speaker was commenting on internal speculation, not an official request from Russia.--Fl7wless (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign support to Ukraine

Oughtn't there be a section about in the article about lethal and non-lethal aid supplied or being promised to the Ukrainians from several Western countries? Right now there is nothing about it, it seems to me a not completely unimportant part of the story considering how much Ukraine has been insisting on it? Yakikaki (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Any sources on what that aid is? Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, for example here and here there are news that Belgium, Czechia and Netherlands are sending weapons. Yakikaki (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

OK we can say they are supplying arms. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, where should we put this info? Do you want to do it or should I go ahead? Yakikaki (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You go ahead, you have some idea what you want to do with it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There should also be a section on foreign aid being supplied to Russia. Do you agree? Wtoteqw (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I added something, feel free to move/improve as appropriate. Yakikaki (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Me too, in a higher spot. Maxorazon (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There should also be a section on foreign aid being supplied to Russia. Do you agree?Wtoteqw (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I will give the same answer as I did above (and below) Any sources on what that aid is?, because without any we can't have a section that is empty of anything. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Would this and this be good sources? Wtoteqw (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding where they talk about them sending Russia aid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh. If you can’t find where they talk about them sending Russia aid, just use the article as a generic reference. Wtoteqw (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

To what purpose, if it does not add anything we do not already say why use it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (11)

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

Change the CNN reference for the Namura Queen to https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-26-22/h_d79d1d542a90f15d7c38c6e3b03d73ab - this permalinks to the correct post in the live feed.

162.212.233.34 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to the _Namura Queen_ in the article as of now. --\/\/slack (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that they are referring to the "1 Japanese owned vessels damaged" in the casualties section of the infobox. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done - it looks like someone already replaced the URL with the one the anonymous editor suggested. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Belligerent

Misplaced Pages article on Non-belligerent states:

A non-belligerent state differs from a neutral one in that it may support certain belligerents in a war but is not directly involved in military operations... The term is often used to describe a country that does not take part militarily in a war.

In that sense only Ukraine (and not the arms suppliers) should be in the belligerent section.

Shubjt (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Not Russia?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about all the arms suppliers listed after Ukraine.(edited)Shubjt (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree those shouldn't be listed. It's inaccurate and complete WP:OR to call those 'parties in the conflict' and 'belligerents'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Although, reading the Template:Infobox military conflict guidance, it seems a lot of flexibility is left to local editors (however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) ... may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article. -- providing military equipment (etc) may well be sufficient to list them as 'combatants' in that sense. I think it's subjective whether it improves reader understanding, but I also see unrelated reasons for why it would be a good idea to include them all, so (on rethinking) I think I might lean towards supporting inclusion at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There's precedent for listing arms suppliers, for example at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. I can see both sides of the argument here, although I personally think it quickly conveys helpful information. Jr8825 • Talk 02:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that article is the best example for good practice, having closed an RfC there before where the majority position was not policy compliant.

Personally I'm unsure and going a bit back and forth on this. It does seem the West's most substantial intervention is in punitive economic sanctions (though of debatable severity). The Ukrainian PM mentioned in one comment that some British anti-air weapons were used and were helpful, and that more equipment would be helpful, but I don't know to what extent that's politics or whether Western arms supplies are actually substantially helpful (my understanding is the West is not providing meaningful military assistance in this particular invasion, although in the wider crisis in the past few years it might've, and I'm not aware of any military supplies being sent to Ukraine since the start of the invasion). In which case it would not only be inaccurate but maybe even insulting to imply NATO is doing more than it is. Perhaps waiting for sources to come to a consensus is the best approach. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose listing parties that are not participating in combat operations. The trend towards listing entities that are indirectly involved in military conflicts is understandable, but it leads to a mess of OR, UNDUE, and sometimes outright misleading information being included. Diplomatic and material support can be discussed in the article text. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment:' Should we add Chechnya to the infobox? Such as

Russia

• Chechnya

Thus under Russia? Beshogur (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Not an independet state. It's just Russia vs Ukraine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO as a belligerent

I believe NATO should be removed from the infobox as supporting Ukraine, vocal support is not an act of military belligerency. Viewsridge (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: should be made aware of the present talk section and specifically the belligerent topic already discussed extensively here. Maxorazon (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I am aware, however yes vocal support and action is support, and NATO has made it clear they support Ukraine. Stating otherwise and going against what was announced via NATO is Original Research. While can be argued that the support is inefficient, to classify as support. Such nearly all reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine. If we establish a consensus that reliable sources state NATO is supporting Ukraine, and NATO themselves state so stating otherwise is just OR, not only OR but it sets an dangerous precedent of ignoring citations when felt so.

I do however understand the argument that military source is not currently being provided, however we don't classify military support as being the only thing to add to infoboxes. As an example the War in Iraq (2013–2017), another example being the Russo-Ukrainian War shows many countries that supported the campaign but did not aid militarily. If we define that aid support is important then that classifies as support. Des Vallee (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you after reflexion, that adding support: NATO is correct. Finding good sources is still pending IMO. Maxorazon (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What support? What reliable sources? Your edit had three sources. Two said NATO was deploying to NATO states which are *adjacent* to Ukraine, and the third literally says NATO and British troops will not be used to assist Ukraine because it would create an existential threat. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The French government, a key NATO state, is officially supporting the Ukrainian regime for example. AFAIK weapon shipments are on their way from UK and France too. Maxorazon (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

details support and 1 Moreover the citations go into detail onto military aid being sent to Ukraine, the third is due to the announcement and other. I think a foot-note may be best while this is being discussed on the situation with Russia, perhaps linking to the reaction section. The info-box needs to make that clear as military support is not the only action towards support, and I concur with Maxorazon. Des Vallee (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Both those sources precede the invasion, one is from 2018(!). I accept that NATO have supported Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War over the years, including the provision of arms and training. But this article is not about the war since 2014, or even the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, it's about the invasion of Ukraine, a narrow scope concerning a military conflict. AFAIK no country has agreed to provide substantive military assistance to Ukraine. I accept humanitarian aid etc is being given, and maybe further weapons shipments (which countries have said they're open to, although I'm not aware of any shipments since the invasion began) but I think that needs to be mentioned in the article body, where it can be properly contextualised to avoid confusion. Though I'm back and forth on this, as I said in the other section, seeing some people, including editors, be confused by the NATO (etc.) additions in the infobox leads me to feel this addition is a problem without proper contextualisation. We know a lot of people just read the lead+infobox and nothing else. To them the suggested presentation could give–and indeed has given–the impression that NATO states are actually doing something substantive to help Ukraine militarily against the Russian aggression, when obviously we know they aren't, as the Ukranian PM and ambassador have said and as everyone acknowledges. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the source is from 2018 such a source does however detail Military support to Ukraine, and the other is deom the recent. The statement that no country has agreed to send extensive military support is not correct. I do however agree with your statement that it may be best to take the complexities of the situaiton. However the situation has passed. According to this citation 1 NATO forces are already deploying troops.

"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday that U.S. President Joe Biden and his counterparts have agreed to send parts of the organization’s response force to help protect allies in the east following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Speaking after chairing a NATO summit in Brussels, Stoltenberg said the leaders decided to send parts of the NATO Response Force and elements of a quickly deployed spearhead unit. He did not say how many troops would be deployed, but confirmed that the move would involve land, sea and air power." Des Vallee (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

And are being deployed in counties not at war.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The details are unknown but even if it did, it's still direct military support towards Ukraine, if we take an example of say the Congo Crisis, UN forces could only operate in neutral provinces or counties and only fire once fired on, the are still listed as a belligerent. Moreover the article proves the foundation of non-military support in infoboxes as countries like United States, Soviet Union are listed despite not sending in troops, and only providing material support, another example being the Soviet–Afghan War listing supporting nations. Des Vallee (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

France is providing defensive weapons to Ukraine. France ready to evacuate Zelenskyy. UK is sending weapons too. Of course you will find nothing binding directly NATO to Ukraine today. But if Russia declares war against UK or France, you know the drill, by art5 of NATO, all NATO states enter war. Maxorazon (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC) P.S. I propose to add to belligerents NATO support to Ukraine, and as discussed two sections below, mention the unrecognized status of most Russia's allied states - this would better reflect in my opinion the actual balance of power. Maxorazon (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• So, it should not be included as a belligerent based on the discussion above I think. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What kind of argument did you bring to support your opinion? Russia today has from January a detail of weapon shipments. Maxorazon (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That was not a delivery of weapons by NATO as whole (an organization). That was supply of weapons by individual countries: USA, Poland, Canada, etc. NATO includes 30 countries. By including just "NATO" you falsely implicated countries that did not actually supply any weapons. If you believe these countries should be included as supporters in belligerent section, please start new thread and justify your position. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:This borders strongly on the disingenuous side. The Reuters reference, which was in the belligerent section of the infobox, was the head of NATO explicitly declaring the sending of weapons. Also, as you probably know, there is the article 5, which virtually makes every military action of a member state the action of the whole group. I firmly disapprove that the mention as it was was misleading to the reader. Maxorazon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. why in fact should I bear the charge of the source as I already supplied it? It is your turn to find such reliable sources backing your position, reverting meanwhile. Maxorazon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the cited source , the delivery of weapons is NOT an action by by NATO as a whole (as an organization) and NOT an action by all members of the organization (there are ~ 30 members), as your edit (insertion of NATO in the infobox) implies. Yes, the individual countries did delivered weapons, as this source say. Yes, this source say "NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Friday the alliance was deploying parts of its combat-ready response force". But the combat-ready response force was deployed in countries that are not participants of the military conflict, as someone else already noted above. Please self-revert or you may be reported to WP:3RR or WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Quoting the first paragraph. "the alliance was deploying parts of its combat-ready response force and would continue to send weapons to Ukraine". I see literally the alliance subject of the verb send, with the object being weapons.

I am not trying to antagonize for the sake of it: my hope is to remain as objective as possible while conveying a real change of the attitude of Europeans. Meanwhile your accusation remains baseless, maybe other opinions could further advance the debate. Maxorazon (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. RaiderAspect has a nuanced view on why he is opposing it in the belligerent section. BlackholeWA supports in the breakaway state section. I repeat, that in my opinion, not mentioning anyone standing besides Ukraine is more dishonest to the reader than displaying NATO help in such contrived terms "indirect defensive military & ISR aid". Maxorazon (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You always need to read and understand what the source actually say. It say: "Some of the 30 NATO allies announced the type of weapons that they would supply Ukraine, including air defenses, he said, without giving details.". This is all. Everything else (such as relocating their forces) was not in support of Ukraine, but to defer Russia from attacking NATO countries. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

At the NATO pristine source, quoting "We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself and call on others to do the same." I suggest that you revert to displaying NATO as supporting belligerent. Which it is, not recognizing it is some denial of reality. Maxorazon (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he tells that ""We will continue to provide political and practical support to Ukraine". But who are "we"? After reading the text, it is abundantly clear it is not NATO as an organization, but a few countries (all sources say about it in terms of support from specific countries). That info about supporting Ukraine is already included on the page, and rightly so. But saying this is "whole NATO" in the infobox is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You are forming original research here. Please refer to WP:OR, we are not as editors supposed to look for interpretations ourselves, the interpretation should be made in the sources. I have cited explicitely two sources backing my position, you have cited nothing and only pretended to be better able to read prose than me. I am calling for help from other editors and already for moderation for help, to revert to the previous state on this topic. Maxorazon (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)