Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:51, 4 March 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.

Second Cold War

The article, rightly, listed in the See also section is in serious need of updates concerning recent events. Any assistance from contributors on this article would be great. Thanks!--Surv1v4l1st 02:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some contention over whether or not the article should even exist. I support its existence, but should that issue be clarified first, so that we can then move on to discussing how the article should be structured, which would facilitate other users contributing to the article? Perhaps we could initiate a discussion on its talkpage? -- Sentimex (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Call for feedback in article overhaul

I terminated my somewhat still very superficial analysis of the conflict (3 days of work).
I am synthesizing, and look for opinions.
I consider making only one big section without subsections for background, moving all my synthesis in the Russo-Ukrainian War article, in its own background section. And transvasing most of the nato reaction part into this latter. Maxorazon (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Another option is to severe the redirect from Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War to the article documenting the 2014 unrest, and make a new article out of it? The thing is I'd like to try to paint a full picture, not only a historical one...Maxorazon (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
A third option is to place the analysis in Russia–Ukraine relations.
A fourth one is to make somewhat of a portal as in the first link above... Maxorazon (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but if it is synthesis it has no place here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that synthesis has its place here, WP:SYNTH clearly states that if done right it can be accepted. And synthesis belongs to the fundamental essence of this encyclopedia. Maxorazon (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Which part of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any so" implies that? Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that synthesis necessarily implies an ideological payload, a thesis? It can be just putting ideas together, make links, as the basis for our web? Maxorazon (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal on changing article structure re recentism

Proposal The structure of this article is highly skewed by recentism. The worst section is the Invasion section, which has an unstructured daily account. As per The 10 year test articles should be written so that they make sense in ten years time. Some good examples of similar tenish year old articles are: Russo-Georgian War, War_in_Donbas and 2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I propose that at least in the invasion section, it be restructured along the major themes, e.g. Initial attacks, Air battle, Battle of Kyiv , Battle of Kharkiv etc. Alternatively they could be called Kyiv Offensive etc. I would welcome any comments and feedback, including on improving the rest of the article. I feel this is something that is best off happening now, even if quite a bit of content gets culled temporarily. It really needs consensus because any WP:BOLD restructure will just get reverted.Mozzie (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally Approve, even if WP:NODEADLINE, godspeed with the overhaul. Maxorazon (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Approve. I've been trying to put the text into past tense, but that is clearly not enough. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's too early to move away from a chronological structure, as it'll inevitably risk turning into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH until more sources are available. As a tertiary source, we record history but we don't write it ourselves, we follow what expert sources have to say. Most of the invasion section should be moved to Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and you're welcome to start transferring/cutting some of the less important details (you can use the section sizes tool at the top of this talk page to help, which shows that the sections most in need of shortening are "24 February", "Sanctions", "Reactions#Other countries and international organisations", and "Protests#Outside Russia"). However, it's important to emphasise that's there's no rush, and we don't want to end up losing valuable information in the process. Much of the information in the invasion section is still helpful to readers, and it's far too early for us to build a sophisticated account of the invasion's history – not least because we don't know how broad the topic scope will be – will this article eventually transform into coverage of a longer war? Will it cover a month-long invasion? Or a year-long invasion? These possibilities would drastically change the appropriate level of detail. The secondary sources, which we will eventually want our article's structure reflect, haven't been written yet. Let events unfold, shorten where necessary to maintain a decent overall length, and we can collectively make editorial decisions when things are a bit clearer. Jr8825 • Talk 09:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:NORUSH apply here. The idea is about how to structure the article in some semblance of what it would look like in ten years time, it isn't about adding original research or synthesising conclusions. And NORUSH doesn't talk about these kinds of large structural changes. This is about directing people's efforts towards making a good wikipedia article, because as it stands the house will have to be torn down and rebuilt anyway.Mozzie (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No rush is general guidance, but OR & SYTNH are policies, so always apply – particularly for a subject such as this where scholarship will take time to catch up with news. Jr8825 • Talk 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules... Mozzie (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it is down to you to convince people this is a valid suggestion. And IAR is not carte blanche to ignore consensus and do as you please (I will also invoke IAR to ignore IAR). Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I didn't have time to write a long post..... WP:IAR doesn't say ignore all rules. It says we should improve Misplaced Pages. Jr8825 wrote "but OR & SYTNH are policies, so always apply" I see two ways of interpreting the word apply here. One is that because it is a policy it is a hard rule. That is clearly false. Policies on Misplaced Pages don't always apply (unless there are legal implications). The other is to that because policies always apply anything that whiffs of synth is forbidden. Also clearly false. Moreover, SYNTH explicitly states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.". How is changing and rearranging articles to reflect the style of more mature (with mature consensus articles). How is that combining information to reach different conclusions as per the wording of the policy? To quote from WP:EDIT: "This page in a nutshell: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong"". Mozzie (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify further, your suggestion is likely the way this article should go in time, but it's not possible to create such sections yet without restoring to synthesis, as all we have is news reports and disjointed facts. Jr8825 • Talk 11:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, the "Invasion" section is not the worst, but the most important part of the page because it provides the most of the factual information about the events. So, I do not see this as something problematic, at least at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Caution advised: I'm not totally against this. I agree Mozzie that the article structure may need to be changed at some point but I think Jr8825 nailed it with: "The secondary sources, which we will eventually want our article's structure reflect, haven't been written yet." The Russo-Georgian War article focuses on a 12 day conflict in Aug 2008 but uses reference material written in 2010, 2015, 2016, even as late as 2021 - 13 years after the focal point of events. History is barely one week into the topic of this article and we still lack a clear (and WP:NPOV) indication of how long it will last. To be blunt, the subject of this article as currently titled is recent. At this early stage I think my sentiment on WP:10YT is "proceed with caution." Editors making decisions now about what will have lasting significance is not impossible but it might flirt with WP:SYNTH or other WP policies. I note that WP:RECENT guides us with, "Proper perspective requires maturity, judgment, and the passage of time" (emphasis mine). --N8 18:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Mozzie - I just noticed and am very confused at the recentism tag on the invasion section. That whole section is exclusively about recent events, not slanted towards them. The notice suggests keeping things in 'historical perspective' and adding more content about 'non-recent events'. That's a really tall order for a topic so young. Are you sure this is the best tag for the type of clean up this section needs? I see Brandmeister reverted once already so asking here to be sure. Please double check the text of that notice. --N8 20:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The maintenance tag may not be worded the best way but it is the underlying principle of WP:RECENTISM, a tendency to focus on every little recent detail without regard to what details are historically significant if you were looking at the issue from a WP:10YEARTEST perspective. Notwithstanding the fact that we don't have a crystall ball, it can still be quite obvious when a certain detail is obviously NEWS-y and not something you'd include if you were writing about something that happened 50 years ago. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps {{Overly detailed}}? --N8 21:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that would probably raise less eyebrows. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

All good points. The overly detailed tag seems much better suited.Mozzie (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Horlivka offensive (2022)

The map was updated to show the new Ukrainian offensive (capturing of Horlivka), but no offensive arrows were added to the map, so can someone update the map with an arrow showing the Ukrainian offensive? Elijahandskip (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Cancellation of Switzerland's neutral position

On the 28th of February 2022, Switzerland has canceled its neutrality for the first time since 1815 due to the dishonorable Russian invasion of Ukraine. Bern has already joined EU sanctions against Russian Federation and its president personally. Source: Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/neutral-swiss-adopt-sanctions-against-russia-2022-02-28/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тимур Сорока (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

quick point of clarity: This WP:RS doesn't mention 1815 as a reference point, and there have been previous sanctions from the country. That's not to say these aren't unique in some way of course. Thank you for the reference. --N8 23:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Protests

Text required: Should to mention most of russians scared to criticise govenment since october 1993 crisis when protests in Moscow were suppressed by tanks. PavelSI (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv

I think including information on the Ghost of Kyiv would be a very interesting addition to this article. Although most of the information currently presented is still uncertain to be fact or propaganda, our collection of media does play a significant role in the interpretation of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardenclyffe2302 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is getting pretty long as it is. We're going to have to trim and cut. This article can't include every single thing from this war. Ghost of Kyiv is on Kyiv-based subpages and that's where it belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is linked in the template at the bottom of the page (and all those related), for whatever it is worth. --Surv1v4l1st 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Ghost of Kyiv" story is likely a product of the fog of war. I've not seen any reliable confirmation that this person even exists, nor is it clear that this many aircraft have been downed. I suggest it not be linked yet. Also there's a good chance that it will not be possible to confirm his kill tally until after the war is over - possibly long after. --Maxcelcat (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022 (4)

This edit request to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Alexander Lukashenko and the Belarus Prime minister, and other Belarusian Generals to the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the chart. LeftistPhilip (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. —Compassionate727  02:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Error in the casualty box

Source 16 is an article that doesn't state anything about Russian civilian ships being hit. Plz check the source and refresh 2607:FB91:481:595F:91DE:7B67:E98D:576A (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The source states the following:

Meanwhile, Russian news agency TSS reported that two Russian ships had been hit by Ukrainian missiles in the Sea of Azov north of the Black Sea, causing several casualties. The report claimed the vessels that were hit were civilian commercial ships.

Seems to check out to me. BSMRD (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Impact on Ukraine's unique airfreight industry?

Ukraine is home to Antonov Airlines, which has a fleet of unusual aircraft, including some of the largest and indeed the largest aircraft in the world, the AN-225. This airline could do things that no other could, carrying large and heavy cargo halfway around the world in a matter of days.

It appears that on the 24th and 25th of February, during the Battle of Antonov Airport, Russian shelling destroyed the AN-225 and a number of other aircraft, effectively hobbling this important Ukrainian company. Which will in fact have a global impact, their planes were often involved in humanitarian missions, and delivering vital equipment of great economic importance. For example, they shipped a huge generator from Europe to Western Australia in a matter of days, rather than six months, which prevented a vast mining operation from having to shut down.

Anyway, perhaps a section could be added called "Long Term Economic Impact on Ukraine", and a section beneath that called "Destruction of Antonov Airways Fleet".

Thanks for your attention!

--Maxcelcat (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably better to make a separate article if there's sufficient material and sources, and just bring back a brief summary here. There is already a discussion above by people trying to improve the structure of this article, which is huge in size. The COVID-19 pandemic has a huge number of more specific, related articles, so it would surprising if this one didn't. Boud (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

There's already an "economic impact" section but two subsections of that called "Long Term Economic Impact on Ukraine" where such could be included, and "Long Term Economic Impact on Russia" respectively (which could then include the effects of sanctions and so on) could be a good idea to add eventually I think. But it probably should not be added now right, because how could anyone know the long-term economic impacts of any of this.. a long time has not passed yet. :) 78.78.200.165 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please remove two paragraphs from August 25

Please remove the two one paragraph sentences from August 25. They are both unconfirmed and all things considered not needed in this broad review of the activity of that day. Here is the full ABC report for the first one re the school bombing: "— The mayor said a school building was hit by a Ukrainian shell in the rebel-held city of Horlivka in eastern Ukraine, killing its headteacher and a teacher; rebels who hold Donetsk said the city's main hospital was damaged by shelling but there were no casualties." The second paragraph that needs to be removed from our article reads, "reports circulated of a Ukrainian missile attack against the Millerovo air base in Russia, to prevent the base being used to provide air support to Russian troops in Ukraine." The source is written in Russian. "Reports circulated" is not encyclopedic. Sectionworker (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy

This section seems incredibly biased. We only see negative portrayals of Putin and positive portrayals of Zelenskyy. Could we maybe have some level of balance here, as the article is verging into propaganda. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Care to give some examples? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some examples, but as a general note: almost the entire world is against Putin's war, and this extends to reliable sources discussing the war. So it's not really surprising that most sources portray Putin's involvement negatively and Zelenskyy's positively, especially given Ukraine's predicted odds. Since Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources (per WP:DUE etc), it follows that the same portrayal will exist in this article, otherwise we'd be doing WP:FALSEBALANCE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The section looks more like an op-ed piece that have no business being on wikipedia. Moreover, your claim that almost the entire world is against the war is simply untrue as proven by the International Reactions section, close to half are neutral, made no comments or are supportive.Nebakin (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Close to half are neutral or are supportive" is an interesting way to put it, as there are only a handful of countries supporting Russia here (and Belarus and Syria are Russian puppets). Phiarc (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I have at least tweaked this section slightly https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1074838524&oldid=1074838374&title=2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diffmode=source given the existing sources. ·addshore· 13:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

In the context of this war, what "positive portrayal of Putin" would you like us to give? Maybe we could praise his dress-sense? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets see some RS praising him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Made no comments" doesn't mean appraising Putin. In addition, no comments means there isn't anything we can write... P1221 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, kind of my point. Not having an opinion is not the same as having a positive opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the section for now and copied the text below for discussion, as I think it needs a heavy rewrite before it's ready. I agree it reads like an op-ed piece/WP:OR, in particular the WP:TONE isn't impartial/detached, which means it violates WP:NPOV, one of the core content policies. There are also a lot of exceptional claims and subjective statements, which require excellent sources and clear in-text attribution. Misplaced Pages doesn't have the authority to say, in article voice, claims such as "Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine" – who is this according to? Which experts of Russian politics say this? Or "His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces" – again, who knows what Putin was expecting? This is the viewpoint/analysis of several journalists. These kind of analyses need in-text attribution, e.g. "According to the Economist..." Also, we should prefer subject experts/academics over columnists/journalists writing in magazines. I appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into the section, and there are some good ideas to work with, but it needs a careful rewrite before it's ready, especially given how highly trafficked the page is currently. Jr8825 • Talk 16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE is also a concern (and a part of NPOV), So far we have seen no sources praising Putin, so to argue "we have to be neutral" when it's clear RS is not is a false balance argument. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't largely object to the substance of what's written, my issue is with how it's written. All of these claims, which I largely believe are correct, are written as fact in article voice, which is inappropriate. Pretty much every sentence is problematic. In-text attribution is required for assessments of how Putin may have been thinking, or subjective assessments. We don't write "Hitler thought X", or "Churchill believed X", we write "According to historian X, Churchill believed X". For example, "Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support" – according to who? Writing "Zelenskyy was widely seen as being highly effective in lobbying his allies for support" is different from stating this assessment (a judgement of effectiveness) as fact. We don't make our own assessments, because Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. "Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community" – this is a subjective opinion, not a fact: what constitutes a "pariah"? What does "shunned" mean? How much of the global community is "much"? We need to be accurate and factual, not sweeping and subjective. Jr8825 • Talk 16:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Except, of course, the Ukrainians are getting help from all kinds of places (even countries traditional Nuetral), and Russia has pretty much been treated as a pariah. So do we really need to attribute what is staring us in the face? Sure if it was open to some doubt that Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies" (in truth allies should be removed, as many of them are not allies) you might have a point (the same with Putin's Pariah status) but it's not the case. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Zelenskyy's effectiveness is perhaps the least controversial claim, so I accept that may not need attribution. Putin's status as a "global pariah" is not something Misplaced Pages should proclaim in article voice, however. Kim Jong-un doesn't say "he's a pariah". Has China (world's largest population) condemned Putin? Or Iran? Or Venezuela? These are also members of the global community, even if they have unpleasant regimes. The democratic world is not the entire world. That's why such a statement should be attributed to whichever expert is saying it. What do the sources supplied actually say? And yes, we do need to attribute the obvious unless the reliable sources are unanimous about it, in which case we don't need to attribute it. So if all the sources say Zelenskyy was effective, that's fine. But the reason we need to avoid stating as fact the things we find obvious is that we don't all agree on what's obvious - tertiary sources collate other sources without adding any additional analysis, which is why readers can trust them. Jr8825 • Talk 16:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

True, but if we list the countries that are outright sending arms compared to those not condemning which is larger? But we do in fact say (in the first line "According to the portrayal in Western media") and we go on "was shunned by much of the global community", and this https://www.statista.com/chart/26946/stance-on-ukraine-invasion/ implies it is most of it (look at all that blue). If anything we downplay the degree to which he has been condemned. Hell he is being stripped of honorary titles and wards, by people like the IOC (hardly known for not being neutral) Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to compromise on what's being said or water it down – the general content is fine, it's just large parts of it are clearly analysis, and Misplaced Pages doesn't (and shouldn't) do analysis in its own voice. So we can either attribute the analysis, or demonstrate the validity of the analysis by providing relevant facts. Unfortunately, the use of these sources in the paragraph below is poor. Look for example at the Guardian article for the statement "Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community". It takes the attention-grabbing headline and repeats it as fact, directly contravening WP:HEADLINES. The actual article itself says "Putin was facing ... the prospect of pariah status" – not the same as saying he already has it. Our sentence should reflect what the article actually says, and could go something like: Putin faced international isolation after the invasion; in the global condemnation and outrage which followed, even long-term allies such as China and Hungarian president Viktor Orbán refused to support his actions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, this is all wrong for a number of reasons. For example, "Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine." No, he was not "the sole architect of the war". General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was, not mentioning a lot of other people who are now sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• As the primary contributer of this section, I welcome the use of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and than Jr8825 for using it. In writing this, I found it very difficult to adopt a neutral tone. The best available contemporaneous reliable sources say are highly praising of Zelenskyy and generally damning of Putin. How do we come up with NPOV tone here? Is it even possible? To quote WP:NPOV "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." and then goes on to say with respect to bias in sources: "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." Is this article better served by leaving leadership out altogether? It is clearly a significant issue in the conflict.Mozzie (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

If RS say it’s bad leadership, then it is neutral to say it is bad. —Michael Z. 05:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership of Putin and Zelenskyy

The leadership of the presidents of Russia and Ukraine was a prominent factor in the conflict. According to the portrayal in Western media, as the autocratic ruler of Russia, Putin was effectively in sole control of the country's policy and was the sole architect of the war with Ukraine. His leadership was characterised by his failures to anticipate the will of the Ukrainian people to oppose the invasion, the worldwide backlash, and the poor performance of his own forces. Putin swiftly became a pariah, and was shunned by much of the global community. This contrasted with the leadership of Zelenskyy, who quickly became a national hero, uniting the Ukrainian people and rising from obscurity to become an international icon.

In the beginning of the conflict, Zelenskyy refused to leave the capital, pledging to stay and fight. When the US offered to evacuate him, Zelenskyy replied that he needed ammunition and not a ride. He used social media effectively, posting selfies of himself walking the streets of Kyiv as the city was under attack to prove that he was still alive. Zelenskyy was highly effective in lobbying his allies for support. He appeared before numerous gatherings of international leaders, telling a conference of European leaders that this might be the last time they would see him, and appearing before the European Parliament where he earned a standing ovation.

References

1. "Vladimir Putin has shifted from autocracy to dictatorship". The Economist. 13 November 2021. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
2. Nast, Condé (26 February 2022). "Putin's Bloody Folly in Ukraine". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
3. Bump, Philip (28 February 2022). "The bizarre, literal isolation of Vladimir Putin". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
4. Harris, Shane (2 March 2022). "In Putin, intelligence analysts see an isolated leader who underestimated the West but could lash out if cornered". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
5. Beaumont, Peter; Graham-Harrison, Emma; Oltermann, Philip; Roth, Andrew (26 February 2022). "Putin shunned by world as his hopes of quick victory evaporate". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
6. Pieper, Oliver (26 February 2022). "Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy: From comedian to national hero". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
7. "Zelenskyy's unlikely journey, from comedy to wartime leader". AP News. 26 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
8. "To many he's the face of Ukrainian bravery — but Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an unlikely wartime leader". ABC News. 27 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
9. Pierson, Carli (26 February 2022). "'I need ammunition, not a ride': Zelenskyy is the hero his country needs as Russia invades". USA Today. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
10. "Ukraine's Zelenskyy says he is Russia's 'number one target'". Al Jazeera. 25 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
11. "Zelensky rejects US evacuation offer: I need ammunition, 'not a ride'". Times of Israel. 26 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
12. Jack, Victor; Stolton, Samuel (1 March 2022). "Ukraine wages 'information insurgency' to keep Russia off balance". Politico. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
13. "Ukrainian President Zelenskyy posts a selfie video from Kyiv, says 'we will defend our country'". The Economic Times. 26 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
14. Ravid, Barak (25 February 2022). "Zelensky to EU leaders: 'This might be the last time you see me alive'". Axios. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
15. "'Nobody is going to break us': Zelenskyy's emotional plea to EU brings interpreters to tears". ABC News. 1 March 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.

|}

Please Add This to Article: 3 March ICC (International Criminal Court) announcement (Citation is provided, see below)

Please add this to the article, feel free to re-word if needed. **Citation is included.

On 3 March the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC (International Criminal Court) announced that evidence was being collected of alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This after 39 nations petitioned for an inquiry to be opened.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Becky Morton, BBC News (March 3 2022) Ukraine: Russia faces war crimes investigation

Russian Ground Forces enter Ukraine from Russia, Crimea, and Belarus

For those totally unaware of the relevant geopolitics, this implies that Crimea is not a part of Ukraine. It doesn't necessarily imply that it's a part of Russia either, but the wording here should be revised such that the implication is clear that Crimea is a part of Ukraine but occupied by Russia. Maybe the addition of something like "Russian-occupied" prior to Crimea. -- zaiisao 08:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, the intro states that Russian forces openly crossed the international border and entered the breakaway territories in Ukraine on Feb 22, but then “Russian ground forces entered the country” on Feb 24. This falsely implies that the occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk are not in the country, tacitly recognizing the mainly unrecognized “states.”

Why is February 24 the start of this invasion, when it’s stated forces invaded two days earlier? —Michael Z. 06:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo in section "War Crimes"

A paragraph begins: "On 27 February, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russian before the International Court of Justice...". Should "Russian" simply be "Russia", or should it be "Russian ? Mckenzie Weir (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in the first instance that you mentioned. I better let someone else fix that, however. My account is acting strangely.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Misplaced Pages taken down?

I'm watching NBC News Now after the 2022 state of the union right now, and a reporter on location in what appeared to be Ukraine said that Misplaced Pages was being taken down in Russia. I did a quick search and the only thing that comes up is Blocking of Misplaced Pages in Russia which took place in 2012. Keep an eye out for RSS about this.

I was also wondering earlier today if we should be making lists of reactions/sanctions on Russia by individuals and private companies. Apparently the pornhub ban was a hoax, but I've heard legitimate stories about Visa and Mastercard, semiconductors, BP and Shell, ice skating events, Warner Bros. film releases and others. I also see that Russia itself is blocking twitter and Facebook, and facebook and tiktok are blocking Russian media.

I just think at some point this project can expand to include lists of such actions in the same way that these three lists were made about the George Floyd protests. Something to think about. Hope it helps. Kire1975 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is this article on RT Russian media watchdog warns Misplaced Pages over ‘Ukraine invasion’ entry, a deprecated source WP:RSP. Rusty5231B (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that's it. I seem to remember the reporter stating it was the other way around. Misplaced Pages would be punishing Russia by taking itself down, but that really wouldn't make sense after some contemplation. Hopefully, that's all it is. Thanks much. Kire1975 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Misplaced Pages in Russia"). Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media is furious about Russian version of the article and wants to block Misplaced Pages. The technical aspect is that blocking of one article means the blocking of whole Misplaced Pages (Russian, English, Ukrainian, Spanish and others Wikis). K8M8S8 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything recent on Talk:Blocking of Misplaced Pages in Russia. Kire1975 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems we should update the article Blocking of Misplaced Pages in Russia. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by We discussed it on current talk page (see "Blocking Misplaced Pages in Russia")? Perhaps provide a link pointing to this discussion? Kire1975 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It was moved to archive Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 5. K8M8S8 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)