Misplaced Pages

Talk:War in Donbas

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) at 05:36, 21 November 2014 (→Vladimir Putin should not be listed as a leader in the infobox: unsigned IP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:36, 21 November 2014 by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) (→Vladimir Putin should not be listed as a leader in the infobox: unsigned IP)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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: 30 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system.
Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Misplaced Pages for more information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Russian & Soviet
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
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.


Clarification on "crimes against humanity"

My edit summary failed, so let me clarify here. I moved that little tiny to section to the war crimes section in Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass, which is where it belongs. This bit here is only a small summary section of the sub-article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just have one thing to say about this: All (or at least the ones that are considered more serious) of them shall be listed, since this is one of the most serious issues concerning to the War in Donbass. Like in any other article that has to do with wars. I guess that WW2 (as an example) that is very well-documented about human-rights issues, this one should provide an example concerning to the edits about those issues. (at least, in my opinion, take into account a war that has neither to do with USA or Russia, such as the Rwandan Genocide). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (00:11, 24 October 2014 - London/Lisbon/Casablanca Time))
This my opinion is not about the proportion of the atrocities, by the way, since 800.000 Tutsies were killed in the Rwandan Genocide, while, until now more than 3.000 Ukrainians or (if they wish to be called as that) Novorossiyans (very respectable number, but far lower than in the Rwandan genocide) have been killed. Numbers, sometimes are a bit fallacious, but in this context I think they are relevant.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (00:18, 24 October 2014 - London/Lisbon/Casablanca Time))

Krymske

This town has been retaken by Ukrainian forces http://www.vgolos.lviv.ua/polityka/novyny/u-zvilnenomu-selyschi-krymske-luganschyni-pidnialy-ukrainskyj-prapor-foto-23120.html

Write that in the Timeline of the war in Donbass, please. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done already this was. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia page on New Russia's November 2 election

In my opinion, there should be one. If someone can start an article on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is this article, Donbass parliamentary elections, 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted deletion of Rasmussen attribution and more...

Regarding this reversion, I did not like the removal of the attribution which was not justified in the edit summary when the reverter also did something else in his reversion. On that basis alone, it seems questionable. Reversions should always be explained unless reverting clearly non-compliant edits.Moreover the justification for the primary reversion seems weak and combative, although it may well be sustainable upon further inquiry. Wikidgood (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:INTEXT, the present form is misleading. No in-text attribution is required, and using it is an attempt to push a WP:POV. It is not only Mr Rasmussen that believes this. It is the vast majority of reliable sources. This is a bit of WP:GEVAL. As far as the Ukraine shelling, that has nothing to do "Russian involvement", as the section heading says. It is already recorded elsewhere, notably at Shelling of Donetsk, Russia. This section is only about Russian actions. RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No idea why you did that. User Herzen used weak sourcing and constructed a phrase which makes readers assume there was some sort of serious artillery barrage on Russian Federation Territory from the Ukraine. Looking at the source, that seems highly inappropriate. Alexpl (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Concerning to Rasmussen, I didn't change anything for now, since the source is actually about what he stated, and subsequent reactions by other people. I guess there are probably other sources, but I think another has to be added in order to change it, in my opinion. Concerning to the shelling in Donetsk (Russia) I added the reaction of the deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, since his reaction may have to do with the section, though not the action by itself (then it would fit in a reverse section, hyperbolically speaking "Ukrainian intervention in Russia") Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd be glad if a solution for this topic could be achieved here. A statement from a Russian official concerrning to reliatory actions is relevant for this section, no matter if this content is uncomfortable for both sides. It can be rephrased, but it's useful in the text.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1: I strongly disagree. Not only is this WP:UNDUE (a "single shell", really?), but it is also out of place. It doesn't make any sense to inject a sentence about something that has nothing to do with Russian involvement in the war, that is about a minor event in July, in the middle of a paragraph that is talking about the late August "invasion". It is out of chronology. That matter is dealt with elsewhere, and as it stands now, the prose simply doesn't flow and doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1: I agree that this doesn't belong here. The only reason that I reverted this edit was that the edit summary "says Russia" by Volunteer Marek was defamatory and inflammatory. (@RGloucester: A single shell maybe, but the Ukrainians killed a Russian civilian and injured another civilian on Russian soil with it.) – Herzen (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No doubt, Herzen, which is presumably why it has its own article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: When I reinserted the text I wasn't pretending to say that it would be a proportionate response. I actually thought about the case between Israel and Gaza. Hamas sends a dozen of rockets that kill a couple of Israelis and Israel grounds Gaza and kills 2000 Palestinians! However, I just pointed out that a conclusion should be reached here. For me, it's OK if it's removed. I don't really think that the Russian shelling was a consequence of that particular event. For me it's fine, either if the text stays or if it's removed. Given that I'm not seeing any opposition concerning to the removal of this content, I revert my reinsertion of the text.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Accountability for the actions in Donbass, Comparing to other WP articles about this issue, this article is biased

Discussion closed per WP:NOTFORUM. Let's focus on the articles, not off-topic debate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've compared this article with other articles and news from non-English sources concerning to the War in Donbass. And I've noticed that this article is too lenient towards the Ukrainian official position. The Ukrainian government also has responsabilities in what has been happening in Donbass, like Donbass people would not be Ukrainian citizens. As a Portuguese, I'd find ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE if the Portuguese govt would be doing these actions against either Portuguese citizens from Azores or Madeira. So, I'd expect the same from the Ukrainian authorities. And very little has been talked about the Ukrainian authorities, in this article. Mostly only concerning to Ukraine, US and EU positions, and the Ukrainian official positions (which haven't been voted by Donbass). What about if editors here really are AWARE of the Donbass people's preocupations are? (no matter if that is uncomfortable against Russia, EU, USA or the Pope!). Because they're 6-7 million, and they have been killed or in practice expelled from their lands because of this idiotic geopolitical issue, that only brings eventual +s to Eurocrats, US and the Russian establishment! This is, from scratch (in my opinion), a deep issue about how this article (in English) has been constructed. And as I said far far far before this thoughts have been edited, that has nothing to do with the Russian position, since I don't care at all about what Russia thinks or doesn't think. This has to do with my perspective about the Ukrainian government, the Novorossiyan government, the Russian government, the Western governments and last but not least, about the other entities or governments attitudes concerning to the people of Donbass. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparing to other WP articles about this issue, this article is biased I'm fortunate to understand also very well Spanish, Portuguese, and quite well, Italian and French articles in WP, as well as the sources from the countries that have either Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or French as their languages. And from these ones, particularly from France24, as well as others, I've noticed that the English WP is very lenient towards the Ukrainian authotities, as they had nothing to do with the issue. From the other language sources, I know that the Ukrainian official authorities have killed a lot of people, maybe more than the insurgents! Let's get this article out of any bias! And I'm not biased! I'm only for the truth (not any Washington, Berlin or Brussels-promoted truth, the actual truth about what has been happening). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2014 (GMT/Lisbon/London/Dublin/Casablanca Time)

This is your opinion. It is also President Putin's opinion. And people who work for the Russia Today TV channel also have to express the same opinion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
As all other Russian Federation State Media. I hope our colleague did not form his opinion with the help of those. Alexpl (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not any Russian opinion, it is an opinion from a Portuguese that has nothing to do with immingrants from Ukraine (I have nothihng against them, actually I've worked quite hard for these workers and made frienships with those from Ukraine, inoder for them to get their fair income, including against my own Portuguese bosses, to get their salaries legally afforded to those Ukrainian workers (both Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking). I was very comfortable writing almost only in airlines articles, until I was almost caught in this issue, right after I started editing here. And I'm an admirer of GORBATCHEV, as I have written in my userpage. And Gorbatchev (yes, he's still alive and speaking) has been quite critical about the so-called Western (I'm from Portugal, so I'd be Western, but I'm absolutely against this circus between the EU Eurocrats and the US neocons and the Russian imperialists) have supported Western Ukraine against Eastern Ukraine plus Russia. Now, I wonder how EU got its Nobel Prize, because trying to put Western Ukraine against Eastern Ukraine was worst possible idea that EU could have had. Now, at this time, I support the people who are suffering the most from this battle between EU+US and Russia for Donbass. I've decided to support the people from Donbass, though they have been just puppets of Russia, EU and the US. And that's unacceptable when almost 4000 people from there have died, thanks EU, US and Russia. For me, thanks, but no thanks! Let the Donbass people decide! The People from Donbass! In fair and independently scrutinized referendum (I had already said that this would be the solution that I envisioned.. and it's not going to be yet this time, but scared of USA noone is able to scrutinize that election).Mondolkiiri1 (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to kick me from the English Misplaced Pages for these opinion, go on, I'll be glad to have more time to edit in the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and French Wikipedias!Mondolkiiri1 (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont see how to find out the will of the people there, as long as gunmen from Russia hang around. And since the war continues, with Pro-Russians having announced just yesterday to attack Mariupol, if it is not given to them by Ukraine, I guess it will be a while until a referendum could be disussed again - or put into the article. Alexpl (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, what I guess that what I meant was that no side is interested to give chance to the people of Donbass, in order for them to speak their will, and make their will valid enough to be considered. No! Russia says its theirs, Ukraine, with the very "uninterested" help of EU and USA, says it's not. Though, as a Portuguese (neighbour) I'd be more interested in an unified and stronger Spanish state, I found ridiculous that the Spanish state didn't allow Catalonia to go on with their rerendum. My position is that there must be a fair and independently scrutinized referendum in Crimea, and also in Donbass (either if it's all the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts or just part of them)! Because Ukraine is not treating them as Ukrainians at all! If that was here and "Lisbon" (let's say) was doing to us in my region what Ukraine is doing to them, I'd vote: Yes! Let's be independent! But that's up to them, not to me, or us, or people in Kiev and even less people in USA! It's up to the people in Donbass! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is impossible to have a "fair" referendum after the situation that one is voting on has become a fait accompli. There is no fairness. What's more, the residents of the Donbass, those that remain alive and not as refugees, anyway, are living under the barrel of a gun. That's the gun of Russia, and the gun of the DPR and LPR. Don't be fooled by the separatists. They don't represent the majority of Donbass people. It is quite clear that they don't. Regardless of what's wrong with Ukraine, because there is a lot wrong with Ukraine, the Donbass people have always wanted to be a part of a united Ukraine. A small minority of the urban intelligentsia in Donetsk might've wanted otherwise, but these were always a tiny, tiny minority. In other words, the people of Donbass cannot "decide", because the decision has already been made for them by those in Russia, just as it was with the Georgians in Abkhazia. RGloucester — ☎ 13:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that neither the referendum in Crimea was fair and independently verified, nor are the referendums and these elections in Donbass. But would Ukraine (and those who are backing it) actually allow a referendum about these issues?... They should, and they should be fair and independently verified! But until that happens, it's going to be like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. But in Cyprus there was already a referendum, when surprisingly the Turkish Cypriots agreed to reunify the island and the Greek Cypriots didn't. Without a referendum, these issues won't be decisively solved, neither in Crimea nor in Donbass. And I've writen the background of the unrest with you, though I was then more focused about Odessa where there are no urges to be independent from Ukraine. But I also helped about the Donbass. Yes, historically it's Ukrainian territory, but Kosovo is also historically Serbian territory. The politicians may have double standards. An encyclopedia (in my opinion) shouldn't have! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't understand. There cannot be democracy in such a situation. The circumstances for such a referendum simply don't exist. Democracy requires stability and safety, if it is to work. None of these conditions exist in Donbass. None of the conditions necessary for a free and fair referendum are present. None. It is not going to be like Turkish Cyprus, because there is no ethnic conflict. The situation in Donbass is a fait accompli, and there is no going back. RGloucester — ☎ 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I know that very well, that there are not (and there were not) conditons to carry these referemdums, and elections. I think that they should be repeated. If Ukraine and Russia allow, in Crimea (in this case it would need to have a Russian allowance now) and in Donbass, and if Spain allows, in Catalonia (and if necessary in the Basque Country and eventually in Galicia), I'm all for it. But I can't be against it if these 2 countries don't allow (and Kurdistan in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and Tibet in China, so on), because I have a regard for the self-determination of people. As I had in the case of East Timor... It was being ruled by a dictator, called Suharto, and after that they finally got their independence, but I understood well why they were fighting (if they didn't have the allowance of Indonesia, what could they do?... to fast and do hunger strikes like Ghandi did)? No, That's not how it generally works, though I praise and admire a lot Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I ask now the opinion of @Iryna Harpy:, since she is Ukrainian, a person with a high integrity, very interested in Eastern Europe matters (probably more than the Secretary of State of USA) and I absolutely trust her, absolutely, concerning to these issues! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference, though, is that there is no ongoing war in Catalonia. The government of Spain is not likely to invade Catalonia, even if they've denied a referendum (we'll have to see what happens in the courts). In Catalonia, there exists a genuine desire amongst some segments of the population for a vote on independence, and that vote should take place. In Donbass, however, the current horrible situation was forced on the people of that region from outside. Most people who have any objection to the current situation are either dead or have left. They have no say in the fait accompli that has happened. I'm North British, or a Scot, if you will, as I may have mentioned. I'm well and truly familiar with independence referendums. RGloucester — ☎ 14:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I'm glad that you have the opportunity to choose if Scotland independent or not! The result was, and that is clear. That is different from Catalonia, since in Scotland, people had the opportunitity to choose and in Catalonia they didn't have. If it was here (in Madeira or the Azores), I don't think it would be positive for them to separate frmom Portugal, but we're a homogeneous country and I don't see any valuable stuff that they could get from an independence (or, for now, what could drive them towards indepence), but if they would want a referendum there, sure I'd agree and I'd respect the results. The perception I have is that Ukraine (and the forces that are supporting its government) wouldn't allow these regions to have any referendum, whatever the circumstances would be (not even under the Party of Regions, let alone the Fatherland, so on). So, given the circumstances, what choice do they have... I'd suggest them to pay attention about what there's going to happen in Catalonia. But they took an advance and now it's actually more likely that the Catalonians follow their steps instead of the contrary (I hope not, because that would be disastrous for all the Iberian Peninsula). It's very complicated, but generally I'm for self-determination, given that such referendums are performed in a fair and independently scrutinized way. None of that has happened, but Ukraine (and perhaps USA and the European Commission) wouldn't allow that. Nothing was told, neither to the Crimeans, nor to the Novorussians. So, what choices do they have? And that is the question! (I may be guessing, I'd rather not, but I think my arguments are valuable). And I don't either care about Russia or Ukraine, concerning to this issue, seriously. But I'd be glad to listen to your opinions about it, since I guess it's time to have an open conversation about this. @RGloucester:@Iryna Harpy:@Herzen:@EkoGraf:@Arbutus the tree:, and now I'm well aware that I'm inviting for this conversation 1/2 pro-Ukrainians, 1/2 neutrals and 1 pro-separatists (being myself neutral). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I remember to you (whoever appears) this is nothing about denial of the information that is available. It's about the choices concerning to which sources have the available information; under what criteria they are dismissed or not; and about the treatment of the information that is available in such sources. Iryna Harpy is quite experienced here, she will certainly be good enough about this issue (at least, as advicing). There are some distinctions at this level between the English Misplaced Pages and other Wikipedias. I'd be glad if I could uniform this one at least with the Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian Wikipedias. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2014 (GMT)
For the benefit of other contributors to this article who haven't been privy to discussions on various own user talk pages, while this discussion has been beneficial, it has now moved into the realms of being WP:OFFTOPIC. If there is any more to be added to this thread, it's probably best pursued on the relevant user talk pages. Cheers, all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. And I take it as a given that all the Ukraine-related articles on English Misplaced Pages are going to have an anti-Russian bias. I might as well mention what I indicated on my Talk page: I can't make any sense out of Mondolkiri1's position, since on the one hand he says that he wants to fight against anti-Russian bias, but on the other, he says that the Crimean referendum about reunification with Russia was illegitimate, whereas it is clear to any objective observer that in that referendum, the people of Crimea authentically expressed their will. Even NATO countries don't say that there was any problem with the referendum: they just don't like that it took place. Yet Mondolkiri1 goes on and on about how the people of Crimea should be allowed to express their will, when they have already done so.
This Talk section should be closed. General claims about an article being biased are not constructive. – Herzen (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

strengths of the two sides

Ukraine claims New Russian forces has a strike force of nearly 30,000. Zakharchenko did a video conference that was uploaded on youtube, which seems to confirm this.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/tymchuk-four-strike-groups-consisting-of-nearly-30000-russians-and-kremlin-backed-proxies-formed-370426.html

Updated Ukrainian strength in the war is said to be 25,000. http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/229932.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC) :

Tymchuk is not a ukrainian official. All of that is his supposition. The size of that strike forces depends only on Putin. The second message is unclear. Structure of ukrainian forces are complicated. Some details are required.
Poroshenko said there are 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers in Donbas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update

At least 1,096 KIA and 3,799 WIA.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraines-heroes-after-losing-leg-in-war-soldier-keeps-up-fight-370929.html

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-1096-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-370935.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian tank column

Maybe I'm missing it, but it looks like the article does not have info on the recent invasion of Ukraine by a column of Russian tanks: , , (and many more, it's all over the place). Volunteer Marek  21:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is also being reported by the OSCE , , , in case someone tries to claim that this is just "Ukrainian propaganda". Volunteer Marek  21:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was there and must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, that's in the article. However, the OSCE did not say they were "Russian" tanks. Only Ukrainian authorities did so. This was not confirmed by anyone else, whether OSCE monitor, NATO, &c. That's what it says at present, because that's what happened. Unmarked vehicles moved. Ukrainians said they were Russian. OSCE didn't speculate. NATO says it could not confirm it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Where is it in the article? I'm not seeing it in the lede or the "Russian involvement" section.  Volunteer Marek  22:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Why in heck would it be in the lead or the Russian involvement section? Firstly, there is absolutely zero confirmation of it being "Russian involvement", and anyway, that section is now only a summary section for the main article on Russian involvement, and doesn't catalog minutiae, which belongs at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Secondly, the lead is a summary, not a compilation of minor events. This bit is in the history section, where it belongs. RGloucester — ☎ 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I see, it's in the "November separatist election" section. Well, that doesn't make much sense either, as it has nothing to do with the election. It might not be significant enough for the lede, absent further developments. But it does seem to belong in the Russian Involvement section, even if unconfirmed, as a claim made by the Ukrainian government. Also, NATO says that they're working on trying to confirm it not that they cannot confirm it.
And yes, this also belongs in the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article. I presume the part about the AP report is about this. But that's still missing the OSCE reports and the Ukrainian claims. Volunteer Marek  22:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The section headings are for time frame. This directly followed the election, and is widely viewed as a consequence of it. It does not belong in the "Russian involvement" section because that has been outsourced to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The "Russian involvement" section here is just a brief summary meant to direct one to that article. The proper thing to do would be to work on the 2014 Russian military intervention article. "Trying to confirm" is the same as "could not confirm", given that they have no confirmation "yet", meaning no confirmation exist. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
twitter photo e entrance to DonetskSayerslle (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)]
These are rebel tanks supplied by Russia. It's like rebels in Syria use American supplied TOW anti tank missiles, doesn't make FSA part of the American army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
These are rebel tanks supplied by Russia. It's like rebels in Syria use American supplied... Heh heh. I think you just made the unintentional mistake of being accidentally honest. Volunteer Marek  00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Either you can't read Russian, or you don't bother seeing what rebels and their supporters are saying. For several weeks now, Russia is not bothering to deny that it is supplying arms to the rebels. So nobody made a mistake, unintentional (and what other kind of mistakes are there? if a mistake is intentional, is it really a mistake?) or otherwise. Your comment is further evidence that you are trapped in an information bubble. – Herzen (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Either that or I'm pointing out what's been obvious to anyone who's not been busy making a fool of themselves. They've been lying for months, and now that it's become obvious they've been lying they - and you - are trying to play this little game of "of course we've always supplied the rebels, what are you talking about?". It was the same thing with Crimea. First weeks of bullshit about no Russian troops being involved in the takeover, then once the world lost interest, it was "of course Russian troops helped Crimea to join Russia". Anyway, at least we're moving forward. So Russia *is* supplying the rebels with heavy equipment. Buks included?  Volunteer Marek  00:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No, they are telling not about sending weapons, but about sending regular Russian army with tanks. But this is nothing new. It was Russian regular army forces (not "volunteers") who encircled Ukrainian army during the Battle of Ilovaisk. And even earlier, special forces of GRU took part in the operations, just as they did in Crimea. My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
That article says nothing about the Russian army, "regular" or otherwise. Maybe you should brush up on your English language reading skills. And I'd like you to answer a question: why are you so obsessed with Russia, apparently seeing it as the embodiment of absolute evil? If I knew that, I could better understand your approach to editing Misplaced Pages, which might make it easier for me to collaborate with you. – Herzen (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are you so obsessed with me? Speaking about Russian intervention, this is all described in 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. It was not me who created and edited this page. I only think that some content from the "military intervention" should be also described here, because the intervention by Russia a significant part of the ongoing "War in Donbass". My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You know these are not Russian army tanks because Russian army would almost surely use T-90A rather than T-72B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.168.94 (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This argument assumes knowledge of Russian military objectives in Donbass. Yes, if they wanted to quickly win the war, they probably would use T-90. They have been however seen delivering lower profile arms to Donbass (like T-64 or T-72) for long time which matches statements by Kurginyan and others made in June that their objective is long, low-profile conflict without ultimate win on either side. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Marek: If the Russian Federation does not screw their support up, by sending T-72BM tanks, or other equipment that Ukraine never possessed, like they did a few month ago, we cant write those new troops are Russian Federation troops. But since the President and Lt. Gen. Kartopolov have already been caught not telling the truth, there is no need to repeat that claim over and over again. Just use the OSCE report on the sightings, thats fine. Alexpl (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

All these reports from OSCE about military vehicle convoys are already being added to Timeline of the war in Donbass (October 2014–present) for long time. Just look at November 9 for example. In my opinnion the only reason why they should be mentioned in the main articles (2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine or War in Donbass) is to document the Russian military presence there, but as correctly noted about the OSCE reports cannot be directly used to source this type of claim, because they do not say these were Russian tanks, even if this can be easily implied from their location and direction. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the OSCE report cannot be used as an RS in this instance. Any conclusions to be drawn are by inference alone. Regardless of whether it's as plain as the nose on your face, the addition of such content would require a solid RS stating it to be a fact. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
However, this report by France Press, for example, tells: "columns of Russian ... combat troops". Same and more here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nato confirms, UN convened for a special session . This needs to be split off into a separate sub-section as it's not really about November elections (of course at some level, everything has to do with everything else). Volunteer Marek  16:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We need to be sparing with section headers, lest the ToC get huge. I've expanded the heading instead, and added the new information. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It's really turning into very much a separate event. Here's New York Times . I'd wait a day or two though. Volunteer Marek  04:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Despite attempts to minimise byte consumption, it has now gone over the 300 kB mark. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That's only if one includes references, templates, and pictures. One should only measure prose size. RGloucester — ☎ 05:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just run a quick estimate sans the above. The templates and pictures don't amount to very much, actually (well under 100 kB), so the refs would constitute the largest component of the bytes. Nevertheless, it's still running over the 100 kB. It'll hold for the moment, but the seams are ready to split. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll work on more spin-offs, when I've got time. RGloucester — ☎ 05:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are looking for English sources on Russian convoys I believe the article Timeline of the War in Donbass mentions The Guardian reporter Shaun Walker and a UK Telegraph reporter recording Russian columns crossing into Ukraine back in August.Koonter (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the Novorossiyan elections in early Novermber 2014

So, what's the problem now? That people (from some regions in Donbass) actually elected their rebel leaders? Were they not considered rebels before? The hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxonic World amazes me! They need enemies like a normal human being needs water! Either they being Russians, pro-Russians, French, Chinese, Muslims, Venezuelans, Bolivians, you name them! And they don't give a shit about Ukrainians (only if they're anti-Russians). A special appreciation to Mr. Richard (let's say, RGloucester), who thinks he has a higher morality over anyone else concerning to global issues, since he thinks he has the highest moral high ground! Again, I recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias, and specially for RGloucester I'd recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/Cultural_humility. And again, a big appreciation for Iryna Harpy, for being so unbiased, and I guess also an appreciation for Herzen, since (though I don't don't agree with him on everything) he has been stubborn and quite polite facing all the anglo-saxonic racist (I dare to say) against Russians! I'm being bold, but that's what I have to do. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this has anything to do with this article? Some explanation maybe, I do not see, why the free people of Donbass do continue to vilolate the Minsk agreement, continue to capture territory of Ukraine and bring death and destruction over the region ? User:Herzen thinks so , I´m looking forward to find out. Alexpl (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you actually believe that Kiev does not violate the Minsk agreement at least as much as the rebels? Kiev forces the rebels to violate the ceasefire agreement, because Kiev forces continue to shell populated areas with no military objective. OSCE has said as much, so Ukrainian military "experts" have broken off contact with OSCE.
In any case, your claiming that my restoring Mondolkiri1's edit was some kind of statement about the War in Donbas, as opposed to my simply trying to get Misplaced Pages guidelines to be observed, is puzzling. – Herzen (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a note, but the proper away for you to address me is either as "Your Grace", or the "Duke of Gloucester". RGloucester — ☎ 14:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Technically, when addressing Your Grace directly (as I am doing now), it must be in the form I've used in this sentence. When bitching about you in the third person, the 'Duke of Gloucester' in lieu of the pronoun 'he' is the correct form (i.e., the Duke of Gloucester is a despot. Off with his head!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, if one wants to be quite nice in the third person, one can say "His Grace the Duke of Gloucester". In fact, I prefer that form. There are no bounds to My Grace. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Russia has not recognized the election since they back tracked saying that "respect" does not mean they will "recognize" the elections that took place in rebel area of Donbass. If you are complaining about rebels not being recognized by the west then you should also extend this to grievance to Russia as they too have no recognized them.Koonter (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

strengths update

20,000 to 25,000 separatist fighters + equipment listed in http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/11/14/at-g20-will-sanctions-or-casualties-deter-russia/

About 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers deployed in Donbas, according to Poroshenko http://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-elections-pro-eu-petro-poroshenko-2014-10— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.124.200 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem with "Downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17" Section

About 2/3 of this section doesn't have anything to do with the airliner incident. But, it is well-cited information that perhaps should be moved to another section. RichBryan (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Chechens fighting in ukraine

The article only references chechens fighting for insurgent/russian forces in donbass, however a simple google search turns up multiple articles showing that either the numbers for russia are inflated or that chechens are fighting on both sides. To give a bit of balance for this article i reccomend that we add a section about chechens allied with pro-ukraine forces, as well as a line to the pro-russian side stating that the numbers fighting for russia may be inflated. Here is one such link. There is also some confusion as to who sent them there. At the very least this seems like a very interesting situation to expand upon, as the article currently states tens of thousands of chechens are fighting for pro-russian rebels in the east of ukraine, while a known chechen paramilitary commander states that this isn't true. Seems to be another part of the larger propaganda war connected to the real one on the ground.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.78.224 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess the Chechens will fight anyone that is presented. They clearly have no love for Russia, given the horrible terrorist attacks they've made against Russia (only slightly surpassed in numbers by Al-Qaeda against USA). I'm for all self-determination movements, be it in Donbass, Catalonia, East Timor before, Tibet, Kurdistan, Uygur (Eastern Turkistan), the Karens, the Shan, the Fur ppl in Sudan and surely Palestine (whose main administration is not ruled by Hamas). Mondolkiri1 — hable aqui 9:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cities" on map

Why are all populated areas labelled as "cities" on the map? Only two of these many populated areas are cities; the rest are small towns and villages. Please could the creator of the map change "cities" to "populated areas". There is also no legend for the yellow and pink areas. NFH (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"City" is being used in the general sense of populated areas. Regardless, this is not the place to make a request. Ask the editor who made it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe because they're cities... But if you have any objection about it, I can correct it... Not that I'm not tired enough about editing on English WP since a lot of editors seem to just want to have a war with Russia, and whoever sympathizes with it... like in the old days of the Cold War. USA needs conflicts to support its powerful military lobby, no matter if it costs a lot of lifes in Ukraine, Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan, whatsoever... as long as the sacred Israel where the Jewish-genocidal apocalypse keeps in its place, everything is valid, for USA. And this one is the country claiming to have the most independent press on Earth! What a joke! Mondolkiri1 — hable aqui 3:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are referring to Luhansk and Donetsk as the only cities then are you suggesting that Mariupol, Horlivka, Kramatorsk, Sloviansk, Severodonetsk are all not "cities" even though they all have a population of over 100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Casualties and losses section

The section seems quite messy. I do not think it is appropriate to label defectors as "losses" since this is a civil conflict and it would also imply that the 1,000,000 strong confederate army could also count as a 1,000,000 man loss to US forces who defected to join the confederates. Moreover defectors typically do not count as losses on most Misplaced Pages articles. American revolution was noted for having many parties defect such as 20,000 slaves defecting to fight for the British, but these are also not listed under US loses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Koonter (talk • contribs) 06:24 UTC (UTC)

Yes, I googled "military losses desertions defections", and from looking at the articles that came up, it does appear that desertions and defections are not considered to be losses. "Losses" seems to be more or less a synonym for "casualties". This does not mean that desertions and defections should not be listed in the info box, however. – Herzen (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Should there be a separate section created within the article that talks about defectors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would not be a bad idea to have a subsection on "Deserters and defectors" in the "Counter-insurgency forces" section. (The rebels by now pretty much have a unified command structure and army, so the term "insurgency" is not really appropriate.) I am under the impression that defection was only a problem in the early stages of the conflict, before June, say. Desertion is certainly still a problem, however, and there are many prosecutions for desertion underway. The article thus far only mentions one case of desertion by Ukrainians, with the soldier fleeing to Russia. But there have also been incidents of Ukrainian soldiers leaving their posts and returning home, with the government accusing them of desertion but their denying it. – Herzen (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Desertion is pretty common even in most disciplined armies. The Misplaced Pages article Desertion actually talks about it and it states there were approximately 50,000 deserters in Vietnam War, but these are not listed in the "casualties and losses" box. Same with Iraq war where there was about 5,000 deserters, but these too are not listed as US losses. Nor are Americans who happened to defect to various terrorist organizations regarded as casualties or losses. Moreover Russia being a nation that uses a draft is itself well known to have draft evaders, the following article states that about 30,000 Russian conscripts get convicted of draft evasion annually but it would be inappropriate to count these as "casualties or losses".http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/fall-military-draft-begins-with-warnings-of-hazing/486859.htmlKobe's jaw (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Your mentioning that Russia has a draft reminds me of something that could be mentioned in the "Deserters and defectors" section if it is decided to create one. Yanukovich had abolished the draft in Ukraine. After the turnover in government in February, the new regime reinstated the draft in order to pursue its "ATO". The policy of the present regime with respect to a military draft should be discussed somewhere. That conscription was reinstated in May is mentioned in one sentence in Armed Forces of Ukraine. Maybe we could have a section entitled "Conscription" or "Reinstatement of conscription" in this article? This would not be the first time that a country implements a military draft because it has gotten itself into a war, so this article is the best place to discuss the current Ukrainian policy on conscription in my view. Desertions and defections could be discussed in that section. – Herzen (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin should not be listed as a leader in the infobox

That would be like saying king Louis XVI of France was a leader of the American revolutionary war prior to France going to war with Britain in 1778.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.124.200 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article Russo-Georgian War which deals with a similar regional conflict they list Dmitry Medvedev as the leader, I think its standard practice to list the commander-in-chief of a nation that is involved in a conflict.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Russia Georgia war was a direct war between Russia and Georgia. A similar example is France and Britain at war with each other during the American revolutionary war. Russia and Ukraine are not at war, so Putin does not belong in the infobox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Russia and Ukraine may not have declared war but they are de-facto at war with overwhelming evidence of Russian involvement (even the article itself implicated Russian involvement). The US did not declare many conflicts wars, such as Somalia, current Afghanistan occupation, Libya etc, so what you are suggesting their commanders can simply be removed as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You think Ukraine can withstand Russia in a war? Ukraine doesn't dare fight Russian troops in Crimea, doesn't dare shoot at a single Russian humanitarian truck. What makes you think Ukraine dares to fight Russia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You're pushing your own opinion, the article itself has an entire section on Russian involvement in the conflict. You would have to delete the entire section in the article that talks about Russian involvement then delete articles such as 2014 Russian intervention in Ukraine that also discuss Russian involvement in Donbass. Basically you are saying because Ukraine is small they can not be invaded, that is akin to saying that USSR never invaded Afghanistan because they also had no chance in fighting the Soviet superpower.Koonter (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin is listed in the leader section of the infobox of the article 2014 Crimean Crisis, when he also denied Russian troop involvement for months until finally admitting it. Ukraine was unable to fight back in Crimea and was not effective in fighting back in Donbass until the summer because it effectively had no government, most of their leaders fled to Russia leaving no command and control structure, and it was only in June-July after Poroshenko was elected and set up some sort of normalcy that they started recapturing cities and reorganizing. Putin is also listed in the leader section of the article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine which is a broader article covering Russian involvement in both Crimea and Donbass, so not including him in this article would be in conflict with several other Misplaced Pages articles that cover this subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.57.100.192 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
There are no Russian troops in Donbas. Russian troops wear Ratnik combat gear. Separatists are not seen wearing Ratnik.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You mean they couldn't change clothes?Kobe's jaw (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why would Russian troops not wear Ratnik? Ratnik is practically impervious to small arms fire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
US also claims it has no troops in Pakistan, you must believe them too.Koonter (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as impervious body armor, no matter how well its made. Besides you are a big fan boy of Russia and clearly have no intention of keeping neutrality of any article that has Russia mentioned in it, best thing to do is to recuse yourself.Kobe's jaw (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Folks, can you sign your comments? Use four tildas. Volunteer Marek  22:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector

It is well known that the Right Sector has been involved in the conflict, but they are not listed under the combatants. They are not part of Ukraine's military and are not subordinate to any Ukrainian leader so assume Dmytro Yarosh should also be listed as a separate commander in the conflict.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector is sort of like Shabiha in Syria. They are irregulars. Separatists do not take Right Sector prisoner. Every Right Sector fighter captured by separatists is killed right away. Right Sector fighters are not servicemen, and as such their losses are not reported by NSDC. Right Sector is not part of army and does not receive pay, supplies, arms from the government. When Right Sector fighters die, their families are not compensated by the government. This article explains very well. It is not known how many Right Sector fighters have been killed. KyivPost death count is consistently higher than NSDC death count, the latter only include servicemen and does not include Right Sector fighters killed, while the former includes Right Sector fighters killed. http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/11/09/the-first-breath-of-war-right-sector-base/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildas. Volunteer Marek  22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories: