Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Requested move 8 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo-Ukrainian Conflict – Per WP:POVNAMING, the proposed title has a neutral tone, whereas the existing title advances the view that the present conflict in Ukraine is mainly with the Russian Federation. The picture on the ground is rather complex, and different understandings of the role played by the local rebels exist in the literature. For example, far from instigating the rebellion in Donbass and using it to destabilise Ukraine, revise the international order, or seize additional territory, Moscow has largely been reacting to events and trying to gain some control , formation of a protest movement [in Donbas] out of locally available ingredients. Neither of the two titles are widely used to refer to the conflicts in Ukraine, consider searches war "War in Donbass" (457 000 hits), "Russo-Ukrainian War" (21 200 hits)

References

Heptor (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" sounds like an article about a thousand-year old feud between these two countries, rather than anything having to do with what is described in this article. It is completely imprecise, and not used by reliable sources as a name for this specific event, unlike the present title. This article was moved to this title on the basis of reliable sources, as seen in the recent RM. As I said then, 'Russo-Ukrainian War" has become the common name for this conflict, used in many reliable sources and publications on the subject. A plain Google search shows that 'Russo-Ukrainian War" comes up with 17,900 hits, vastly exceeding the old title's 4,480. Notable publications using the now common name include Non-State Actors in the Russo-Ukrainian War, The exploitation of cyber domain as part of warfare: Russo-Ukrainian war, and Virtual Warfare: Masculinity, Sexuality, and Propaganda in the Russo-Ukrainian War. While Heptor cites one sentence from the abstract of an article, he hasn't actually read the whole thing, which doesn't support his claims. Furthermore, 'War in Donbass' and 'Russo-Ukrainian War' are two different things...namely, Donbass is a subset of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the other component of which is the annexation of Crimea. Everyone knows that this war hasn't been conducted the same as the grand wars of the 19th century, but that doesn't make it any less a war! Luckily for us, we have RS to explain the nature of that situation, such as “Lessons Learned” from the Russo-Ukrainian War by Dr Phillip Karber. These are cited in the article, and indeed, make for good reading. While Heptor would have us establish a WP:FALSEBALANCE of Russian and 'Western' claims, that's not true WP:NPOV, and not what Wikipedia is meant to do. We follow the sources, and this article's title is doing that right now. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, those Google hits numbers are Google’s nonsensical “estimates”—I don’t know why Google hasn’t fixed that or removed it. You have to page all the way to the last results to see real numbers at the top. See WP:GOOGLE. —Michael Z.

Also "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" gets 101 000 hits. The link used by RG uses "Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014-present)", which is rather construed. Heptor (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, they use "Russo-Ukrainian Conflict" in American: Zelensky Walks the Knife’s Edge, Atlantic council: How fake news helped hide Soviet genocide in Ukraine. "War" title is probably more common, arguably because it is way more catchy. Obviously it's "Masculinity, Sexuality, Propaganda and War", not "Masculinity, Sexuality, Propaganda and an ethno-political divergence of views between certain post-soviet independent states". Heptor (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

'Conflict' in that context is referring to something other than the war itself...if anything, I feel like it would be a scope change, putting aside POV concerns. That's not something I see as acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Heptor: you are aware that the Atlantic Council is NATO's think tank, correct? IMO, this means that Atlantic Council publications are little better than Ukrainian and Russian government media news (which is all propaganda). After all, NATO and the Atlantic Alliance are party to this conflict. They are staunch backers of the Ukrainian government. Therefore their think tank, the Atlantic Council, cannot possibly be disinterested and objective in espousing views about the war. SvorLyl12 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• Oppose  I don’t agree that the proposal makes this more neutral. Neither title is bad, but the current one encompasses the full scope, is less of a euphemism, and is not a Latin borrowing. This is an armed international conflict with thousands of dead, tens of thousands wounded, and millions displaced. It includes both an invasion and occupation/annexation and a semi-covert war that has involved significant foreign combatants and matériel. Yes, there is also conflict between some groups in Ukraine, but that is a part of most wars. The shortest, simplest Anglo-Saxon term for this is war. —Michael Z. 03:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The implied scope of the present title is exactly why I disagree with it. It describes the conflict as mainly between the Russian and the Ukrainian states. Many non-state paramilitary groups participate in the conflict. To name a few, let's start with Oplot, established in 2014 as an anti-maidan group; Vostok Batallion, the ex-Security Service of Ukraine officer Khodakovsky, then there was Slavyansk Brigade, led by Igor_Strelkov_(officer); Bezler (Bes); Somali, headed by Givi; Sparta batallion, headed by Arsen Pavlov; Zarya, commanded by Igor Plotnitsky; Batman, commanded by Alexander Bednov; and Goblin, commanded by Alexei Pavlov. And that's just the rebel side. On the Government side, at least ostensibly, we have Azov Battalion, organized by the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly with help of the Radical Party (don't believe me? check their logo); the less neo-nazi Right Sector.

These paramilitary groups were responsible for the vast majority of the fighting, especially at the start of the war. The right sector had openly opposed the Yatsenyuk Government and Petro Poroshenko on many occasions. To which degree Vladimir Putin was ever in control of the paramilitaries on "his" side can certainly be discussed. I think the idea that he does is based on the cliché that Putin control everything Russian, which I think is extremely simplistic. So in my view, the present title is a misnomer. Heptor (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this sort of analysis is basically original research. It isn't our job to decide what qualifies as a war or not. We're meant to reflect RS, which do describe it as such. Speculation about the exact nature of participation by 'non-state' forces is irrelevant here...what is relevant is the body of academic consensus. As written in "The Donbas in 2014: Explaining Civil Conflict Perhaps, but not Civil War", it is true that many different forces participated in the war. However, without Russian intervention, there would've have been no war at all! RGloucester — ☎ 16:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

RGloucester, the very first sentence in that paper is The War In East Ukraine that began in the Spring of 2014 has produced many contrasting analyses. Would you like to discuss those contrasting analyses, and how Wikipedia should best present them in accordance with our WP:NPOV policy? Heptor (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it did produce such analyses, but now, years later, there is a dominant understanding of events as found in RS...as present in Wilson's work! RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you now asserting that Wilson had changed his mind since writing the above? Do feel free to support this with references to the relevant literature, it would be most interesting to share this perspective with our readers. Heptor (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wilson did not 'change his mind'. He said that many analyses were produced at the time of the conflict. He goes on to state the singular analysis that became definitive. RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose — for the reasons above.--Arorae (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Conflict" is too vague for something that presents itself only as a war. It's true that there's more going on -- Russia is involved in many direct and indirect ways -- but that makes it more of a war between the two, not less. The "other groups" involved persist only as much as Russia supports them. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree that there is no officially declared war, it is a typical example of a proxy war of Russia against expansion of NATO. Crimea was occupied to prevent US mil base there. Donbass War is a sizzled attempt of the Russian Malorossia project to separate the southern+eastern belt of Ukraine and connect it to Transnistria (I am surprized wikipadia does not cover this). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Commment. This does not appear to be a good compromise title for the article. Per Michael, war is the proper English term for the events in Donbass. Conflict is vague per Staszek Lem. This is either a civil war with a decisive Russian intervention, or a Russo-Ukrainian war. Euphemising it as a conflict would serve to fog the issue, not make it more neutral. I, the nominiator, would like to express gratitude to my fellow editors who contributed their time and mental energy to this discussion, and hereby withdraw the proposal. Heptor (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2020 (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.

Russian involvement in the war in Donbass

It would be appreciated if interested parties would participate in the discussion on Russian involvement at Talk:War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is Ukrainian state media regarded as a legitimate source here?

I just gave the article a quick look over. It is clearly written to flatter the Ukrainian nationalist perspective. Most bizarre is that Ukrainian state media outlets are used for footnotes throughout the article, including the InfoBox. Don't the authors understand that Ukrainian state media is no better than Pravda, RT, or Sputnik with regard to integrity of information? It's pathetic that the authors/editors don't understand this. It's even worse that they would expect to manipulate reader opinion in such a way as to induce a pro-Ukraine bias.

Come on, Wikipedia: the world expects better from you than this.

SvorLyl12 (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Well thank you for the question. The Ukrainian media is mostly owned by the state or by the oligarchs. In case of de:Ruslan_Kozaba, a dissenting opinion was met with dismissal from employment and criminal prosecution on trumped-up charges. As to your titular question, I think people just want to believe that the Ukrainians are the good guys fighting for democracy against the scourge of Putin... So far, attempts to present a more nuanced reality here had been aggressively fought off. Perhaps the Ukrainian crisis is simply too complicated for Wikipedia with its current editing policies. Heptor (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

SvorLyl12, which media are “Ukrainian state outlets”? —Michael Z.

The answer to your question has already been made clear. If you believe those sources are not echoing Ukrainian state propaganda, then kindly explain why. SvorLyl12 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There are 624 references in this article. If you believe some of the sources named in them are Ukrainian state outlets without an independent editorial policy, kindly name them and explain why. —Michael Z.

I'm not going to quibble with you. It's perfectly clear which sources I am referring to. But to everyone else reading this page, I invite you to check out the propagandistic Ukrainian media outlets that are treated as legitimate "sources" of information in the article. Those Ukrainian media outlets have no more credibility that RT or Sputnik. Same difference. Equally bad. SvorLyl12 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

An interview with the new owner of KyivPost. [1]. He says that he is not going to let his agenda affect the editorial policy, and also states "my television station [in Odes(s)a] is as independent as we can make it independent in Ukraine." The amount of confidence this inspires is certainly not overwhelming. Heptor (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Since the Maidan, at least, the Ukrainian state has had to keep the country's media on a tight leash. I even get the impression that Ukrainian media is operating under something like wartime censorship. The authorities in Kiev don't want bad news circulating. Certainly anything that undermine's the state's credibility is being kept out of Ukrainian news outlets. That's because of the relative degree of political instability that exists in Ukraine at this time. As for Russia's news sources, they are equally unreliable (which everyone already knows). I think there's only one Russian news agency which remains independent under Putin.SvorLyl12 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What’s “equally bad”? Only Ukrainian media organization 112 Ukraine is blacklisted by Wikipedia, per WP:RSP and WP:DEPS. But it is not state media: it is considered to be controlled by Putin’s intimate friend Medvedchuk. Is that what you mean? —Michael Z.

Well, they are separate but still equal. Heptor (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Z: if Wikipedia is blacklisting only one Ukrainian media organization, then something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia. It is very well known that UNIAN and Ukrayinska Pravda are just echo chambers of Ukrainian government propaganda. Not by any stretch of the imagination are they legitimate news sources. Also, all newspapers that part of the 1+1 Media Group are controlled by corrupt oligarch Igor Kolomoyskyi, who functions as a "king maker" of sorts in Ukrainian politics. Any paper under Kolomoyskyi's thumb will dispense propaganda in favor of his allies. For the time being, the Ukrainian government is one of Kolomoyskyi's allies (possibly even his puppet), therefore his papers spew state-sanctioned propaganda. As for Kyiv Post, everybody knows that its a yellow newspaper that was (and continues to be) funded by American NGO's. That means Kyiv Post has a pro-Western, pro-Maidan, and anti-Russian propaganda line to toe.

Based on your statement about only one Ukrainian newspaper (the pro-Russian outlet) being blacklisted by Wikipedia, I can only conclude that Wikipedia's been infiltrated by lots of rabid pro-Ukrainian, pro-Maidan, and anti-Russian editors. To me, that says something sad about Wikipedia.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

”it is well known” - please provide reliable sources to that effect. Also this discussion should probably be take to WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 05:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: It's understandable that you don't want to believe such things, and perhaps you are even suspicious of the intent of those who bring it forward. The reports from Ukraine is that being labeled "pro-Russian" had become dangerous both politically and personally. Many among those who were thus labeled, emigrated or at least were denied access to the mainstream Ukrainian media. Following the 2014 revolution, many former officials associated with the deposed regime were killed or committed suicides under questionable circumstances. Dissenting opinions among journalists are met with dismissal from job, criminal prosecution on trumped-up charges as for example in case of Ruslan Kozaba or, in some cases, murder. Heptor (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Marek: there is no need to get anal about this...no need to take the conversation to WP:RSN. The editors of this article are using bad sources, and I believe that everyone who reads this article should have the benefit of coming to this talk page, to see for themselves that those pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian propaganda outlets (i.e., UNIAN et al) are being challenged by right here. Moving the issue to WP:RSN serves no purpose except to hide the criticism that some people are levying against Ukrainian government media outlets.

By the way, I have another question for you. Exactly who at Wikipedia has the privilege of deciding which international news sources are to be blacklisted or validated? Does Wikipedia have a committee to decide such matters? If so, the politically objectivity of those editors is deeply in doubt, IMO.SvorLyl12 (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

>"I also don't like the Russian mass media"
>retells us all theses and cliches of the Russian mass media
hahaha, classic. --95.70.1.220 (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m not clear on how that addresses my question. Volunteer Marek 08:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could examine the Freedom House report from 2020? It seems to support at least parts of what SvorLyl12 wrote earlier. Note for example the following excerpts from the report:

• Business magnates own and influence many outlets, using them as tools to advance their agendas.
• Journalists continue to face the threat of violence and intimidation.

By the way, Michael, according to Freedom House, Russia is indeed worse. Based on the content of their report, this assessment is not entirely self-evident. Heptor (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The first quote describes media in, for example, the United States. Trump has made the second literally true, too. So if you want to try disqualifying all media in certain countries for citations in Wikipedia, please take this to a broader forum, unless your objective is strictly to banish Ukrainian voices from this website. Otherwise, please get ready to do the research and get a lot more specific on your onjectives. —Michael Z. 03:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael, I have much sympathy for the American journalists who now face the threat of verbal abuse and a toxic working environment in the White House. Nevertheless, I dare say that the situation for the Ukrainian journalists is far more grave. Did you read the rest of the report? What is your impression of it? Heptor (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I will look at it. But I’m not really interested in chat about this stuff. This talk page is for improving the article, and this thread is distracting clutter. —Michael Z. 15:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Marek: he's giving you clear, well-documented evidence that Ukrainian journalists cannot express Russia's point of view without risking their own lives. If that doesn't qualify as data that answers your question - that Ukrainian media is only reporting one side of the conflict - then I don't know what does. Also, I'm not impressed with your defense of UNIAN et al. Your hypothesis seems to be that all Ukrainian media (including that which echoes Kiev's propaganda) can and must be regarded as objective and credible unless someone here does double back flips to prove otherwise to you. You're showing a clear, unmistakable bias in favor of the Ukrainian government's account of the Donbass conflict, and in favor of the yellow newspapers that support Kiev's propaganda. That is not good.

I have a better suggestion for you, Marek. Why don't you post some information which establishes that UNIAN is an objective and trustworthy source of news (i.e., not a paper which echoes Kiev's propaganda)? I find it strange that you always hold people with opposing views responsible for "disproving" your claims, most of which are not adequately supported by your footnotes and sources. I'm really interested in your answer to my question. Thanks in advance.SvorLyl12 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not clear on why you are claiming that I’m defending UNIAN (“I’m not impressed with your defense of UNIAN”). What are you talking about? What I said is that this is something that is better suited for WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

MIchael & Marek: Freedom House is a US government funded think tank. That means it serves American foreign policy interests. It's literally an echo chamber of views held by the US State Department, and possibly of the CIA and Pentagon too. How could anyone fail to realize that about Freedom House? The full data regarding that think tank is available on Internet (even on Wikipedia, in fact). Just do a google search. Freedom House's biased views on all issues concerning Russia is especially well known. So, in conclusion, the answer is an outspoken "no." An endorsement or criticism from Freedom House does not in any way count as a valid measure of a media outlet's objectiveness and credibility.SvorLyl12 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Freedom House is reliable but should be attributed. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

But your claim doesn't make sense. As I've already explained, Freedom House is a think tank that has a bias in favor of its sources of money. One of Freedom House's funding sources is the US government. If a think tank is producing reports and analyses to flatter the US government's agenda, then how can that source possibly be regarded as "reliable?"

After all, the US government is a party to the Ukrainian-Russian Conflict. That means you prioritizing sources of info that are biased in favor of America's foreign policy goals. That is not a good way to write a Wikipedia article.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the proposal is. Wikipedia should be purged of all statements supported by any sources based in Ukraine? Sounds like an issue for a broader forum than this one article’s talk page. Maybe start a thread somewhere else and get input from WP:UKRAINE and WP:FACT. —Michael Z. 16:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The question is not whether the sources are from Ukraine. The question is whether the sources are coming from respectable media outlets. Ukrainian government sponsored press, Kololoisky's news outlets, Radio Free Europe (well known US propaganda outlet) and the Atlantic Council (NATO's biased think tank) are objective, reliable sources of information. That's already well known throughout the West.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@SvorLyl12:, I believe our two interlocutors are correct in that WP:RSN is a better forum for your (IMO generally correct) criticism. You are of course under no obligation to proceed with this, but if you do, it may be a great way to impact the use of the Ukrainian state media sources across the project, specifically in articles related to the Ukrainian Crisis. Heptor (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Hyphen or dash in the title

Hi. Sorry I didn’t pay attention to this earlier. This title is an obscure edge case. See MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. Our style manual would use an en dash for Russia–Ukraine War or Russian–Ukrainian War. But because the first term is a combining form, it recommends a hyphen in Russo-Ukrainian War. My interpretation is that because the combining form is like a prefix that cannot stand alone, Russo-Ukrainian is a hyphenated compound adjective, rather than a “this to that” construction. —Michael Z. 22:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it should have a dash to be consistent with the vast majority of war articles, including those that use adjectives such as Spanish–American War. (t · c) buidhe 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

For example, we have:

• Spanish–American War
• Ottoman–Habsburg wars
• Ottoman–Venetian War (1499–1503)

Ottoman–Venetian War (1537–1540)

Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573)

Arab–Byzantine wars

Byzantine–Bulgarian wars

Ukrainian–Soviet War

Soviet–Afghan War

Soviet–Japanese border conflicts

Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation

Afghan–Sikh Wars

Mughal–Maratha Wars

Naxalite–Maoist insurgency

to name a few. In order to change all of these to dash to be consistent, a general RM would be advised. (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference between this article and those in the list is that the title is a combining form, and that's what MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES mentions as an exception to the n-dash rule. The Franco-Prussian War is therefore a more relevant example. BTW, I moved the article before I saw this discussion. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not unless you change that guideline. For example, Spanish–American, but Hispano-American; Ukrainian–Soviet but Ukraino-Soviet; France–Prussia but Franco-Prussian, etc. Russo- is a prefix, and not a standalone word, so Russo-Ukrainian is a compound adjective. If you want consistency, propose moving the article to Russia–Ukraine War or Russian–Ukrainian War, if either is a better name (but not just to change the hyphen/dash). —Michael Z. 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding....'Russo' is a combining form, which cannot stand on its own, and therefore takes a hyphen, rather than a dash. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Common name

Google Scholar gives me

• 610 results for "Russian–Ukrainian War"
• 307 results for "Russo-Ukrainian War"
• 152 results for "Russia–Ukraine War"

(All since 2016. Note, punctuation such as hyphens and dashes are not distinguished.)

It doesn't look like this article is at the most common title. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Google’s estimates of result numbers are a crapshoot (see WP:GOOG). When I use those search links and then page to the last result, I get the following:

• "Russian–Ukrainian war": Page 17 of 359 results
• "Russo-Ukrainian war": Page 12 of 243 results
• "Russia–Ukraine war": Page 7 of 122 results

Anyway, there may be a valid case for a move. Are there any clear trends in capitalization of “War” in the three versions? Do Google Books and News results have the same trend? —Michael Z. 20:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know any way to do a search on Google Books that doesn't match works that don't contain the exact phrase (quote marks don't do it, unfortunately). On Google News I get:

• 436 for "Russian–Ukrainian War"
• 545 for "Russo-Ukrainian War"
• 3,890 for "Russia–Ukraine War"

I think these results are less than reliable because in many cases it is matching an article tagged with "Russia" "Ukraine" and "war" which does not actually use the phrase "Russia–Ukraine War". Also, many news orgs indexed on Google News are not reliable. "Russo-Ukrainian War" is the term used very often by two major outlets, Atlantic Council and 112international, at least one of which is not really independent of the conflict, which seems to be skewing the results (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop reading the estimates. Those mean nothing. You have to go to the last page of results, and you get different numbers. Your third search gets 200 results, which I think might be a cap. Limit the search to one year, and I get 36, 52, and 121 for your news search results. —Michael Z. 01:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In G Books, limiting search to 2014 to today, I get 1,180, 1,530, and 1,280 results. Yeah, I don’t know how accurate these are, but it gives a broad sense for the relative numbers. Funny, [Google Books Ngram doesn’t register the last. —Michael Z. 01:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really the right way to go about this. First of all, plain Google searches will turn up news jargon and shorthand, results unrelated to the subject here, &c. This is especially a problem since you've used the 'non-proper name' form without a capital W. Many of the 'hits' don't seem to include the phrase that you inputted. Instead, we should base our article decisions on reliable sources, and indeed, those specific journal articles, books, &c., were cited in the move discussion that brought the page here. Google Ngrams confirms those findings, suggesting that 'Russo-Ukrainian War' is the most common term in written works. Moreover, there is a problem of WP:CONSISTENT, since all other similar wars are titled like this (see all of the various Russo-Turkish wars such as Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812), Russo-Georgian War, &c. - see Category:Wars involving Russia). I can't see a move as being in anyone's interest, since all these variants covey the same information per WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Good points. Change the smoothing number in G Ngram and you’ll be able to draw apparently opposite conclusions, which is another indicator that there isn’t a clear winner in frequency there. And we’re just discussing three nuanced expressions of the same name anyway. I agree it doesn’t seem important to change. —Michael Z. 23:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no Russo-Ukrainian war

There is no Russo-Ukrainian war! The point of view that this ordinary Civil War is a war between Ukraine and Russia is only Ukrainian Propaganda! The Ukrainian Military is too weak to wage such a long war with Russia which is next to the USA the most powerful Military Power in the world. A real war between Russia and Ukraine would end like the American-Mexican War. The point of view of the Russian government on this war is much more realistic than those of the government of Ukraine.--92.211.155.49 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

«The Ukrainian Military is to[o] weak» — thanks to this war the Ukrainian military has multiplied its military power..., and, what has changed since the ruling of the ICC in 2017? —Pietadè (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's hard to understand that war can take forms other than mere 'total war'...sure, Russia could've conquered Kiev in 2014...but that's not what Russia intended or wanted to get out of the conflict. I highly recommend you read the RAND Corporation report on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I agree, you can't call what's happening at this moment a war. Russia has influence on LDNR, maybe it provides military assistance, but this is a civil war, which is confirmed by the fact that during the last exchange of prisoners the Ukrainian citizens were exchanged for Ukrainian citizens. We could talk about the war in 2014, when there were confrontations in the Crimea, but the Ukrainian military did not receive commands to defend and simply gave up the Crimea and left. According to the Minsk Protocol, Russia is not a party to the conflict. The title of this article is misleading and manipulative.Dron007 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dron007’s comment might be considered misleading and manipulative. Firstly, reliable sources refer to this war as a “war.” And I’ll point out that fourteen thousand people have been killed, tens of thousands wounded, and over two million displaced. Over half of the people killed in this war died after the Minsk “ceasefire,” and casualties continue, with one killed and one wounded today. The Minsk agreements do not say what Dron007 says they say. The Russian Federation’s participation is not “maybe.” —Michael Z. 13:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

MzajacThat's merely your point of view though very typical for after-Maidan Ukraine due to the absence of neutral mass-media. Almost every media in Ukraine is owned by some oligarch. That is why Wikipedia Ukraine has very low quality non-neutral articles referring to such sources. Even articles about living persons ignore Wikipedia rules. Admins of Ukrainian Wikipedia dictate their point of view (mostly pro-Maidan and anti-Russian). As for the victims at least half of them are victims of Ukrainian military forces which attack civilian citizens. Same about two million of displaced people etc. No Russian troops were taken prisoner during last 4 years (after active phase of the conflict had stopped). Dron007 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dron007, the facts cited are not a “point of view.” As I mentioned, most casualties of the war occurred after what you call the active phase. You do not know whose artillery how many people were killed by, but Russian-led forces have been documented operating artillery near civilians to draw fire, and the OSCE documented them committing by far the most ceasefire violations and obstruction of monitors. And despite the Russians keeping their troops in the rear, some were captured in 2015 and 2017, so maybe revise your point of view based on facts. Anyway, we’re not here to argue about the truth. Reliable sources call it a war, and reliable sources say it’s not just a civil war. That is pertinent. —Michael Z. 00:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac Oh, really? What "reliable sources"? Maybe it was Ukrainian government or Ukrainian president who transferred funds stolen from army to his offshore companies? Or maybe Ukrainian mass-media owned by oligarchs who has profit by this war? Or maybe foreign mass-media which are not neutral and owned by people who also supported Maidan? It is not that easy to find the reliable neutral sources in our days. Anyway I didn't see in Western mass-media that conflict in the Eastern part of Ukraine is called Russo-Ukrainian War massively. So what about taken prisoners? If somebody was captured why there were no Russian in the latest prisoner of war exchange? How can we call it a war with Russia if only Ukrainian citizens are being captured? Dron007 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Dron007, I’m not here to chat. You can find some of them cited in this article. Notable: the ICC made a finding that both the Crimea invasion and the Donbas war are part of an international conflict; the Geneva Conventions on treatment of civilians specifically apply to an occupation like that of Crimea. —Michael Z. 20:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There is definitely no consensus in calling this conflict "Russo-Ukrainian war". For example here [2] CNN aks "So how did this dispute begin and how did it then erupt in to civil war?" Reuters provides both [3] points of view: "Kiev accuses Moscow of waging an undeclared war in eastern Ukraine, supplying troops and heavy weapons to the Donbass region. Russia denies that and calls it a civil war." BBC referred [4] to the conflict as "civil war": "It is his first Western media interview since the civil war erupted last year". Here is Robert Wade's quote: "That is why it is so misleading to present the conflict as Ukraine versus Russia. It is a civil war within Ukraine along a longstanding cultural and geographical split; Ukraine is not united against Russia." Just a very quick findings, I am sure there are many more. So I don't understand why did editors agree to use such a manipulative title for this article. If mass-media don't have consensus why does Wikipedia take just one point of view, which is not popular? Shouldn't it just rely on reliable sources without making its own researches? Dron007 (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well the Thesis that Russia wants to stop an Integration of Ukraine into Transatlantic Security and Economical System is not plausible because under Yanukovych not even 50 % of Ukrainians wanted that their country joins the EU and much less wanted that it joins the NATO according to polls of indepedent Institutes. The Narratives on the Fall of Yanukovych, the Change of Crimeas political affiliation and the war in Donbass are disputed. If Euromaidan was not a Revolution for example the point of view that the Donbas War is a Civil War in which Russia only supports the Rebels would be plausible. The Rand Corporation has no neutral point of view just like Russian and Ukrainian Thinktanks too by the way. The Ukrainian government claims that Russia wants invade Ukraine and that the Rebels in Donbas are controled by Russia. But exactly that is what the Baath Regime in Syria claims about the Civil War in the own country! Asad also thinks that there is an Aggression war of other countries against Syria while the Rebels are proxies of foreign powers.--92.74.224.251 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The Military power of Ukraine is weaker than those of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya under Gaddafi.--92.74.224.251 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There are too many elements of civil war in this conflict. Many of the fighting groups were not under direct control of either Russian or Ukrainian government. For this reason, although some authors use the terminology implied by the title of the article, this view is not universal. The article title makes a connection that is at best controversial. Heptor (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, IP address user, read what is WP:ORIGINAL. Almost every sentence you make is original research. You are trying to personally assess the strength of the army, personally trying to identify the cause of the war, etc. Moreover, you moved away from the topic of the article and started writing about Syria, etc. I have not seen a single source in your discussion.--RenatUK (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

---

V9k8 (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

All what I see above looks like questionable/personal/opinionated proof-less statements, moreover, Iraq question isn't really related to this topic...

Let me shed a light upon this topic a bit. Specifically saying on tree things:

• There is no war, it's a civil conflict
• There aren't Russian troops in East of Ukraine where Joint Forces Operation is taking place nowadays
• Naming issue

So let's begin with There is no war, it's civil conflict. Per PACE Resolution 2198 (2018) upon Humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine matters and Resolution 2132 (2016) upon Political consequences of the Russian aggression in Ukraine are being clearly said that it's war, not a civil conflict or whatever.

Per PACE Resolution 2132 (2016):

9. The Assembly welcomes the release of one of its members, Ms Nadiia Savchenko, after repeated calls by the international community, including more recently in Assembly Resolution 2112 (2016) on the humanitarian concerns with regard to people captured during the war in Ukraine. It also welcomes the release of Mr Yuri Soloshenko, Mr Gennady Afanasyev and of other prisoners. These releases are not only important humanitarian gestures, but also offer an opportunity to build trust between the sides in the conflict and provide the Minsk process with positive momentum. The Assembly reiterates its call for the release of all captured persons in line with Resolution 2112 (2016).

Per PACE Resolution 2198 (2018):

1. The Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed by the humanitarian situation resulting from the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine, which is taking place in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and from the occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. More than 4 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance. The armed conflict has taken the lives of more than 10 000 people. The number of people injured during the war has reached more than 24 000. In addition, more than 1.6 million people are internally displaced and almost half a million people are seeking asylum in other countries, most of them in the Russian Federation. The Assembly calls on all member States to step up their political co-operation in order to put an end to this conflict and the suffering of the civil population.

There are several more resolutions like Resolution 1988 (2014), Resolution 2028 (2015), Resolution 2067 (2015), Resolution 2132 (2016) that states about early dates aggression development from Russian side towards to Ukraine.

There aren't Russian troops in East of Ukraine where Joint Forces Operation is taking place nowadays. There are two more PACE resolutions like Resolution 2063 (2015), Resolution 2132 (2016) that touches issues like Political consequences of the Russian aggression in Ukraine and Consideration of the annulment of the previously ratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation (follow-up to paragraph 16 of Resolution 2034 (2015)). These two clearly states there are Russian troops in Ukraine.

Per Resolution 2063 (2015):

3.2. the continued deterioration of the human rights situation in eastern Ukraine and credible reports of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by all sides in the conflict, including persistent abductions, summary killings, arbitrary detention and torture of civilians in the areas under the control of the pro-Russian separatists and Russian troops, as well as summary killings of Ukrainian soldiers captured by pro-Russian illegal armed groups

3.5. the continuing presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine and the influx of advanced weaponry and “volunteers” from the Russian Federation;

8.3. withdraw all its troops from Ukrainian territory;

Per Resolution 2132 (2016):

6.1. the Russian Federation to withdraw its troops from the territory of Ukraine and stop providing the separatists with military supplies

Naming issue. Can be easily name fix in accordance to Per PACE Resolution 2198 (2018) and be named like Russian war against Ukraine.

P.S. Legal documents definitely have greater power than some mass media sources.

References

---

US - Ukrainian War

How is Russia front and center here when it's US politicians and agencies running around in Ukraine in photo ops, and unloading military equipment to kill Ukrainians resisting the coup since 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.226.98 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Whole article badly needs reworking / shortening

I realize the mods probably have their hands full with other aspects of this page, but it badly, badly needs an overhaul to summarize and synthesize. A bunch of sentences stringing together summaries of hundreds years-old news items do not aid anyone in understanding this conflict. This thing happened on 18 March 2015; this other thing happened on 24 March; the Prime Minister announced a new initiative in September; no sense of what happened as a whole or where the conflict stands at present.

Example: most of the 9 paragraphs and 700 words under "August 2014 military invasion" could be collapsed into "Over the course of August 2014, there were many reports and sightings of Russian troops and material entering Ukraine, including [a few examples], reported by [people and institutions]." - Minivet (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename the article to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict

This is an article describing two linked but separate events concerning Russia and Ukraine; the annexation of Crimea, and Russian involvement and intervention in the Donbass War. I don’t think this can collectively be referred to as a “war”. The term “Russo-Ukrainian War” is very rarely used by third party sources when discussing these events, and is mainly used by involved parties. This label mainly seems unsuitable because the main conflict and combat operations are taking place between the Ukrainian government and separatist forces within Ukraine, with Russia playing a supportive role. The most common term used is “conflict” or “intervention”. Therefore I propose to rename the article to Russo-Ukrainian Conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupofteaguy (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The naming has been discussed before, so please see above. To compare the usage of these specific titles in reliable sources, I performed a couple of searches (see WP:GOOG on how to do it). In Google News Search for the past year, with quotation marks around the phrase, I get 45 results for “Russo-Ukrainian war,” 11 for “Russo-Ukrainian conflict.” In Google Advanced Book Search, limited to English-language sources, since 2014, and omitting “Wikipedia,” I get 32 for “Russo-Ukrainian war,” 24 for “Russo-Ukrainian conflict.” The proposed title does not seem to be more common. —Michael Z. 19:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian Conflict could refer to any long-running dispute between Russia and Ukraine. Such a title is not WP:PRECISE enough to be the title of this article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what kind of ridiculous determination technique is that? So because there are countless controlled media outlets, NGO's and other organisations who are payed to promote and push a certain narative by spreading it through endless channels, this becomes the new norm? The article about the ukrainian journalist Anatoliy Shariy is constantly being tagged by far-right extremists with the claim that he is "anti-ukrainian", "pro-russian" or a pedophile and as proof they refer to a number of oligarch-controlled, state-controlled or NGO-backed sources, all of which are payed to build this false narative in order to discredit him and his work. But this doesn't make it true. How can you apply this logic to such delicate topics like this one?? ValterUdarnik (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I am applying the logic you describe, ValterUdarnik. What I am describing is the principle in WP:COMMONNAME.

Regarding sources, please be familiar with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which supports of one of Wikipedia’s central principles. If there are specific sources in the article that are problematic, please bring it up here, maybe after checking whether they are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —Michael Z. 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Map

A new map should be added to the infobox, the frontlines have obviously changed since October 2014. Perhaps something along the lines of the Syrian Civil War map, or the maps used for the wars in Libya and Yemen? Thank you in advance. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C8F5:681B:5214:C75E (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Viktor Yanukovych as a Ukrainian commander according to the infobox?

I think including Viktor Yanukovych into the list of the Ukrainian commanders in the leading infobox is confusing for the readers. Yes, he was formally the President a couple of days after annexing of Crimea but I do not think he was a military commander standing to Russian Federation Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

He was Ukrainian president when Russian forces invaded Ukraine. Yes, the Russians, and then Yanukovych, later said he had invited them, and still later he said he regretted it, while the Russians tried to deny his letter. No matter. The reality may be confusing, but that’s no reason to omit it. In fact, obscuring the truth out is misleading and may create a false, oversimplified picture. Yanukovych, not Turchynov, was Ukrainian head of state at the beginning of the war. —Michael Z. 02:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Would it make sense to put a white flag next to Yanukovych then? - VS

I considered that, but he wasn’t exactly taken prisoner. And I don’t understand why Lebedyev “surrendered” when Asksyonov is just listed on the other side: both were in Ukrainian governments and turned coat, and Ilyin too, although it doesn’t sound like he was very active in the annexation. —Michael Z. 03:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it a “war”?

I don’t know if this conflict is large scale enough to have an article called “Russo-ukrainian war”, maybe the “Russo-ukrainian conflict”? There has been barely any fighting in years Ridax2020 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

wp:Reliable sources call it a war, so so do we. But 30,000 casualties with 13,000 killed is not enough for you? —Michael Z. 18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The conflict has been frozen for the past couple years, https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/russias-war-kills-32-soldiers-in-2020-total-death-toll-stands-at-3079.html only 32 soldiers were killed last year Ridax2020 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

More than half the total casualties were suffered since it was “frozen.” Ninety-six casualties in 2021, up to March 26.[5] Are you proposing the war ended at some point in time? I don’t see reliable sources saying so, but if it were the case, then we’d still have an article about the war. Maybe you’re suggesting splitting the article into one entitled “war” and another “conflict”? Not sure we’d find concensus for that idea, or that it would satisfy you. —Michael Z. 13:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please send me reliable sources that call it the “Russo-Ukrainian War”? Ridax2020 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Look through the talk archives, linked at the top of this page. There has been plenty of discussion and at least four formal move requests. —Michael Z. 20:26, 1 April 2021

If you are calling this a Russian Ukrainian war then you might as well call the Russian civil war a Soviet - Western war because the westerners supported the white army, point is this is a horrible naming of this, it's seperatists backed by Russia much like the White army was backed by Western nations, it's a rebellion if anything and it's called the war in donbass for a reason. 155.4.130.49 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

War in Donbas is a separate article. This one is of broader scope including that, the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, taking Ukrainian prisoners in the Kerch Straight, sabotage against Ukraine’s military supply chain, cyber attacks, economic coercion, etcetera. Thanks for the reminder that it still has some gaps.

“It's a rebellion if anything” – that does not represent the consensus of reliable sources. I think it is sufficiently demonstrated by citations in the relevant articles. —Michael Z. 19:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The question is, what "reliable sources" are you talking about? It is quite well known that the Donbass rebellion is homegrown. That the Russian state intervened and boosted the scope and power of this rebellion does not change that fact. Kenmore (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The ones cited in the respective articles. Which “well known” are you talking about? —Michael Z. 02:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The "sources" cited in this article are publications such as The New York Daily News, Radio Free Europe, the Kyiv Post, and a slew of obscure Ukrainian language publications. Most reasonable people would agree that these outlets do not qualify as "reliable sources." Kenmore (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Who are these “reasonable people”? How do you define “obscurity” and how does it affect reliability? WP:RSP lists the NYDN as a reliable source. Some of the others have been discussed in that page’s archives. If you have problems with specific citations, please start a specific discussion, but voicing general dissatisfaction is not likely to improve the article. —Michael Z. 13:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You are not here to write a factually balanced, objective account of the Ukraine Conflict. Based on your sources and your contributions to the article, it is obviously your goal to advance the rhetoric of the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian nationalist groups concerning the crisis. Regarding people who question your objectivity, you seek to exhaust them by quibbling endlessly about syntax, or over what constitutes credibility in sources, or by nonsensically debating the fundamental, obvious facts about the subject. That is not using Wikipedia to write a credible, factually balanced, objective article. Rather, it is turning Wikipedia into a soapbox to propagate your polemic nationalist views on the subject at hand.Kenmore (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kenmore: please don’t tell me what you think I am or what my motivations are. This does not meet Wikipedia’s standards of WP:CIVILity. This space is for discussion that intends to improve the article. See WP:TALK. —Michael Z. 04:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, in case you missed my point, I'll summarize it for you: the article lacks objectivity. It can be improved by vastly improving its objectiveness. How's that for a start at improving the article? Also, be aware that my comments on your editing do not violate Wikipedia's standards of civility. My words are criticism, and not vitriol or personal abuse.Kenmore (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Problems concerning the references for military casualties and quality of sources cited

The references citing Ukraine's alleged military casualties are quite poor. One of them, a Radio Free Europe article, merely alludes to 50 Ukrainian troops killed somewhere. Another reference links to Ukrainian military cemetary site, indicating that 139 troops are buried there. The third reference connects to an obscure Ukrainian language website, apparently a commemoration site for Ukraine's war dead. All three sources yield next to no reliable data informing the reader of the Ukrainian military's KIA from 2014 up until now.

Too many of the sources used in this article are inadequate and inappropriate sources of information. For example, Radio Free Europe is a well-known anti-Russian propaganda outlet. Many of the Ukrainian language links in this article reference Ukrainian government publications, which is an insensible way to document the war. That's because the Ukrainian government has a vested interest in underreporting its casualties. Citing Kiev's official count of war dead is just as unreliable as depending on the Kremlin to give honest, reliable figures about Russian KIA. Other dodgy news sources used here are the Kyiv Post and New York Daily News. And that's not even getting into the question of the credibility of the many Ukrainian language publications which this article treats as respectable and unbiased sources of information about the war.

A final oddity about this article is its name: the "Russo-Ukrainian War." IMO, that's a very idiosyncratic was of describing the conflict. No other news source or analytic group refers to the conflict by using that term. By any measure, everyone agrees that the conflict concerns a region in Ukraine that is waging a war of secession against Ukraine. True, the majority of the people in this rebellious region are ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians, and indeed, Russia is meddling in war. But it is questionable to regard these facts as justification for naming the conflict a "Russo-Ukrainian War. Keep in mind that there has been no declaration of war by Kiev or Moscow against either's state. Kenmore (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The map is outdated by many years

We need a map change. The current map reflects the frontlines as of the winter of 2014/2015, when the Ukrainian launched its Debaltsevo offensive. But the rebels (and presumably their Russian support forces) encircled the Ukrainian army, and compelled Poroshenko to rescue his troops by signing the Minsk II Protocol. Immediately after that, the Ukrainian troops were permitted to retreat out of the Debaltsevo pocket, which was subsequently occupied by the rebels (and Russians). So yes, the map is outdated and slightly inaccurate.Kenmore (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion policy in Russo-Ukranian War page

Hello everybody! Why need this page, to be deleted ? I saw on the page, that this page needs to be deleted, for unknown reasons, but why ? I was readed this page, for long time, and this page isn't bad, so, this page why needs to be deleted ? Can someone say some reason ? --TomFZ67 (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)