Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Kyiv Bans Import of Russian Books

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.

---

Kyiv Bans Import of Russian Books

As reported by REUTERS - and highlighted in todays I newspaper - the Ukrainian President has just signed a new law banning the import of books from Russia. Together with reports of the banning of Russian in Ukrainian schools, the negative effects of such laws must be of real concern. For what next, the Burning of the (Russia) Books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.130 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to suggest an edit, as this is not a wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, while Wikipedia is not a Talking Shop, is not the Banning of the Books an issue of some concern? Given this, might not the full impact of such laws on the Russians living within the Ukraine be highlighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.153 (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources consider it a human rights violation, it can be added to the Russo-Ukrainian_War#Human_rights_violations section of this article. I would also add it to the Russian language in Ukraine article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Russian campaign to Russify education in the occupied territories of Ukraine, the banning of Ukrainian-language books, the imposition of Moscow’s curriculum by force on Ukrainian teachers by threats and the use of re-education camps, the mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children, and other potentially genocidal measures would warrant quite a bit more WP:DUEWEIGHT in this article.

If we’re going to get into domestic policies, then we could cover the longstanding suppression of Ukrainian language and education in Russia first, too.  —Michael Z. 21:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, does Russia allow the import of Ukrainian books?  —Michael Z. 21:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any restrictions on Ukrainian-language books or books published in Ukraine but if they exist they should be mentioned in relevant articles.

I agree that the Russification of education should be covered - even if it's largely a fast-forward mirror image of the Ukrainisation campaign of the previous decades (changing language of instruction from Ru to Ukr, removing the status of Ru as a regional language, changing the curriculum, etc). Probably you find the latter legitimate and the former illegitimate but both are relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 06:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, as WP editors we should always rely on reliable, secondary sources, preferably academic ones. We should also let those sources inform our judgment on what is relevant or irrelevant. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this is what I wrote in my first comment in this thread. Alaexis_¿question? 09:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hm. Do you not see a substantive difference between language protection laws that many states have, and a violent campaign of of language suppression imposed during a military occupation that has been explicitly linked with incitement to genocide, a risk that genocide is occuring, and the indictment of a head of state on charges in an international court’s investigation of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? Well we do.  —Michael Z. 13:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Russia has eliminated Ukrainian-language education for Ukrainians in its own borders and in occupied territories of Ukraine, and is imposing anti-Ukrainian reeducation on Ukrainian children. It has removed references to Ukraine and Kyiv in its history curriculum. It shut down the Ukrainian library in Moscow after the 2014 invasion, and prosecuted its chief librarian for extremism and spreading ethnic hate. The campaign is connected to dehumanizing anti-Ukrainian rhetoric by Russia’s head of state and media which which explicitly refer to conspiracy theories and language suppression practiced by Moscow authorities since the seventeenth century.  —Michael Z. 13:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Then again, if Wikipedia is to avoid pushing a one-sided point or view, should it not highlight reports that the Ukraine Govt is eliminating Russian-language education for Russians, and is imposing anti-Russian re-education on Ukrainian children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.130 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

banning the import of books is not the same as banning a language after all these books come from a country that has invaded them. So of course they are not going to buy stuff form them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually it’s Russia that long ago eliminated Ukrainian-language education for millions of Ukrainians in Russia, and has now invaded Ukraine to forcibly eliminate Ukrainian-language education and impose anti-Ukrainian brainwashing on Ukrainians, and forcibly deport millions to Russia while encouraging colonial settlement by Russians. This seems more notable than anon’s misinterpretation of Ukrainian language-protection laws which, although a bit controversial, are a result of Ukraine’s own democratic self-government.

Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-EC users are not permitted to edit this talk page except for non-disruptive constructive comments and edit requests.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Bans/Banning:

the gays from Admiral Kostyukov. Banned. Discussion about the war in Ukraine. In German . For example . Support the Topic: "It is not necessary to morganize (assert - an absolute necessity) Ukraine". Support / Discussionis not possible.

(Schader, aber, a?)

In this sense, in this context.

Role . to the gays from sir Admiral. In conflict. Increasing, a ?

Damage to weapons supplied to Ukraine.

Support in the assimilation of refugees.

Ukrainian nationality. Exile, persecution! On refugees of Russian nationality. ...91.183.159.198 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What? HappyWith (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Allegedly.

A Russia - German ( so-called Aussidler ). Shows displeasure. Good to see. Misunderstanding. Chancellor's Politician. Germany. Regarding Ukraine. The policy of the Federal Chancellor, Mr. Holz. directed. First . Improving/increasing the well-being of the population, citizen's. The German State.

Although, of course! The Role of Personalities. In interstate relations. Can not. Be overestimated. i wanted to tell you

Ideology of War in Ukraine. The rulers of Ukraine.

It for she .

Gives little opportunity. To engage, to promote.

Simultaneously . Maskov's ideology of war in Ukraine. Clearly. lame. "Nоги разные."

Friends of Ukraine - Anglophones. Perhaps . Might subsidize. For popularizing the topic: the quick end of the war in Ukraine. e.g. and also . On the pages of Wikipedia. It is not expensive! (Not 60,000,000,000 euros, yes ?)

Russian State Administration. Unlike Ukraine. Just like the friends of Ukraine. Pay, sponsor. popularizing their “ideology”. To improve Ukraine.

Here  ! gave me an e-cigarette. There's still a lot left in there.

Promised. One more bon-bon , - "Красный богатырь".

Well , I 'm trying to - remedy Wi ki pin123 (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2023 (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.

Add the Russian opposition

I think the Russian opposition (from 2022) should be added to infobox, Russian opposition due to 2022–2023 Belarusian and Russian partisan movement Including the 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions, the Wagner Group rebellion (In the article Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia#2023 Wagner rebellion, the Wagner Group rebellion is part of the Russian opposition.), and the Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present) should be added as hostile. Parham wiki (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Where? Under the "Belligerents" heading? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow: I mean write this in the infobox (it shouldn't be in "supported by:" like Belarus): Ukraine
Russian opposition (from 2022) Parham wiki (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that this will be the thread to discuss this, I'll copy-paste my response here.

I'm not sure that it should be added to the infobox as proposed. First, the Opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia (the article you link to) consists of many different fractions and while pretty much all of them are against the war, only very few can be considered belligerents, which is what the infobox is supposed to contain. And lumping Wagner together with the liberal opposition would be pretty far-fetched.

I'd go with what RS say here. If they describe the Freedom of Russia Legion as a significant belligerent, then we can definitely add them to the infobox, similar to the way DNR and LNR are there. Alaexis_¿question? 11:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

None of them belong under “Belligerents,” IMO. They are not sovereign state actors nor independent parties to the conflict. The Russian opposition comprises disparate dissident groups in Russia and Russians that have joined Ukraine’s foreign legion. The DLNR were under overall control of the Kremlin from at least May 2014, and current sources now label part of the Donbas territory “Russian occupied before February 22, 2022.”  —Michael Z. 16:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

NATO and United States military response

This heading suggests that the USA is separate from NATO.It is an integral part of the alliance and the heading should reflect that by stating just NATO. The contribution of each ally can turn be detailed in the body of the article. 2A00:23C7:D38A:8B01:25BB:A435:E33A:A6F6 (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There has been no NATO military response, I think it just reads badly. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This section is a stub of uncertain encyclopedic intent, and the heading doesn’t really make sense. It doesn’t describe a military response, for one thing. It kind of alludes to a different defence posture by states, among other things, but that varies among 31 member states (most especially Turkey and Hungary). And what about responses by non-NATO states? Finland and Sweden gave up neutrality. Switzerland has debated its neutrality so it might be able to sell more ammunition while it keeps handling Russian money. Belarus said it allowed nuclear weapons to be brought into its territory. Armenia is caught in a standoff in Azerbaijan because of Russia’s waning influence. Etcetera.  —Michael Z. 17:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe ru-wiki has an article titled “Geopolitical consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine” or something like that. I don’t read fluently enough to get through a whole article in a reasonable time frame, but it might be worth making a new article from scratch on the topic. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Support and Backing for a Proxy War

While keen to keep its' troops out of harms way, the US is willing to spend billions on arms, training and other aid to maintain the conflict in the Ukraine. Given this, might there not be a section called: 'US Support for a Proxy War'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.83 (talk • contribs)

Has been discussed multiple times before. In short, reliable sources do not widely describe this as a proxy conflict. — Czello ^(music) 09:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Broadly that's the case, but I'd add one small but significant caveat to what Czello said. Because once you consider RS from India, Anglophone Africa, etc. there is probably enough for one or two lines under WP:DUE.

That being said, I have little interest in debating that point at the moment. I suppose one could get four RS or so and boldly add the sentence, and it would have a 50/50 chance of avoiding the BRD cycle. Myself, I have other stuff on my mind right now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, as the US did not arm Ukraine till after Russia invaded, this is not a Proxy war. As best we might have one line that says "and some have claimed this is a proxy war". Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Donbas War was a Russian proxy war in the sense that Russians working for the Kremlin came to Ukraine and started it, the Kremlin had overall control of its forces there from April or May 2014, and its “New Russia” project had too little local support to continue fighting using solely its irregular cadrés and local proxies, so was forced to send in mechanized formations from August 2014 to February 2015 to keep from watching them get pushed to the Russian border.

Since February 2022, it is not a proxy war in this sense, that it exists only due to a foreign power’s influence, at all. Russia openly invaded, is integrating the “DLNR” forces into its own (using them up in meatwaves and bulking them up with mobiks), and is forcibly changing the demographic composition of the territories it occupied before and since the invasion (accused of genocide, and its head of state a fugitive rom justice).

Ukrainians led by their elected government stopped the Russian invasion before they were provided anything more than insurgency weapons, and many sources predict they would have and still would continue fighting with no foreign support at all.

It might be considered a proxy war by some reliable sources in the sense that 70 states are aiding Ukraine against an adversary. This is a weaker and less clear sense of the word, and it is not what Russian, anti-Ukrainian, “anti-globalist,” and US isolationist propaganda mean when they use this word. I suspect it’s not used this way by many of them, because of its wide misuse, and because it means radically different things when referring to Russian proxy forces and the Ukrainians, and its use risks confusing issues and playing into the hands of Kremlin propagandists and their fellow travellers.

Because the term is loaded and ambiguous, it should probably be glossed on first use, especially when used to refer to aid to Ukraine. I think this article needs to address this question head-on by explaining changing views on the Russian role (e.g., what RS used to label “occupied by Russian-backed separatists” on maps is now labelled “Russian occupied before February 24, 2022.”. —Michael Z. 23:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

With respect, this is semantic quibbling and not in line with the definition at Proxy war or examples such as Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict.

Obviously OP’s proposal is not a viable one. That being said, aspects of the overall trends and tendencies in RS coverage of support are not precisely in line with our current revision’s coverage. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, sorry, but you are wrong on both of your points. Michael Z.'s explanation of the meaning of "proxy war" was exactly in line with our article's definition (at the instigation or on behalf of). A Kenyan, Nigerian or Indian newspaper might be a highly reliable source for events in that respective country, but still not fit for use in this article, see WP:RSCONTEXT and the following sections. Also, we have far better sources than just news. I personally recommend Andreas Kappeler, Serhii Plokhy, and Timothy Snyder, all of them high-profile historians who cover the war in their recent publications, demonstrating that Ukraine is fighting for its existence as a nation, and not at the instigation or on behalf of anybody else. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not suggesting that the Ukrainians are fighting because they are Western proxies, but rather that a major, or even perhaps the primary, purpose of some supporters in their continued provision of support (training, intel sharing, etc. in addition to munitions and other matériel) is arguably to engage in proxy warfare with Russia, and that this is borne out by (specifically, Western blue-chip periodical) RS.

The mention of Global South publications was in the context that in many parts of the world the conflict is widely viewed as a frontline of great power competition rather than simply Goliath invading David’s territory. This viewpoint should of course be given due weight, since a nontrivial fraction of the world’s population live in these countries.

Also, WP:RSCONTEXT doesn’t fully support your statement in general. Dismissing Indian newspapers’, in particular, reporting about world events (apparently, if I understand you correctly, because they allegedly don’t engage in the same rigorous practices that newspapers in other countries are thought to follow) is a very problematic suggestion that reeks of WP:BIAS in my view.

I mentioned the Global South because, as I’ve more or less said before, I see this, a major ongoing topic area in a time when WP is supposed to be self-aware about these things, as something of a test case for whether WP is serious about representing a worldwide (or even Anglophone world-wide) perspective, or whether countervailing processes will win the day. Refusing to recognize even the possibility that there might exist valid viewpoints besides the one(s) commonly held by the EC editing community is essentially large-scale groupthink; such a systemic weakness in Wikipedia’s system could be existential.

In addition, this topic area is illustrative of a wide variety of other pitfalls. Wp is supposed to be encyclopedic; numerous lead sections in the topic area, such as Russian invasion of Ukraine and several incidents during the invasion, have a blatantly journalistic tone and layout. A careful examination of the archives at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and other threads elsewhere reveals some quite fascinating trends and patterns. And last but definitely not least, new content additions frequently require extensive copy editing, from basic proofreading to layout and cohesion issues. (at one point, a major contributor mispel’d Bakhmut multiple times despite it already appearing a few lines above; and don’t get me started on List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War, which would be even worse without the help of your friendly neighborhood WikiDee).

Anyway, I’m not sure how familiar you are with the history of discussions in the topic area, so perhaps one or two things I mentioned were new to you. I didn’t really start drafting with the intention of writing a frank critique of various editing behaviors I’ve seen here; it just sort of…happened. At least it’s nominally germane to the topic, and hopefully it will be helpful for these points to have been aired.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

perhaps the primary, purpose of some supporters . . . is arguably to engage in proxy warfare with Russia — what does that actually mean? Doublespeak. That doesn’t make Russia’s war in Ukraine a ”proxy war.” The UN Charter VII.51 recognizes states’ “inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.” No one is waging any kind of war against Russia. They are engaging in self-defence. Russia can stop the war this morning just by ceasing its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

This viewpoint should of course be given due weight, since a nontrivial fraction of the world’s population — so the communist South China Morning Post is the weightiest most reliable source because of its large potential readership? Nonsense.  —Michael Z. 15:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, arguing against the wrong target isn’t going to move the discussion forward. Why the heck would I support such an amateurish move as adding a a section called: 'US Support for a Proxy War', as Essex IP had suggested?

The statement of mine you referred to means exactly what it says. And for the future, using the term “doublespeak” in this topic area could be construed as a dog-whistle personal attack given Moscow’s elevation of it to an art form (no examples necessary 😏).

And by the way, after a quick search for “are we in a proxy war with russia” (the last three words were the top suggestion after the first part) I found this RS from The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/russia-ukraine-war-us-involvement-leaked-documents/

To my knowledge, the US at least has not formally invoked any right of collective self-defense at any point.

As for your counterexample of a supposedly sussy non-Western source, please see WP:SCMP. And please don’t throw around labels. Is Le Figaro “neo-colonialist” now?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SCMP is based on a 2020 RfC. After the implementation of the Hong Kong national security law, there is no freedom of the press left in Hongkong. Common sense should tell you that SCMP is no longer reliable on issues the Chinese government is interested in. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The RfC appears to postdate the new laws. And regardless, I haven’t seen any reason to believe that Ukraine falls in the category of topics subject to coerced self-censorship, as you suggested. Much the opposite; a quick perusal looks just fine, with bonus points for a high news-to-opinion piece ratio.

You could always start a new RfC since consensus can change.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The decline in Hong Kong's ranking on the Press Freedom Index published annually by Reporters Without Borders has been vertiginous: it stood at 148th in 2022, having dropped 68 places from the year prior; it ranked 71st place in 2015, from our article on Censorship in Hong Kong. Please note that the RfC pre-dates the drop. A quick perusal normally is not enough for judging the quality of a paper. The people who control the Chinese media are often quite intelligent and know the tricks, like selecting those news that seem to support their ideology and suppressing the other ones, even adding some news that seem to contradict their normal views to gain credibility, and so on. The Chinese government is a close ally of Russia, so they are taking active interest in Ukraine, and they certainly don't like the idea that a revolution could topple an authoritarian regime and lead to a democracy. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You misinterpret the UN Charter statement. Ukraine has the right to self-defence. The US and any other state has the right to intervene by the use of force to aid in Ukraine’s self-defence against Russia’s illegal war of aggression (collective self-defence), but none has, so it is only individual self-defence that is taking place.

No one is waging any kind of warfare with Russia. Ukraine is engaging in self-defence as is its right.

I apologize if I implied your assertions are in bad faith by the term “doublespeak.” To say someone else’s primary purpose is waging war against Russia, by supplying Ukraine’s individual self-defence, is very wrong, whyever it’s said.  —Michael Z. 03:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Then again, within Washington, does there not remain a number of would-be Rambows that cannot admit the cold war is over? For they retain an interest in waging any kind of warfare, or using any tactics, to undermine Russia (or any other national that stands in their way). While not willing to allow American troops to kill and be killed, are not these latter-day Dr Strange Loves more than wiling to let the Ukrainians die for their aims?

RadioactiveBoulevardier, if I understand you correctly, because they allegedly ... Wrong again. What I wanted to point out is that we don't count reliable sources, but that we carefully weigh "[E]ach source ... to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made", see WP:RSCONTEXT. A high-profile scholar is better than a newspaper and a newspaper with expertise on Ukraine is better than one without. If you have good (i.e. as good as the scholars I mentioned or better) sources calling the war a "proxy war", feel free to present them. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to publications by the historians you mentioned that specifically analyze the purpose of various countries’ support? Paywall is usually fine because of WP-library 😉

As I already said above, I’m not suggesting that Ukraine is engaging in proxy warfare (judging by the official rhetoric, they see the struggle as a second Great Patriotic War), but that some of the countries providing support do so primarily within a geopolitical context.

In fact, although it’s certainly debatable, I would tentatively take the position that WP’s current framing of the war primarily as an existential ethnic conflict, as the Ukrainian government has done, without giving due weight to the geopolitical context (which btw would still permit the depiction of Putin as a Machiavellian aggressor), might well constitute POV in and of itself. Some editors have in the past specifically insisted on downplaying this.

In terms of historians and current conflicts, sound historiography entails demonstrating theses. The analytical methodology being applied is usually the main thing; in general, I would be somewhat skeptical of opaque final products. In addition, being “high-profile” outside one’s field can be for…a variety of reasons.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Being not young any more, I am also somewhat old-fashioned: I like to read complete books, Serhii Plokhy's The Gates of Europe and The Russo-Ukrainian War and Andreas Kappeler's Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine. They are not available online as far as I know. Snyder's 23 lectures on Ukraine have been recorded and are available for free here. Both Kappeler and Plokhy are perfectly inside their field (specialists for (Russian and) Ukrainian history), and Snyder at least dedicated a whole course to Ukraine. I don't see that Ukraine's government is framing the war as an "ethnic conflict". From Ukraine's perspective it's a nation fighting for its survival against another nation that has for centuries undertaken to colonize it. Supporters of Ukraine have - of course - different motives, but none of them has been actively challenging Russia over Ukraine. It is Russia that's openly talking of a "New World Order" (e.g. on RT) and demanding that their non-existent right to control countries outside their borders be respected. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"This viewpoint should of course be given due weight, since a nontrivial fraction of the world’s population live in these countries." - we write articles based on what experts in RS say, not on what random people think. It also presupposes that a publication can be representative of what any given country's population thinks, which makes no sense. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Note it does not matter if we can find definitions of proxy war that fit this, we need RS saying it is a proxy war, not our wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Somewhere above I linked an article that discusses it at length from The Washington Post. I’m sure others could be found.

But I definitely appreciate your caution against WP:SYNTH and will take it to heart, because it seems to be a perennial bane. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Which does not say it is a Proxy war, it says it has been called one. As I said in my OP in this thread we have eon ugh to say "and has been called a proxy war", not enough to say it is one. 11:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

And then, we would also need to explain why they have called it a proxy war. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Out of the 6 images in the infobox, 5 of them are related to russia

Shouldn't at least 1 other show something WP:DUEly relevant to Ukraine? Maybe them defending inside a building or something? It seems like too much of a focus on one party in a war for an infobox, I think it would be better to add two images than replace one DarmaniLink (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It is lacking any image from the last nine months.  —Michael Z. 13:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainian Wikipedia editors should be careful here. For might not such images be useful in highlighting UN reports about the way Ukrainian forces have used civilian building as fire bases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.182 (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Name

We should change this page to War in Ukraine. It’s the most common title (most sources use it) and it’s also neutral (Ukraine reffers it to “Russo-Ukrainian War”, while Russia reffers it to “Special Military Operation in Ukraine” or something like that.) WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It is a Russo-Ukrainian war. “SMO” is a propaganda name meant to obscure the nature of the largest land invasion in Europe since WWII, and it is enforced in Russia with criminal laws against “disinformation” about the “SMO.” Russians risk serious jail time for calling it a war. A compromise between the truth and a lie is usually not the truth, and it is not neutral but a false balance.

(Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users aren’t permitted to edit in internal project discussions, including requested moves.) —Michael Z. 20:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s a bit authoritarian to be honest. I didn’t request a move. Just making a statement. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair, but I don’t think we should begin a huge discussion or vote on this unless it’s endorsed by EC editors.  —Michael Z. 21:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing authoritarian about notifying users of rules. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:1C52:5565:BE68:538D (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m reffering to the rule, not about notifying users of rules. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine does not say Russo-Ukrainian War says: Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine Parham wiki (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, since Putin never bothered to declare war on the Ukraine, then technically it's an invasion of the Ukraine by the Russian military (and lately by a group of thugs led by a doughnut vendor). So, yes, it should be changed, and the title Ukraine uses pretty much nails it. 59Frogeye (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Image caption: "Russian proxy forces during the Donbas war"

The related image appears in the collage in the infobox.

• Orchastrattor changed the caption to Russian-backed forces during the Donbas war with the edit summary: "NPOV: "Proxy" makes for a very loaded descriptor, doesn't make sense to use it in the captions when the rest of the lead seems pretty consistent with "pro-Russian" as the preferred term instead"[1]
• Mzajac reverted with the edit summmary: "not “loaded,” since courts have found these forces were under overall control of Russia since May 2014"[2]
• I reveret to Orchastrattor's edit with the edit summary: "Make the point in the body of the article, not in the caption to an image. Furthermore, the "claim" of "proxy" is not supported by the body of the article. "Proxy" is mentioned twice in the body of the article and not in a way that supports its use in the caption."[3]
• Rsk6400 reinstared the original version with the edit summary: "returning to status quo. NPOV doesn't mean neutrality between RS and Russian propaganda."[4]
• Alaexis reinstates to Orchastrattor's edit with the edit summary: "per Cinderella's points, need to be supported in the article body"[5]
• Lute88 reverted to the status quo with the edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Alaexis (talk): WP:CONSENSUS"[6]

There are a number of reasons why the use of proxy in the caption Russian proxy forces during the Donbas war is inappropriate.

1. It is indeed a bit of a loaded term. NPOV/weight does not preclude such terms but they shouldn't be used in a Wiki voice and certainly not used without support from the body of the article.
2. While I might disagree with the semantics of Mzajac's edit summary, the essence, that the separatist forces were controlled by Russia is not being disputed. However, there have also been Russian forces present - either covertly and/or overtly. A proxy is one that acts for and in the absence of another. Therefore, the description of the separatists as proxies does not appear to be correct.
3. The assertion of what courts have found (per Mzajac) does not appear to be in the present iteration of the article and from what I recall, I doubt that the term "proxy" was used by the courts. Regardless, claims made by an article must be supported by the article and sources cited therein.
4. Within the body of the article, "proxy" is only used several times in one paragraph and these references are unrelated to "Russian-backed forces". The status quo caption is not supported by the body of the article.
5. No matter which way you dice it "Russian proxy forces" is ambiguous. Are they Russians that are proxy forces or "Russians proxies" - meaning Russians that are proxies? This ambiguity is not resolved by hyphenation in either of the two possible positions. We are not here to show off our command of English (or the lack of it). Per WP:MOS: articles should be written in easily understood language (ie plain English and, per WP:TONE: the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon.
6. The lead (not part of the body of the article) does use the term "Russian proxies". While not ambiguous (Russian proxies are acting for Russia), this would appear to be inaccurate (per above), as a passing statement lacks clarity as to who are acting as these proxies and does not appear to be supported by the body of the article.

The caption should be changed to "Russian-backed forces during the Donbas war". The lead should be change as follows:

• "The Donbas war settled into a violent but static conflict between Ukraine and Russian proxies, with many brief ceasefires but no lasting peace and few changes in territorial control."

Per the body of the article, In 2015, Russian separatist forces were estimated to number around 36,000 troops (compared to 34,000 Ukrainian), of whom 8,500–10,000 were Russian soldiers. Additionally, around 1,000 GRU troops were operating in the area.[158] Another 2015 estimate held that Ukrainian forces outnumbered Russian forces 40,000 to 20,000.[159] In 2017, on average one Ukrainian soldier died in combat every three days,[160] with an estimated 6,000 Russian and 40,000 separatist troops in the region. [Line of conflict stabilizes (2015–2021) section] It is clear that Ukraine continued to face both Russian and separist forces in the Donbas. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for pinging me, I hadn't checked back since the first revert and was kinda planning to contest it myself but didn't really find the energy.

Just to elaborate on my initial reasoning, describing one group as a "proxy" for another implies the former to not have any legitimacy or goals beyond said function as proxy, which I think really papers over the nuance of the conflict in question; Even if a group acts overwhelmingly in Russian interests there can still be an argument to be made for them to be treated as a separate force, which Cinderella's reading of the sources presented above seems to support in this case. This is particularly important here as from my superficial reading both pro-Western and pro-Russian sources describe Novorossiya as a confederation of at least theoretically separate factions rather than a single centralized force, another aspect of the conflict the reader is discouraged from exploring further by the blanket statement of "proxy force."

I'll admit this whole side of the encyclopedia is sort of outside of my comfort zone and I never really intended to defend my edit beyond the initial summary so I welcome any further information that can be provided to clarify the issue. Orchastrattor (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157’s reading above seems to support the opposite.

You should understand that “new Russia” (Novorossiia) failed to get any local support in the spring and summer of 2014, and was shut down by the Kremlin. That’s why Russia recalled its irregulars including Girkin, assassinated the ones that refused to return to Russia, and sent in mechanized formations to prevent Ukraine from mopping up the separatists from August 2014.  —Michael Z. 05:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that Novorossiya is a separate political and cultural identity that goes back to the 1700s, correct? Again I am by no means an expert on the nuts and bolts of the situation but you seem to have brought up the literal translation of the name as something other than almost entirely incidental to the group's relationship to the Russian government, which would be incorrect.Orchastrattor (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No it’s not. Politically, New Russia was a colonial administrative unit that was declared and then dissolved a couple of times by arbitrary decrees of some emperors before 1802, and an idea of Putin’s aide Surkov that theoretically was promoted for a year in 2014–15, but in practice failed to get any traction among any of your “New Russians," forcing Putin to send in regular mechanized formations in August 2014 to stop Ukrainian forces from clearing the Russians out of Ukraine. There is no “New Russian” identity. No one ever declared themselves “New Russians” in any census anywhere.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Now you're just assuming bad faith while trying to be funny with hyperlinks. If a person is an ethnic Russian in Eastern Ukraine specifically descended from Novorossiyan colonists, Novorossiya as a term having continued to be in use right up until the founding of the current Ukrainian polity in 1919, it is entirely reasonable to classify them separately from both ethnic Ukrainians and more recent Russian immigrants, but that's getting off topic.

If anything my proposal for the article is even more anti-Kremlin than Alaexis's, since I'm trying to put the Russian-aligned goals of the group front and center, I just think that the acknowledgement (or lack thereof) of the confederation as a separate entity should be consistent between the caption and the lead. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Or even just consistent with the rest of the infobox, actually, "Belligerents" just puts them as a Russian-backed faction rather than the full-on false flag operation you are insisting them to be. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith. There is no collective New Russian identity that in any way affects our decision here (if there are individuals who claim seventeenth-century Russian colonist ancestry, I do not see it in this article). The DLNR were Russian proxies from 2014, not independent actors. The parts of the article that reflect the noncommittal 2014 position of much of the press are the ones that should be adjusted to reflect the clear academic and journalistic consensus of 2023.  —Michael Z. 19:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Cinderella157. The usual objection to the use of “proxy” for the so-called separatists has been that they were supposedly independent. Here it is factually supported that they were not proxies of Russia because a substantial proportion of them were actually Russian forces. This represents a positive sea change in the debate.  —Michael Z. 05:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at what sources say. Mark Galeotti in his Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine named the chapter about the anti-Ukrainian but not-explicitly-Russian combatants "The Rebels" which is a good NPOV term we can use as well. He also writes (on pp. 19-20) that some of these groups arose independently while other were created by Russian intelligence services, and eventually all of them were brought under control of DNR/LNR people's militias which were in turn dominated by Russia.

Since we just don't know whether the guys depicted there (or their commanders) are locals or Russian soldiers, but we do know that they fought under the DPR flag, I would suggest a different option: "DPR forces during the Donbas war" Alaexis_¿question? 12:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The photo is from May 2015. Courts have ruled that the DLNR were under overall control of Russia from April or May 2014.

Galeotti 2019:17 says “2014 saw Russia increasingly mixing its own soldiers and even whole units in with the insurgent militias . . . This was not enough, however . . . Moscow was forced to escalate, sending more of its own troops into the field. The period of a so-called ‘hybrid war’ . . . was virtually over. Instead this was looking much more like a conventional (even if undeclared) war.” 19: “Russia’s forces – and the proxy armies they have raised, equipped and supported – remain in the disputed region”

Also p. 19: “The bulk of anti-government forces in the Donbas are proxies: local militias (in some cases, essentially organized criminal gangs given official status), volunteers, defectors from government forces, Cossacks, and mercenaries. Some formed in early 2014 out of genuine hostility to the new government in Kyiv, but many were also created by Russian FSB or GRU operatives, and even those which emerged independently have been brought under the control of the Russian-dominated DNR and LNR ‘People’s Militias.’”

The NPOV view is that they are Russian-controlled proxies since 2014.  —Michael Z. 15:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's still only the majority rather than 100%, there just isn't anything to tie the specific DPR forces in question to the Russian government exclusively without skirting much too close to WP:Synthesis to comfortably include in an article on an ongoing event.

There is also still a lot of nuance not covered by the term "proxy", as the Confederation still functioned at one point or another as an separate proto-state, namely one with its own de jure claims that both independent and proxy forces presumably rely on for legitimacy. "Pro-Russian" or "Russian-backed" remain the most reasonable descriptors. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Balderdash. Sources say DLNR were Russian controlled proxies. “The Confederation” was thought up by Surkov in the Kremlin and created by Putin’s thugs in Ukraine. There were no independent forces.

We’ve cited the sources that say so.  —Michael Z. 18:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The court rulings are not the absolute truth, these are just primary sources which we can use but they don't override everything else. Also, while he does use the word "proxies" he also uses the words "rebels" (even more prominently).

My suggestion to write "DPR forces" sidesteps the issue. The reader will understand from the article that DPR was to a large degree controlled by Russia and we don't need to explain all the details in the image caption. Alaexis_¿question? 17:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

They are un-contradicted legal facts.

Yes, Galeotti uses “rebels” as a convenient label, and even refers to “Russian and rebel forces.” As I quoted above, he explicitly explains that the rebels are Russian-controlled proxies.

But no, having reviewed the above, and having no information about what unit is pictured, explicitly labelling them “DPR” as if we could somehow ascertain that they are not Russian forces with DNR and some other flag on their armoured vehicles does not sidestep the issue. In fact they are “Russian forces and/or Russian-controlled proxy forces.” There actually is no way to distinguish Russian from Russian proxy forces in this photo.  —Michael Z. 18:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The DLNR’s lack of independence is consensus in three different realms: 1) the legal, as determined in multiple court findings that they were under overall control of Russia and therefore Russia is responsible for their war crimes, which was reported by numerous secondary sources,[7][8] and 2) in the academic, as stated in Prof. Galeotti’s book, in Plokhy’s The Russo-Ukrainian War (2023), among many others, and 3) in current journalism, where, for example, the maps of the war which up to two or three years ago bore a legend like “controlled by Russian-backed separatists” (and extremely rarely as separate “DNR” and “LNR” entities), now say “Russian occupied before February 24, 2022,” and the DLNR entities themselves are almost never mentioned, except when referring to specific military units or statements by specific Russian civil-military occupation authorities.  —Michael Z. 20:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The primary issue here is the use of proxy in the subject caption. The main issue is that it is ambiguously used but also, it is neither supported nor explained by this iteration of the article in the body of the article. We should be using WP:PLAINENGLISH - that is unambiguous and readily understood. Russian-backed separatist forces or Russian-controlled separatist forces are descriptions that are unambiguous and readily understood. Consequently, the caption should be replaced. A second issue arises from the use of proxies in the lead where the normal meaning of this is one that acts for and in the absence of another. The Russians have been present since near the start of the war. The term is not being used consistent with its usual meaning. While some sources may use the term to describe the separatists as proxies, there is nuance to how and why they use this description which is neither supported by nor explained in this iteration of the body of the article. Again, we should be using plain English. While I do not dispute that sources would describe the separatists as Russian controlled, it is again, something that is neither supported by nor explained in this iteration of the body of the article - as far as I can see. An article must be contained within itself. If we are to say this, then the article needs to be modified. At the very least, we would need a citation to a good quality source where it is stated - this is, after all, a claim that could be seen as exceptional. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Do current sources still call them separatist forces? They certainly aren’t separatists now, and that is confusing without explaining their perceived status then, our understanding of it now, and their integration with RAF after the “annexations.” And the term is problematic as their Russian bosses goals were not exactly separating. We need a single term with currency.  —Michael Z. 14:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What if they were referred to as “Russian and separatist forces”?  —Michael Z. 15:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

One can still reasonably say of the present, they are separatists that have been integrated into the RAF. I don't see anything particularly confusing. The lead explains that they were separatists and that theses regions have now been annexed. Their Russian bosses goals were to have them separate from Ukraine and be integrated into Russia. What is problematic. They were not Russian forces (RAF) at the time of the photo and what the photo depicts. Applying some term for the present to the past is an anachronism. The KISS principle applies. Not saying mine is the best solution but I don't think "Russian and separatist forces" is a good solution. An alternative is to remove the image and remove the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

Add North Korea to the belligerents on Russia’s side. They have officially joined the war in Ukraine. 82.132.186.20 (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: They have not officially joined the war in Ukraine. — Czello ^(music) 21:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WMD

I’ve started a discussion about coverage of WMD in the conflict at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#WMD.  —Michael Z. 17:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)