Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Link to most recent closed and archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine

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.

---

The heading above is a link to the archived RfC: Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_9#RfC on "Supported by" in the infobox for Ukraine, closed 9 June 2022.

See also earlier RfC: Should the individual arms supplying countries be added to the infobox?: closed 6 March 2022.

Both RfCs were closed with "no consensus". Cinderella157 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2022 (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.

Endangering of civilians by Ukrainian forces

Recently Amnesty international published a report, stating the Ukrainian forces are endangering civilians as per amnesty report Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals Attacks launched from populated civilian areas Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/ I see no mention of this in article, kindly add Mrboondocks (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we can include a line or two about the allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

would you mention that as an allegation when Amnesty says same about Russia indiscriminate fire ? or war crimes by Russia ? Mrboondocks (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as they are not mutually exclusive. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not the first report or article about it, let's see some previous examples:

• March 28, Washington Post, "Russia has killed civilians in Ukraine. Kyiv's defense tactics add to the danger" [1] ;

• April 18, The New York Times, "To Push Back Russians, Ukrainians Hit a Village With Cluster Munitions" [2]

• May 15, July 8, July 26, UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN UKRAINE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARMED ATTACK BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (A/HRC/50/CRP4)" [3] [4] [5] ;

• July 21, Human Rights Watch, "Russian, Ukrainian Bases Endangering Civilians" [6] ;

• a August 7 CBS article about the latest report, [7]

Why is this the one that has raised so much noise, when the previous ones from UN and HRW basically say the same things? 152.207.201.41 (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It's need to mention that according to Human Rights Watch, also 'Russian forces established military bases in populated areas, needlessly endangering civilians' https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/21/russian-ukrainian-bases-endangering-civilians. --WithUinH (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

yes, perhaps make a section of how both Russian and Ukrainians are using populated areas and endangering civilians Mrboondocks (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That’s absolutely a false balance, ignoring WP:due weight. The release actually says Russians committed war crimes, not necessarily Ukrainians, and look at how many reports about Russian war crimes Amnesty has published.

This report is most notable for all of the controversy surrounding it and criticism levelled against it.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

This is already being discussed at Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Amnesty International: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians. —Michael Z. 05:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• This report was widely debated, but criticized so much that I do not think it should be used on this page. This is rather for page Criticism of Amnesty International. See for example, reports by Politico, CNS News, etc: [20], [21], [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  There is an RfC on this here: Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_on_military_objectives_near_civilians_and_Stara_Krasnianka_attack Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian theft of Ukrainian grain

I have started a draft for the 2022 Russian theft of Ukrainian grain. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Bulking down of article which is approaching 450Kb in page size; page split of Reactions section for bulking down process

Page split from main article at 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia following CWW due to bulking down the article because of large page size at the main article. The article was approaching 450Kb in page size which is excessive by Wikipedia standards and conventions. The new page may be found at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. The link is included in the abridged section of this article as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

But there already were reaction pages. See Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Non-government reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. What's the point of that new split page? Super Ψ Dro 08:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The three articles you refer to are all somewhat different in the perspectives they take and they seem to inform each other about the events and issues which they describe. Possibly there are links which could be added between the three articles which would allow readers to interface between all three articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents - United States involvement

Involvement of the United States in this war is, by conservative measures, on par with USSR involvement in the Vietnam War. By liberal measures even much greater. I suggest we either add US into the infobox, or remove USSR from the infobox in the Vietnam War and then revise all other war infoboxes. Otherwise, it is pointless to continue calling Wikipedia an independent encyclopedia. --Novis-M (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Question #2 at the top of this Talk page addresses this issue. Biden has stated and repeated that there will be no boots on the ground in Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Words of a career politician are surely a good reassurance.--Novis-M (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is impossible to criticise those who give orders around here.--Novis-M (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No, as no one gives "orders around here". But we have discussed this multiple times. But to address your point From July 1965 to December 1974, more than 6000 generals and officers and more than 4,500 soldiers were sent to Vietnam as specialists by the Russians", how many boots on the ground does the USA have (in Ukraine)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"TikTok war" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TikTok war and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#TikTok war until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Same thing said twice in a row

In section "Casualties and humanitarian impact" subsection "Casualties" we can read the following two sentences:

Both Russian and Ukrainian sources are widely considered to inflate casualty numbers in opposing forces, while downplaying their own losses for the sake of morale. Both sides also tend to be quieter about their own military fatalities.

Since "downplaying their own losses" and "tend to be quiter about their own military fatalities" say the same thing, could not the second sentence be removed? Ribidag (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point; I've removed the second sentence. — Czello 07:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

British English?

I'm curious why this article uses British English? Don't get me wrong, as a Brit myself I feel a throb of pride when I see a "u" in "colour", but why was it chosen for this article in particular? Asking out curiosity rather than a desire to actually change this. Anyway, Rule Britannia, God Save the Queen, etc etc 🇬🇧🇺🇦 — Czello 08:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We do, where? Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If you click edit on the main article, there's a big banner at the top saying it uses British English. — Czello 10:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My recollection is that the banner has been in place for a very long time but since when, I do not know - too many edits to trawl through. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Same reason as usual, some editor(s) used it very early on (in the first few hours by the looks of it), and it became the status-quo. There's been a tag since the end of day one. Added by a sock, mind you, but it was a formality since Brit English was already consistently used by that point. Jr8825 • Talk 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Estimate of Russian casualties

The Ukrainian estimate does not include anything but Russian regular military forces. It does not include LPR, DPR, Wagner, or any other military or paramilitary units. Goliath74 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)