Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Mearsheimer critique

Mearsheimer views on Russian war are widely criticized - you could read it in John Mearsheimer if it would not be removed [1] . Thus Mearsheimer assessments here should be followed with assessments of his assessments. Which would make all of it too much for this article. Better to not to have Mearsheimer at all.

This is regarding latest edits [2] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with including criticisms of Mearsheimer. That would be balanced. What I don't want is the total exclusion of Mearsheimer altogether, which was the previous consensus position for the article. The man is one of the most well-known, oft-discussed political scientists in the modern era. To dismiss him altogether simply because he doesn't tout the "Russia-bad" narrative editors here seem to endorse is a blatant violation of neutrality.

"Which would make all of it too much for this article" let's be honest, this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO. It wouldn't be "too much" for the article, you could fit in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. The POV pushing in this topic area is remarkable. JDiala (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The sentence referencing Mearsheimer doesn't even require criticism. It's non-controversial. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It is simultaneously the case that Mearsheimer is a significantly notable enough commentator that his analysis should be included; and that Mearsheimer's analysis on Ukraine has been widely criticized as being absolutely bunk. So no, it would not be better to not have him at all, unless we cannot do so without giving him undue weight or shielding from criticism; in which case it would actually be better. It's much the same as we should be doing for every other formerly respected academic who subsequently dived face-first into the "crank" pool (e.g. Theodore Postol on Syria) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Either way fits the rules. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Several of your sources are incredibly low-quality. One is some random from the Ayn Rand Institute (lol). One is a journalist without professional scholarly background (Katie Stallard). One is Carl Liles, some random unknown master's student from the University of Tartu (also lol). The others are more respected --- but of course scholarly disagreements between respected scholars are not unusual. While Mearsheimer does have provocative views on many topics, there is no evidence indicating he's regarded as a "crank." JDiala (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, but if what you're pushing for is for Mearsheimer's views to be included, then they have to come with appropriately sufficient context for how widely criticized he's been in the context of Ukraine, which may be more than just fitting in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. To not do so would be giving his position undue weight and be just as blatant of a violation of neutrality as the one you were complaining about above. If we can't do that, then they shouldn't be there at all. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's a due weight issue, a full survey of the field might be in order. I personally don't have the time to carry it out, but there are others active on this TP who have the wherewithal. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

For a more reliable source I would recommend a well-researched and fairly well sourced video that thoroughly debunks Mearsheimer and others' claims in regards to the invasion, though it is not all that polite.

here A Miscellaneous Scholar (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Better sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Irrespective of controversies over his larger framework, Mearsheimer's specific thesis on the Ukraine invasion (that it was the West's fault because Putin was trying to negotiate in good faith, and it could have been avoided with a pledge to keep Ukraine out of NATO) is shared by very few other scholars.

Actually, I think the page currently leans too far in the Realist direction by exclusively discussing military and diplomatic history in the "background" and "prelude" sections. Liberal researchers like Timothy Snyder argue that the invasion resulted from ideological and political evolutions within Russia itself, not just relations between Russia and other powers. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So why not mention this in 1-2 sentences? Chino-Catane (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think small section "Motives for invasion" is out of place and undue on this page. This is not a part of "Background". These are questionable speculations by a couple of cherry-picked authors on why exactly Putin decided to attack Ukraine. This is an interesting question, but it is already covered at length in several sections of another page, Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There were several justifications by Putin and others: Denying Ukrainian statehood, an emergence of "right forces", genocide by Ukrainians accusations and of course the expansion of NATO. One of the cherry-picked authors (Mearsheimer) focuses on the last reason, "the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO", which is basically a well known motif of Putinist propaganda. Yes, it needs to be described somewhere, but it was described already on another page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, this author is telling [3] that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia was fully justified, and that the justification was one provided by Putin. Author does not hide that his view is contrary to the mainstream views on this subject. Moreover, he is saying obvious nonsense, such as Putin was not bent on the occupation of Ukraine. How come when Russia has officially annexed all these territories (and Crimea) and included them to Russian Federation? This is such an obvious WP:FRINGE or propaganda. So, I am saying this page is not a proper place for including WP:FRINGE and debunking it. Only page Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine is. My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not WP:FRINGE. The viewpoint that NATO expansion bears some degree of responsibility for the war is a minority view, but not totally outside the mainstream discourse. JDiala (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on the essence of this (and as described in many sources), Ukraine had absolutely zero chance to be accepted to NATO before the invasion, and Putin knew it. And even now, it has very low chance to be accepted to NATO. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Putin knew it": A living political figure's private thoughts and what they "knew" are generally not regarded as productive avenues of academic research. Chino-Catane (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014. A new state during a war and with an unresolved territorial dispute could not be accepted to NATO. Everyone knew it, not just Putin. In fact, by starting the low-intensity conflict in 2014, Putin effectively prevented Ukraine from accession to NATO. Putin is also well aware that NATO will not attack Russia. That's why he withdraw nearly all Russian forces from the border with Finland and sent them to Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

"out of place and undue on this page": I don't see how it is "out of place and undue" to include a short section presenting motives for invasion in an article titled "Russian invasion of Ukraine". It seems that you have a problem with a particular individual. What is your qualm with the sentence, "Neorealist scholar John Mearsheimer assigned the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO."? Chino-Catane (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including some content on the subject of "Why Putin invaded Ukraine", but it should be focused on mainstream views, for example as summarized by the Institute for the Study of War, i.e. [4]. If this will be just a brief summary, then Mearsheimer simply does not belong there per WP:FRINGE.

According to ISW:

Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia’s power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues.

This is mainstream view on this subject.My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to include it (and was reverted), but it is indeed a question how exactly this should be framed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

How is the sentence, "Neorealist scholar John Mearsheimer assigned the root cause of the invasion to a U.S.-led effort to develop Ukraine into a liberal democracy and integrate it into the EU and NATO.", even remotely controversial, especially when it is immediately followed by the presentation of a perspective that is probably praised by most of the editors of this article? There does not need to be any critical assessment whatsoever of that first sentence. Your suggestion that the presentation of a single individual's very reasonable view requires an "assessment of the assessment" is utterly ridiculous. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

If nothing else, even using the label “realist” or “neorealist” without proper context and explanation is kind of POV, since it implies those that disagree with him are “unrealistic” (in practice of course the exactly the opposite turned out to be true) Volunteer Marek 07:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. These are schools of thought in international relations. A link to the page on realism or neorealism is adequate context for the correct meaning of these words. JDiala (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous. It's not clear to me whether he's a "realist" or "neorealist", or what he's more often referred to in sources as an "offensive realist"; so just applying the label without context, even with a wikilink, doesn't really tell me anything about *why* Mearsheimer is associated with those schools of thought, or why the label is relevant to this article (which is not actually about Mearsheimer anyway). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with providing more descriptive description or omitting those narrow academic terms. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I will remove this and we can discuss the wording here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the structure and wording of the edit. I think if we want a section about the motivation behind the invasion, we can't start by immediately mentioning Mearsheimer's view, as he is a controversial figure. This would be WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We would need at least some sort of introduction describing the landscape of such discussions. As mentioned by other editors, a lot of this is discussed in the article Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which talks about all of the justifications used (often contradictory) by Russia. BeŻet (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in image description

Could someone please fix the spelling mistake in the caption for the image of the Normandy format meeting, only is misspelt as "onyl". The caption is as follows:

"Negotiations for conflict resolution started in 2014, with the Normandy Format facilitating meetings until just before the fullscale invasion, facilitating in 9, December 2019 a meeting between President Zelensky and President Putin for the first and 'onyl' time"

Thank you :) 1mikeymouse1 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of WP:ONUS

@TylerBurden: Your recent revert is in fact having nothing to do with WP:ONUS. It is true that that the onus is on those wanting inclusion to gain consensus for inclusion. This does not mean that the intermediate, temporary version as there is an ongoing discussion must be your version. For that, the norm is to maintain the status quo, see WP:STATUSQUO.

It is important for you to understand that the point of this is to discuss. This is how consensus is built on this encyclopedia. This is how editing disputes are resolved. You are not actually participating in any discussion, and haven't been involved in any discussion here since June 30th. This is not really in the spirit of the collaboration.

In addition, per administrator ScottishFinnishRadish you do in fact need consensus to remove established long-standing material, notwithstanding some contradictory-seeming policies. JDiala (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph should go (agree with TylerBurden) because it is not about relations between former Soviet republics (the subject of the section), but about their relations with NATO. Hence this should be removed or made a different (sub)section. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There are two separate issues being raised here: STATUSQUO and NOCON. One of these is a policy, the other an essay. The opening sentence of NOCON is [w]hat happens when a good faith discussion concludes with no agreement to take or not take an action? I can stop here as we have a significant problem. We're dealing with Schrodinger's discussion. That is that the discussion has simultaneously concluded and is on-going depending on which state suits someone's purposes. NOCON only applies to the former state. If the discussion has concluded:

There are four editors – Manyareasexpert, My very best wishes, TylerBurden, and myself – contesting the material. Two identified that sources were used in a manner that constitutes original research; one has partially agreed excepting for material with immediately obvious relevance to the article irrespective of source age. There are two editors – ChinoCatane and yourself – whose position is contingent on the consistency of application of policy. Assuming that this was a compromise position and that the contingent factor has not been met, then we have two editors supporting retention.

All else being equal, the discussion ends with a super-majority (2:1) of editors supporting removal.

STATUSQUO is an essay. It does not represent a widely accepting community norm, per WP:GUIDES. There isn't an issue with citing it, but policy has priority. The policy being sought here is WP:PRESERVE which instructs that editors retain material that has flaws that would otherwise be included anyway without them. However, that policy applies to material that is neutral, verifiable, and free of original research. Given the preceding, the material is not subject to preservation. It can be removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Now what? Compile a selection of sources on the Russian invasion of Ukraine that provide background coverage on NATO-Russia / NATO-Ukraine relations and an analysis on their impact leading up to the invasion. Write a paragraph or dedicated section about it from those sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: It is true that STATUSQUO is an essay, but it is also not the main argument I'm using. The main argument is NOCON. Supplementary to that main argument were two auxiliary arguments, namely (1) STATUSQUO, and (2) a discussion with an administrator, SFR, who appeared to take my side which you can see in the link provided. It is misleading to suggest that STATUSQUO "does not represent a widely accepting community norm." If you read WP:GUIDES carefully, it only indicates that essays may not be supported by widespread consensus. Your assertion may or may not be true. Your discussion on WP:PRESERVE may be an argument for removing the material (which you could utilize in a discussion) but it doesn't justify reverting during an ongoing discussion. Anyways, as I've already told you, your views on OR are quite fringe. We don't really agree that using pre-2022 sources is OR; that is a point of contention, although again I have been cooperative with respect to trying to find compromises.

The prior discussion did not conclude, and a vote count does not imply consensus has been established. There was a legitimate concern I respectfully brought up in the end of the discussion that you did not respond to or engage with. This isn't a "Schrodinger's discussion"; this is a simple case of you not responding, and thus me concluding that a discussion has not concluded. I want to be clear that I do intend to be cooperative and fair, keeping in mind that my position is currently the minority position. I have no doubt that we can have a positive and constructive conclusion to this discussion. If you read my objections carefully, I am not even objecting entirely to the edit, rather merely suggesting a compromise.

We should also be careful to bifurcate the issues at hand here. The first is the actual content dispute. The second is the specific issue of whether TylerBurden's revert was justifiable. On the second point, I do not think TylerBurden's conduct is remotely defensible. In general, if there is an ongoing discussion going on about disputed content, it is not considered appropriate for an uninvolved editor to revert to his or her preferred version without participating at all in the discussion. TylerBurden has not even wrote anything on this talk page in all of July. His revert does not seem to me in the spirit of collaboration, which is what the policies we are debating are anyways intended to facilitate. JDiala (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

My views on OR are mainstream, that you are ignorant of it does not change that. You may not use sources that do not discuss an article subject to make claims about the article subject. Present that statement to any admin you like, they will tell you some variant of: no shit. I've been ignoring your casting of the term fringe because they are frankly so off-base that they are not remotely worth debating. Since you are absolutely insistent upon it, fringe has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that relates to the presentation of views in Wikipedia articles that depart significantly from the mainstream. It is inapplicable to editor interpretation of policies and guidelines.

If you haven't noticed, you are consistently finding yourself in disputes with other editors because of problems like this. I have no issue discussing any material within the article with you, but you need to stop lecturing highly experienced editors. Your approach does not appear collaborative to most editors, but combative.

I ignore some of what you write because any uninvolved, experienced editor would realise that it is wrong. For example, I would ignore your 'not a democracy' point as my assessment was more than a vote count as any editor can identify. I presented specifically used arguments and afforded them due weight. I treated the arguments with equal weight – I doubt most editors would – and only then did I assess that there is a clear majority position. You've misrepresented that as a straight vote count. This doesn't appear to me to be a good faith approach. I have skipped over other such errors because if I dissect every line this will be a wall of information. If desired, I can do that and post it to your talk page to read.

Lastly, the reason I haven't responded to your concern is that I am not available every day to edit. The last thing I wrote was: if you have an NPOV concern, I can give it consideration. I have not edited the material further. Recognising the present situation, I have proposed the least conflict ridden path forward. If you want to fight other editors over that paragraph, be my guest. If you want to move the article forward, re-read my 'now what?' comment. Figure out what hills are worth fighting for, and which should just be retreated from. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I do not think your OR views are mainstream. As brought up previously by Chino and I, virtually all other articles, including GA articles and homepage-linked articles, on current events allow for sources published pre-event in the background section. You can insist they're all wrong and GA articles are actually all bad (which is the argument you employed previously). Maybe you can make your case, but you cannot pretend it's mainstream. Definitionally, it's not mainstream if other articles (often edited by folks even more experienced than you) do not do this.

"Fringe" is an adjective in the English language, roughly translating to anything not clearly in the mainstream. I'm using the word in a generic English language sense, not in reference to the Wikipedia policy WP:FRINGE. This should be evident from me not capitalizing the word or appending the prefix "WP:" to the word. In general, whenever there is a law or a policy, there could be a range of interpretations to that policy. Some are mainstream interpretations. Others are less mainstream interpretations. I am using the adjective "fringe" in reference to what I consider your less mainstream interpretation.

Bringing up "combative" is funny. Let's compare our comments. You use profanity like "no shit". I use collaborative words like "compromise" and "respectfully." Who's really the combative one? The suggestion I had was simple and reasonable. If you are removing material based on it supposedly being based on an outdated source, it is probably a good idea to check if material you are removing can be substantiated by newer sources first.

Before we discuss moving forward, I will actually take up your offer on discussing the OR interpretation with an administrator. I was evidently too generous conceding compromises before actually even being confident that your position is a legitimate one. I will make a post on SFR's talk page. JDiala (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update on the last point: I was told by SFR to move the discussion to WP:NORN, which I have done. This question of OR really ought to get resolved before we move forward. JDiala (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You can insist they're all wrong and GA articles are actually all bad (which is the argument you employed previously) - This is false. I have never said that all GA articles are wrong or that they are bad. This doesn't qualify even as a strawman as that would require the presence of straw. I said – repeating for the benefit of passers-by – that just because a GA does something that does not mean that it is endorsed by policy. The argument should not rest on other content (essay) alone. The GAs that Chino-Catane cited passed the process fifteen (15) years ago. They are not representative of the process in 2024. I have contributed to both the GAN and the FAC process both as a writer and a reviewer. I used to be actively involved in both, but have turned my attention elsewhere with my limited editing time. I am averse to having that time wasted by – in the politest terms I can muster – such poor quality engagement. This spat will not lead to the article improving. I am aware of the NORN discussion, and have posted there as well. That matter is now in the hands of other editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. To replace the first sentence, for example, one can use
Putin's War on Ukraine - Google Books
Russia subsequently prosecuted a military intervention in Crimea and Donbas in order to create a Georgia-style frozen conflict that would preclude NATO membership. This limited military intervention did not change the course of Ukrainian foreign policy, as Ukraine repealed its neutral non-bloc status in December 2014 and constitutionally enshrined EU and NATO membership as a strategic goal in February 2019. The collapse of Russian soft power in Ukraine, which was illustrated by opinion surveys showing less than 20% of Ukrainians with positive views of Russia31 and the inability of the pro-Russian Opposition Bloc—Party for Peace and Development to challenge for power, restricted Moscow’s non-military options. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

... or
Ukraine and Russia - Google Books
The year 2008 saw two pivotal events: the Bucharest NATO sum mit and Russia’s invasion of Georgia. At the Bucharest summit, NATO declined to offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans but said that they could eventually join. Depending on one’s view, this com promise was either a concession to Russia’s concerns or an aggressive move to which it felt compelled to respond. Similarly, whether Georgia’s actions justified it being invaded by Russia was highly debatable. While both the United States and European Union were appalled by Russia’s actions, both made concrete efforts to put the episode behind them. In pursuing a “reset,” the new Obama administration was accused of appeasement and naivete, and the strategy brought few results.

The themes highlighted in Chapter 1 were all dramatically on view between 2005 and 2010. The security dilemma in central Europe was exemplified by the Bucharest summit: Ukraine and Georgia, fearing Russia, sought a formal alliance with NATO; NATO, worried about both those states but also about Russia’s reaction, tried to have it both ways – acceding to Russia’s opposition while reassuring Ukraine and Georgia – but even this was insufficient to assuage Russia’s fears of an intolerable loss. Mutually incompatible notions of the status quo exacerbated the security dilemma. For Russia, the perception after 2004 that Ukraine had been lost stoked resentment and determination to redress the problem. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to include any of this or some parts of the removed text. This content is relevant because not accepting Ukraine to NATO left it vulnerable to attack by Russia (unlike Baltic Republics). This only needs to be well sourced, and the relevance to the subject of the page should be clear, e.g. as appears in this diff [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

not accepting Ukraine to NATO left it vulnerable to attack by Russia. Hell no. Russia would likely attack Ukraine even sooner should it see an increased risk of NATO infrastructure getting closer to its borders. Besides, in 2008, much of the Ukrainian military command was on Russian payroll, and Russia had a 100% visibility into, and much influence over, the flow of security information there. To include these UA structures in NATO information sharing mechanisms would be a suicide, nobody at NATO was ready for such a risk. Add to that the fact that Georgia attacked Russian troops first in Tskhinvali against NATO principles and explicit US advice (that's why nobody at NATO offered support beyond lip service) – and you start seeing that the outcomes of the Bucharest summit were only reasonable. Let's just follow the books and focus on facts and not OR-type what-ifs. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"not accepting Ukraine to NATO left it vulnerable to attack by Russia". Well, this is actually a well known claim by many, including Zelensky [6]: Zelenskyy didn't just single out the Russians – the murderers who hunted down pedestrians and cyclists. He also mentioned former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "I invite Ms. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy to visit Bucha to see what the policy of 14 years of concessions to Russia has led to." Zelenskyy was referring to the NATO summit that took place in Bucharest in April 2008. So, why did not Merkel and others accept Ukraine to NATO? There were reasons as outlined in the linked investigation by Spiegel, but summarizing them is not easy. This can be used on the page of course. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have an issue with user conduct, do not discuss it here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Subarticle on Ukrainian civilians arbitrarily detained in occupied UA + RU?

Do we have a sub-article on the issue of Ukrainian civilians arbitrarily detained by Russian authorities in the occupied Ukrainian territories and in Russian territory? Please respond at Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Ukrainian civilians detained in Russia: which article? or here. As stated over there, we have an 86-page Moscow Mechanism report The Moscow Mechanism Expert Report: On the Arbitrary Deprivation of Liberty of Ukrainian Civilians by the Russian Federation (Q127506242) but the topic doesn't seem to quite fit into any existing article. Boud (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Kharkiv Oblast in most recent section

This is a classic WP:NOTNEWS violation. All serious analytical sources are saying it's just a diversion from the Avdiivka–Pokrovsk, Toretsk, and Svatove–Kupiansk directions. In two of those directions, the Russians have conducted continuous offensive actions over the entire period under consideration (with operationally significant gains in the Pokrovsk direction). There's also insufficient coverage of the strategic-level campaigns, again reflecting "breaking news" weight rather than serious analytical RS.

I would suggest just calling it "current phase" until a better title can be found and agreed on. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on current events WP is too often a reflection of the news cycle. That is just how it works (or doesn't) and then we have to come back and bash it into something encyclopedic. I would avoid using phase as it tends to connote it being a terminology accepted in sources. There have been several discussions on this to my recollection. I would suggest Current operations, Operations since November 2023 or some other such permutation. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about being WP:BOLD and fixing these problems you bring up? TylerBurden (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RfC

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JDiala (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Redundancy in BBC Casualty Figures Sentence

Under the "Casualty" section there is the sentence "BBC News has reported that Ukrainian reports of Russian casualty figures included the injured."

I believe this is redundant because it's commonly understood that casualty figures include both the dead and the injured. Specifying that the figures "included the injured" provides no informational value. IStalingrad (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

UNsure that is true. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is. Casualties refers to deaths and injuries. Here's the OED definition for example: a person killed or injured in a war or accident. I've removed the statement because it is wholly redundant. As an aside, the sources are from the early months of the war (March-April 2022), they're really out-dated with regards casualty and fatality figures anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet the BBC saw the need to point this out, thus implying it was not how they were being presented. However the point about these being outdated is better. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is worth considering the context of the BBC articles. The reason the author is underlining the fact that the term casualty includes injuries is that this article is specifically about determining the number of Russian fatalities. It's not that Ukraine is presenting the casualty figure as total deaths, just that the author is trying to estimate total deaths from available figures, and that included Ukraine's casualty estimates as an upper bound of possible deaths. The figures available to the author were: 6,000 claimed by Russia, 25,000 confirmed dead by the BBC, 40-60,000 dead according to the British government, and 200,000 total casualties according to Ukraine. It made sense for the author to clarify directly to the reader that the last figure includes injured given that context, but it was decontextualized here creating the redundancy since we weren't communicating those articles' purpose (to estimate loss of life). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

should north korea be listed beside belarus in the 'supported by' section

north korea has said it will put troops on the battlefield to help out in support roles NotQualified (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

They already sent weapons, ammo and supposedly tanks, but that kind of support does not qualiy to be included on this list. NK troops in my opinion should. YBSOne (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/27/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news9/ NotQualified (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to wait and see if reports of them arriving at the frontlines emerge, but then they would become beligerents. YBSOne (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In short NO (at this time). Weapons suppliers have not been listed as supporter (many European and American countries have supported Ukraine this way), nor have been trainers. If you look back at this talk (and its archives) there has been extensive discussion whether to list Belarus at all - and the fact that it allowed Russia to organise attacks from its country was decisive there (this is obviously not the case for N Korea). Of course if we see regular N Korean troops engaged in the frontlines this may change, but that seems unlikely so far. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It will also depend on the nature of that troops deployment as the "urban rebuilders" may be just a smoke screen for now. YBSOne (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

See talk page archive, for every reason not to. Nothing has changed since the last time this was raised. When troops see combat this can be changed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No. NK is much less engaged on the Russian side than the US and Europe are on the Ukrainian side. BTW, I'd remove Belarus, too, because no Belarusian forces ever took part in combat against Ukraine. We're an impartial encyclopaedia, not a propaganda outlet. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

please do not confuse two issues. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned as support for the use of their territory to launch an attack from. YBSOne (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What you are referencing took place during the first ~40 days of a now ~2.5 year-long war. This epheremal use of Belarusian territory by Russian forces does not justify the infobox implying that Belarus has continuously provided this form of "support" from 2022 onward; we should aim to avoid this perception. I reiterate my call for a compromise based on the inclusion of a parenthetical qualifier:

Russia

• Donetsk PR
• Luhansk PR

Supported by:

Belarus (2022)

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Different issues, Belarus is not North Korea, this is about NK not Belarus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a reply to YBSOne's comment about Belarus. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No, its a reply to this " This epheremal use of Belarusian territory by Russian forces does not justify the infobox implying that Belarus has continuously provided this form of "support" from 2022 onward; we should aim to avoid this perception. I reiterate my call for a compromise based on the inclusion of a parenthetical qualifier:", this is not about Belarus, so please stop trying to make it about it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear note "Russian forces were permitted to stage part of the invasion from Belarusian territory. Belarusian territory has also been used to launch missiles into Ukraine. See also: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine", no need to explain it further or tag it in different way. YBSOne (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that Belarus has greenlit the use of its territory to launch missiles into Ukraine? As far as I know, they were isolated incidents only, not routine combat, and Russian army was only permitted to assemble in Belarus but never to fire at Ukraine from Belarusian soil. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus has been discussed may time sand the consensus is to include it. here ism a link to the RFC [[7]], nothing has changed since then. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus

I think it's time to remove Belarus from the infobox, here [8] is my reasoning. Rolando 1208 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There's no doubt Belarus significantly supported Russia in the initial invasion, but that was two and a half years ago and to say that Russia is still substantially supported by Belarus now is misleading. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

that was two and a half years ago and to say that Russia is still substantially supported by Belarus now is misleading
I thought that but found out that fresh academic sources still mention Belarus as belligerent so our article should follow sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NOT again, have we just to come out of one of these discussions? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Have we though? The last RfC was 9 months ago!! I think it's time to reconsider it. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, lets have another RFC. But word the question carefully, as not everyone who took part in WW2 was there form beginning to end, but are still listed as belligerents. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how RfCs work. I'm just leaving this is in here so that a more experienced editor can start one. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is an RfC really necessary? Does the explanatory footnote specifying that Belarusian support was really only during the initial invasion not suffice? Removing the mention altogether wouldn't be much better as Russia was substantially supported by Belarus early on, and thus deserves a mention, just not as a full "always has supported". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean it's mentioned in the rest of the article isn't it? But to have it in the infobox seems like too much. Rolando 1208 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned in the rest of the article, otherwise it wouldn't be in the infobox; why is having it in the infobox "too much" as long as the footnote clarifying support being largely exclusive to the initial invasion remains? Though it is definitely misleading to have the mention if the reader doesn't read the footnote, there is no "initial Russian invasion of Ukraine" article where Belarus would instead be an obvious inclusion, so any support which was given in the initial invasion should be given more weight in my view. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a good solution to this problem was given in the preceeding discussion. We can simply add (2022) around where we mention Belarus' support, as that was when they allowed Russia to invade through their territory. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To illustrate, direct military support only logistical maybe not now, Terratorial support not now, support in committing war crimes maybe, political support yes, economic support yes. THere may be other areas they still offer support as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Economic support how? Belarus has a much smaller economy. It's actually the other way around, Russia gave money to Belarus to support their economy. I'm not sure what you mean by political support? Belarus hasn't been involved in the war for more than two years. And Belarusian people don't seem to support this war either. Most importantly the army hasn't joined the Russians during this whole time. Basically the involvement only happened in 2022, after that, Belarus has been a neutral party in this war. Meanwhile you have other countries who currently sell weapons to Russia and they're not even mentioned in the infobox. Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OLd, but this is what I mean [[9]] have to arms sales and coperation ended? Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Less old [[10]], neither of these are usable, but they do not give the impression there is still ongoing cooperation, in the military, economic and polcrial fields. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have one for 2024? Even the "less old one" doesn't seem very conclusive. Belarus' involvement is very clear in 2022 but after that the most we get is speculation (and possibly even original research). I'd say we remove it from the infobox, if Belarus gets involved again, we can put it back in there. @Kashmiri and @SaintPaulOfTarsus, what do you think about my proposal? Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and @Ybsone too. Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Belarus made it into history, they should stay, for history's sake. "Russia attacked from territory of Belarus" is a historical fact and as such should not be removed, nor should the supporting side. YBSOne (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

But the infobox implies Belarus is still involved. Don't you think that's silly? Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as over 10 Russian divisions are in Belarus - a de facto occupation - Russia will use the territory as a jumping off point if need be (again). 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:4D0E:9735:CDD4:BB18 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No I don't. Just as the map shows past conflict areas, so can infobox, clearly noted, show past (and/or present) supporters. YBSOne (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Territory is irrelevant. The fact that the US has used military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to launch attacks on Afghanistan did not make these two countries belligerents. The UK firing ballistic missiles at Syria from its Akrotiri base did not make Cyprus a belligerent. What matters whether a country's government and military take part in hostilities; not whether alien forces are able to operate there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• History articles are an overall picture, not a snapshot of a particular point in time. Consider how things should appear if the event occurred 100 years ago and was not an ongoing current event. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I get that, however I think it's silly to single out Belarus but then the other countries who are currently supporting Russia aren't even mentioned. It seems to go against NPOV. Rolando 1208 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Undue Infobox to be usable should be short and sweet. Belarus support for Russia is not one of the most noteworthy aspects of the war. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with the inclusion but there is an affirmative consensus by RfC several times. We should only go down that path again if something has changed such that there is a reasonable prospect that the consensus would be overturned - otherwise, just starting up a new RfC might reasonably be considered disruptive given the history of the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't the last RfC nine months ago? The more time passes, the less relevant Belarus' actions in 2022 become. If not, we should be consistent and include all parties, NATO, North Korea, Iran, etc. Why single out Belarus? Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As said at the time, because no 0oen else allowed attacks from its soil, which has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

[[11]], yes Belarus is (in effect) an indirect theater of war. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

7 Aug 2024 Kursk incursion article?

I assume that by now we have 20kb of text on today's Kursk incursion, despite the near lack of WP:RS, in a new article. What is the article's name? Or is there only a subsection so far? Boud (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC) (edit Boud (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC))

August 2024 Kursk Oblast incursion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like I was right about 20kb, though it was really only a wild guess. Boud (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 western Russia incursion and Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present)#6 August seem to be the closest that I could find. Boud (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

One source: AJE - not enough for a new article. Boud (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That is the issue, its kind of a Russian claim. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Map

Hi

We should have an alternate map with Ukraine+Kursk Oblast. Panam2014 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place for map discussion; there's already a discussion about such an issue here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we add Ukraine’s incursion to the map?

I know that we have another article about that, but the incursion is still part of Ukraine’s efforts to fight back against the Russian invasion, so I feel like we should update the map to feature the incursion.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kursk-fighting-80671ef80c36b94dc1114506770cdd56 LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, as this is not about any invasion of Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well it is about the invasion of Ukraine (as this is a Ukrainian attack meant to strike back at and stretch out Russia’s forces invading Ukraine). LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I came here for this very reason--to see what they were going to do about that map. I think Ukraine's response is well within scope, and they should add a 4th color. I propose green, for no other reason than it looking good with the other colors. 2604:2D80:CC12:0:E8CE:E6E4:D343:FC06 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's too soon. Let's wait a bit to see how it unfolds. Plus, as mentioned in the thread above, there's an article about the incursion in Kursk already. Rolando 1208 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2024

• Russian invasion of Ukraine → Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)
• Aerial warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Aerial warfare in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Attacks on civilians in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Naval warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Naval warfare in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Nuclear risk during the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Nuclear risk during the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Foreign involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Foreign involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• List of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine → List of deaths during the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Prisoners of war in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → War crimes in the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Humanitarian impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Humanitarian impacts of the Russo-Ukrainian War
• Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine → Peace negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian War

– Comparing the way Wikipedia currently covers the war compared to reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, War on the Rocks, and Harvard, the reporting on the war by Wikipedia is quite different. Sources generally agree that the Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 but its main phase/escalation has been ongoing since 2022. Reliable sources generally do not use "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as the primary term for the war in its post-2022 phase: "Russo-Ukrainian War", or variants of that like "Ukraine-Russia war" (Sky News), "Ukraine war" (BBC News), are overwhelmingly the main term used. Encyclopedia Britannia has "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as a subsection of the article referring to the period from initial invasion up to around the Battle of Kyiv but uses different sections for events since then; importantly, very few reliable sources use the phrase "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for any recent events so it is simply misleading to use that title to for the catch-all sub-article about all of the events of the Russo-Ukrainian War since 2022.

For this reason, I think it's necessary to move this article (Russian invasion of Ukraine) to be clear that its scope is to serve as a sub-article of Russo-Ukrainian War to describe the events since 2022 in greater detail- and following a move, there would also be a good argument for restructuring this article, moving some content to the main Russo-Ukrainian War article and other articles.

The necessity of a move has become especially clear with the recent Ukrainian invasion of Russia which is clearly a part of the war but not part of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine", but there are also other events in the war which don't fall under the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" umbrella (e.g. the counteroffensive in Kherson, the Kerch Bridge bombing, etc), so overall as this article has grown over time and events have occurred, the present title has become steadily less accurate even aside from its lack of use by reliable sources. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME Adriazeri (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Exceptional evidence would be needed to show that the WP:COMMONNAME of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Also, let's just consider we did move to "Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)". Then what would happen to all the pages in Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Would we label them, for instance, "Timeline of the Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present) (24 February – 7 April 2022)"? That would simply not work. Ultimately, this RM should not have dealt with so many topics all together. For example, the Aerial warfare in the Russian invasion of Ukraine should not renamed to the proposed title, simply because it only deals with aerial warfare during the invasion, so there is no reason to make the scope unclear. As for the "Ukrainian invasion of Russia", this is, in fact, part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I will also note that the invasion is treated by RS's as an event, not simply as part of a timeline (as the proposed title would imply). It is also clear that the scope of this article is far beyond that of a timeline. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment No evidence is provided by this user for the claim that the WP:COMMONNAME for the war since 2022 is "Russian invasion of Ukraine", whereas I provided WP:RS showing that that term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" was largely only used in early 2022 and is not used for the war in its current phase. Do you have any sources to back up your claim? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with using the sources provided in the initial response. Certainly, the first says "Ukraine-Russia war", and the second says "Ukraine war". But why would that mean that these outlets are referring to the invasion as such? They can label their coverage as the whole war, but that absolutely does not mean they are saying the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is one and the same as the "Ukraine-Russia war", for instance. It is indisputable that RS's consider the invasion to be an event deserving separation from prior events. If you wanted to bring up the topic of whether, for example, we should be omitting some information from this article because it is not part of the invasion, that is a different discussion. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is a broad overview of the Russo-Ukrainian War during its main phase between 2022 and the present; it is not primarily about the initial invasion in the first few months. The sub-articles which I propose moving also cover the entire war between 2022 and now, not just the initial invasion. Reliable sources which refer to the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" use that term for only the first few months in early 2022- so to remove information from outside that period would be to remove the vast majority of this article, which is obviously not desirable.

There are other options for titles this article, e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) or Overview of the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), but the fact is that this article is about a period of the war covering two and a half years whereas RS usage of the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" outside of the few months of Russian advances in 2022 is not widespread, so the current title is misleading and doesn't follow sources. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, we could be having the discussion of whether or not to create new articles, and split this article. For instance, creating an article titled "Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-present)", and restricting the information contained in the article for the invasion (I will note that I am opposed to this). But that would be an entirely different discussion from the one we are having now. There was an invasion, whether you think the current phase of fighting should be called an invasion or not. The fact that some sources are now referring to the fighting ongoing right now without using "invasion" does not mean the invasion which started two and a half years ago should no longer be called an invasion. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the initial invasion two and a half of years ago shouldn't be called an invasion, but that this article is not primarily about the initial invasion. If this article were moved to another title, in theory I wouldn't oppose a split to create a new article at Russian invasion of Ukraine about the invasion in early 2022.

This article is currently essentially a summary/sub-article of Russo-Ukrainian War describing the progress of the entire war since 2022- it is just incorrectly titled. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the initial invasion two and a half of years ago shouldn't be called an invasion, but that this article is not primarily about the initial invasion. Well, yes, the article certainly is not primarily about the initial invasion. But we should remember that the invasion never ended, it is still ongoing. As far as I can tell, sources are not saying: "The invasion lasted up until this point, after which it is no longer an invasion." This is why it doesn't make sense to make a separate article for the initial invasion, and title the rest of it something else. Gödel2200 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but sources don't tend to use the term "invasion" beyond the initial months even if the invasion never ended, so if we are to reflect the usage of reliable sources for the article title, using the current title to cover the entire period from 2022 until now is inaccurate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the well made points made by Gödel2200. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I approve of this suggestion to change the article's name. 613 The Evil (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, This article is not a timeline but still needs a specific phase name to describe it. The most common name besides Russo-Ukrainian War is currently in use. I also have to agree with Gödel2200, the Ukrainian invasion of Russia is currently not significant enough in the grand scheme of things to require large rescoping. Simply, that point is pretentious. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose this isnt the Russo-Ukrainian war, this is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Lukt64 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - No, this is not just a timeline of the war. Moreover, per Gödel2200, we would then have to rename many other articles downstream (unnecessarily), which could get messy fast. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: while the titling of "Russian invasion of Ukraine" may seem to you to imply that this article, from a grammatical point of view, only covers the initial invasion, that is of course not the case as the WP:COMMONNAME often refers to the "invasion" being the period of the Russo-Ukrainian War from Feb. 2022 onward, (just look at any news outlet's coverage of the subject) including any operations outside Ukraine, despite the scope the name may imply. The title, at least in my view, does not deter us from covering any Ukrainian incursions or non-Ukrainian spillover matters, as for one I already added content about the August incursion in this article without anyone taking issue, and Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory and other "non-invasion" matters are covered by articles in this topic; sufficient sourcing was not provided to prove that events after the battle of Kyiv (the "initial" invasion) or engagements outside Ukraine are not covered under the topic of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment The claim the WP:COMMONNAME often refers to the "invasion" being the period of the Russo-Ukrainian War from Feb. 2022 onward needs citation. As far as I can tell, reliable sources do not use the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the war as a whole but only for the initial invasion in the first few months (as outlined above). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the scope of all these articles is the 2022+ invasion, not the 2014+ war. Rename without rescoping makes no sense to me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The scope of an article is defined by the lead section of the article in conjunction with the title. The invasion (2022+) is part of the Russo-Ukraine War (2014+). The scope of these articles is 2022+ not 2014+ and the Russian invasion of Ukraine article is more than a timeline. The proposal breaks more than it fixes and I don't see there is anything that needs to be fixed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as the article is a general article about the invasion and is not just a timeline. Daserth (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The main article is not a time line. And a timeline article already exists. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think a lot of these "not a timeline" comments miss the entire point of the RM, which is that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not the common term for the war between 2022 and now. The current title doesn't even include the word "war"; this is very obviously a war. If you don't agree with the proposal to have this article be an overview timeline, this doesn't mean the current titles of all of the articles in question are at all accurate. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is not a timeline. Moreoever, the sources do not follow the clear distinction given. The Britannica page Russia-Ukraine War dates the start of the war to 2014 and to 2022 in different places. CMD (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment It might be snowing here? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose they are still invading, they are still invaders. YBSOne (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As there was an invasion, now rewrites is another issue, but we do need an article about the initial invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)