body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Template:Vital article

Naming this a ‘war’ without addressing the primary offensive against civilians is in error.

WP:NOTFORUM. The only concrete editing proposal is stale, and the ongoing chatter is not productive. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

How can this be called ‘an ongoing war’ when Ukraine was a sovereign nation attacked on Feb 24, 2022 by Russian forces? How can this be called a ‘war’ when top military experts worldwide are calling this a genocide? Calling this a ‘war’ and an ‘extension of a war in from 2014,’ seems to exclude the unique and obvious situation of an unprovoked attack on primarily civilians. 2601:190:C400:9E30:458F:5D8E:F216:7666 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can look at the current situation and not see it as a war. Attacks on civilians doesn't make it not a war. However, in terms of when the war started, you might be looking for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. — Czello 11:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you believe it not to be a 'war' because of these factors and what else it would be called? I might be missing something but a war frequently includes civilian casualties. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation does not meet the UN definition of genocide. Such inflation of the term constitutes Holocaust denial according to many scholars, among others J. Arch Getty and Kristen Ghodsee if memory serves me right. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty genocide and legal experts published a report saying that the Russian state is guilty of inciting genocide, has committed genocidal acts listed in the convention, that genocide may be taking place, and that state parties to the convention have an obligation to prevent it.[1][2]
The “Holocaust denial” idea defies logic. If these academics are saying someone (who?) is somehow denying the Holocaust by examining Russian war crimes, please provide references and not just baseless innuendo. —Michael Z. 13:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was being imprecise with language. What I mean specifically is that 2601:190:C400:9E30:458F:5D8E:F216:7666's assertion that mere violation of a country's sovereignty and the killing of civilians does not constitute genocide, or else nearly every invasion in modern history would be a genocide. Such expansion of the term also waters it down, which is a well-known tactic employed by fascists since the end of World War II, specifically for trivializing the Holocaust. It is of course entirely possible that the Russian government is intent on genocide in Ukraine, especially in light of Putin's speech before the invasion where he denied the existence of the Ukrainian nation, as indeed the report you link points out. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict has been frozen since 2015. Moreover, why should it be called a war when the countries have not declared war on each other? Even Ukraine, which screams about how "evil Russian orcs rape 100,500 women per second and cook jelly from Ukrainian children," has not declared war. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although it must be admitted that Ukraine does not really like wars. For example, in 2014, Ukraine used the brand name "Anti-Terrorist Operation" instead of the civil war. 213.87.102.249 (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the people running this site don’t know how it works. It’s clear that the Russia-Ukraine war started on february 24 according to every single source, yet they bring up pointless self published books and change the notion of this war Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read literally every single other wikipedia guideline article and learn how to run the site and stop sending personal insults. Wikiman92783 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, let's calm down and stop starting fights. Let's work together to settle this civilly. BadKarma22 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other wiki articles they list other names for the event in the first few sentences which could work as something of a middle ground. I've seen Putin's War thrown around in the West. I can't find a really good name from any Russia source though. The best might be: Russia's Ukraine Operation which I found in Russia Today, but even that's a bit too technical. I don't know how Wiki formatting works 2:03, 11 May 2022 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1900:A5A0:892E:7508:FA84:85F4 (talk)

I love the name "Russo-Ukrainian War": traditionally, the loser of the conflict gets the hyphenated prefix and the victor gets the full name. So.... Russo-Japanese War (they lost that one too), Franco-Prussian War? Don't even need to look it up to know who won. Russo-Ukrainian is quite accurate! 70.51.88.190 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how did they lose the war? This has aged like milk. 2A02:8388:2100:E400:C824:9941:9A0D:5854 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Refinement for Russo-Ukrainian War # Pro-Russian unrest

In the sentence (last of section),

«The role of the Kremlin's military intervention was paramount for hostilities to begin.»,

«begin» should be replaced by e.g. «continue». «begin» is incompatible with the text before. It's also refined later in the source*. There, «commencement» is in the abstract, but «continuation» at p. 530.

* Mykhnenko, Vlad (2020). "Causes and Consequences of the War in Eastern Ukraine: An Economic Geography Perspective". Europe-Asia Studies. 72 (3): 530. doi:10.1080/09668136.2019.1684447. The role of the Kremlin's covert military intervention, aided by its local proxies, remains paramount, necessary and sufficient for the continuation of hostilities.

(Forgot to sign, so here: – Markus Prokott (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2022 (some Time))

Both are saying that without Russian military intervention a war would not have started and continued (at date of publication) for five years. In case that’s not clear, the essay unequivocally states: “The war in Donbas was principally the end result of foreign instigation, intervention and invasion, aided and abetted by collaborating elements of the Yanukovych regime” and “the evidence presented here points to the paramount role of exogenous political agency and of endogenous military geography in explaining the outbreak of the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine in April 2014.” —Michael Z. 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, the author of the source says in the abstract «commencement», later «continuation». The first one seems to be, at least, mistakable. In the more relevant main part, the author decides for «continuation», which is backed by the rest of the text (and probably its references) here. The term «hostilities» also is generally to broad to apply a clear «start» to it, at all. For prevention of error, we should stick to the most binding part of the source and/or be more precise about the hostilities.
What «Both [words] are saying» isn't the problem. It's their difference. What else you present of the source isn't in contrast of either wording, or is it? – Markus Prokott (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see the problem. We are using this source to support a statement that the main cause of the war was actions by Moscow, although other factors contributed. The wording can be tweaked, but I don’t think we disagree. —Michael Z. 18:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is no problem. Never claimed a content-wise dissent. It's solely about a more accurate wording that fits better to the rest of the text, as well as the source's main section. Normally a tiny job, but with that protection in effect I can't do it. – Markus Prokott (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

separate section for International law violations

a separate section for all the international violations presumably done by the parties will be a good addition.... any views? 203.115.91.240 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

Anyone have some references to the current estimated strength under mobilization of the AFU, as well as the National Guard, Border Guard, and Territorial Defence? The infobox under “Strength” directs us to Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but that article has only organization and no numbers whatsoever. —Michael Z. 20:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renzikov says “We have approximately 700,000 in the armed forces and when you add the national guard, police, border guard, we are around a million strong.”[3] —Michael Z. 20:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm wondering about those figures. This is from an alledged Ukrainianm leaker and it may give some pause for thought.

Ukrainian channels are discussing what might be a leaked data from AFU General Staff:

– The AFU are only 43-48% complete;

– medical workers at the limit of their strength: the seriously wounded are transported to Europe;

– small arms and bulletproof vests are not enough;

– about 191 thousand soldiers were killed and wounded;

– there is not enough hydraulics and liquid nitrogen for M777 howitzers;

– no one cares about the missing – there are no statistics;

– the equipment transferred by the West is running out;

– Western weapons are operated by amateurs, since there are no qualified specialists;

https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2022/08/06/leaked-ukrainian-document

My two cents worth. It may be a genuine leak. No Ukrainian source has refuted it afaik.

– there is no way to repair weapons on the spot due to the lack of spare parts and specialists – everything is sent to Poland;

– the moral and psychological state of the Ukrainian military is practically at zero: even campaigns of encouragement in social networks and concerts do not help.

This confirm the high panic by Stoltenberg.

“I insist, NATO insists, resolutely for more support we need a constant flow of ammunition, heavier weapons, more advanced weapons”- NATO GS Stoltenberg

Can we now call the NATO bloc a terrorist one? After all, in fact, they breed terrorists and eliminate them after being used…

Gonzalo says this from the papers. According to these documents, the Ukraine Armed Forces have lost 191,000 men between killed in action and wounded in action. Assuming a 3 to 1 ratio, that would mean 50,000 men have died, and 140,000 are wounded seriously enough to be incapacitated either to fight or to work. The missing in action are NOT being accounted for. These MIA could be killed in action, prisoners of war held by the Russians, or deserters. It is estimated that they are 50% of that 191,000 number. That is about 95,000 men who are unaccounted for. https://mobile.twitter.com/GonzaloLira1968/status/1556338644436279297

BladeOfTheAntipodes 04:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

The casualty section probably needs updating Patbahn (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ukraine is way too low. Probably about 191,000. BladeOfTheAntipodes 04:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and Bias

I have never seen the Western Media flood the news with so much 'Fake News". That has influenced the tone here. If Russia wins, and that is the most likely outcome, people in the West will be very surprised. When so many fake news stories are believed as being real i.e. Gost of Kiev, Snake Island Hereos it never ages well. When the nation you are backing is unpalatably corrupt with a Nazi side dish youd better keep those fake stories coming. Because the true stories will cost you your peoples belief in you. Boris found this out. Is there point debating this with certain Wikipedia editors? However Russia is not concerned with sstting the record straight for everything at once. Russia prefers to win the Gas War, Win the Economic War, which has shocked the EU, Winning support or neutrality from the world less the West and of course winning the ground war. Which they are doing decisively. This is such a big dealk the West has to hide it. If you only read the Wests tale of the WAr, Russia would have lost many times over. Putin would be dead with cancer, and they had 1 tank left and a few dozen troops, the Navy was gone and Russian civilians were rebelling. Russia is not concerned about the propoganda since it is doing what it did to the Germans, smashing them in their defensive positions. Thats the reality. Ukrain losses are 190,000 from a UKR leaked report. Russian losses are about 15,000 dead and wounded. Separtist, Wagner and Chechen losses are unknown. Zelensky is making calls like Hitler did. Political choices not military choices. Read below. The Russians are making the most UKR paralysis. Breaking thru in thge East, and pounding the troop concentrations in the South, like they did in the Battle of Kursk.

The breakthrough happened after the Ukraine had moved many artillery units from the Donetsk to the southern front. That also explains the lack of counter-battery fire in the east an eyewitness recently lamented about. So yes Russia will win. Pro Ukrainian editors, prepare yourselves to the losers in the Uky Russian War

Comment on Leak then leak. "Ukraine is still dreaming of a counter-offensive in the south:

Ukraine said the Russian offensive in the east looked like an attempt to force it to divert troops from the south where Kyiv's forces are trying to retake territory and destroy Russian supply lines as a prelude to a wider counter-offensive. "The idea is to put military pressure on us in Kharkiv, Donetsk and Luhansk over the next few weeks ... What is happening in the east is not what will determine the outcome of the war," Ukrainian Presidential Adviser Oleksiy Arestovych said in an interview on YouTube.

Arestovych is of course wrong. The war was decided in the east when the Ukrainian military followed its bosses orders and moved everything it had to that front. That gave the Russian artillery the chance to take it apart. The Ukrainian tactic, ordered from above, was to hold onto every position until it was completely destroyed. A more mobile defense would likely have been more effective and would have cost less casualties.

The units that Ukraine pulled back from Donbas and has send down to Kherson for its 'million men' offensive were already heavily mauled. They have now been waiting for weeks for the offensive to launch. Meanwhile Russian missiles have hit several of those repositioned units and caused a high numbers of fresh casualties. The removal of Ukrainian artillery from the Donetsk line allowed for the breakthrough at that line.

The long time it took for all that repositioning to happen has also given time for the Russian forces to strengthen its troops around Kherson. There are by now sufficient numbers for the Russian's to launch their own offensive in the area.

General Hromov said Russia might launch its own offensive in the southern Ukrainian region of Kherson to try to win back momentum in the war after building up its forces there. The general got that right. The Russian offensive in the south may launch as early as next week.

There seems to be again a disagreement between the Zelensky regime and the general staff of the armed forces of Ukraine.

The general staff knows that a counter-offensive against Kherson makes no sense as it would cost many more casualties and is likely to be defeated.

Categories