Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 10

Ceasefire #13 started and failed today
For future work on this article (I have no time to do this now) references here: —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  19:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.unian.info/m/politics/10056677-tcg-in-minsk-agrees-on-easter-ceasefire-from-march-30.html
 * https://www.unian.info/m/politics/10061528-ukraine-s-gerashchenko-on-normandy-four-statement-putin-never-publicly-supported-donbas-ceasefire.html (this source says "ceasefire has been announced 12 times")
 * https://www.unian.info/m/war/10062323-easter-ceasefire-in-donbas-fails-on-its-first-day-with-attacks-on-ukrainian-positions.html
 * https://dninews.com/article/donetsk-west-south-dpr-targeted-afu-afternoon
 * Plus few more references:

—  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.unian.info/m/war/10063472-ukraine-reports-1-kia-4-wia-s-in-donbas-amid-32-enemy-attacks-in-last-day.html
 * https://ria.ru/world/20180331/1517677417.html
 * https://ria.ru/world/20180331/1517672552.html
 * https://ria.ru/world/20180331/1517669350.html
 * https://ria.ru/world/20180330/1517649525.html
 * https://ria.ru/world/20180330/1517642447.html
 * I included the failure of this ceasefire in the lead and the body of the article a few minutes ago (using some of the links above). —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Бровар's changes
I would like to discuss Бровар's recent changes. Regarding his addition of a secondary conflict title, none of the four sources he added mention the name Russian-Ukrainian War and in fact two out of the four actually call it War in Donbass or Donbass war (basically the same as the already established name). So this is basically an unsourced POV edit. As for his other change, putting Russia as the primary combatant on the pro-Russian side and the separatists the secondary, this is contrary to the long-established form of the infobox to list the separatists first. With 45,000 separatist fighters and a reported 9,000-12,000 Russian regulars involved, that makes the separatists still the primary combatant in the conflict on the pro-Russian side, which is why we have listed them up until now first in the infobox (putting aside that direct and open Russian military involvement in the conflict is still in dispute by some). Finally, Бровар also undid my update of separatist fatalities per the cited sources without explanation. For these changes (which I think are inappropriate) I am pinging some of the editors that have been involved on this article in the past for their opinions and proposals on how to resolve this issue. (If I missed to ping someone I appologise) EkoGraf (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Foot and ball / "balls" and "war"
 * And, who said this is a war? Just another mishap some 2,000 policemen shall take care of very soon (cf., mr Avakov stating that the Ukrainian police forces...) and the 5 published "birds" (cf. KC-135 ) are just protecting balls and feet, glad to be protected... (on behalf of "feet&balls"... “it always "takes balls", some say”) —Pietadè (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Answer to myself, basing on some weird(?) compulsion(?) to list, for some years by now, casualties, together with Dago, I do not believe that the title is currently correct, yet, this is not something U say the another party directly; and, this was said by me, basing on, e.g, seven, or so, different Italian/Latin versions of N. Machiavelli's “Il Principe” I had the joy to translate and comment; so, summarising, or, trying to: the world outside (ca 8 b humans) is trying to guide us, who, being us, are not really us (sry, too late local time). And, the sense, regarding the subject, if there was any, made no sense to me, reading the article referred. —Pietadè (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Either the
Donbass war, or the first Donbass war, considering the involvement of other powers, incl. the EU, and, for those who like comparison, like the 1st/2nd etc Crimean wars our granddads have already witnessed of, why not the "Russian Ukrainian war", though the sequential number remains to be clarified (meaning where to start), at least we all can feel ourselves much safer, thanks to the third roof that is under way to be ready soon, to defend us, our graves, and our unlived lives—Pietadè (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Simple scematics, like the Romans, or the Varaos, did, at first "conquered" the land ("Golodomor"), then inhabited it with their own people and then declared the land theirs... and then the "war" is justified to your own subordinates, et the next holes in the ground are just the means; sorry for the preceding, just a compendium of some 25 yrs of studies, otherwise just a life liking person who loves life, in all forms.—Pietadè (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See below (redirect) or renaming has an appropriateness. X1\ (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Russia–Ukraine war" redirect here?
Would a redirect from Russia–Ukraine war to here be appropriate; given Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) with pre-planning by Russia (such as Little green men (Ukrainian crisis)) and quick annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in spite of the political status of Crimea) ? X1\ (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And, “"3,000 to 5,000 Russian professionals" in eastern Ukraine”, according to NATO sources, allows us to call it a Russian-Ukrainian war too, yet commonly it is known as "War in Donbass" (not diving currently into super-secret land of Google's policy on algorithms they use), so, being lazy, let our grandgrandgrandgrand... sons/daughters make the decision on how to name it (adding one more reference, UNIAN likes to spread: “That's not a frozen conflict, that's war”).—Pietadè (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Consensus is clearly against the proposed move. bd2412 T 17:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

War in Donbass → ? – As per the Bad title name, needs changing section above - fails WP:COMMONNAME. (personally prefer War in Eastern Ukraine). --Gateshead001 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 17:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Current title was agreed to through discussion several years ago based on a policy of neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this name is used in sources as noted in the above thread, is neutral and accurate, and concise. No proposed alternatives. Horror of horrors- that a reader might click on this link from the related Ukrainian Crisis articles and learn something new, ie., what and where "Donbass" is... Ribbet32 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look in the section above where I demonstrated a Google search of 'War in Donbass', notice how the word 'Donbass' is only mentioned in one of the top six links (and that being the sixth one). Thus, it is not widely used in sources at all. --Gateshead001 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is not the only rule/principle for titling articles, which is where I think you're mistaken. In fact, since there is no formal name, another principle like WP:DESCRIPDIS would default, as would WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Most descriptive & common name available that is still neutral Serafart (talk) (contributions) 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How is 'War in Eastern Ukraine' not neutral? It doesn't mention something like 'Russia-Ukraine', and the war actually takes place in eastern Ukraine, so I cannot see why it's not neutral. In plain simple terms, it is a recognisable geographic name. The current name is not recognisable, whilst a name mentioning 'Russia' is not neutral. --Gateshead001 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There is actually only a war in South-East Ukraine (aka the Donbass). Further north there was conflict in Kharkiv during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (not in the surrounding area Kharkiv Oblast though) and there surely was never any pro-Russian conflict in North-East Ukraine (Sumy Oblast). I know it is a term used in media "War in Eastern Ukraine"; but I find it a highly misleading discription of the conflict (and frankly I think it is a lie). If there was a war in Florida and no conflict in the rest of the U.S... naming that war "War in West U.S." would make zero sence.... I am not in favour of Wikipedia spreading misleading namings spread by newspapers and TV stations (I know they have to simplify things, but I think they do it too much). —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the most descriptive and accurate title as the war is taking place in part of eastern Ukraine not all of it. Kges1901 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bad title name, needs changing
Whilst the name 'War in Donbass' makes sense (the war takes place in Donbass), the thing is that this name is rarely officially used. Almost all of the media refer to Ukraine, and barely any even mention Donbass. As a result, the majority of people outside Ukraine don't even know what Donbass is. Per WP:COMMONNAME, titles should be named so that it is "commonly recognizable", and the current name definitely is not.

Doing a Google search for 'War in Donbass', the first two results are from Wikipedia and after that is:
 * "On the frontline of Europe's forgotten war in Ukraine"
 * "The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know"
 * "Ukraine Interactive map"
 * "War News" (below it says "Recent news and developments in the ATO zone in Ukraine's east reported by UNIAN's journalists.")
 * "'Simmering Conflict' In Eastern Ukraine Remains At An Impasse"
 * "The War in Donbass - 10 Facts"

Note how out of six sources, only one (and that being the last) even mentions the name 'Donbass'. Clearly, the current title fails the COMMONNAME policy and therefore needs to be changed. Something like 'War in Eastern Ukraine' is much, much better. --Gateshead001 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Try repeating the search putting "War in Donbass" in inverted commas. And add -Wikipedia and -Wikia to exclude those.--  Toddy1 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have, and it's still highly inadequate by comparison. Just the fact that I have to search with the inverted commas and excluding wiki pages demonstrates it further. --Gateshead001 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Bad title, for many reasons:

1. "Donbass" is not a formal term. It is not used in formal, official, or diplomatic documents to indicate a region with a fixed boundary. There is no administrative or territorial unit of Ukraine called "Donbass", nor has there ever been one as a part of any other nation, i.e. the Russian Empire or USSR. It is not an accurate geographic term. Certain definitions include parts of Russia. The existing Wiki article discusses this at length here: Donbass.

2. Donbass is a transliteration of a Russian abbreviation. Linguistic preferences towards Russian or Ukrainian transliteration (Donbass vs. Donbas) frequently correspond to specific political sympathies, or used as coded signifiers (so-called "dogwhistling"). If so, this definitely violates NPOV rules.

3. "Donbass" as a concept in Russian language and literature is largely a Soviet-period term that refers to the Donetsk Coal Basin. It is also an existing trope in propaganda that claims the region for Russia, and is again, therefore almost certainly not NPOV:

"Donbass - The Heart of Russia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:44B2:3100:8818:F962:5B20:35E0 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"...All the vehicles were suddenly seen as tanks."
Regarding removal of dninews.com from i-box: "... The Donbass News Agency did actually get the figure of 3,600 tanks from a real source. If you count all the vehicles, including the ones in reserve in the Netherlands, they add up to 3,600; however, the figure includes jeeps, trailers and Humvees. All the vehicles were suddenly seen as tanks." —Pietadè (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Chechnya"
The infobox lists "Chechnya" as a combatant. Well ok, its true the Kadyrovtsy (made of conscripts) have been in Donbass, on the Russian side. It doesn't list the fact that the Dzhokhar Dudayev battalion fought for Ukraine. "Chechnya" remains torn by civil strife whereby anti-Kadyrov separatists, liberals, social democrats (gay people, tho not a political force in any way, were added to this list last year) and also similar pro-Russian human-trafficking warlords that were naturally originally Kadyrov allies but simply got too powerful (the Yamadayevs for example) end up all "disappeared" or in massive prisons, while the Islamists (or rather, the Islamists who are not Kadyrov, who is also an Islamist) have a low level insurgency that simply will not die (and has occasionally affiliated itself with ISIS) down in the mountainous hinterland of Vedeno. The Kadyrovtsy represent one side -- not all. I'm fine with the Chechen flag being there (in fact other parts of Chechen society dislike this specific flag and tend to prefer the pre-Kadyrov flag anyways and this is the one you see almost all the see in the Chechen diaspora), but I don't think the infobox should list "Chechnya". --Calthinus (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

information box
responding to this edit i have put a line about the ukraine position. I doo not agree it makes sense to just have the position of one side when says a stalemate. so it must means BOTH sides should have their position represent. afterall it involves the two sides and both sides are affected - each side has the right to be represented. to say that it is redundant to say ukraine control the territory is not the whole story because the ukr gov stopped the insurgent from taking more territory. that is big difference from juts saying it controls the territory. i have put maintain control vs control territory for this difference to be seen. i think that attempt to downplay one side to benefit the other is no good and i think it also violates neutral policy. Please let's be reasonable about this! Waskerton (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I stated in the edit summary, and as Shmurak has pointed out, the purpose of that section of the infobox is to indicate the change in territorial control from the start of the conflict. And the change is that pro-Russian forces have taken control of parts of the two areas. That Ukraine controls the other parts is already understood since they were under their control from even before the conflict. The current language in the infobox has been adopted by editors for the last several years. Any new change would require a consensus. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Casualty sources
109.161.44.44, regarding your edit here, please check the sources again for the separatist casualties. First source, for the lower figure, is Russian, not Ukrainian. Second source is citing a UN report, quote - "according to the UN Monitoring Mission on Human Rights". As per Wikipedia's policy, we are advised to focus more on using secondary, not primary sources (which is the UN report), when possible. If it will satisfy you, we can use the Deutsche Welle (reliable German source) report as well, although its not in English (but this does not exclude it as a source). Finally, you inserted the figure of 3,544 which is unsourced and contrary to the source for the lower of 4,412. Cargo 200 (an NGO), which was agreed to be used some time ago through discussions, lists 4,424 names, of which 12 are journalists (11 Russian and 1 Italian), while the rest are classified as pro-separatist fighters. EkoGraf (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Elena Vasilieva and NGO 200
How reliable is the information of this pro-ukrainian activist? This is the same woman who told about the zombie rays of the russian army. She is just a media person, not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.44.44 (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I myself argued against including that figure in the infobox and instead for it to be mentioned in the casualties section only within the main body of the text (with proper attribution). However, others (most) were for the inclusion in the infobox as well and thus it is so. However, at the moment, the figure is becoming highly out-dated. Last update was 6 months ago (half a year ago). If Cargo 200 does not update its figures in the next month or so, I don't see any problem with removing it since the UN's report is more reliable and more recent (which is something Wikipedia requires of us). EkoGraf (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Ghost Brigade.svg

"the"
Please decide whether it is “Donbass” or “the Donbass” and either always omit or always use the article. 24.143.11.227 (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * English usage is not consistent in this matter. See ngrams, though these are from before the war. I think the general trend is to omit the article, though. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the most common usage has been “the Donbas.”, , , . Another comparison: , , , . —Michael Z. 2019-05-31 13:50 z 

Where are the T72 tanks, radio jammers and other Russian army presence pictures?
To be looking unbiased this article is missing pictures of Russian army presence. Captured Russian soldiers in 2014, heavy and high tech vehicles available only in Russia... Can I add this myself? Stanislav (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents versus suppliers in infobox
No reference showing UK is a belligerent. There's no way that supplying weapons to a belligerent in a conflict makes a country a belligerent. "Support" is a different category altogether. Am WP:BOLD removing flags from infobox including with citations showing weapons supplies. If you want to add "support" to the infobox, then it needs a separate section, not a sub-heading under "Belligerents"; but note that section would not be in keeping with Wikipedia norms. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia conflict infoboxes we regularly include "support" countries as a sub-heading under "Belligerents". Just a few ongoing examples are the Syrian and Libyan civil wars. Countries only providing weapons support and not being directly involved have also been listed in the infoboxes of many past conflicts. EkoGraf (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But U.S. Secretary confirmed weapon supplies exactly for this conflict. It is support of Ukraine in conflict. Source: https://www.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-with-michal-higdon-of-wcsc-tv/ "U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: We gave them real weapons, where they could fight against the Russians" --Foption (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Russian and American roles are not equivalent, and any attempt to portray them as such is a violation of WP:NPOV and non-representative of RS. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We also have a general principle to not try to shoehorn confusingly and PoV-pushingly over-simplified labeling into infoboxes; complex matter has to be covered in the article body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Russia is listed as one of "belligerents", but all references on this is came down to Ukrainian sources. It is difficult to believe that such sources are "independent". It should be removed, or independent sources should be added.203.219.83.10 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the article on the Spanish_Civil_War, the countries that did not participate directly are listed under supported by. Perhaps this article should follow the same practice? Heptor (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Ukraine is a democracy where the opposition is allowed to win elections and become the government, and where the media are independent of the government.  Have you ever been in a democratic society?  Toddy1 (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? Ukrainians are the same as Russians in blood. Corrupt. No democracy.-208.72.125.2 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are Ukrainian, am I right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.112.115 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Russian role in the Minsk agreements
There is a disagreement between the involved parties about Russia's role in the Minsk agreements. Ukrainian govt says that Russia was a party to the agreement, while Russia says that its role was to observe, essentially same as OSCE. This follows the general narrative promoted by the two states, where Ukraine presents the conflict as war with Russian Federation, while Russia considers the conflict to be a civil war between Ukrainian citizens. Presently, the Ukrainian view is stated as factual in the article, in particular the second sentence in the fourth paragraph, "Ukraine, Russia, the DPR and the LPR signed an agreement to establish a ceasefire, called the Minsk Protocol". Requesting additional views on the matter. Heptor (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Green men with Russian accent
The second sentence in the article prominently qualifies groups that protested against the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution as "Russian-backed", linking to the article on from Little_green_men_(Ukrainian_crisis). This seems to insinuate that the protests were instigated by the said green men, for which there is presently little evidence. Quoting from the linked article, "dozens of heavily armed strangers with Russian accents had appeared on the weekend and set up a road block". This demonstrates a poor undertanding of the area, since the majority of the local population in Donbas speak Russian as their first language, and observation of people with Russian accent is a flimsy evidence of Rusian invasion. The article could be improved by discussing Russian involvement in the conflict more explicitely in a separate paragraph, rather them making vague insinuations. Heptor (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * you had previously shown an interest in the neutrality aspect of this article, it would be quite interesting to see your opinion on the matter stated and explained. Heptor (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Охранник Леса for (silently) fixing it, the issue is now closed. Heptor (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Causes of the conflict
This article could be improved by a more detailed discussion of the events that led up to this war. Research on this topic commonly point to divisions in cultural, linguistic and historical identities in Ukraine, and discontent with the results of the 2014 Revolution as the trigger for the 2014 pro-Russian unrest. . For example, citing Cordier2017: "So, if there is indeed an identity and a societal concept that are being defended by the insurgents against external aggression and  existential  threats,  then  what  are  their  components  and  characteristics?" This question is thoroughly discussed in the article above as well as others, and a well-written encyclopedic treatment should present a comprehensive summary of these discussions. Heptor (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heptor, you know that we have Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, right?? It's linked in the article. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you or do you not object to a more detailed discussion of the events and cultural developments that led to this war? Heptor (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I object to such discussion in this article, because that's not what this article is about. There are sub-articles that deal with this matter. The present summaries here suffice. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In which case this article will be one of the few articles on military history that is afraid of discussing the causes of the war it describes. Heptor (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article scheme is Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine>2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine>War in Donbass, in line with the chronology of the events and in line with WP:SPINOFF. Otherwise, the article would simply be too long! It's already too long as it is. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent controversial edits
Hello. You made a series of controversial edits on June 16th. You summarized these edits as "c/e", which I have to say was misleading, since they mostly concerned Russian involvement in the conflict, a rather controversial topic. The coverage of this topic in the article deserves an expansion, and the organization of this article would be improved if this expansion was focused in a separate section. If you are interested in contributing, please consider expanding War_in_Donbass. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits have been entirely unacceptable, and I've reverted them. Each time you to try to remove sourced information about Russian involvement in the war. Please spare us this continued campaign of POV pushing. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RG, you made significant controversial edits with misleading edits summaries. You removed at least two reliable sources: . I am happy that you are now participating in the discussion.  Kindly explain the changes you made on June 16th, and let's take it on from there.
 * I did not make any changes. I reverted your edits, because they are a clear attempt at POV pushing, and are making a disinformation campaign out of this article. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you mean well, but Im afraid that some of the neuances about the politics of the conflict may have been lost in your edits. Would it be unreasonale to ask you to detail the specifics of why you consider these changes an attempt at pov pushing? For example, do you disareee with how i offloaded most of the text on the Rusain involvement in a separate section? Is there something wrong with the two references I added? Heptor (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Past engagement with you has made clear that constructive discussion is impossible. I will simply allow others to judge the veracity of your intent.  RGloucester  — ☎ 19:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the first and only time that I have seen you participate in a discussion on any article that I have edited. Heptor (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was asked at this editing dispute at my talk page. Whereas I have no opinion on the validity of edits made by Heptor (and, to be honest, I do not quite understand what they wanted to do - not that I want to understand it), I see that the article was for a long time in a quasi-stable state (I have now extended confirmed protected it to exclude sockpuppet edits, which it has see a lot). In this situation, if the edits get reverted, per WP:BRD Heptor has to go to the talk page and explain what they want to do, and subsequently seek consensus. There is no obligation for RGloucester to participate in this discussion if they do not want to; however, if the discussion starts and RGloucester ignores it they should not be surprised that their point of view have not been taken into account. If any of you feels like the opponent is acting against the policies, you should present the opponent to WP:ANI, or, if this has happened before, possibly to WP:AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * May I assume that disagrees with  from June 16th? I have also made a series of other edits, mostly directed towards offloading the overly long lead, and some copy-editing on the section about the Russian involvement. Does RG disagrees with that as well? I had been editing this article a lot previously, have to point out that it was in a rather stable state before June also. Heptor (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heptor, you are really taxing my patience. I did not make any 'edits from 16th June'. All I did then was revert the stealth changes you had inserted into the article in an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. The long-standing version is the one I have reverted to, which is a reproduction of the 21 February version, dating to just before you began your campaign of POV pushing. You move the 'Russian involvement' section to background, when this is clearly not 'background' information, but information about the body of the conflict. You remove reference to the annexation of Crimea, the 2014 August invasion, &c., and attempt to make it seems as if the Crimean vote was legitimate, in clear defiance of the consensus of reliable sources. Enough is enough! The Russian claims are not of equal validity...reliable sources do not treat them as such, and showcasing them in the lead in an attempt to make the article more 'neutral', only creates WP:FALSEBALANCE. Your changes may seem inane to the untrained eye, but it's quite clear what you're trying to do. I entreat you to kindly stop, or otherwise I shall have to request your topic banning from this subject area. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RG, I kindly entreat you to WP:AGF, keep a WP:CIVIL tone and follow the dispute resolution resolution procedures. There was nothing stealth about my edits. Unlike you I generally provide extensive and descriptive edit summaries. I do have to point out that at least until June you contributed little except reverts with abusively snark edits summaries. Until now, you ignored attempts to engage in a conversation. I hope to see further improvement in your willingness to collaborate. As to the actual content dispute, maybe we can address a few points:
 * Do you dispute that (PS: also   ) are articles published in a reputable journals, that paint a nuanced picture that can be accurately captured by the summary "The extend of the Russian involvement in the conflict is controversial. It is variably described as a covered-up Russian invasion or as a mainly local separatist insurgency."
 * The summary description of the 2014 Crimean status referendum in the first paragraph of this article had been stable at least since April. Do you dispute that it is an accurate summary of the main article? Quoting from the first paragraph therin, "The Crimean status referendum was a controversial vote on the political status of Crimea held on March 16, 2014 by the legislature of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the local government of Sevastopol [...] The official result [...] was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83[...]." The vote is described as "mostly unrecognized", but perhaps we should also add "illegal under Ukrainian law"?
 * The Russian involvement in this conflict is rather profound and had a significant impact on the course of this conflict. For this reason I moved this section up from the bottom of the article to a place very near the top. You seem to object rather strongly about having it as a subsection in the "background" section. I don't quite see what's the big deal here, one way or the other. I'd be happy to have it elevated as a separate section if it would make your day a little better. Heptor (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only thing 'we' (in the sense of 'Wikipedia') should do is revert Heptor's edits. No amount of discussion will produce a productive result. The stable version is the only acceptable one. I certainly do not agree that the picture is 'nuanced'. The vast majority of reliable sources are quite clear about the nature of these events, and the lead of this article has stood the test time, remaining stable for years until your attempts to twist it into a mess. Enough is enough!  RGloucester  — ☎ 15:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see very little willingness on your part to engage in a discussion. Heptor (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , given the involvement of two long-0established editors, and the political significance of the article, I think a "consensus required" type of restriction might be justified - that is, any bold edit which is reverted, must not be reinstated without consensus. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, now you are in 1RR violation and you still don't engage in any constructive discussions. The version that you are pushing is based on the totality of one academic-ish journal, published by the Rand Corporation: "Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine" (you did however list it up twice in the reference list, so kudos I guess). The actual academic discussions on this subject are more nuanced, as illustrated by the reference list below. At least you are trying to clean up some of your mess, but I have to say that the structure remains so-so, and there are quite a few rambling sentences that should be broken up. Heptor (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1RR is not in effect on this page. I have insulted multiple, reliable, scholarly sources on the subject, and clarified the stream of events. The academic discussions you suggest are not at all 'nuanced'. Your sources don't support the conclusions you've made, and this is of course no surprise. If I list things multiple times in the ref list, it is because I am giving page numbers! Something one can't expect from the likes of you. In any case, I will continue to improve this lead in line with the current academic consensus on this matter. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, citing for example, far from instigating the rebellion in Donbass and using it to destabilise Ukraine, revise the international order, or seize additional territory, Moscow has largely been reacting to events and trying to gain some control of a process which was originally almost entirely outside of its control. How is that not nuanced? Also, do you have to be so angry all the time? It's rather unbecoming. Heptor (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't nuanced at all. If you read your source, and indeed, the Rand Source, you'd see that. Most sources agree that Russia was caught off-guard by the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, and thus had to react, as such. The reaction went well in Crimea, but didn't go so well in Donbass. The initial protests in Donbass were genuinely spontaneous, though whether they represented a region-wide consensus is doubtful. Russia decided to encourage a fringe of separatists with political, information, and military support, but didn't realise that these idiots would actually start making the mess they did, or that Ukraine would actually fight back, unlike in Crimea. Russia eventually realised that Novorossiya was a failure, that the 'separatists' didn't have the capability to function as true proxies, and thus invaded in August 2014 to settle the score, and regain control of events. That 'control' is evident in the Minsk Protocol, and the desire to reintegrate the DPR and LPR into Ukraine...to serve as a permanent conveyor of Russian interest into the Ukrainian state. So, while Russia did not have a premeditated intent to do what it did in Donbass, it did indeed do it! And that's what the sources say. Far from nuanced, the picture is incredibly clear. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally over 90% of the population in DNR/LNR supported Yanukovych in the 2010 election. More than just fringes felt strong discontent about the revolution. Heptor (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! But 'more than just fringes' most patently did not take up AK-47s in the name of separatism! RGloucester  — ☎ 13:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At least we agree about something then. There were about 50 000 people fighting in the rebel forces in 2017, obviously not a majority of the population. Speaking of which, what is your opinion of the Nov 2014 separatist elections? Katchanovski2016 says that The Ukrainian and Western governments and the mainstream media generally charac-terize separatism in Donbas as having a minor support and present the results of a refer-endum held by separatists after they seized power there as not reflecting public preference . Is your opinion generally in line with this description? Heptor (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed it is! If you think that the 'choice' between Free Donbass and Donetsk Republic was really a 'choice', I think you'd have to be mad, regardless of any other questions about the legitimacy of the elections.   RGloucester  — ☎ 17:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By the standard of what goes for elections these days, this choice doesn't look too bad actually. In any case, if the results of the 2014 Donbass status referendums are to be believed, it is exactly what the inhabitants of Donbas wanted (hey, at least they didn't get Boris Johnson). Do you feel that the results as not reflecting public preference? Or do you say it doesn't matter? The point is that the published research on the conflict usually considers the local discontent with the 2014 Revolution to be an important cause of this war, something this article seems to glance over. PS: everyone agrees that the Russian intervention was decisive, Strelkov himself rambles about it at great length on YouTube. Heptor (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Donbass status referendums can't be 'believed' because they were illegitimate and held under the barrel of a gun. Public opinion polls in the lead up to the declaration of the 'republics' in February made clear that very few people wanted 'separatism' in Donbass (these are documented at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine) . I agree that there has been local discontent. This article is, again, not about that stage of the unrest. There is a separate article, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, that deals with the first stage, and another article, Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which explains historical background. Both are linked in this article, in the 'background' section. The war itself, however, was not caused by the unrest, or local discontent, but by Russian manipulation of that discontent/unrest with the intent to hamstring Ukraine. That's the consensus of RS, and open for all to see. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such concensus in the literature. For example, citing Cordier2017, The driving forces behind the insurgency in Donetsk and Lugansk go well beyond the clichés of Moscow- backed separatism . Heptor (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heptor, if you wonder why I doubt your sincerity, it is because of stupidity like this. You keep citing one line from an ABSTRACT of an article to make a broad claim denying Russian manipulation of events in Donbass. First of all, it's clear you haven't read the article! You've cherrypicked a line from an abstract that you think supports your conclusions, but of course, it doesn't. You probably don't even have access to the article, which is behind a paywall unless you are associated with a university (like I am). In any case, I have read the article, and I responded to you before on this subject. My answer explained that yes, indeed, the so-called 'cliche' of Moscow-backed separatism may be simplistic, but that's what a cliche is, is it not!? As I wrote above: "'Most sources agree that Russia was caught off-guard by the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, and thus had to react, as such. The reaction went well in Crimea, but didn't go so well in Donbass. The initial protests in Donbass were genuinely spontaneous, though whether they represented a region-wide consensus is doubtful. Russia decided to encourage a fringe of separatists with political, information, and military support, but didn't realise that these idiots would actually start making the mess they did, or that Ukraine would actually fight back, unlike in Crimea. Russia eventually realised that Novorossiya was a failure, that the 'separatists' didn't have the capability to function as true proxies, and thus invaded in August 2014 to settle the score, and regain control of events. That 'control' is evident in the Minsk Protocol, and the desire to reintegrate the DPR and LPR into Ukraine...to serve as a permanent conveyor of Russian interest into the Ukrainian state'." Moscow doesn't even want separatism! It might've done, but it changed its mind when it realised that separatism wasn't the best way to get what it wanted! And so, we have the Minsk Agreements, &c. Certainly, things go beyond the mere 'cliche' of Moscow-backed separatism, but that doesn't mean that Russia is any less implicated in manipulation of the discontent/unrest that erupted in February-March 2014. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you wonder why I suspect that you are more likely incarcerated in a jail rather than enrolled in an academic institution, it is mainly because your writing is peppered with vulgarities like exemplified by the above. It's a good thing that they give you access to a decent library, but in either case I hope that you still have a few years left. Please consider that:
 * Citing an abstract isn't cherry picking. An abstract is a good-faith summary written by the authors.
 * Katchanovski2016, Matveeva2016, Cordier2017 are not behind a paywall.
 * You keep saying this-and-that about the articles you supposedly read, but so far you refused to cite any. If you had academic credentials like you insinuate, citing your sources would be your second nature. Instead, you make a load of ipsi dixit statements, and act insulted when I request verification.
 * Please tell me that the blockquote citation above is copied from somewhere? It almost looks like your are blockquoting yourself like it would give it additional weight.
 * Heptor (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I really have no energy to stoop to your level. All I can say is that every edit I have made is supported by citations, and you are free to look at those, as I've said time and time again. Precise page numbers are provided.  RGloucester  — ☎ 00:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The picture is anything but "incredibly clear". Consider also, There are many conflicting narratives about the conflict in Donbas. The Ukrainian govern-ment, the national media and, to a large extent, their counterparts in the West present theviolent conflict in Donbas as led, from its beginning in Spring of 2014, by regular armed Russian military units and Russian military intelligence agents who therefore lackpopular backing in this region. They present the war in Donbas as a conventional or a hybrid war between Ukraine and Russia. You are throwing around expressions like "most sources agree". Yet you have provided no sources on your own, and I see no evidence that you've familiarized yourself with any of the ones I have listed.
 * I did indeed insert many sources into the article. Please read them. Your newly linked source is old, dating to 2016. New developments have changed the general perception of events. Indeed, the author himself mentions that the lack of data prevents him from drawing conclusions about the nature of the conflict. That data is available now, and indeed, RS like the Rand report make the situation very clear. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are mostly citing EuroMaidan Press, KyivPost and Ukrainian Pravda. Heptor (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a downright lie. For one thing, I can't read Ukrainian or Russian, so how would I be citing Pravda? I do cite Kyiv Post on occasion, and consensus at the RS noticeboard and elsewhere have deemed them an RS. I have never cited EuroMaidan Press, which is basically a blog. Your intent is very clear, with such statement as these. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * List some sources, finally. Thanks. Heptor (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were reading Pravda, you are citing it, however. Heptor (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never cited Pravda, and the idea one could cite a source without reading it is truly the thin end of the wedge. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you citing? You haven't listed any sources here, and your version of the article now lists Rand Corporation six times because they support the view you are pushing, while you removed    because they say that there are other perspectives. Heptor (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't need to 'list sources here', they are in the damn article. The comprehensive Rand Corporation report is certainly worth citing six times! I did not remove Katchanovski...he's cited in the article. Other sources were not removed because of the sources themselves, but because you cited them for conclusions they did not support, and without precise page numbers! RGloucester  — ☎ 20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need to do anything, but you haven't presented any sources supporting any your statements. Heptor (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Every edit I have introduced includes a source with a precise page number...it's not my problem if you don't care to read them! RGloucester  — ☎ 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have to point out that you still haven't cited a single reference supporting anything you said in this now rather lengthy discussion. Heptor (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The citations are in the article. You've been watching my edits, so perhaps you could actually read the damn citations instead of constantly repeating the same thing here? RGloucester  — ☎ 13:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will gladly offer you praise for every veracious literature reference you edit into the article. Which specific references you added is not readily apparent from the diffs. So far I could only ascertain one, the most amicable report from the RAND Corporation. Although well-written and well-researched, it has never the less overt connections with the United States Armed Forces, and should not alone determine the facts of this topic. Still less commendable is the fact that in this discussion you made a series of claims that you did not support by any references whatsoever. Your unwillingness to discuss the literature that you have read before arriving to the position that you have is hard to reconcile with your claim of being associated with a university. Your frequent regressions towards vulgar language and personal attacks make such claims still less credible. Heptor (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The additional sources I added, excluding existing ones, include:
 * This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If you want more, I'll give you more, and more. I have not even provided the existing sources in the article. And no, I won't engage in a long battle of quote wars with you, so please spare me! RGloucester  — ☎ 14:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this literature is generally in line with the opinion that you are promoting. Hopefully we can discus the details of these publications in comparison with other research that exists on the field. Heptor (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If you want more, I'll give you more, and more. I have not even provided the existing sources in the article. And no, I won't engage in a long battle of quote wars with you, so please spare me! RGloucester  — ☎ 14:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this literature is generally in line with the opinion that you are promoting. Hopefully we can discus the details of these publications in comparison with other research that exists on the field. Heptor (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If you want more, I'll give you more, and more. I have not even provided the existing sources in the article. And no, I won't engage in a long battle of quote wars with you, so please spare me! RGloucester  — ☎ 14:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this literature is generally in line with the opinion that you are promoting. Hopefully we can discus the details of these publications in comparison with other research that exists on the field. Heptor (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Heptor has just violated the consensus-required restriction you enacted with this edit. Are you going to allow this farce to continue? RGloucester  — ☎ 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That phrasing Heptor (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in tandem with the consensus-based renaming of the other article at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. The addition was stable at the time of the establishment of the restriction. I reverted your removal of that phrase, and yet, you reverted again without gaining consensus to do so. This is a clear violation. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no tandem, and there is also presently no consensus on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War. Heptor (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, an WP:RM was held in June, with universal support. Your new RM shows the same result. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Heptor, do you want to explain how it makes sense to use the Rand report as a source for the sentence: "The initial protests were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government" without the secondary part of the sentence, referring to Russia's taking advantage of that discontent? The Rand report clearly states as much. It does not support the idea that war is an indigenous outbreak of discontent. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first part of this sentence states a rather uncontroversial fact (give me a minute, I'll get additional references). The second part is largely a value judgement and an expression of opinion. Wikipedia should describe the various narratives that exist in the sources we use :There are many conflicting narratives about the conflict in Donbas. Heptor (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not going to police (and, in fact, read) this discussion, and I do not even have this page on my watchlist. If the situation is as simple as that, you should have no problem getting them topic-banned at WP:AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting
, since you are here, could you explain the intent of the following sentence from the lead. "These demonstrations, which followed the February–March 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and which were part of a wider group of concurrent protests across southern and eastern Ukraine, escalated into an armed conflict between the separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR respectively), and the Ukrainian government." The interjection "which followed the February–March 2014 annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and which" is weirdly sandwiched into an otherwise cohesive statement. This interjection is a separate complete thought and should form a separate complete sentence, but it is not clear to me what this thought is supposed to be. Heptor (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The logical connection between the annexation and the demonstration is unclear. To me it looks like some form of causation is insinuated, but how?
 * If interpreted literally, this interjection is untrue, because demonstrations started well before the annexation.

Cargo 200 NGO
I don't understand why somebody recovers references to this absolutely unreliable source. This is very important article and it should be based on trusted sources only. Due to this the article looks very unprofessional. Such important figures as numbers of killed are takes from the site having 4 level deep domain, which is referring to Elena Vasilyeva's list who was caught in a lie many times. Dron007 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The site in question does look rather amateurish and poorly organized. Can you provide an independent confirmation for what you claim about Vailyeva being unreliable? Heptor (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This StopFake site (which is used by Facebook for news checking) is not always neutral but this specific case looks quite correct . And I think that instead of providing independent confirmations of claims we should provide independent confirmations of proofs and reliability of some information and person. Dron007 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This argument appears convincing. Wikipedia has strict rules with regards to admission of sources, but these rules are not always followed. Cargo 200 NGO does not appear to have a convincing reputation for checking the facts or have an editorial oversight. Many thanks for bringing up the issue, I shall proceed to remove the citation in question. Heptor (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus required? "Russian involvement"
Heptor, please explain where you got consensus to once again remove the sourced statement about Russia's involvement? RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your recent addition unfortunately falls short of presenting a balanced view of this topic. For example (Wilson 2016) provides an excellent summary of the existing views on the topic: "The War In East Ukraine That Began In The Spring 2014 has produced many contrasting analyses. Some [view the] origins of the separatist movement in the Donbas region [...] as a ‘grassroots’ phenomenon with genuine ‘popular support’. Others have largely blamed Russia for provoking the conflict from the outside." The additions you mention do little except to unduly promote the latter view of the events. Wikipedia aspires to report on such disagreements, not to partake in them. By such high bar, your additions fail to be an improvement of the article, and a reversion of the addition is unfortunately a justified course of action. Heptor (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That is not a summary of the existing view. It is a summary of views before Wilson’s 2016 paper. His very next line is His conclusion is worth reading, as is the whole paper.  Today, Wilson 2016 is an integral part of the existing view. —Michael Z.
 * For example Cordier 2017 and Bandeira 2019 seem to present the intervention view post-2016. What's the argument for such elevation of Wilson's view? I mean, I agree that he wrote a great paper which is definitely worth a thorough read and a mention on Wikipedia, but from that to say that those other views he lists up are no longer valid following his argument? Why? Heptor (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn’t say that. I said you are misreading and misrepresenting Wilson’s paper. —Michael Z. 15:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Cordier's view is not in any way in conflict with Wilson's view. Wilson himself documents the existence of a Donbass ideology amongst the separatist groupings. There is no disagreement that such a thing exists. What Wilson does say, however, is that said ideology is representative of an incredibly minuscule piece of the population of the region, and this is backed up by various public opinion polls, especially the well-known Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis poll that is cited in the background section at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Cordier never claims that the identity he documents is representative of Donbass residents in general. He endeavours to document the specific identity of the separatists themselves, and excludes the vast majority of people's opinion as a result. Nothing about Cordier's analysis comes into conflict with the idea that Russian intervened, invaded, or whatever, in Donbass...that's not the purpose of his article! As for Bandeira, he is simply not a reliable source. He writes from a far-left political perspective that cannot be given WP:UNDUE weight here. Even if we did take his work into account, he clearly writes "When Putin realized that the unrest in Ukraine would ultimately lead to the ousting of President Yanukovych, jeopardizing the gas-for-fleet Kharkov pact, he started planning a countercoup", and never denies Russian engineering of a variety of Ukrainian intrigues.  RGloucester  — ☎ 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no disagreement in the reliable sources, and Wilson's view is in line with those. He says that there were many different analyses, which is true, but in the years since the conflict one of those analyses has become definitive. The historiography of the conflict has EVOLVED, which I don't think is hard to understand. I didn't support this view of events at the time the conflict was happening in real time. I opposed moves to "Russo-Ukrainian War", &c., because reliable sources were conflicted in their understanding of events. With more time to process the events, a clear consensus has emerged, and Wilson goes on to state that viewpoint later in his article.


 * It is Wikipedia's job to reflect the consensus in RS. Wikipedia does not give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE positions, merely for the purpose of creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Reliable sources all agree about the nature of Russian involvement in this conflict...Russian claims that date back to the time of the conflict itself should not and cannot be given equal validity to the general body of scholarship now. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is commendable that is now referencing published sociological research on the topic. Indeed, some common ground is beginning to emerge:
 * It is widely acknowledged, by the rebels and by the ukr govt alike, that the material support from the Russian Federation was decisive in saving the republics from a military defeat. If anyone on the rebel side had seriously contended otherwise, I am not presently familiar with such assessments.
 * The local elites in Donetsk and Lugansk obviously had much influence on the local sentiment towards independence. In particular, the circles around Yanukovich and the Party of Regions had very real concerns for their personal safety.
 * Historical and identity factors are a key explanations of the separatist movement in the Donbas. Perhaps the coverage of this topic can be expanded based on for example (Cordier 2017) and (Loshkariov, Sushentsov 2016)?
 * evidently agrees that conflict had been described at least by some observers until 2016 as a civil war. However,
 * contends that such descriptions had since given way to a historiographic narrative where this conflict is categorized as a Russian invasion of Ukraine, albeit with significant local support. The expansive use the bold typeface and the CAPS LOCK button will assuredly convince many an editor of the righteousness of their cause, however a reference to the published literature supporting such change of narrative would be decisively advantageous. For example, if authors who previously considered the Russian involvement an intervention now call this and invasion, this would present a solid case for restating the narrative of the article.
 * Also, it appears that based their conclusion about invasion on the reports that Russian regular forces supposedly constituted the majority of the fighting forces in the conflict. As is often the case in war, many of the soldiers on the rebel side were taken prisoner and sometimes tortured. Yet very few Russian soldiers were captured, and accidental crossings may be an explanation in some cases. Is there a plausible explanation for the abstinence of a far larger number of captured russian regulars?
 * So far, however, far from being neutral, it appears that is promoting the The Ukrainian strategic narrative of this conflict.
 * Heptor (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heptor, you are missing the point. Clearly you haven't read the content in the edits I've made. The consensus now is that Russian involvement evolved during the course of the conflict. It started out indirect, then went 'hybrid', and finally, culminated in an invasion in August 2014. This is the consensus of all of the RS cited in the Russian involvement section. This is not the 'Ukrainian narrative' of the conflict, this is narrative found in RS, and indeed, my conclusion is only based on reading those RS, not on WP:OR analysis of statistics about how many Russian soldiers fought in Donbass. There was indeed an 'information war' at the time of the conflict, with Ukrainian, Russian, and western narratives all providing conflicting reports of what happened. Such narratives are documented at Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis. However, there is now a consensus in RS about what actually happened, separate from the 24 news cycle of propaganda on both sides that took place during the conflict. It is our job to reflect that. If you want me to cite skewed Ukrainian sources and claim that Russia planned this all out ahead of time, and that there were no real 'separatists', &c., I would refuse. That's not the narrative RS portray. The one they do portray, however, is the one I've explained above.  RGloucester  — ☎ 20:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Allowing to start this reply with a note of agreement, there is indeed a consensus in the sources that the Russian involvement in this conflict escalated over its course. It bears repeating that there is a consensus in the sources, on both sides of the conflict, that the involvement by the Russian Federation was of decisive character. As to the pace of this buildup and its interlining with the buildup of the local paramilitary militias, the reader may for example consult (Lshkariov, Sushentsov; 2016). Relevantly, it mentions that three months of hostilities passed before Moscow decided to provide limited support to the rebels, or reports of local, Ukrainian citizens trying to stop an advancing Ukrainian armed column with their bare hands.
 * The disagreement now appears to be contained in 's statement that "The war that began in 2014 was not a civil war with foreign intervention, but a process catalysed and escalated by local elites and by Russia, with local foot-soldiers." An clarification of this argument may be needed at this time. If agrees that this conflict was "initial[ly] largely native native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government", "catalysed and escalated by local elites", "with local foot-soldiers", perhaps  may consent that some observers could in good faith classify this conflict a civil war and a continuation of the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution? Heptor (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heptor, that's not 'my statement', that's what Wilson wrote. No, I don't agree that anyone could classify this as a 'civil war' in good faith, because reliable sources do not do so, and because attempts to label the relevant conflict as a civil war are rooted in a Russian propaganda campaign that took place during its outbreak, but which has now been widely discredited. This very 'conflict' over terminology is discussed in RS, including in Wilson, and in Finnin and Grant. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet for example Robinson 2016 calls it a Russian military intervention in Donbass, and Clarke 2017 argues that The Russian leadership met the Donbass uprising without enthusiasm, but under pressure from domestic opinion, provided sufficient aid to allow the revolt to survive. There exist several views on the conflict in the public research. It appears that RGloucester is selecting research that is supporting a particular view. Heptor (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of these quotes show scholars calling the conflict a civil war. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They typically call it "Russian militaryintervention in Donbass" and the like, not "Russia's hybrid war against Ukraine", or "Russo-Ukrainian war" as argues should be the singular perspective to be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth, please. I never argued any such thing. It is possible for Russia's actions in the Donbass to have included facets of intervention and invasion at once, which they did, and indeed, that 'hybridity' is considered one of the defining analyses of the conflict. Indeed, the consensus is that, at different times, Russia switched from mere 'intervention' to hybridity, and from hybridity to conventional invasion, and then back again. This is most concisely described in "The Donbass War: Outbreak and Deadlock", linked above. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Given that you have not given any justification for your removal of the statement, I will restore it in twenty-four hours time. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With apologies, had to revert some of your other recent addition despite the ongoing discussion. This is procedural, because the current editing policy prefers the long-standing version, and a revert is the only uncontested way to prevent establishment of a new "long-standing version". Heptor (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heptor??? You're once again removing sourced content, from reliable academic sources, seemingly for no reason. Please explain? RGloucester  — ☎ 01:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These reverts are continuing despite an uninvolved editor (me) stating they disagree with these removals of sourced content. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per discussion on their talk page, it appears that was not aware of an administrative sanction in effect on this page, requiring consensus for editing this article. Certain additions were made by  without consensus, my reversal of these additions is in accordance with this sanction. Although I did not revert these additions immediately, I would argue that discussing in lieu of reverting is very much in the good spirit of Wikipedia collaboration. Heptor (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the question of military intervention or invasion
Should Russia's role in the War in Donbass be described as a Russian hybrid aggression against Ukraine, Russian intervention in an existing civil conflict, or are there reputable academic sources arguing for both perspectives? The discussion in the section above did not result in an agreement, but hopefully shed some light on the existing arguments and the available research. Heptor (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Question Could it be both? --Shrike (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think yes. Heptor (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To sum it up quickly, following publications understand the Russian involvement as an intervention:
 * while the following support the view of a Russian invasion:
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * while the following support the view of a Russian invasion:
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * while the following support the view of a Russian invasion:
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views should be presented in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This RfC is malformed. The sources above are, first of all, cherrypicked, and second of all, are placed into two categories as if they are in opposition to each other. They are not. Heptor has, for whatever reason, ignored the fact that all RS agree that the Russian role in Donbass evolved over time. It progressed from intervention to invasion, and was also both of those things at once at different times during the conflict. These are not mutually-exclusive categories, hence the the term 'hybrid war'. In any case, the consensus of current RS is that the specific events of late August 2014 were an 'invasion', and the sources for this statement were cited in the article until Heptor removed them. This RfC is a farce, and should be closed. If an RfC is to be held, it needs to present a neutral question, not one that is framed in such a way that implies that Russian intervention in a civil conflict and Russian invasion are mutually exclusive, and in opposition to each other.  RGloucester  — ☎ 16:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples of specific uses of disputed sources in this revert. No idea why RGloucester sees their sources as better than those he/she removed. Heptor (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bandeira, I disputed in the above section. He writes from a known far-left perspective that is contradicted by the vast majority of RS. Clarke, I don't object to the claim he made, but rather to its inclusion out chronology with the events in the actual section, seemingly to try to downplay the Russian role overall. More importantly, he is also a far-left activist, writing in that capacity, rather than in any academic one. The last bit about '3 months' is not actually supported by the article linked, and contradicted by all the other sources linked in the article. Another case of WP:UNDUE weight, and more importantly, another attempt to introduce contradictions into the article not actually supported by RS. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * this aggressive rhetoric you are deploying is unwikipedian, but unfortunately characteristic of the public discourse in Ukraine. Consider for example Matveeva 2016, writing that "Puralism in these matters becomes extinct. Left has been discredited and barely has a voice in legitimate public discourse. Emotive and aggressive public rhetoric means that voices of dissent are silenced not by the state, but by the 'civil society'." I don't normally defend 'left', but I guess there is a first time for everything. Heptor (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I myself would be placed relatively 'far' on the political left, if we were engaging in such an exercise. However, people writing from an activist angle (of any colour) are not reliable for statements of fact when contradicted by the vast majority of mainstream sources. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, those are not two equal perspectives. WP:GEVAL. The first one, the aggression against Ukraine, is the main/significant majority view. That second one is essentially the classic Russian propaganda version. It means the intervention by Russia to the alleged civil war on Ukraine, war that did not exist. Simply looking at the edit by Heptor who started this RfC, that is exactly what he trying to push here during the standing RfC ("The Russian leadership met the Donbass uprising without enthusiasm, but under pressure from domestic opinion, provided sufficient aid to allow the revolt to survive"). Yes, but the "uprising" was actually started by Russian agents and undercover military forces (the so called "separatist forces"). So, I would definitely agree with the last edit by RGloucester . As about the bigger change, this is more complex. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what the question here is. Yes, there was a civil conflict back in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Yes, Russia intervened during or after that. But what Russia did after that launching point is seen more and more as Russian aggression. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m also not clear on what this RfC is asking.  Volunteer Marek   08:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020
Change "The latest (29th[51]) ceasefire came into force on 27 July 2020 which led to no Ukrainian combat losses for more then a month." to "The latest (29th[51]) ceasefire came into force on 27 July 2020 which led to no Ukrainian combat losses for more than a month." AlternateHistoryGuy (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and good catch, thank you!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 07:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparent WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal
RGloucester reverted the following addition by Heptor:
 * Russian involvement in the Donbass War has taken a variety of forms since the beginning of the conflict in 2014. The Russian leadership met the Donbass uprising without enthusiasm, but under pressure from domestic opinion, provided sufficient aid to allow the revolt to survive; Putin tried to deflate the conflict and dissuade the separatists from proclaiming independence. Three months of hostilities passed before Moscow decided to provide limited support to the rebels.

This seems to me to be well-sourced. The sources also seem solid. Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, Emeritus professor for History, University of Brasília, St. Leon-Rot, Germany and two Russian academics, all three sources are by decent academic imprints.

Apart from not liking what it says, what's the objection? It does conflict somewhat with the dominant view of Russian subversion, is the problem something to do with Russian domestic pressure having been ginned up by Putin? (POlausible). Guy (help!) 17:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Clarke says, and indeed, that viewpoint is supported further down in the section. My main concern with that piece is that it is being put in the article out of context with the purpose of skewing the overall narrative. Clarke is documenting what happened in the early stages of the conflict. However, the Russian role evolved over time, as is documented further down in the section. Heptor's addition makes it seem as if Clarke was making an overall statement about Russian involvement, but in fact, it is simply a statement about Russian intervention at one stage in the broader conflict.


 * I also agree that Putin tried to deflate the conflict and dissuade the separatists from independence. This is also supported by other sources further down in the section. What I again contest is its insertion at the top of the section, as if it is a broader claim about Russia's involvement, without context. It is not, again. The reason Russia tried to deflate the conflict was because Russia wanted to establish a frozen conflict-type scenario, as documented further down in the section ("Putin insists that this region be given "statehood"--that is, extensive autonomy that would create a frozen conflict inside Ukraine controlled by Moscow, giving Putin a veto over Ukraine's domestic and pro-European foreign policy" Kuzio 481).


 * The final claim about 'three months of hostilities' is directly contradicted by all other sources in the article. I believe that this is an attempt to give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe claim. As the article states now, real Russian military assistance didn't come until May...but they had been assisting the separatists in other ways. Perhaps the issue is not the claim, but again, its provision without context. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, I am not opposed to incorporating these sources into the article, only opposed to their usage in the above manner. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just confusing the issue. There is no disagreement that the Russian involvement was decisive. The sourced additions I made don't agree very well with the other statements that RG recently edit warred into the article, such as Russia would go on to take advantage of this, however, to launch a co-ordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine, When the Ukrainian authorities cracked down on the pro-Russian protests and arrested local separatist leaders in early March, these were replaced by people with ties to the Russian security services, In response to the deteriorating situation in the Donbass, Russia abandoned its hybrid approach, and began a conventional invasion of the region. Heptor (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, they agree just fine with all those statements, except for Bandeira, who as above, I dispute as an RS. The idea that the likes of the Rand Corporation report should be put in the same league with Bandiera is absurd. Talk about WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, call me Ishmael. I've reinstated these two statements, along with some copy-editing. Heptor (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Renfrey Clarke is not a scholar or an expert on the subject, but a "political activist" (click at his name in the title of the page here) - that one? This is not an RS on the War in Donbass. "When the Ukrainian authorities cracked down on the pro-Russian protests and arrested local separatist leaders in early March, these were replaced by people with ties to the Russian security services" Well, but the "local separatist leaders in early March" were already the "people with ties to the Russian security services". My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with RGloucester. That was bad revert and a poor source (an article by a "political activist" from Australia). It is important to know the subject. In essence, saying that "The Russian leadership met the Donbass uprising without enthusiasm, but under pressure from domestic opinion, provided sufficient aid to allow the revolt to survive" is an outright and blatant disinformation. Also, "Putin tried to deflate the conflict and dissuade the separatists from proclaiming independence". What? Yes, sure, Putin said that he wants to deflate the conflict (aka "civil war in Ukraine") after planting the "separatists" and starting the conflict himself. But it is important what he actually did, i.e. continued supporting very same people he initially planted and replacing them by other, even more professional military/GRU people, as this page tells. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking about the anti-American book by Moniz Bandeira, well, I am looking at this : "in February 2015, the militias of the Donbass dealt a hard blow to the Kiev troops in the Battle of Debaltseve, killing anything between 3000 and 3500 government troops". Does not author know that the "blow" was dealt by Russian regular Army, not by militias? "Poroshenko could only govern with the support of the extreme right—the neo-Nazis—...". Does not author know that the extreme right—the/neo-Nazis parties received only a few % during the elections? What kind of expert on the Ukrainian subjects is he? My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said above, this hardly qualifies as an 'RS' of any kind....the writing style itself exposes that it is not a true academic work, just some form of activist screed. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m only peripherally following this conversation, and in the course I had a look at the first source that I noticed cited, above: Clarke 2016. I only scanned it, but that was plenty. Clarke seems to try to stick to facts, but he is very selective, he demonizes Ukrainian Maidan protestors, their government, and their armed forces, citing a “massacre,” while glossing over crimes and human-rights violations by Russian-led militants and Russian forces, minimizing the role of the Russian state in Ukraine, and playing down the occupation of Crimea. By him, Ukrainian centrist party Fatherland is “right-wing,” but while Gubarev’s background in a Russian Federation neo-Nazi organization merely makes him “colourful.”

In his bio, he calls himself a political activist, omits the source of his PhD, and appears to conduct no teaching or research.

In his own authored articles on the website he edits, he promotes his pro-Kremlin political aims much more clearly. Read “Fourth International needs to oppose the war and austerity drive against Ukrainian people” to see all of these biased positions skewed way over, and how he casts the Russian occupation of Crimea as “the re-joining of Crimea to Russia,” when he deems to acknowledge the international crime of aggression at all. Another beaut is “Ukrainian Air Force jet shot down Malaysian airliner,” to see how Clarke swallowed a bunch of transparent Russian propaganda hook, line, and sinker. This “Su-25” conspiracy theory was started by the Russian defence ministry, but was soon discredited and is now abandoned by even semi-journalistic Russian outlets. He even cites some awful fake-news websites in his footnotes. These articles carry no retraction or correction.

Clarke should not be cited for anything to do with Ukraine. Editors, please evaluate what you are bringing here before you generate so much discussion and unnecessary work in dealing with it. —Michael Z.


 * It does seem that there is a consensus to restore to the lead to the pre-Heptor version. I will wait twenty-four hours before reinstating it.  RGloucester  — ☎ 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can just fix current version. I agree, looking at the edits by Heptor, such as, that was definitely not an improvement. But the recent addition by Cloud (one that you copy-edited) was good I think. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done that. The final 'unresolved' matter is whether this conflict should be defined as part of the Russo-Ukrainian War in the lead. Any opinions? RGloucester  — ☎ 20:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there is a problem. The page Russian military intervention in Ukraine was incorrectly renamed to Russo-Ukrainian War because of your vote. For example, the annexation of Crimea was an act of military aggression or intervention, hence a part of Russian military intervention in Ukraine. But a part of Russo-Ukrainian War? No, because the Ukrainians did not fire a single shot. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether someone "fired a shot" or not does not determine whether there is a war...reliable sources do! And, those sources are cited, in both this article and the other article, as referring to Crimea and Donbass as theatres in a "Russo-Ukrainian War". I have no particular desire to fight over this matter, and no more particular bone in the fight. I don't think, however, that we can turn our backs to the consensus that emerged in RS over these past few years. In any case, such discussion should be had at Russo-Ukrainian War, not here. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, the invasion and occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, as well as its intervention in eastern Ukraine, meet the UN’s 1974 definition of an act of aggression (by several of the possible criteria). The Crimea occupation, even without armed military combat, does trigger the protection of the fourth Geneva Convention “Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.” The International Criminal Court made a finding in 2016 that the events in Crimea are definitely an international armed conflict from at least February 26, 2014, to the present, and that information on events in Eastern Ukraine suggest the existence of an international armed conflict there. In simple terms, that is a war.
 * “Your vote”—our community’s vote. Try to move on. —Michael Z. 19:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with everything you just said above. Of course annexation of Crimea belongs to that page, I did not argue otherwise. I only said it was not good renaming of the page. "Try to move on" - what do you mean? My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we refer to the war in Donbass as part of the Russo-Ukrainian War in the lead?
Might as well take a survey, to see what people think. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion – The consensus of the community at the rename discussion applies here as well, and it's clear that RS define this conflict as part of the broader war...so why should we not include that information in the lead? RGloucester  — ☎ 19:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, but let’s not try to pigeonhole everything too much. There are aspects of the conflict that cross the boundary between Donbas War and Crimea occupation, and there are broader aspects that encompass both, and others outside of them, like in the political, economic, information, and cyber realms. —Michael Z.
 * Support. Of course it should, as I said above. What was the reason for starting this section? No one objected in the discussion just above. It is another matter that page Russo-Ukrainian War should be moved back to Russian military intervention in Ukraine, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of this section is to gauge consensus, as the 'consensus required' restriction in effect on this page means that content removed cannot be replaced unless consensus is attained. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Given there has been no objection, I will restore the wording that includes Russo-Ukrainian War. RGloucester — ☎ 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, though belatedly... —Pietadè (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I lost track of this discussion after a while. Something happened in my personal life that demanded a lot of attention (only good things, don't worry). So I just didn't have the stamina to participate here. I generally agree with . Heptor (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2020
tl;dr: Reference 43's link is broken, working link below.

Reference 43 is a Yahoo News link ( Yahoo republishes news articles on their site ) and the link no longer works. Working link from the actual Associated Press site below.

https://apnews.com/article/e2dcda041fa84a7192093bfe98dea55a 2601:204:C080:9520:C0A0:923E:DC46:8CA9 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much – good catch!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 11:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2021

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 14:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

War in Donbass → War in Donbas – After the move of “Donbass” to “Donbas”, this descriptive name for a conflict in Ukraine should be updated for wp:CONSISTENCY.

A G Books Ngram chart shows this war is variously named and capitalized. Unlike, for example, World War II which is always capitalized, names of this subject are not universally recognized as proper names.

Individual searches in the corpus of reliable sources show that the current phrasing and spelling Donbas War is probably the most wp:COMMONNAME out of these variations.

Google Advanced Book Search of English-language pages, with quotation marks, and excluding Wikipedia, per WP:SET, 2014–2019 (accurate estimate of results is only at the top of the last page of results, when you hide the “Tools” menu). Total hits about 8,980:
 * W/war in Donbas*: 1,700 to 1,620 (+5%)
 * W/war in the Donbas*: 1,950 to 1,820 (+7%)
 * Donbas* W/war: 1,310 to 841 (+56%)

Google Scholar Search, with quotation marks and excluding Wikipedia per WP:SET, 2014–2019. Total hits about 3,147:
 * W/war in Donbas*: 1,050 to 730 (+44%)
 * W/war in the Donbas*: 518 to 367 (+41%)
 * Donbas* W/war: 282 to 200 (+41%)

Summing up all of the above, Donbas beats Donbass by 6,810 to 5,578 (+22%)

The total numbers are not huge but the results are consistent. If they are unconvincing, then we should fall back on consistency with the main article and others, and rename anyway. —Michael Z. 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As pointed out below, this would lead to renaming subordinate articles Timeline of the war in Donbass, Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass, International reactions to the war in Donbass, List of equipment used by separatist forces of the war in Donbass, List of Ukrainian aircraft losses during the War in Donbass [have I missed any?]. For consistency, I propose lowercasing “war” in the single exception. Category names would follow, where capitalized War is also the minority (I count 4 of 10, omitting instances in the initial position that are capitalized anyway). —Michael Z. 20:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the subordinate timelines have cap W, which I would change to match their parent. —Michael Z. 20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per detailed and well-sourced nomination. The main title header of the article delineating the region is indeed Donbas, not Donbass. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – If only there were a tool for that. I'm not convinced, give the scarcity of "War in Donbas" in books. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you miss my Ngram link above? If you’re looking at a span of five years, better not use the default smoothing of three. See this version of your chart. And this one. Anyway, like I said, it’s fair to remain unconvinced even by those clearer charts. Then we should use the main article title, and come to the same conclusion. —Michael Z. 05:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per consistency, all of the Timeline of the war in Donbasss should be moved as well—blindlynx (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. FWIW, NYT and the Guardian  still use "Donbass." I think ngrams can be used when they show an overwhelming preponderance of certain usage which I don't see here. Alaexis¿question? 16:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of those articles are rather old, admittedly neither of those sources seem to have used either variant of the word for some time. Articles from this year favour 'Donbas' see: Wapo, BBC , The Times and Reuters —blindlynx (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both those news sites use both spellings for the geographical name. If you look at recent years, NY Times slightly favours Donbas, the Guardian largely uses Donbass. If you search Google News for the last week, Donbas is favoured by 86 to 29 (+197%). You’ll find different usage by particular authors, editors, or websites, but all the general evidence I’ve seen is that Donbas is more common in the corpus. —Michael Z. 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For 2017–present, I get Wapo 56:18 (+211%), BBC 50:42 (+19%), the Times (London) 24:20 (+20%), and Reuters 21:204 (-871%). Each of these numbers is anecdotal, and means nothing on its own. —Michael Z. 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use recent google news to determine the usage. Most of "Donbas" comes from Kyiv Post and many "Donbass" from English-language TASS news. I think we shouldn't use either when determining the usage in English. Alaexis¿question? 10:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Kremlin-owned TASS is listed at WP:RSP as “marginally reliable.” It makes up about 20% of the smaller group. On the other hand, disqualifying independent Ukrainian source Kyiv Post about news in Ukraine because it is Ukrainian is something like “Wikipedia needs more wp:bias.” —Michael Z. 13:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with bias. This is not a question of WP:NPOV but of usage in English-language media. Alaexis¿question? 14:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kyiv Post is English-language media. So I’m not sure why you want to deprecate it. —Michael Z. 14:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against it. My point is that when 9 out of 10 recent google news search results belong to Ukrainian media (Kyiv Post, UNIAN, Ukrinform) it's hardly an argument about the prevalence of a certain variant in English-language media in general. Again, it has nothing to do with reliability. Alaexis¿question? 15:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of google results most reliable sources tend to favour 'Donbas' particularly in recent articles this has been stated a few times now—blindlynx (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. And searches for US place names are dominated by a few sources, like the NY Times, CNN, USA Today, &c. We should weed all of those out to remove certain variants from how English-language media in general name regions in the United States. —Michael Z. 15:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. As an uninvolved reader: is there an ethnic sensitivity to this naming? Is Donbass the transliteration of the Russian name and Donbas of the Ukrainian one? Is the former preferred by Russians and the latter by Ukrainians, seen the dispute over the region? If there’s an ethnic sensitivity, I would be cautious to change the name based on only marginal ngram usage differences. Ideally there would be a stronger argument then. Morgengave (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are the respective transliterations. Thank you for bringing up the subject. The decision on the geographic name was already made when the main article was moved to Donbas. In my opinion it could be considered ethnically insensitive to then pointedly choose not to move the article about a war in Ukraine from the spelling based on the former colonizers’ imposed language, in light of what is going on today. What’s the stronger argument to keep, then? Damned if we don’t, etcetera. I suggest we 1. follow the guidelines, 2. defer to the main article’s spelling, and 3. avoid politicizing this as much as is possible. —Michael Z. 04:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am explicitly only "commenting", being a mirror to what you say. I am sure that the ethnic Russians in Donbas(s) don't see it from the same POV as you do (I am not taking sides; I know a bit of the history of the Russification of Ukraine); many of them will likely see the war as a struggle of self-determination and see Ukraine as the aggressor or oppressor. Generally, we shouldn't rename articles to advance a POV, but we should base it on usage in the English language. If there's only a marginal difference in usage, it is controversial to move the article name as it would seem that Wikipedia supports one of the POVs in the conflict. However, if one of the names is already used in most other articles, then it does make sense to align all others to it (i.e. we should aim to be consistent lest we confuse the reader). Morgengave (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure everyone would agree with your analysis about who sees what as a struggle of self-determination. I don’t think we should get into it here, but one could point out that the “struggle for self-determination” has many Russian citizens in key positions, and two million people left the region, partly because of ethnic, religious, and language oppression by its self-appointed leaders supported by a revanchist foreign power. Anyway, not moving supports a POV too, to stick to the legacy of a colonial history, so we should consider WP:BIAS but mainly stick to our guidelines. —Michael Z. 14:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not making an analysis about this conflict; I am not an expert on this topic at all. I am just saying that, in general, page moves should be inspired by usage, and not by a POV. Anyway, I am, in all friendliness, leaving this conversation, as I won't be able to contribute further. Morgengave (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a very reasonable statement and you’re welcome to stay or go. I am willing to discuss all of the concerns. I’ll avoid being confrontational, but if you bring a POV to the table, don’t be perturbed if an editor presents evidence that some other one exists. If you’re implying that the move to Donbas was somehow not “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic” (WP:NPOV): the move proposal there was grounded in Wikipedia guidelines, factual, and supported unanimously by the editors who responded, so I believe it was. If you have concerns about it, I urge you ask the closing editor to give their view and listen to your arguments, and I believe they can reopen that move if your concerns aren’t addressed. If they don’t, then (from memory) there is also a formal appeal process, but I believe it can only address matters of procedure. I’m not eager to reopen the move, but I’d rather not see editors harbour suspicions about sneaky moves or hidden motives. —Michael Z. 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the main article name change, it was done very quickly and I'm not sure of the outcome if the community had been informed and had a chance to participate in the discussion. Alaexis¿question? 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, wikiprojects were informed and guidelines were followed. I believe you can contact the closer to appeal, if you object to the procedure. —Michael Z. 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is indeed so then there is no point in appealing. Btw which wikiprojects have been notified? Alaexis¿question? 14:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Three WikiProjects are listed at the top of that article’s talk page. The automated notification system posts updates to those projects pages, like the one at WikiProject Ukraine/Article alerts. Project participants can follow these pages to see updates on their watchlist. —Michael Z. 14:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Both wikiprojects Ukraine and russia have automated lists of active move requests in their scope—blindlynx (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * this line of reasoning risks false balance, the overwhelming majority of people living in Ukraineincluding Russian speakerssee themselves as 'Ukrainian' —blindlynx (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing that should matter here is WP:COMMONNAME, not whether one or another variant rights this or that wrong. Any "arguments" about "colonial legacy" or "self-determinations" are, preferably, to be disregarded at sight. The only question that actually worth resolving is whether war in Donbas(s) is a well-established common name on its own (that is: war in Donbas(s) ), which means that we should evaluate its own commonity, not "blindly drawing" on the name of Donbas(s) entity, or is merely a descriptive name ( war in Donbas(s) ), which makes it dependent on the other name. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the case can be made that 'war in donbas(s)' as a single phrase is established as a common name for either spelling. Based on the numbers presented 'Donbas' appears to be common usage albeit fairly narrowly.  In the case that this margin of usage is to narrow we to establish a common name we should use WP:UKR ie. 'Donbas'—blindlynx (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:UKR is merely a page describing the transliteration of Ukrainian and is not a Wikipedia policy on when Ukrainian-language names should be used. Alaexis¿question? 19:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weirdly WP:TRANSLITERATE links to WP:ROMAN that links to WP:UKR. Unless your saying that Ukrainian isn't the appropriate language to be transliterating from per WP:TRANSLITERATE—blindlynx (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what I'm saying. This is a contentious topic and there is no reason to prefer one language to another automatically. Alaexis¿question? 11:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong question. We’re using English, not Ukrainian nor Russian. We’re not translating Війна на сході України nor transliterating Viina na skhodi Ukrainy, nor any variation. This nomination and the guideline posits that Donbas is the most common English name for the region, and furthermore that war in Donbas is also the most common name of this article’s subject so there is no reason to break from consistency with the geographic region’s article title. But if you want to bring non-English names into it, on top of all the above, not a single word of WP:TRANSLITERATE implies that we should impose a Russian name “automatically” on a Ukrainian subject. Going against the guideline this way, in a “contentious topic,” is egregiously inappropriate. —Michael Z. 16:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support – The time has come to implement this change. The nomination is well-researched, and suggests that the common name has gradually shifted toward a definitive 'Donbas', and furthermore, the proposed title is WP:CONSISTENT with the main article at Donbas. Therefore, I support this proposed move. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose google search results for "War in Donbass" and for "Donbass" far outweigh the search results for "War in Donbas" and "Donbas" by 2x and ~1.4x. Donbass is the most common name in English, similar to using Odessa instead of Odesa. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SET let us survey reliable sources by using Book Search and Scholar search, with reservations. Just plain Google Web Search results don’t give us any useful data to fulfil our article-titling guidelines. And even then, your quoted numbers tell me that you ignored the sanctioned procedure in WP:SET, because when I do I get different numbers: only 1.27 and 1.06 ratio. I suspect your figures are meaningless. —Michael Z. 06:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – per nom, in consistency with Donbas --AndriiDr (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2021 (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.
 * Support Donbas has always been the correct spelling, and has a similar degree of search potential. Given how obscure the subject is, the fact we're using an incorrect variation here is probably the only reason Donbass has held out. Change it to Donbas and see. 206.174.216.170 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming "liberation" Operation of Russian in Ukraine 2021
The ongoing military massement of Russian needs a seperaten article. Lovemankind83 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. If something actually happens, we can create a spinoff. Until then, no. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We can wait until something happens. At the moment, rising diplomatic tensions, military build-up in the border, and the normalised artillery fires/minor clashes aren't notable enough to get split. We've got this for now. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  05:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with RGloucester and Solavirum. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Although this current tension does look like it deserves to be mentioned in the lead of this article if it turns out it has a lasting impact on the conflict. But it is to early to say this is the case. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Map
In my humble opinion, a new map should be added to the infobox. The current map is date to 2016, and I believe some changes have taken place, and more changes are bound to happen eventually. Perhaps a map that can be updated like that for the Syrian Civil War, or for the Libya and Yemen wars, would suffice? Thank you in advance. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C8F5:681B:5214:C75E (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The frontline has not changed much since 2016, nor that much since 2014. So this change would not be a big improvement to the article. I can recall that since 2016 Ukrainian military took full control of a few settlements in the "gray zone" between them and their enemy and gained some other territory (most noticeable in the Battle of Avdiivka). But this did not change the frontline much. "and more changes are bound to happen eventually"? I doubt it (and I have been closely following the situation since 2014), and most international experts seem to agree with me (at least that there will not be an invasion of the Russian army and there are no indications that the Ukrainian army nor the self-declared republics will start a mayor offensive that will lead to territorial changes). —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The small changes since February 2015 have been in the grey zone between the front lines, and would barely register on a map of this scale. But it would be an improvement to have a more detailed map with the Minsk-agreement lines and heavy-weapon withdrawal lines of the respective sides, and locations of the crossing checkpoints. The article would also benefit from some visualization of the active phase of the war, perhaps another map of major battle locations, maximum advance of pro-Russian forces, MH17, etc.
 * (I don’t think any expert has stated there will not be any invasion, especially after Shoigu stated the buildup will continue for two weeks.) —Michael Z. 22:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the map is mislabelled. The yellow area appears to represent former militant-controlled territory, but I can’t find definite confirmation. It coincides with the region marked on the “eastern Referendums” map in this BBC article. —Michael Z. 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this “May 20” (2014) map at Euromaidan Press. —Michael Z. 15:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Electronic warfare
, you mentioned the presence of Russian electronic warfare units, however the Ukrainian army also has them (see this OSCE report for example). Since it's only tangentially related to the topic of the section, I would only leave one sentence about the restrictions that the OSCE mission faces. Alaexis¿question? 13:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The topics of Russian EW, drone, and counter-drone warfare against the OSCE and Ukrainian forces has the potential to be expanded quite a lot. —Michael Z. 15:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, based on reliable sources and in the proper place, probably starting with OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. Alaexis¿question? 16:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The summary on page 4 that mentions the EWU seems to be formulated in a bit confusing way "The Mission observed armoured  combat  vehicles  in a government-controlled area of Luhansk region  and on both  sides  of  the contact  line  in Donetsk region, including one  with a probable electronic  warfare system atop it" but then the table on page 6 of the above OSCE report from 2020-12-23 clearly mentions BTR with "probable electronic warfare system a top it" in "Non-government-controlled areas". Also note that EWU can be anything from passive GSM interception to active radio jamming, but the latter were ever only seen on the Russian side, including explicit mentions of anti-UAV systems. Cloud200 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what this is about. That report definitely refers to only one EW system, on the Russian side. Other reports and releases have also identified specific models and included photographs of much more sophisticated Russian EW in Ukraine. A number are listed and cited in List of equipment used by separatist forces of the war in Donbas. There are also interesting articles with more detail on the subject. —Michael Z. 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Splitting the History section into a separate article
I propose splitting the History section into a separate article, as this is one of the longest pages on Wikipedia that isn't a list. The current byte size is 411,951 bytes, and the History section is the longest section, with 256,246 bytes. That will leave this article with 155,705 bytes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Splitting the entire history section off, when this is basically a history article, doesn't make sense. A new article on the post-Minsk II conflict is probably a better idea, since this conflict is very different in nature to the mobile conflict that preceded it. A prime candidate for being removed/greatly reduced is the "international response" section of the article which at this point is basically a list of responses from various points of the conflict - the conflict is not a single event but a series of events spanning seven+ years so what part of it are the "responses" supposed to be to? Also we already have a long section on Russian involvement so why had another section about what the Russians say? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to splitting the history section, as that's the whole meat of this article. I am also opposed to splitting post-Minsk II events, as RS do not seperate the conflict in such a manner. I agree that international responses can be split off. We even have such an article for that purpose, see International reactions to the war in Donbass. We can also split off the combatant section, which is quite bloated. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've just resolved this problem. See Combatants of the war in Donbas and International reactions to the war in Donbas. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Redaction of words "annexion" and "illegal"
In the article there was "annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation", but I change this with "Crimean joining in Russian Federation" an I put the article about this (2014 Crimean status referendum). I think that in the beginning of this article is better to say "joining", because here is about all events in Crimea as an aggregate, which includes and the referendum in Crimea.

In article there was "illegal annexation". I change it with "leagel annexation". That, again, because in Crimea was held the referendum, in which referendum there was 2(two) options: 1) Joining to the Russian Federation                               2)  Restore Constitution since 1992. (Stay in Ukraine) MarsoBG (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the respective articles. The referendum was just a small part of the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and was preceded by demonstrations, the occupation by foreign troops (starting February 20), and the installation of Aksionov as prime minister, and followed by a declaration of independence, formal accession to the RF, and amendment to the Russian constitution, and final capture of Ukrainian military forces and assets (March 26). It was certainly not legal, as each of these elements violated the law of the land and international law, and this is the position of most of the United Nations. —Michael Z. 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "The referendum was just a small part of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation." But the referendum was a hugely important part of the Crimean annexation. That's because the referendum established, beyond any reasonable doubt, the political will of the Crimean people. Since 2014, at least two internationally respected polling firms have gone to Crimea to research the referendum, and have concluded that its results accurately reflected what the Crimean people wanted to happen. It proves that if Kiev had given the Crimean people the opportunity to hold a similar referendum, then they would have voted to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. For this reason, the referendum's results must be given adequate coverage in this article. I believe the article could improved by carefully considering the merits of this point.Kenmore (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. The UN did not confess. But for what are made laws? That's right - for the punishment of crimes to the identity of peoples and for their protection, and etc. But if there is a crime, there must be victims. So in this case, who is protecting the UN. Here, for veracity of the article can not be said to be illegal, because there are no real victims for in favor of which we must punish someone. In addition, there is a legal referendum. Yes, there is russian military troops and changing of the administration in Crimea, but this one who started the crisis was crimean rebels not russian military troops, forces and etc. They solved the problem. And since the referendum is something that confirms that the annexation is not to the detriment to the Crimean people, and since the referendum is de facto after the beginning of the annexation, in my opinion, it is better to write "joining" (for the beginning of the article, where we want to indicate the events in Crimea as a aggregate event). If "joining" is unacceptable for you and for the true, I suggest you write "crisis in Crimea". "Please refer to the respective articles": If you mean that I should specify more reliable sources. The result is no secret to anyone, and it is in all sources on this issue (the result is not controversial) but it is better to refer to another article in Wikipedia. If you mean that I should get better acquainted with the already mentioned article 2014 Crimean status referendum I did it. MarsoBG (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality of the sources could be much better
This article concerns a war. Therefore, the best, and most objective sources of data are reported by outlets that specialize in reporting and analyzing such subjects. Two examples of such media are Janes Defence Weekly and Stratfor. These publications have long standing, favorable reputations as reporters and analysts of military, diplomatic, strategic, and geopolitical issues internationally. Both have been covering the Donbass conflict in detail for many years.

By contrast, information drawn from mainstream media is not always correct or comprehensive. Worse yet, the articles in mainstream media reflect the ideological and editorial biases of the publication. As for official state media and state-influenced media, the reports are suspect because they always advance the rhetoric and political positions of the state's involved.

This is my recommendation for improving the article. Kenmore (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Alaexis¿question? 05:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I explicitly recommended sources like Stratfor and Janes Defence Weekly. I also indicated why these (and similar) sources are ideal. Isn't that specific enough?Kenmore (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please take responsibility for closing the above section?
This discussion is referring to Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The section discussing the importance of the 2014 Crimean Referendum, and how exactly that should be worded in the article (i.e., "annexation or not" question) has been suddenly closed. The only stated reason is that the conversation "is no longer productive." Whoever took the initiative of closing the section is supposed to state their name, though, is that correct? And people who question the appropriateness of closing a section then have the option of addressing the issue on the user's talk page. But nobody's name is associated with this apparently unilateral decision to close the section. Please redress. Kenmore (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did that. The original comment was addressed in January. New comments were in the form of general discussion, not discussing the original request, not suggesting specific changes.
 * Please start new discussions at the bottom of the page. You can refer to a talk page section by copy-pasting its heading text. You can use the “+” tab to start a new discussion. See Help:Talk and WP:TALK for more. —Michael Z. 13:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying that you have closed the issue off from any further conversation. That is problematic, because it indicates that you've appointed yourself as a higher authority who has the power of fiat to decide how much any given (i.e., suggested change) issue will be discussed. I find this to be unsettling.Kenmore (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Kenmore, now that you know who closed the discussion, further conversation about the close should happen at Michael Z.'s user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposed wording was no longer being discussed, since January. I closed that section. New discussions can be started freely, but please be mindful of talk page guidelines: WP:TALK. —Michael Z. 20:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Belligerents
There's been some recent near-edit-warring over who counts as a belligerent in this war, and on what side. My position is that we shouldn't claim a country/organization is a belligerent unless we have citations. I don't believe a YouTube video counts as sufficient evidence. Please bring good faith discussion and sources here so we're not just poorly communicating via edit summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I think we should not rely on Ukrainian and Russian sources to determine the belligerents in the infobox. We could of course note separately that "according to X, Y is a belligerent." Alaexis¿question? 06:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t think it is reasonable to declare a source is automatically unreliable because of its nationality or location. There has to be a real rationale. There have been reliable media, analysts, NGOs, and academics in both states, so it is not acceptable to just smear individuals or organizations because they operate in either country. The environment of media freedom is very different in the two, so it is unfair to lump “Ukraine and Russia” together as if they were the same. And yes, one of the governments denies it invaded and fuels a war in the other’s territory, controls much of the media in its borders and in annexed territory, so it is not accurate to claim they’re equal.
 * Identifying the sources is a good start. —Michael Z. 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "The environment of media freedom is very different in the two, so it is unfair to lump “Ukraine and Russia” together as if they were the same." Michael, this is a very problematic statement. In truth, the degree of press freedom in both Ukraine and Russia is poor. If you don't believe me, then consider the following data from the Press Freedom Index, a measure of journalistic openness, freedom from censorship, and integrity that is published each year by Reporters Without Borders.


 * Ukraine's PFI rating is 36.79, a bad rating described by RWB as being in the "noticeable problems" category. Russia, meanwhile, has a PFI rating of 43.42, which of course is bad, and fits into the RWB category called "difficult situation." Note that the PFI ratings range from 6 (the best) to 85 (the worst). Based on this data, there is not a huge difference between the reliability and integrity of the press in Ukraine as opposed to Russia.


 * Personally, I remember in 2014, when the Battle of Ilovaisk occurred. The Ukrainians I encountered in social media at the time had heard nothing about the battle. They did not believe that a military disaster had occurred, and scoffed at Westerners who insisted that Ilovaisk was true. It turned out that the Ukrainian government suppressed news of the defeat for almost a full week, just for the sake of damage control. That is only one of many examples I have seen over the years proving that most media in Ukraine is indeed operating under some degree of government influence, for reasons of politics. The Reporters Without Borders data I cite above serves to reinforce my point.


 * For these reasons, I respectfully disagree with your views about the reliability of Ukrainian media. I believe the article could be improved if all editors reconsidered their trust of Ukrainian media reports. Kenmore (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael: Anything to say about my post dated June 20, 2021? Again, my point (obviously) is that Ukrainian media, in general, is not a good source of info for editorial content in the Wiki articles. We can improve the article by eliminating a few low-quality Ukrainian media sources.Kenmore (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your link has old data. Freedom House 2021 media freedom rates Ukraine 2/4, the Russian Federation 0/4, overall freedom Ukraine 60%, RF 20%. Reporters Without Borders 2021 ranks Ukraine 97th, the RF 150th. So knowing this, perhaps you’ll suggest we remove sources from the RF? No. We assess individual sources, and list many of them at WP:RSPSOURCES. —Michael Z. 16:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael - I think you misunderstood what I communicated to you. Kindly allow me to explain. My post above concerns media freedom. That's freedom of the press. My information is taken from the most recent rankings by Reporters Without Borders. Your data, by contrast, is taken from Freedom House's rankings of countries according to political freedom. Therefore, you aren't even addressing the point I made, which specifically addresses media freedom and integrity, and not overall political freedom. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Do you understand my point now? Kenmore (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that Ukraine has a higher level of press freedom in general and both countries have some high-quality media outlets. Specifically for this question (who should be mentioned in the infobox as parties to the conflict) I suggested to use sources from elsewhere to avoid arguments about their reliability in this context. Alaexis¿question? 05:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * HI Alaexis - You are very much incorrect in thinking that "Ukraine has a higher level of press freedom in general..." See my original post above, in my discussion with MichaelZ. I've quoted data from Reporters Without Borders. That group assigns a woefully low score to both Ukraine and Russia with respect to press freedom and integrity. Ukraine's rating is barely higher than Russia's. Kenmore (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure it’s good to have a broad variety of sources. But in many places it’s brave local journalists, facing battlefields and unfriendly governments, who are the only sources of some reporting, and we should be careful not to cast suspicion on them as reliable sources. It’s better to evaluate and cite them than to cop out. —Michael Z. 14:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, there is no evidence for NATO, EU and Canada being belligerents whatsoever. Alaexis¿question? 06:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The template suggests this is “the countries whose forces took part,” and these certainly have not, and no commanders or units from them are listed. I will remove them. —Michael Z. 21:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * On the question of russian involvement, I think we can have a section discussing such claims. There is hardly any consensus on the subject so I don't think this information belongs to Belligerents. Some of the provided sources have no value. This only says that russians are funding and equipping separatists. I don't think this is relevant - if it were, we would need to also include countries selling arms to Ukraine (like USA, Canada, Turkey). This mentions "amidst compelling evidence of Russian military involvement" only as background information and with no clarifications. It also includes testimonies of victims from both sides of the conflict - separatists tortured and wrongfully accussed to work for russia; pro-ukrainian prisoners who were guarded by the russian army. I don't think this qualifies as a source for russian involvement - it only restates that such evidence exists and gives some testimonies with questionable credibility. This only explains what Ukrainian Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said. There is also the question of whether other sources (e.g. us army) are biased. Sources are contradictory and there is too much speculation. Russians deny presence of troops in Donbass. The german bundestag has a report saying there is contradictory evidence and not enough information to prove russian involvement (I used google translate). Martinkunev (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Post-conversation comment regarding closed section
[The comment below is regarding the closed move request above,. —Michael Z. 20:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)]

I am making the following comment as an effort to improve the article by upgrading editors' awareness of the facts in Donbass. Specifically, Michael Z made the following remark in April (see above): "...two million people left the region, partly because of ethnic, religious, and language oppression by its self-appointed leaders supported by a revanchist foreign power." My constructive counter-comment is posted below.

The majority of those refugees are native Russian speakers who have taken refuge in Russia. These people left Donbass when the fighting between Ukrainian forces and rebels (supported by Russian troops) began. That stage of the conflict started after Poroshenko sent the Ukrainian army into Donbass, to forcibly impose Ukrainian state control on the region. If not for the Ukrainian military operation, most of these people might have remained in Donbass. My motivation in making this comment is to keep the facts straight concerning our understanding of events in Donbass from 2014 to the present. Doing so will enable us to improve the article.Kenmore (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * False. A large majority was displaced in Ukraine, maybe 20 percent temporary asylum-seekers in the RF, and a small fraction actually received permanent refugee status there. Check sources: I believe the UNHCR has summaries of these figures. —Michael Z. 21:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've checked several UNHCR Operational Reports over the past few years, all of them concerning Ukraine. The data listed in these reports does not support your claims about Ukrainian refugees in other (non-Ukrainian) countries.


 * First, be aware that the UNHCR reports do not give figures totaling all refugees and asylum seekers for the 2014-present period. Rather, the reports yield figures for refugees at different points in time, depending on the date of the UNHCR Operational Report.


 * The reports are consistent in proving that, of all internally displaced people who leave Ukraine to seek permanent asylum elsehwere, the vast majority of them go to Russia. At the end of 2017, nearly 430,000 Ukrainian refugees were seeking permanent asylum in Russia. That's a huge number of people. Clearly, they would not have picked Russia as their ultimate destination unless they were native Russian speakers, possessed Russian or pro-Russian identity, and felt more comfortable among Russians than Ukrainians. This fact is indisputable. If those 430,000 people were - as you claim - Donbass residents fleeing the rebel authorities because of lingusitic or religious oppression, then they would never have gone to Russia. They would have gone to Ukraine. That's a no-brainer.


 * For the period ending in 2017, the UNHCR reports say nothing about Donbass refugees who sought asylum in Ukraine proper. The report merely lists a total of 1.8 million people who are "internally displaced" and/or "living along the point of contact" in the war zone. Note that there's no indication in this report that any of those 1.8 million people are actually migrating west, out of Donbass, in order to shelter or live among Ukrainians.


 * Given this hard data (and note that I've hyperlinked the UNHCR 2017 report above for your benefit), it doesn't look like there's any evidence supporting your claim that Ukrainian asylum seekers predominantly move west into Ukraine, or that they go into Russia only temporarily until they can get back into Ukraine. No support for this claim whatsoever in those reports.


 * The UNHCR Operational Report for the year ending 2019 tends to disprove your claims to an even greater degree. This report indicates that, at this point in time, there were 125,000 Ukrainian refugees seeking asylum outside of Ukraine. Again, the vast majority - over 75,000 - sought permanent asylum in Russia. Most of the rest aimed for European nations other than Ukraine. Clearly, these people have some affinity for Russia, otherwise they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of trying to resettle there. As for the total number of Donbass refugees who shelter in Ukraine proper, the report does not yield any figures. The report merely states the total number of "internally displaced people" and "people living at the point of contact" in the war zone, which is 1.5 million. There's no support whatsoever in the 2019 report for your claim that these individuals are pro-Ukrainians who are oppressed by the rebels and other Russian chauvinists, and that they are migrating westward into Ukraine.


 * The UNHCR Operational Report for the period ending October 2020 provides figures similar to those listed in the other reports. This period lists a total of 87,000 Ukrainian asylum seekers in countries other than Ukraine. 41,000 picked Russia as their country of choice; another 26,000 headed to the EU. Again, there's no data suggesting that Donbass refugees are fleeing inward into Ukraine. A total of 1.68 million people are categorized as "internally displaced people" who are "living at the point of contact" in the war zone. Once again, no data here to validate your claims.


 * Concerning your claim that "only a small fraction" of the refugees in Russia receive permanent asylum, the reports contain no information that substantiates your claim. Nothing at all. Based on the information in the reports, it appears that all of the hundreds of thousands of Donbass refugees who chose to go to the RF are still living there. Regardless of whether those people did or didn't get permanent asylum in the RF, they are apparently remaining in Russia over the long-term. And, as I've said already, Russia was their country of choice for some reason (presumably they are ethnic Russians or pro-Russians).


 * In conclusion, it's a myth - and a big one at that - that most refugees and foreign asylum seekers from Donbass are pro-Ukrainian people fleeing the brutality and the linguistic and ethnic chauvinism of Russian and pro-Russian overlords. In truth, these refugees are people who are caught in the middle of each side's gunfire. The people are a mix of Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers, apparently. Of those who choose to leave Donbass for another country, the UNHCR figures are clear: they are people who have some kind of affinity for Russia, not for Ukraine. Otherwise the majority of these folks wouldn't consistently, year after year, make Russia their permanent destination of choice.


 * I invite you to study the UNHCR reports for yourself, just to see what I mean.Kenmore (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * MichaelZ - It's been almost two weeks since I posted this reply to your (apparently) inaccurate claims about the Donbass refugee situation. I find it odd that you haven't given me a reply. If this is your way of conceding the argument, please say so. That way we can come to an agreement about how to describe the Donbass refugee problem if and when that subject arises in the Wiki articles.Kenmore (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t remember whether I reviewed that WP:TEXTWALL, but I don’t have time right now. Do you have a proposal for a specific edit to the article text? —Michael Z. 16:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The context of this conversation is that you made a (very) erroneous claim about war refugees from Donbass. You tried to substantiate that claim by referring me to UNHCR reports in an effort to substantiate your claim. I read the reports, and proved to you that UNHCR does not say what you claim it says. I don't know why you are being disingenuous about this issue.Kenmore (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Kenmore, Michael Z.'s question is a good one. Do you have a specific improvement that this is all related to? Absent such a request, your comments appear to be forum-style debate inappropriate for this talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Introduction distorts the facts about the 2015 Battle of Debaltsevo
The third paragraph of the introduction makes the following mistaken claim about the engagement at Debaltsevo, which happened in January and February 2015:

''Involved parties agreed to a new ceasefire, called Minsk II, on 12 February 2015. Immediately following the signing of the agreement, separatist forces launched an offensive on Debaltseve and forced Ukrainian forces to withdraw from it.''

In truth, the Ukrainian army launched the offensive at Debaltsevo. That offensive began in January 2015, and led to the Ukrainian troops creating a huge, massive bulge in the frontline. The rebels - and presumably their Russian back-up troops - drew the Ukrainian army into a trap. By late January or early February, the Ukrainian attack force was nearly completely encircled at Debaltsevo. This put the rebels (and Russians) in a position to begin attacking and liquidating the surrounded Ukrainian forces. But before that happened, all sides - meaning Ukraine, the DPR and LPR, and Russia - entered into negotiations. Those peace talks resulted in President Poroshenko signing the Minsk II treaty, which essentially represented a diplomatic defeat for Ukraine. Immediately after this, the rebels (and Russians) allowed the encircled Ukrainian army to retreat to its original front lines. As the Ukrainians withdrew, the DPR/LPR forces followed them, occupying and consolidating control of the so-called Debaltsevo bulge.

Given these facts - all of which are very easy to document by using mainstream media - the article is egregiously in error concerning Battle of Debaltsevo, how the Ukrainian troops got there, how the DPR/LPR retook this ground, and, most importantly, how this battle led directly to the signing of Minsk II.

Can we form a committee to rectify these errors in the article? No doubt the article would be greatly improved by doing so.Kenmore (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've found six New York Times articles to support my claim that the Battle of Debaltsevo was raging well before Poroshenko signed Minsk II on February 12th. I can find many more such data sources if necessary. Perhaps we can proceed directly to improving the article by rewriting the erroneous info (that I quoted above)?


 * Rebels Set Sights on Small Eastern Ukraine Town, By Andrew E. Kramer, Feb. 1, 2015
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/world/rebels-set-sights-on-small-eastern-ukraine-town.html
 * (This article describes the beginning of the DPR/LPR (and Russian) counterattack against the Ukrainian offensive into Debaltsevo. This proves that the battle began long before the signing of Minsk II on February 12th)


 * Dispatch From Debaltseve: Reporter’s Notebook, BY ANDREW E. KRAMER FEBRUARY 3, 2015
 * https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/02/03/dispatch-from-debaltseve-reporters-notebook/
 * (This article describes the Ukrainian army encircled on three sides, and defeated. This proves that the battle began long before the signing of Minsk II on February 12th)


 * World Leaders Meet in Belarus to Negotiate Cease-Fire in Ukraine, By Neil MacFarquhar, Feb. 11, 2015
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/world/europe/meeting-of-world-leaders-in-belarus-aims-to-address-ukraine-conflict.html
 * (This report details the start of Minsk II negotiations, and the article describes the raging, ongoing battle at Debaltsevo. The Ukrainian army is encircled. Thus, this proves that the Wiki article is incorrect in stating that DPR/LPR forces "attacked" the Ukrainians only after Minsk II. Again, the battle of was already in progress, as stated by NYT. Note that Poroshenko fails to admit to the Ukrainian public that the Ukrainian army is trapped. The Minsk II talks didn't even address the status of the encircled Ukrainian forces.)


 * Details of the Ukraine Cease-Fire Negotiated in Minsk, By Andrew Roth, Feb. 12, 2015
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/world/europe/ukraine-cease-fire-negotiated-in-minsk.html
 * (This report proves that Minsk II was signed only after the Battle of Devaltsevo began. Therefore, the battle was in action all along as negotiations took place. The problem is that Poroshenko didn't address the issue of his encircled forces at the peace conference)


 * With Ukrainian Troops Trapped, a Cease-Fire Grows More Fragile, By Andrew E. Kramer, Feb. 16, 2015
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world/europe/ukrainian-troops-trapped-cease-fire-fragile.html
 * (READ THIS ESPECIALLY: this article explains that Poroshenko could not admit that his army was trapped and encircled at Debaltsevo. Poroshenko had to hide this fact from the Ukrainian public, to save face. That's why Minsk II did not account for the status of the large Ukrainian army encircled deep in DPR/LPR territory. For this reason, the rebels (and Russians) had to continue their military attacks, to liquidate the Ukrainians. Again, this NYT article proves that the battle began long before the Wiki article erroneously claims)


 * Ukrainian Soldiers’ Retreat From Eastern Town Raises Doubt for Truce, By Andrew E. Kramer and David M. Herszenhorn, Feb. 18, 2015
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/world/europe/ukraine-conflict-debaltseve.html
 * (READ THIS - VERY IMPORTANT: the NYT article explicitly explains that the Ukrainian army was trapped and inside rebel territory, at Debeltsevo. That encirclement began before Minsk II negotiations started. However - as the NYT article makes perfectly clear - Poroshenko REFUSED to acknowledge his army was encircled, therefore terms for the Ukrainian army's safe retreat were not written into the Minsk II treaty that was signed on February 12th. Thus, the DPR/LPR (and Russians) had no choice except to attack to liquidate the Ukrainians after the signing of the truce. Clearly, that was Poroshenko's fault. This NYT article also explains that, by February 18th, the encircled Ukrainians had either fled out of the thin corridor leading back to safe territory, or they had been captured and disarmed by the DPR/LPR (and Russians). This effectively ended the Battle of Debaltsevo. Once the Ukrainian army was driven away, the combat largely tamped down.)


 * My fellow editors: I think I've proven my point. Can we discuss how to correct the erroneous data in the Wiki article's introduction, in paragraph three? It will improve the article tremendously. I'm open to all suggestions.Kenmore (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The data is not 'erroneous'. Yes, fighting occurred before Minsk II. That is well documented. The point is, right after Minsk II was signed, rather than stop all hostilities as was expected, the DPR/LPR/Russian forces quickly moved to liquidate the Ukrainian positions in the city and consolidate the front line with Debaltseve on their side. What is so hard to understand about that? Whether Ukrainian forces were 'trapped' or not, when a ceasefire is issued, it is expected that all parties to a conflict cease firing. Your reading of these sources is way off the mark. The idea that the Russians were "forced" to "liquidate the Ukrainians" is utterly absurd. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that the Russians were "forced" to "liquidate the Ukrainians" is utterly absurd. But there was a war raging at the time when Minsk II was negotiated. A 6,000 strong Ukrainian army was encircled and entrenched at Debaltsevo. This position was behind the front lines, situated well inside rebel controlled territory. That means the 6,000 Ukrainian troops posed a dire threat to the rebel position. For this reason, the rebels had no choice except to attack and liquidate the Ukrainian pocket. It is positively absurd to expect that the rebels, given the military exigencies at hand, would do anything other than mop up the trapped Ukrainians. I don't see how anyone can fail to understand this point.Kenmore (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I question your comprehension of the facts. Based on your latest remark, I doubt that you even read the succession of NYT articles that I posted. Kindly allow me to restate the problems concerning your reading of Debaltsevo.


 * Right now, the Wiki article does not "document" that the Debaltsevo battle began well before Minsk II. Therefore, you are incorrect in stating otherwise. During this battle, as everyone should know, the Ukrainian army became trapped in Debaltsevo, encircled on three sides by the DPR/LPR/Russian forces.


 * However, for reasons concerning the volatility of Ukraine's domestic political situation, Poroshenko would not (or could not) openly acknowledge that his army was encircled during the Minsk II negotiations. The rebel and Russian position was that the line of truce lay somewhat to the north of the Debaltsevo wedge. Poroshenko negotiated on this basis, but simultaneously, would not discuss terms on the subject of how to move his encircled army out of the rebel controlled territory.


 * The DPR/LPR/Russian negotiating position did not - and could not - concretize a truce that allowed this army to remain positioned within rebel territory. One way or another, the Ukrainian army had to be accounted for by authorities at the negotiating table at Minsk II, to arrange for its withdrawal as part of the planned truce. Unfortunately, this did not happen.


 * Regarding why the Ukrainian army's fate was not addressed by Minsk II, the answer is that Poroshenko needed to save face with the Ukrainian nation. That's because state controlled Ukrainian media had censored any public talk about the encircled Ukrainian army during late January and February. Therefore, if Poroshenko acknowledged at Minsk II that his army was encircled, then the censored news would have suddenly become public knowledge in Ukraine. That news could have triggered a political backlash against Poroshenko at home. Hence the need to keep it secret, before, during, and after the Minsk II proceedings.


 * For these reasons, Poroshenko was in the absurd position of negotiating, and agreeing to, Minsk II while simultaneously hiding from the Ukrainian public that an entire army was trapped behind rebel lines. I'm simply telling you the truth here: this reality regarding Poroshenko's pathetic negotiating position - and his dependency on censorship to hide the truth from his people - was very well documented by Western media at the time.


 * Once Minsk II was signed, given that Kiev and the Ukrainian high command literally ignored the issue of the encircled Ukrainian army, the DPR/LPR/Russian side could not possibly be expected to let the enemy remain embedded deep in rebel territory. Therefore, the rebels and Russians opened an attack on this army, to drive it out of the Debaltsevo bulge as soon as possible.


 * Again, I emphasize that Minsk II did not contain any language guaranteeing the safety of the encircled Ukrainian troops at Debaltsevo. Rather, Minsk II emphasized that the truce lines would be set to the west and the north of Debaltsevo. Therefore, the rebels and Russians had every right to open fire to force the Ukrainian army to beat a hasty retreat north, to return to the agreed upon truce lines.


 * Finally, I must inform you that your accusation of me "not understanding" the facts surrounding Debaltsevo and Minsk II is laughable. I followed the events in question very, very closely during 2015. More important is that the six NYT articles I posted above clearly and unequivocally support my position in this argument. Anyone who reads the articles will agree with me.


 * Kindly reply to the points I've outlined here, carefully addressing the last paragraph in particular (immediately above). I am getting concerned that you might be hijacking the editing of this article, to impute (what looks to me) to be a very tendentious reading of the events in question. Kenmore (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Gloucester: here is another NYT article which proves my point that Poroshenko was not acknowledging the existence of an 8,000 strong Ukrainan army encircled deep in rebel controlled territory. I'll quote the essential paragraph for you. After this, I will find other articles which prove that the Debalstevo bulge was treated by Minsk II as being part of rebel governed territory, without either side addressing the awkward issue of what do to about the 8,000 troops stuck there.Kenmore (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ukraine’s Latest Peace Plan Inspires Hope and Doubts, By Neil MacFarquhar, Feb. 12, 2015
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/world/europe/ukraine-talks-cease-fire.html
 * Sixth paragraph from the bottom of the article: ''"Mr. Putin said that Mr. Poroshenko refused to acknowledge that the separatist forces had surrounded up to 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers in Debaltseve, but the Russian leader said he hoped that consultations between military commanders would settle that matter. Mr. Putin warned that the situation there carried the potential for renewed fighting, but he called on both sides to stop the bloodshed."


 * In summary, Minsk II failed to address the problem of what how to get the Ukrainian army out of the territory designated as being within DPR/LPR lines. More to come.


 * Here's another source from February 2015 acknowledging that Minsk II did not contain any language accounting for the status of the encircled Ukrainian army at Debaltsevo. This source implies that the army's fate was an open question. That's evidence tending to support my claim that the Minsk II cease-fire line did assign the Debaltsevo wedge to the Ukrainian governmment sphere of control.


 * What Did Minsk II Actually Achieve?, by Balázs Jarábik, Feb. 12, 2015
 * https://carnegie.ru/commentary/59059
 * Third paragraph from the bottom: ''"All eyes are now on Debaltsevo, where rebels say they have encircled about 6,000 Ukrainian troops. The future of this little town, an important railway juncture between Donetsk and Luhansk, is said to have prolonged the Minsk discussions into the next morning. The fact that an impending military and humanitarian disaster can be the subject of such debate shows how fragile the situation is in Ukraine."
 * Kenmore (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t taken the time to read all of the above. But according to sources:


 * Trilateral Contact Group, Minsk II Package of Measures (2015), paragraph 1: “Immediate and comprehensive ceasefire . . . and it's strict implementation starting from 00.00 AM (Kyiv time) on the 15th of February, 2015.”
 * Andrew Wilson (2015), The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation, 4th ed., New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p 352: “The second Minsk agreement in February 2015 was even worse. The rebels ignored both, or, as they were so inured to telling lies, claimed they allowed them to do what they wanted, like holding ‘elections’ in November 2014 or taking the key town of Debaltseve in February 2015.
 * Samual Charap and Timothy J. Colton (2018), Everyone Loses: The Ukraine Crisis and the Ruinous Contest for Post-Soviet Eurasia, Routledge: “Five days after Minsk II, Ukrainian government troops took heavy losses in a haphazard exit from the town. Estimates of casualties varied, ranging from one dozen to hundreds, and 100 or more Ukrainian soldiers were taken prisoner. The UN reported that 500 civilians were found dead in their homes.”
 * Mark Galeotti (2019), Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine, Oxford: Osprey, p 34: “Ukrainian forces were eventually forced to withdraw under heavy fire on February 18, leaving behind a shattered city – and also a lesson to the world as to the scale of direct Russian involvement, and the degree to which this could tip the balance.”

Implementation of the OSCE’s observations of the pullback of heavy weapons is quirky as a result of Russian fire ceasing days after the official ceasefire. Russian and Russian-led forces Ukrainian forces withdrawal lines are measured from the line of contact at the moment of the ceasefire, while Ukrainian forces must pull back from the de-facto line of contact after the Russian advance, days later.

Proving when the battle started is irrelevant; everyone knows fighting was ongoing during several failed ceasefire attempts. Minsk II set the exact second fighting was to stop and that was to freeze the line of contact on the ground. But Russian forces decided to ignore the ceasefire, and kept fighting for several days until they had pushed Urainian forces out and captured the important railway and highway junction at Debaltseve. Kenmore’s “evidence” has no bearing on any of this. Saying “I proved my point” doesn’t prove your point. —Michael Z. 20:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Proving when the battle started is irrelevant; everyone knows fighting was ongoing during several failed ceasefire attempts." This point is incorrect, and merely serves to distort the established facts.


 * Essentially, Poroshenko entered the Minsk II negotiations understanding that his army was encircled in rebel controlled territory. He agreed to French, German, and Russian mediation in order to end the fighting, and to extricate his army from its encirclement within rebel controlled ground.


 * Hence, the article should synopsize the enter Debaltsevo battle, from start until finish. Without acknowledging the beginning of the battle, uninformed readers will be confused as to why Russia, France, Germany, Ukraine and DPR/LNR even bothered to conduct negotiations to end the fighting. Kenmore (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Minsk II set the exact second fighting was to stop and that was to freeze the line of contact on the ground. But Russian forces decided to ignore the ceasefire, and kept fighting for several days until they had pushed Urainian forces out and captured the important railway and highway junction at Debaltseve." This statement distorts the facts in several ways. The seven NYT articles I linked explain what I'm talking about. I really wish that you would read those articles, all of which are written by a universally respected media source. Kindly allow me to summarize the point for you below.


 * First, the railway and highway junction at Debaltsevo literally lay within rebel controlled territory. The DPR/LNR/Russian position is that this important strategic point was overrun by the Ukrainian military during its summer 2014 offensive. That explains why the rebels and Russians wanted the town back.


 * The Debaltsevo battle turned into a Stalingrad style defeat of the Ukrainian military, which was encircled by the DPR/LPR/Russian side on three sides. The rebels and Russians were in the process of liquidating the Ukrainian troops when Poroshenko, who needed to end the battle at all costs, agreed to the mediation efforts of France and Germany which resulted in the Minsk II talks.


 * At the Minsk II talks, the rebels and Russians demanded that Debeltsevo and the wedge of territory conquered by the Ukrainians (during their summer 2014 offensive) be returned to the DPR/LPR/Russian side. As the victors of the battle, the rebels and Russians were in a position to expect this concession by Ukraine. However, for reasons concerning domestic political problems, Poroshenko refused to acknowledge that his 8,000 strong army was encircled at Debaltsevo, deep in rebel territory. This failure of Poroshenko to discuss and acknowledge the status of his trapped army impeded the process of signing Minsk II.


 * Note also that at Minsk II the map agreed to by everyone, including France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine and the DPR/LPR, established a final front line that which more or less lay to the north of the Debaltsevo bulge. The ceasfire and consequent truce was signed as if all forces were already set-up behind their respective sides of that line, even though this wasn't exactly true. Therefore, the truce did not address the issue of trapped Ukrainian army, or the Debaltsevo bulge, which according to the Minsk II map didn't exist.


 * The rebels and Russians were dissatisfied with Poroshenko's refusal to discuss the status and withdrawal of his trapped army, which lay well within rebel territory which had been acknowledged by all treaty participants as belonging to the rebels. Therefore, throughout the talks, there was anger on the DPR/LPR/Russian side. The rebels and Russians knew that they had no choice except to use military force to liquidate the trapped Ukrainian army irregardless of Poroshenko's position at Minsk II.


 * From the perspective of the rebels and Russians, Minsk II did not in any way amount to them conceding, or in any way allowing, the Ukrainian side to retain possession of Debaltsevo and the Debaltsevo wedge. In fact, the DPR/LPR diplomats even withheld their signature from the Minsk II treaty for this reason.


 * Once the flawed treaty was signed, everyone knew it was fragile and of questionable legitimacy due to Poroshenko's refusal to deal openly and in words with the issue of the trapped Ukrainian army. There was no way that the DPR/LPR/Russian side would allow Ukraine to hold on to that ground. And there was no way that Ukraine could possibly hold on to the ground given the weak condition of Ukrainian forces. Everyone knew that the rebels would have no choice except to use force to settle the unresolved and inadequately addressed matter of what to do about the trapped army, and how to get it out of rebel territory and back to Ukrainian territory, which lay 20 miles to the north of Debaltsevo.


 * For all the reasons I explain here, the rebels and Russians immediately resumed attacking and battering the Ukrainian army at Debaltsevo even in spite of the vague and incomplete Minsk II treaty. Per terms of Minsk II, Debaltsevo and the wedge lay in rebel territory, and there was no way to enforce this reality except to use combat to eject the Ukrainian troops positioned within the rebel lands.


 * All of this is explained in the seven NYT articles I linked here for your benefit. These essential points should be somehow summarized in the article, as they are indisputable, fundamental facts regarding the battle and subsequent truce negotiations. By stating only that the rebels and Russians attacked the Ukrainian forces after the signing of Minsk II (which wasn't even signed by the rebels), you are giving the reader an incomplete and misbalanced account of what really happened.Kenmore (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

border crossing
When did the insurgents get control of the border crossing to Russia? --Jakey222 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)