Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Add China as Russia supporter

[edit]

China must be added as supporter of Russia. Since the war started, China is giving military supplies to Russia, China also favor Russia on saying the occupied Ukrainian territories are part of Russia. China is a clear supporter of Russia.

Euronewshttps://www.euronews.comZelenskyy says he has information that China is supplying weapons to Russia

The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.comUkraine war briefing: China arming Russia and building weapons on its ...

Sky Newshttps://news.sky.com'Clear evidence' Chinese companies supplying Russia with military attack ... Jones Drew 3907 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

China to be added on the supports Russia side.

Same as here. 'Supported by' is deprecated; provision of arms does not transfer belligerent status. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, its deprecated, so no. Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They may support Russia, but same as the above, they aren’t actually fighting the Ukrainians, just sending materiel. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 11:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“The Ukraine”

[edit]

Please change “the Ukraine” to “Ukraine” in the following text, in the section Russo-Ukrainian War#First months of the war.

As conflict between the separatists and the Ukraine escalated in May, Russia began to employ a "hybrid approach"

142.160.96.197 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in lower case, as we might and also say "was between the IRA and the UK". Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's like saying 'the Ireland'—blindlynx 23:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ukraine" is a historical term used for Ukraine. It’s falling out, and it’s out of context here. Even so, it’s poor grammar. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 11:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on context. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still, no matter the context, Ukraine is the preferred title over The Ukraine in this context. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 16:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagre, I need to see the whole paragraph, not just one line (that may be taken out of context). Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase “The Ukraine” does not appear in the section/paragraph. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 16:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are we being asked to change it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might have been changed already. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 16:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed with [[1]] this edit. I really can't think of a context where 'the Ukraine' is appropriate to refer to the country —blindlynx 00:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's used in the Russian Empire and in The German Empire. It's ancestral now. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 00:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find where 'the Ukraine' is used in either of those articles. Maybe you meant that 'the Russian Empire' and 'the German Empire' are used in those articles? These aren't comparable grammatically. They work because of the -an suffix which converts a noun into adjectival form. This would be comparable to 'the Ukrainian homeland' or 'the Russian nation', which are fine.
The term 'the Ukraine' has a history. It originates from Russian окраина or in English 'the borderlands' or 'the Ukraine'. Today, for Ukrainians it carries the connotation that Ukraine is little more than the outskirts of Russia or of the Soviet Union.[a] Some languages, notably German (die Ukraine) and French (l'Ukraine), still use this vestigial term, but it has mostly left the English vocabulary.
There are only a couple nations in which 'the' is properly used in the official name (The Gambia[b] and The Bahamas) and a few where it is contextually used (the United Kingdom, the United States,[c] the Maldives,[d] etc). Mr rnddude (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, although for the US and UK there's the added reason that even aside from the word "united", the entire first part of the title is in possessive case, which requires a definite article (i.e. The United States of America, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), and is used even when the first word of the possessive phrase is not an adjective, such as in The Republic of Ireland or The State of Israel. signed, Rosguill talk 03:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying it was historically used in Russia and Germany between about 1860 and 1919. They called the region of Ukraine "The Ukraine". Sorry for any confusion. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 11:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ There's also linguistic reasons for an aversion here, including that Slavic languages don't have a definite article
  2. ^ Eponymously named after the river, and is grammatically akin to 'the Nile' or 'the Zambezi' or 'the Congo' which also lent its name to the ROC and DRC
  3. ^ Both because they contain adjectival 'united', and are thus similar to the two empire examples; For US also because 'states' is a collective noun as in 'the States', further examples include 'the United Nations' or 'the European Union'
  4. ^ Because it is attached to a collective noun, like 'the islands' or 'the people', or as in 'The Bahamas' which comes from 'the Bahamas islands'

Lack of Sources

[edit]

There isn’t a single source provided in the entire paragraph. The lack of sourcing continues to the next paragraph as well.

“Beginning in 2021, there was a massive Russian military buildup near Ukraine's borders, including within neighbouring Belarus. Russian officials repeatedly denied plans to attack Ukraine. Russia's president Vladimir Putin voiced expansionist viewsand challenged Ukraine's right to exist. He demanded that Ukraine be barred from ever joiningthe NATO military alliance. In early 2022, Russia recognized the DPR and LPR as independent states. While Russian troops surrounded Ukraine, its proxies stepped up attacks on Ukrainian forces in the Donbas.” WhowinsIwins (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the lead section. Its main goal is to summarise the entire article. It doesn't necessarily need a citation. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, half of that is covered in the Infobox, which has about 10 citations in it, and the rest is drawn from the rest of the article. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 11:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History section is under developed?

[edit]

There seems to be a lot more to say about what has led to these tensions. The American Foreign Service Association has said some of those things.

Students of Russian politics and history would probably have to conclude that the roots of Russian autocracy run very deep, and that replacing them with a democratic model cannot be an easy task. The task is not made any easier by the extent to which sheer survival has been the country’s top concern historically and, in light of that, the relatively secondary importance attached to economic and trade issues and even the population’s living standards. This does not close the path to representative government accountable to the people, but it does suggest that a successful model can only arise indigenously rather than be imported.

This proud but precarious stance makes it imperative that Russia handle itself—and be seen by others—as a great power. This is particularly important because Russia has often been coming from behind, and was looked down on by the more advanced Western countries as an undeserving upstart, a barbarian, or some such.

https://afsa.org/world-through-moscows-eyes-classic-russian-perspective

Russian propaganda seems to be subtly apologetic of authoritarianism, not a mere victim. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/how-the-world-looks-from-the-russian-perspective/

But the role US and North West European foreign policy and third world exploitation still has emotionally/psychologically seems to be under covered. Ybllaw (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the edit of this article in "MAY/26/2025" at "16:59 UTC"

[edit]

Hi everybody ! My message is about the edit in "MAY/26/2025" at "16:59 UTC" that was reverted the same day at "17:04 UTC".
I'm looking for opinions of editors involved and editors that aren't involved.
The two edits are readable "there."

I did considered that it was relevant and so I did reverted the revert of this edit. The editor that reverted the edit put in the summary : "When and if he does soethinw this might be relevant."

I made this revert the same day at "21:19 UTC".
The revert of the revert is "there."

In "MAY/27/2025" at "05:48 UTC". My revert was reverted with the next summary : "obviously not relevant, analogous WP:NTRUMP". The edit is "there."

The same day at "05:52 UTC" another editor made a "dummy edit" with the next summary : "Dummy edit because Rsk6400 got to it first. Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on those seeking inclusion to achieve consensus". The edit is "there."

I think that we can maybe include in the article the edit in "MAY/26/2025" at "16:59 UTC" (Or a modified version) because there was some moves since this edit.

One of these is the next : After that "Donald Trump" said that "Vladimir Putin" had gone absolutely crazy.
Trump said that Putin is "playing with fire" by refusing to engage in "Ukraine ceasefire talk with the Ukrainian side".
"Dmitry Medvedev" did answered that "World War III" is the only "Really bad thing". I think that we can include these moves in the article.

What do you think ? What we should do ? I have some ideas about what we should do but this message is already long.
Ask questions if you want to know more. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTRUMP. That's what I think. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for this opinion with only few words ! Before to say what I think.
I prefer to wait some days to see if others editors (involved or not in these edits) will leave an opinion there.
I don't want to monopolize this topic. Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per RSK, this may well turn out to be nothing, when Trump acts we can sit up and take notice, not when he (quite poossibly) is just gob shiting. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTRUMP. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above. This isn't significant or substantive enough to merit inclusion in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War&oldid=1295340960"