Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war

Reason Minsk II agreement was not implemented.

I believe greater attention should be given to the reasons that Minsk II was never implemented, and an analysis of who was to blame for this failure. If Minsk II had been implemented, it is possible the 2022 Ruso-Ukrainian war would have never happened. Revered analysts like Jeff Sachs place the failure of Minsk II implementation on the West and Zhelensky. We need elucidation on this important point. ~2025-43937-52 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

What sources would you suggest to use that satisfy the WP:RS criteria and what exactly should be added to the article in your opinion? Alaexis_¿question? 21:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Just found this one, would that be ok?

At the outset of the war, Putin had no plans to swallow up eastern Ukraine the way he had done with Crimea. He wanted the Donbas to be a part of Ukraine that Russia could control. “It’s a typical Trojan horse,” one of Putin’s close associates told me. “Let them give these regions a special status, some autonomy, and have the Western partners convince the Ukrainians to go along. That would be what we call a suitcase without a handle.” Ukraine would be burdened with a region devastated by war and influenced by Russian propaganda. Its residents—some 3.5 million of them—would support a strong pro-Russian bloc inside the Ukrainian parliament, and they would hinder any of Kyiv’s attempts to integrate with the West. Over time, they might even field a candidate strong enough to take power across the country, just as they had done with Viktor Yanukovych during the elections in 2010. Embedded in the fine print of the Minsk agreements, this was Moscow’s plan, and the Russians talked about it openly.
[…]
The crux of that deal, he said, was the concept of decentralization, which would allow Russia to control the regions of Ukraine that “share the Russian point of view on all the big issues.” The local authorities in these regions would remain loyal to Moscow. The Kremlin could assist them in running political campaigns and launching TV stations. In a pinch, their loyalty could be bought or extracted through blackmail. “Russia would have its own soloists in the great Ukrainian choir, and they would sing for us,” Zatulin said. “This would be our compromise.” If the government in Kyiv accepted this arrangement, he told me, “We would have no need to tear Ukraine apart.”

The fundamental problem with the Kremlin’s position was that it was based on a lie. Putin had always denied the deployment of Russian forces in the Donbas. Their presence in the war zone was well-documented. The world had seen them in news footage, in satellite images, even in the social media posts of the Russian soldiers themselves. But Putin continued to claim, as he had done in Crimea, that these were all local rebels and “self-defense forces,” which Moscow could not disarm.

Jo1971 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

References

No. As Sachs and others have pointed out, the issue started in 2008 with the US push to include Ukraine in NATO, and make it an advance military base against Russia and destroying it's neutrality. This is consistent with persistent US statements about the desirability of Balkanising Russia, and the violation of the agreements not to extend NATO eastward. Russia stated that they viewed this as an existential threat. The Minsk I and Minsk II agreements followed were ratified by the UN and disregarded while Ukraine military was built up by the West. The Maidan revolution was a US regime-change operation. The laws against Russian speakers were a major human rights violation, as they constituted a large portion of the population. After the incursion of Russia into Ukraine in 2022, negotiations for peace in Istanbul happened, which would have meant Donbas would be retained by Ukraine as an autonomous area. The agreement was scotched by the West, who wanted the war as a proxy war with Russia. This has been admitted to various extents by the US. ~2026-35585-9 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

You said many things , so I made a selection of examples. Which "reliable sources" for these affirmations ?

First example , you say that there are US statements about the desirability of Balkanising Russia.

Which sources mention these ? I don't know any statement of this kind.

Second example , you say that there was a violation of the agreements not to extend NATO eastward. Which agreement ?

There was never a formal written agreement concerning this topic.

Third example , you say that the "Maidan revolution" was a US regime-change operation. Which sources say that ?
Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:DENY. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

All your responses above are based on a primitive rejection to see and accept the reality: "I don't know"

There are thorough writings and talks about NATO expansion eastward, coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014, attempts to foment color revolution inside Russia coming from N. Chomsky, J.Mearsheimer, J. Sachs, M. Hudson, many Russian , Chinese, European scholars. ~2026-17554-22 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Extendet-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 march 2026

Infobox change;

Expand war locations to the Baltic Sea (due to Ukrainian strikes on Primorks, Viipuri, and Ust Luga) with spillover expanded to Finland.

Reason;

Spillover to Finland is because today, on the 29th of March, two military drones entered Finland and fell down. One has been identified to be of Ukrainian origin.

Sources:

https://www.reuters.com/world/finland-reports-suspected-territorial-violation-by-drones-2026-03-29/

https://yle.fi/a/74-20217941?utm_source=social-media-share&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ylefiapp

Finfixer (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Done and also added Estonia and Latvia and made it into a footnote because the spillover was starting to take up too much space in the infobox. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-Present)

Both articles cover the same topic and are similarly named, which causes confusion. Both articles contain the same information regarding the timeline and events of the 2022 invasion. Alternatively, perhaps renaming this article to add the years (2014-2021) as an example should help with differentiating between phases of the conflict and whatnot. BlizzardTitan (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

No they do not, the other one only covers the period after 2022. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not both these articles are already pushing WP:TOOBIG at 12,000 and 15,000 words—blindlynx 19:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion is that Russo-Ukrainian war cover events up to the invasion, while the lead (which defines the scope) acknowledges that the invasion is a continuation of the war. This is essentially how we have dealt with war in Donbas. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

we should have an article that's an overview of everything though —blindlynx 18:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Why? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

having an article that gives readers and overview of the whole war is good. Can you think of an article about a war that's chopped up without and over veiw? —blindlynx 01:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge that a top-down approach is more usual but this works best for historical events. This is not what we have here, where the war has been ongoing since 2014. Prior to the 2022 invasion, the war had largely stabilised and consequently, this article was quite stable and a well developed. It was arguably a reasonably good high-level article about events from 2014 to 2022. With the 2022 invasion we now have at least two articles (this article and Russo-Ukrainian War (2022-Present)) that are in a state of flux. My proposal is that the two articles be sequential in time. By this, we would have one stable article and one in a state of flux rather than two. This is not all that novel if we consider them to be chapters in a book where one follows the other. If this was adopted, then we might reconsider having an overall article once the current events resolve to an outcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

As noted below by Anatole-berthe we already have that though what you're proposing is basically to cover the info already in War in Donbas in a different place —blindlynx 14:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

No, not what I am proposing. Up to 2022, this article was not just covering the war in Donbas and the article, War in Donbas, existed prior to 2022. They are not the same. What I am proposing, in simple terms, is that this article revert to its pre-invasion form but notes the events that follow as a continuation of the war (covered by Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)) . This is how we have treated the article War in Donbas, even though the war there did not end in 2022. It was subsumed by the events that followed. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That is this article? Either way I don't think anything should be changed, there was already a reshuffle with the move from Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) and the disparity resulting from that is still felt, it's difficult to cover an ongoing war and there is no WP:DEADLINE for this stuff, the topic area is a mess and I don't think at the moment can handle any major moves/merges/splits. TylerBurden (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah exactly. I don't see a reason for it to change because this article is a good overview of the whole thing—blindlynx 16:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

There are the article "War in Donbas" covering the war between 2014-2022.

There are the article "Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)" covering the conflict between 2022 and now.

There are the article "Russo-Ukrainian war" covering the conflict between 2014 and now.

I oppose to a merge. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Concerning "Russo-Ukrainian war" that is long. Why not made a more general article and create articles based on this article ?

There are the article "Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)".

Why not made an article per year , an article for 2022 , an article for 2023 , an article for 2024 , an article for 2025 , an article for 2026 ? "Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)" could be an article listing articles for each years since 2022 and a general article.

I acknowledge that my idea is far to be the best. In my knowledge , we did never do such thing for a terminated conflict or an ongoing one.

I know examples when a period of many years is covered like "Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453" , "Second Intifada" part of the largest "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" , "Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)". I don't know any example with an article per year. Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Why would Ukraine declare Russia invade its own so claimed territory?

“In 2018, Ukraine declared the region to be occupied by Russia” based on what this says, since 2018, Ukraine has been in charge of Russian military operations in Ukraine as well as Ukrainian military operations? If this is found to be true upon further inspection, it would be breaking news for those affected by the conflict… ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

No, as they have not ordered the Russian army to do it, they are just telling us it has. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Why is “to be” included then? … ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we could just say occupied, but it's not a major (or confusing) issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

So if it’s not a major issue, it shouldn’t be hard for you to tell me: do you think it a war or a special military operation? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Unrealted issue, and read wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

'To declare' does not mean 'to order'; 'to be' simply means 'is'. The phrase as written means that 'Ukraine stated that Russia is occupying the region' not 'Ukraine ordered Russia to occupy the region'. It may be smoother as 'In 2018, Ukraine declared that the region had been occupied by Russia' altering the tense only, but there is no issue as written. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

You merely forgot these words: “in my opinion” ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

In your opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

How would your opinion be mine exactly? ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge with “ War in Donbas”

The “war in Donbas” page incorrectly states that it,” was a phase of the Russo-Ukrainian war” despite the fact the “Russian invasion of Ukraine” occurred about 8 years later. Therefore, I petition this page be merged with the “war in Donbas” page as it should be to avoid misleading readers any further at this juncture. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

No. In fact the first line of this article is: The Russo-Ukrainian war began in February 2014 and is ongoing—blindlynx 15:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

So we travelled back in time to February 2014 to rename it that? Genius. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Almost like that is an example of the very misinformation in which I was referencing. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This article has existed since 23:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC) and has held the title 'Russo-Ukrainian war' since 2016 because that term has been used in relation to this conflict for over a decade. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, so my point still stands that it wasn’t called that when Russia first attacked Ukrainian territory in 2014, so you could understand why it’s weird that they just changed the name of the article as you’ve acknowledged with no explanation as to why… ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Ngrams shows a clear increase in the use of the phrase 'Russo-Ukrainian war' in book publications beginning in 2014. This article just wasn't hosted at that title. There is no they; article titles are determined by discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Right which is why I am trying to have a discussion about the poorly chosen article title. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is it weird? It's become clearer over time that the Donbas war is part of a broader conflict as events have churned on, your argument that the framing of an event cannot be revised doesn't seem to be logical. This is like arguing that the Japanese invasion of Manchuria cannot be considered part of the Second Sino-Japanese War because it wasn't described as such in the immediate aftermath. Joko2468 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Only problem with that line of thinking is that we can’t apply the events of nearly 100 years ago to today. We have more technology now so there shouldn’t be an excuse.

what you said is actually the opposite of the truth, the “Russian invasion” would be part of the broader conflict which started with the Donbas conflict in 2014. Which is why I started posting here in the first place, btw. ~2026-16974-91 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It currently is. Joko2468 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)