Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

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

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)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTRUMP. That's what I think. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yep, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTRUMP. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Considering that the editor of the edit in "MAY/26/2025" at "16:59 UTC" stated in the summary of an edit "no additional opinion/statements".

Considering that all others involved editors in these edits consider that such edit is inappropriate , except me.

Considering that "Cinderella157" an uninvolved editor in these edits agree with the majority of involved editor.

I did created this topic in "JUNE/08/2025" at "04:18 UTC" and we're in the morning of "06/21/2025" in UTC time.

Tomorrow , this topic will be aged of two weeks.

Nearly all involved editors did participated to this topic and only one uninvolved editor did participated.

In these conditions. I will explain what I think only if asked. This message is far to be short.

I consider that explain what I think would be irrelevant considering that there are already a consensus even if it might change in the future.

For all the reasons mentionned above. I "leave the stick" because I think that it's unlikely that this consensus change in a near future.

I hold to thanks the editor who did said "no additional opinion/statements" and all editors who did participated to this topic made by me. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw that @Pofka made edits on "JULY/05/2025" at "09:11 UTC and 09:12 UTCT" that were reverted by "@Rsk6400" on "JULY/07/2025" at "05:03 UTC".

The two edits of Pofka are readable "there".

The edit of Rsk6400 is readable "there".

I did openned this thread for another edit that is older (Refer to the title of the thread) but :

1.Considering that is is a matter very similar to the previous one.

2.Considering that two editors of the previous one are implicated.

3a.Considering that I refuse to do a revert of the revert because I consider that there are a consensus as explained in my message of "JUNE/21/2025" at "06:00 UTC".

3b.Today , I had two new ideas that I haven't before. I'll explain these.

For these reasons. Considering that "consensus can change" even if "consensus doesn't have to change".

I have two proposals based on the ideas mentionned in "3b". Anyone involved in this new matter or the previous one are free to participate or make the choice of silence. The same for uninvolved editors in any of these matters.

Proposal n°1 (Probably the most complex) :

We can create a section concerning reactions by leaders of different countries.

A section by country. A subsection by leaders (For example. Concerning USA , there would be a subsection for Biden and another one for Trump).

The main problem for me is the next. The article is already long.

The second problem for me is the next. It should not be wrote as news because we are writing an encyclopedia.

Therefore , we should to synthetise info and keep the most important reactions but how to consider what is important and what is not ? We can potentially violate "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" without want it , "Wikipedia:Due weight" for example.

The third problem for me is the next. If we practice my proposal. We should think about analysis of these reactions that we can found on "reliable sources". Avoid "Wikipedia:Due weight" could be hard.

Proposal n°2 (Complex but probably most simple than proposal n°1) :

Create an article concerning reactions on this war by world leaders.

If necessary. Create an article for a specific leader and link it to the main article concerning reactions on this war by world leaders.

Concerning the problems that we can have with this proposal in practice.

Refer to the proposal n°1 and what I did named the "second problem" and the "third problem".

What do you think concerning my proposals ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The Russia-Ukraine War

the russia-ukraine war should mainly refer to what started in 2022, not 2014. the 2014 conflict was mostly limited to the donbas region and crimea, with russia backing separatists rather than directly invading. that fighting mostly faded after a ceasefire in 2015.

what happened in 2022 was a full-on invasion by russia across all of ukraine, with airstrikes, tanks, and battles near major cities like kyiv. it turned into a real war between two countries, not just a local conflict. that’s why people usually talk about the war starting in 2022 — because that’s when everything escalated massively.

Imagine we renamed the iran israel proxy war since 1980s to “iran israel war”. This is what this article is. Idk2716639 (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It’s very unprofessional of admins to completely delete any talk discussion or move request related to this subject too. it completely disregards sources and everything Idk2716639 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

There was an RfC at Russian invasion of Ukraine here, which was notified on this TP here. This is a community decision that relates to both articles. Drive by comments that do not consider previous discussion and which rehash arguments already made therein are not particularly helpful and not constructive within the terms of WP:GSRUSUKR. They could even be considered disruptive. Within the terms of WP:GSRUSUKR, it is appropriate for editors (not just admins) to close or remove unconstructive comments - particularly by non-ECP editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

This was no drive by comment.

And even if an RfC was reached, does that not mean we could point out the issues on that considering it’s extremely incorrect? It completely and entirely disregards all sources, and i’m not giving my personal opinion here.

All the supporters provided sources that prove the beginning of the war was on February 24 2022, while opposers rejected the proposal without any source whatsoever. That’s the issue in case readers are wondering what’s my problem with this article. Idk2716639 (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:Article titles

This is the main policy that supports my claim. It says that The title should be recognizable, natural and consistent with the titles of related articles

Specifically:

A title must reflect reliable sources.

It cannot be misleading or invented.

Consensus does not override policy. So even if all editors agree on a bad name, it still can’t be used.

WP:Consensus is not always valid

Even if everyone agrees, it doesn’t matter if the result breaks policy. So if a name is false, it can’t be used

You can’t make the “2014-2022 Donbas conflict” article be called “Russo-Ukrainian war” unless reliable sources widely use that exact phrase. Even if 100% of editors agreed, the name still breaks policy if sources don’t back it. Idk2716639 (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

There is an entire historiography section that deals with the employed 2014 date. This article has held the current title since well before the 2022 invasion (it held it originally in 2014 – eventually moved to invasion – and was re-instated in 2020), because reliable sources have referred to the conflict since 2014 by the term 'Russo-Ukrainian war'. This can be seen in the substantial spike in the term's preponderance from 2014 in book sources shown by Google Ngrams (the dataset is limited to 2022, but post-2022 would see a second far larger spike resulting from the second invasion). Your comments are drive-by, because they demonstrate a lack of context on this article and its history, the topic and the sources employed, Wikipedia's internal processes, the role of administrators, deletion on en.wiki, and archival practices. This is alongside the various plain falsehoods and misrepresentations contained within the remainder. Your opinion has been noted and, at least on my end, discarded. Others may assess your complaints as they see fit. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

HAve we not come out of a move discussion about this a month or so ago? Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Since it closed no-consensus, we can revisit the topic at any point. We are certain to revisit it next year in any event, when the world's media again heralds another anniversary of the war that began on 24 February 2022 and which sources overwhelmingly now refer to as the Russia-Ukraine war. FOARP (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2025

The war ended in April 28th 2025 as Vladimir Putin announced a ceasefire to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of WW2 2A01:11:8D20:4F50:89E4:813B:C857:32EE (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: A ceasefire does not end a war, nor should Putin's words be taken as reliable. — Czello ^(music) 09:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

72-hour ceasefire, not an end to the war. 8 May to the end of 10 May. Which Russia broke anyway [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Second cold war

The conflict should be included as part of the second cold war 2600:1012:B32E:3233:B092:513A:B707:18EB (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This is already done. Read the article "Second Cold War".

The last version was made on "06/22/2025" at "01:46 UTC". Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Missing caps at start of sentence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#War_crimes_and_human_rights_violations

"the UN Human Rights"

should be

"The UN Human Rights" CircleStuddedSky (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Use of CHEMICAL WEAPONS by Russian Military

Intelligence agencies in the Netherlands and in Germany say, that Russian military uses chemical weapons in Russo-Ukrainian War.

• Tageschau.de: Russland setzt verstärkt Chemiewaffen in der Ukraine ein

--92.77.57.126 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Chinese government: Russia must win

In 2025, Chinese government says official, that Russia must win Russo-Ukrainian War. Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi talks to EU-politician Kaja Kallas

• Sueeddeutsche.de: Warum China einen langen Krieg in der Ukraine will --92.77.57.126 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Why China wants a long war from Russia with Ukraine.--92.77.57.126 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

For the record, since it has already been misinterpreted once, 'Why China wants a long war in Ukraine' is the English translation of the title of the Süddeutsche Zeitung article linked above. It'd help IP if you used the {{textdiff}} so that it's clear what change you want to be made and where. I'm not sure that this is the best article for it either, consider either Russian invasion of Ukraine#Foreign involvement or China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine as alternatives. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm the person who did misinterpreted this "there". Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources still overwhelmingly use "Russia-Ukraine war" or similar as the name of a war that began on 24 February 2022.

Examples from Today:

• Al Jazeera - "Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 1,228" (i.e., uses 24 February 2022 as the start-date)
• The Guardian - "Russia-Ukraine war at a glance" and then "What we know on day 1,229" (again, using 24 February 2022 as the start-date)
• Associated Press - The dedicated section for this conflict is entitled "Russia-Ukraine war", the most recently-published news story states in its opening paragraph "Russia and Ukraine struck each other with hundreds of drones on Sunday, throwing Russian air travel in disarray, days after Moscow launched its largest aerial assault in the more than 3-year-old war.". (three years ago is 2022, not 2014)
• BBC - Refers to the war as "War in Ukraine". The most recently-published story in this section on their website states: "War in Ukraine has been raging for more than three years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.". (three years ago is 2022, not 2014)
• Globe & Mail - The section is entitled "Russia-Ukraine war" and begins "Since February 2022, thousands have been killed, millions have fled their homes and many cities across Ukraine have been targeted by Russia as the war continues". ("February 2022" is clear the start of the present war in their view)
• Foreign Policy - section is entitled "Russia’s War in Ukraine" and the most recent story is entitled "Three Years On, What’s Next for Europe and Ukraine?". (three years ago is 2022)
• The i News - section is entitled "Russia-Ukraine war" and is described as "Latest news, analysis and updates on the Russia-Ukraine war after Vladimir Putin launched an invasion following months of tensions from inews.co.uk" (that is the months that immediately preceded the invasion were not "war" in the i's view)
• CBS News - The section that covers this conflict is called "War in Ukraine" (prior to the invasion it was called "Ukraine In Turmoil"), and the most-recently published story states in its opening paragraph "Ukraine said it struck a Russian airbase on Saturday, while Russia continued to pound Ukraine with hundreds of drones overnight as part of a stepped-up bombing campaign that has further dashed hopes for a breakthrough in efforts to end the more than 3-year-old war."
• Reuters - The section of their website is called "Ukraine and Russia at War", the tag-line says "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine started the deadliest war on European soil in more than 70 years" (i.e., the invasion was just the start, not the whole conflict) the most recent story on their website states "Zelenskiy has repeatedly urged Ukraine's Western allies to impose tougher sanctions on Moscow to force the Kremlin to agree to a ceasefire as a step towards reaching an end to the war, now 40 months old." (40 months ago = February 2022)
• Newsweek - coverage is in a section titled "Russia-Ukraine War", the section-description states "The latest on the Russia-Ukraine War. On February 24, 2022, Russia's Vladimir Putin began a military invasion of Ukraine, creating the largest military conflict and the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II." (again, the invasion was just the start, and the period immediately before the invasion was not war in the same sense that what is happening now is).
• Deutsche Welle - The section is entitled "Russia's war in Ukraine" and the description reads "Russia launched a full-scale war on Ukraine in early 2022, an escalation of a conflict that began with Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014." (i.e., the war began in February 2022, what happened before is described as a "conflict".
• The Times - The section is entitled "Russia-Ukraine War", the term is used exclusively for events after February 2022. This section was only created in May 2024.
• New York Times - The section is called "Russia-Ukraine War". This section was created in early February 2022, and prior to 24 February was entitled "Ukraine-Russia news" and "Russia-Ukraine tensions". The situation immediately before 24 February 2024 was not described as "war" by the NYT, this was a term they only used after.
• LA times - The section is called "Ukraine", the most recently-published story says "The pause had come at a difficult moment for Ukraine, which has faced increasing — and more complex — air barrages from Russia during the more than three-year-long war." (i.e., the war began in 2022).
• Washington Post - The section is called "War in Ukraine", this section was only created in early February 2022, and was originally called "Ukraine-Russia tensions".

All of these high-quality, highly-reliable sources describe the present situation as a "war" that began in 2022, not 2014 and not just an invasion. As time goes on this trend only becomes more clear. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, and what do you suggest doing? TylerBurden (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

That we revisit the question of the naming of this article and Russian invasion of Ukraine. FOARP (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Which title do you prefer concerning the article "Russo-Ukrainian War" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian conflict. "Russia-Ukraine war" is the common-name/primary topic for the war that began in 2022. FOARP (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Accorded to my researches. "Russo-Ukrainian war" seems to be a term mainy used on a academic context.

Some examples :

1.Plokhy, Serhii (26 May 2023). The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-1324051190.

2.

3.

4.

I can found instances when this term isn't used on an academic context.

1.

2.

3.https://ukr.warspotting.net/ (A project by volunteers using "open-source intelligence" to estimate loss of material (Drones , Tanks , Vessels etc...) by each sides. Losses are documented). I don't think that we can consider this project as a reliable source because of its way of functionning.

Read : https://ukr.warspotting.net/about/.

If we refer to "WP:USERGENERATED". We can read the next sentence in this "content guideline".

"Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources".

I put the word "generally" in bold while citing the sentence. This is because I think that exceptions are maybe appliable in some cases.

I don't think that we can consider this is a reliable source (For Wikipedia) but I think that I'm maybe wrong.

4. Can we consider this as a reliable source for Wikipedia ? This is a pro-Ukrainian website. Can a partisan website be considered as reliable for Wikipedia in the context of this conflict ? If we refer to "WP:PARTISAN" , I think that we can use this website as sources in some cases. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Russo-Ukrainian war is probably academese and not the WP:COMMONAME for this conflict.

It is also notable that the RUSI source is using it to discuss the war that began in 2022. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

But calling this the Russo-Ukrainian war goes back to 2014. So in fact this has been called it for longer. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"longer" doesn't matter - what matters is what the WP:COMMONNAME/WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is now. Although the fact that this page was called "Russo-Ukrainian war" even before any sources outside Wikipedia were even using the phrase - indeed before any real fighting - does rather point to what's gone wrong here. FOARP (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

But is it a common name if the name was in use longer for a related topic (in fact, the same) topic? [[2]] [[3]], its not clear cut enough to say this is not the same war. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of sources consider the present war to have begun in 2022. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

And I disagree, so let's not bludgeon this, and let others have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw the messages exchanged between @FOARP and @Slatersteven.

My opinion is the next.

1.This article is about the war since 2014.

We aren't historians (Or another kind of academics) and therefore this is not our role to say if this is a new conflict or a new phase of the conflict of 2014.

As an editor , I haven't an opinion on this matter. As a person , my opinion is that the conflict since 2022 is a new phase of the conflict ongoing since 2014.

My opinion as a person doesn't matter because we're on Wikipedia and we're writing an encyclopedia.

We have to assume that "Wikipedia" can't be perfectly accurate because "Wikipedia" try to be the most accurate. The most accurate doesn't means perfect.
Read "Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress:_perfection_is_not_required".

2.There are the article "War in Donbas" and the article consider that this was a phase of "Russo-Ukrainian War". The article about "Russo-Ukrainian War" consider that there are two phases of the conflict.

The phase 1 between 2014-2022 and the phase 2 since 2022.

There are the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine" that consider that the conflict since 2022 is the second phase of the conflict ongoing since 2014.

3.As n°2 demonstrate that articles on "Wikipedia" consider that the conflict since 2022 is not a new conflict but another phase. We can use sources before 2022 concerning the title of "Russo-Ukrainian War" even if we have to take into account that the situation wasn't the same.

4.Concerning "WP:COMMONNAME".

'"Russo-Ukrainian war" is a term with less occurences than others terms.

We can read :

"[...] it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. [...]"

Academic sources and news sources have the particularity to be reliable. The only differences is that they haven't the same purpose.

I put in bold and underlined the world "generally" while citing the policy. I think that this word does means that change an article name isn't systematic.

5.Concerning "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC".

The article is about the conflict since 2014.

"Russo-Ukrainian War" have the same meaning that "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" and "Russia-Ukraine war".

Refer to the message by @FOARP on "JULY/06/2025" at "20:28 UTC".

Therefore , I consider that this part of the policy isn't relevant concerning this case.

"WP:COMMONNAME" is the most appropriate. I did explained in n°4 what I think concerning this part of the policy.

6.I think that we will be unable to reach a consensus. For me , this question isn't important but I hope we will get a consensus. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

On "JULY/07/2025" at "18:42 UTC". A message was leaved by me on the talk-page of the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine".

You can read the edit "there".

Maybe , some editors will be interested. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You have my support on this matter as always. It is clear that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" has fallen into almost complete disuse to describe the current hostilities. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@SaintPaulOfTarsus If we change the name of the article "Russo-Ukrainian War".

Which title do you prefer ?

If we change the name of the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine".

Which title do you prefer ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not feel very strongly about the specifics. I am open to all options that result in the renaming of the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine" to a title containing the word war. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The question is what then happens with Russian invasion of Ukraine, since the invasion (it's obvious bad actors just don't like the fact that an invasion is called an invasion, and we're indirectly satisfying these bad actors with the move, and before someone is offended, I'm not talking about anyone here) itself is a notable event deserving its own article in that case, we're on to the next fun Wikipedia adventure of agreeing on how long the invasion "lasted".

One example is the Iraq War, there the 2003 invasion of Iraq article works as a prelude to the Iraq War article, in this instance the article says the invasion lasted a month.

Now of course these are different conflicts, further complicated by the fact that this war essentially has two major phases, one beginning in 2014 and the other with the full-scale invasion of 2022. So if we go through with this "the war started in 2022" move narrative, what are we doing with this article? Renaming it the Little green men-Ukrainian war? WP:RS generally agree that Russia and Ukraine have been at war since 2014.

What I'm trying to say is that perhaps some more nuance than blindly following WP:COMMONNAME is required here, and things should be carefully considered before we "fix" one problem just to create more. TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@TylerBurden , I read your message published on "JULY/08/2025" at "18:43 UTC".

I can say you that I agree with your message concerning the article "Russian invasion of Ukraine".

But concerning what you call "Bad Actors" , I prefer not to express myself. I consider that the debate have to stay encyclopedic even if I think that I understand what you means.

I have to admit that this war is more than a thing in an encyclopedia because of the political consequences , humanitarian consequences , environmental consequences etc...

I think that it is better to stay encyclopedic because we're on "Wikipedia in English". We're not elsewhere where it's possible to talk about the conflict in a non-encyclopedic context.

I believe that our role is to describe the conflict in the most accurate way including titles for articles.

I agree with you concerning the fact that "reliable sources" generally agree that the beginning of this conflict is in 2014.

The title "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not perfect but this is not possible to find a perfect title.

The majority of "reliable sources" consider that there are two phases of the conflict.

When specifically referring to the phase 2 ongoing since 2022 , it's common for these sources to use the term "Russian invasion of Ukraine" even if a small scale invasion was already ongoing in some territories of Ukraine.

The "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" in 2014 is an example showing that a small scale invasion is a reality between 2014-2022. The same concerning the support of secessionist forces by "Russian Federation" in the course of "War in Donbas" without forget the presence of hidden Russian units.

The full scale invasion of Ukraine is ongoing since 2022. Therefore , I think that the title "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not a problem because the majority of "reliable sources" could use this term while referring specifically to the second phase of the "Russo-Ukrainian War".

Concerning the title "Russo-Ukrainian War" , what do you think ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not common that sources refer to the events of 2022-2025 as an invasion. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have examples of sources that don't refer to the events of 2022-2025 as an invasion ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources you ask for can be found in the first post here (FOARP 16:09, 6 July), where they mostly use the term war instead of invasion.

For example, the FP article refers to the anniversary of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, implying that the invasion is not ongoing as of 2025 and did not extend into 2023 or 2024.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Throw in the fact that the scope of the article is now well beyond Russia invading Ukraine. Combat within Russia is not "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Nearly every high-quality source identifies the present conflict as a "war" that began in 2022, not 2014. The sources that discuss 2014 call it a "conflict". Is there another topic-area on EN WP where the NYT, Guardian, WaPo, Times, etc. all being in agreement on just gets ignored like this? FOARP (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

This question keeps being ignored, like in the RfC, say we go through with the move to whatever you choose, what happens with the article title "Russian invasion of Ukraine"? Are you saying there wasn't an invasion but just a "war"? TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

We have an article entitled "World War Two", the fact it exists does not mean that Germany did not invade other countries. It simply recognises that more things happened after that. Nobody is ignoring anything - if anything this gives us the opportunity to have a more detailed article focusing specifically on the period of the initial invasion. FOARP (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

References