Talk:Armed Forces of Ukraine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Frigates

what are ukraine's 7 frigates? I thought Ukraine only had 2 frigates( the sebastopol being actualy unable to set to sea) and 4 corvettes? User:Domnu Goie

Indeed. Anyway, we have more corvettes than frigates :) . The block is tagged for now. Ukrained 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Internal security during election unrest

This controversial issue is addressed here (and here by me recently). That's why the section is tagged. Ukrained 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I also find the story hard to beleive at face value but NYTimes is one of the most respactable papers and we cannot say that what it wrote is plain BS unless we can find other respectable sources that discredit that article. BTW, the links above "here and here" do not direct to your addressing the issue. --Irpen 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops... The issue is addressed by my edit here. Thanks for alerting. Ukrained 23:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at your edit there and I disagree with this approach. NYTimes rarely publish dubious info, although it happends of course, as with any media. However, if they make a blunder, it becomes known from the media itself, like the Bush's service records published by CBS that were later found out to be forged [1]. You say "not confirmed". This may apply if this is found on some web-blog or a tabloid. NYTimes story cannot be considered dubious until it is rebutted, not vice versa. That said, I find all this hard to beleive myself, but I don't claim the authority in news services and, as a wiki-writer, accept the version of the respected paper, in attributed form, until it is rebutted. --Irpen 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. But I still think we should either rewrite the section or keep tag. The current text looks like documenting the mere facts. Ukrained 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, please rewrite the section by presenting the version in attributed form, similar to what was done in the OR article. Like "According to..." --Irpen 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

T-55

Michael, хто їх знає, що в них in service. Вони, по-моєму, геть усе вже розпродали/розкрали... Military in Ukraine is highly untransparent. AlexPU

I was wondering about the list of equipment here, myself. My understanding is that the USSR was widely equipped with the very latest, but kept a lot of very old equipment in reserve service and war stores. Я не маю поняття що Україна ще уживає. I'll see if I can find a recent Jane's Fighting Vehicles at the library, and look up some realistic information. —Michael Z.

To the best of my knowledge, they were selling the old equipment out in 1990s. That's how Ukraine, producing almost null of armaments in mid-1990s, got on the world's top ten of sellers :). It wolud be interesting to find out what the Jane's knows. Pryvit, AlexPU

I honestly believe that Ukraine doesnt actually have any t-55s IN SERVICE anymore, I'm willing to believe that they have a few stocked up in a warehouse waiting to be sold to some desperate nation but I doubt that there are any in service since there are t-55s in museums in kievs...

A few references "T-55/125 is on IDEF-2003 exhibition in 2003" (in Ukrainian). , "Optical equipment enhancement offer for T-55" (in Russian)., "Engine and weapon enhancement offir for T-55АГМ" (in Russian). and finally in English "17 Lviv Mechanical Maintenance Plant".. And definite count - "12 T-55 tanks" in 2003 "London, UK-based Institute for Strategic Studies appraises Ukrainian Armed Forces' personnel as 295,500-strong".. Ukraine has all thouse repair faculties for countries like Azerbaijan’s (123 T-55), Uganda (about 100 T-55) --TAG 08:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whose is this?

Can anyone tell me anything about this ship? It has both Russian and Ukrainian flag (probably in Sevastopol) and then a Russian navy ensign. And can anyone confirm exactly what kind of this is? P.S. I don't know much about navies. Thanks, Bogdan 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And another, http://www.foxbat.ru/maks/parad_vmf04_/index.php?picid=parad_vmf04_016 ....Bogdan 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

They are Russian. Ukrainian navy has a U and a number - U111. Russians only have a number. Same with Sea Guard vessels. They have - BG111. I'll look for more info. Ракетный корабль на воздушной подушке "Бора" (т.н.615) Парад в честь дня ВМФ России (с участием авиации ВМФ и ВМСУ) в Севастополе (20-25.07.04). Ceriy 12:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine Budget

I am looking for references for the Military Budget of Ukraine, (To update another article, List of countries by military expenditures), most of the references I have come across seem to point to +4 Billion USD expenditure but here it is listed at +1.5 Billion.
Is anybody able to come up with a more reliable source so we can update both articles with a more accurate figure. FFMG (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Source is "White Book for 2007 Defence policy of Ukraine", page 103. Book is published annually by MoD of Ukraine. Figures are listed in hryvnia. Exchange rate is around 5 hryvnias for 1 U.S. dollar. proposed - 9 130,5 mil hryvnias - ~1 826,1 mil $; received - 8 071,1 mil hryvnias - ~1 614 mil $.http://www.mil.gov.ua/files/white_book/white_book_uk2007.pdf Ceriy (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll change it now. Thanks

The papers I had found were quoting 22,3 billion hryvnyas, (http://unian.net/eng/news/news-239282.html). FFMG (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KFOR.jpg

The image Image:KFOR.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Ukrainian in Kosovo.JPG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

To Armed Forces of Ukraine, as it is stated that that is the name.--RM (Be my friend) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed from the lead

I removed from the lead: However, the continuing relationship with Russia complicates these linkages (with NATO operations). Cause it looks WP:OR and not true (in a operational sence). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Spec ops branch

I'm a little confused, does the Ukrainian military have a special forces division? Similar to the Russian Spetsnaz? 112.201.143.96 (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes: 3rd & 8th Separate Regiments of Special Assignment. Ledboots (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Conscription

What happened to conscription? Is it staying, or is it going away? InMooseWeTrust (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Former conscripts with skills such as infantry, or armor, up to 60, though not to be involved in ATO; Airmobile conscripts are involved in ATO. Ledboots (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What does air mobile mean? Those that can fly plans or helicopters? Or those that can be transported by air - can't all of them be transported?

-g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.206.193 (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Armed Forces of Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140529-707812.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armed Forces of Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025041936/http://atocrimea.ukrinform.ua/en/publication/ukraines-volunteer-battalions-the-new-model-army to http://atocrimea.ukrinform.ua/en/publication/ukraines-volunteer-battalions-the-new-model-army

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armed Forces of Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927190220/http://www.afsouth.nato.int/JFCN_Missions/NTM-I/Factsheets/NTMI_part.htm to http://www.afsouth.nato.int/JFCN_Missions/NTM-I/Factsheets/NTMI_part.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Human Rights Violations

I'd like to discuss the Human Rights Violations section of the article - its importance and its location.

The sources provided describe the overall situation for crimes that had happened in War in Donbass. No exact numbers for Armed Forces of Ukraine (UAF) provided, though. The reason is simple - OCHA sources describe crimes committed by actors from both sides of the conflict, and there's no data for Armed Forces of Ukraine specifically. Armed Forces of Ukraine work alongside with other armed groups - police, border guards, national guards, volunteer battalions, etc. So the section isn't about UAF only.

Considering that, I suggest to move the entire section to War in Donbass article or to Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass article, where it would be neutral: it describes some exact conflict, and crimes of both sides will be stated there. --VoidWanderer (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It is already summarized in humanitarian situation in the Donbass. I agree it is distorted to mention Ukrainian forces alone in this section as the original report also mentions the opposing side as well. Kges1901 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe taking away the crimes chapter will violate WP:WEIGHT. The war crimes of the opposing side has to be reflected in corresponding articles. If you are interested in crimes, committed by Ukrainian Armed Forces only here is OSCE report describing them in details. --Blau2018 (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Blau2018, have you read that document? It contains the same mixed data for literally all the bodies and parties of Ukrainian side (SSU, police, National guard, etc). --VoidWanderer (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not true. There are a lot of war crimes described with clear attribution to Ukrainian Armed Forces (for example see p. 22). --Blau2018 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Blau2018, a single evidence isn't sufficient and does not justify the existence of a whole chapter in this article. There should be secondary sources that describe the issue in UAF as a whole. There're no such sources provided so far. --VoidWanderer (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not true again. The UN Reports in the basis of the chapter are the reliable secondary sources. They are based on reports of HRMMU monitoring mission and all of them have clear attribution to atrocities of UAF. Just like the mentioned OSCE document. --Blau2018 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Blau2018, it seems you have no idea what secondary source mean, because you're talking about independent source. Then please tell me how many war crimes were committed by UAF only. --VoidWanderer (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems you have no idea what independent source mean. There is no doubts that the provided sources are totally independent from UAF or Ukraine. And if you wanna know about their war crimes just open the reports and try to read them. --Blau2018 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm convinced now you haven't even opened WP:SECONDARY. Let me quote it: Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. So the question still - can you provide a secondary source that will describe the Human Rights Violations of UAF only? The overall quantity, the nature of crimes, etc? --VoidWanderer (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As to me I'm convinced that you are just twisting the meaning or the rule, cause the reliable secondary sources have already been provided in the current version of the text. --Blau2018 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to my very first post in this discussion. The sources currently provided in the article describe the violations committed by all types of Ukrainian forces as a whole (at best, it actually describes violations of both sides), not UAF specifically. This is the reason we have no sources yet to add any meaningful info to this article but "OCHA had documented some violations committed by UAF". This is the reason why this block should be moved to Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass article. --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your very first point doesnt make any sense. There are more than enough evidences about the war crimes specifically attributed to UAF in the cited reports. For example, page 6 of report 127 documents a looting of private property by UAF personnel and doesnt mention anyone else. The OSCE document describes torture used by UAF, here is one more link with a kidnapping of innocent civilians performed by UAF. I think the section should be expanded and improved using all the missed parts. --Blau2018 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Blau2018, your more than enough is not enough. We should use WP:Reliable sources - secondary and independent.

• OSCE SUPPLEMENTARY HUMAN DIMENSION MEETING. APRIL 2016 - its mostly testimonies of victims, therefore it's mostly a primary source. It does not make any certain conclusions or summaries besides of Ukrainian forces committed crimes, therefore it's not a secondary source for UAF in particular, and hardly a quality secondary source for Ukrainian side as a whole. It was prepared by:

.. a non-state organization ‘The Foundation for The Study of Democracy’ (headed by M. Grigoriev) and the Russian Public Council for International Cooperation and Public Diplomacy (presided over by S. Ordzhonikidze) with the assistance of the Russian Peace Foundation (L. Slutsky, Y. Sutormina), S. Mamedov, I. Morozov, E. Tarlo, D. Savelyev, A. Chepa and other members of the Committee for Public Support of the Residents of Southeastern Ukraine.

so I doubt it's too independent from Russian state. For example, E.Tarlo was a member of Federation Council (Russia) in 2007-2015.

• I've examined the second source you've linked Extrajudicial Violence in Donbas and Its Consequences for Ukraine, and it has literally no mentions of Ukrainian armed forces besides the introduction. It talks a lot about SBU and paramilitaries, and it has some comments like:

Ukraine has been classified as a “partly free” state with a medium level of restrictions on civil liberties.[2] However, since 2014, its score on the “political terror scale” has increased from medium to high, indicating that “murders, disappearances, and torture are a common part of life.” While this deterioration can be partially attributed to widespread human rights abuses on rebel-held territories, the application of physical coercion has also become a standard element of Ukraine’s counterinsurgency tactics.

So I still see a lack of secondary independent sources that describe, summarise and recap crimes of UAF specifically. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop twisting the main point of the discussion. No one uses the OSCE report in the article, the provided information is based on UN data. And all of the data have references to the primary sources, making the point pretty clear. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you aware Wikipedia recommends using secondary and tertiary sources, but not primary, right? --VoidWanderer (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said, there are no primary sources in the discussed text at all. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

About 90% percent of the sources provided consists from primary data. If you had a secondary sources, you'd probably was able to provide a really basic number: how many crimes were committed by UAF or (which is the same) how often. That's what secondary sources do. As long as you have several primary reports, that's not enough to recap a Human Rights Violation chapter in an article like this. --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Total nonsense. I advice you at least to open the UN reports. All of them are obviously a secondary sources, they are based on HMMRU documents with proper links on almost every page. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Provide a total number of crimes committed by UAF then. Should be easy, right? --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What for? It has nothing to do with the discussed topic. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the topic. In a chapter like this, an exact or at least estimated number should be provided. So the reader knows we're talking about dozens, hundreds or thousands of crimes (all of the mentioned). --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, cause the conflict is still ongoing. It is obvious that the total number is much more appropriate in the article about war, not about the participants. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What might be ridiculous about knowing the scale of those crimes? --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the section if you have information about the scale of the crimes. But it cant be a reason to remove the whole section. --Blau2018 (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove the whole section, please pay more attention - I've left the main point that should be clarified by numbers. Like I've said before, in an article like this the section should provide an overall summary, a recap, a brief review. Not the collection of primary sources and accidental mentions that you've brought back once again with revert. --VoidWanderer (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The argument is not valid here and it has already been demonstrated for you. --Blau2018 (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Please quote this alleged demonstration. --VoidWanderer (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Just read the discussion above. It doesn't matter how many times I will repeat the same rationale, you will not agree anyway. --Blau2018 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

On May 7, 2015, three servicemen of the Ukrainian armed forces went on a mission to find separatist collaborators in Sartana, a small town in the Donetsk region. They forced one randomly detained suspect into the trunk of their car, took him to a clandestine interrogation site in the nearby town of Hnutove, and asked him to list all known separatists. After the suspect repeatedly refused, he was brutally beaten and left dying on the outskirts of a neighboring village --Blau2018 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, Blau2018. Can you provide the overall quantity, the nature of violations committed by UAF? I suppose you can't. Because it is a secondary source required that analyses UAF. --VoidWanderer (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again: the secondary sources were provided above with the description of the crimes. It is not my problem that you are not capable to comprehend them. --Blau2018 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Responded to you in this thread higher. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You are wrle to prove". But try it, you'll see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.219.111.88 (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Following the discussion above I remove the human rights section. Count show four people ok with removing (myself include) and only one wants to keep. clear majority form in this case to take out material. as compromise i put some of material into the Conflict in southeastern Ukraine section. this seems the case for other pages which are also under controversial like Syrian Armed forces: no special paragraph but integrate contrvoersy material in article. As for troll accusation, please everybody lets not get into this. we can reduce this kind of bias and not accuse others of being bias. Waskerton (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Іnterim summary

In an article like this every section should provide an overall summary, a recap, a brief review of various aspects of the article's subject. Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) in our case. And when we're talking about every section, that means including the section about Human rights violations.

The section about Human rights violations should not be a collection of primary sources and accidental mentions of UAF. It should provide an exact, or at least estimated, number of crimes committed by UAF servicemen. So the reader knows the scale of the crimes committed - were it dozens, hundreds or thousands of crimes (for every crime type mentioned in the section).

I assume that this point of view is supported by Kges1901 and Buckshot06, experienced users in WikiProject Military history, who particularly take care of post-Soviet states articles. It was supported by some other users too.

On the other hand, there's Blau2018, who hadn't provided a single argument yet why a pack of primary sources, which only occasionally mention Ukrainian Armed Forces, should be presented this way. It seems we're observing a typical POV-pushing by Blau2018. Please stop doing it: WP:NOTPROPAGANDA.

The sources and text which Blau2018 is advocating were moved to War crimes during the war in Donbass, were it fits best. In the context of the War in Donbass, those sources may be considered as secondary, because they provide an overall conclusion for a certain time period (usually, month+) of the conflict. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is supported by me, and yes, I am a long-time military history editor (and, incidentally, an administrator). Blau2018 is not acting in accordance with any consensus, and should heed your words here. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Kges1901 (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@VoidWanderer: @Buckshot06: @Kges1901: Sorry all i am late to convo and forgiveness for my not so good english because its not my first langugage. Why we need to have the section existing at all? I make suggestion above that we can integrate material into other part of the article. In particularly the section called "Conflict in southeastern Ukraine (2014 – present)" Asi understanding wikipedia policy, sections like this are used only as last resort and we try to not use this wehn we can. Also as the material stands now it is only very general things talked about, not specific at all which i do not think should deserve a separate section for this. i look fowrward to yours feedbacks but for clarity i would say take out section and reintegrate into other section. Waskerton (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I have not receive response despite pinging from anybody for this so i will assuming we are ok with changes. I go ahead and remove till later developmnest. Waskerton (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Special Operations Forces of Ukraine.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Military history

It seems quite funny that Ukraine has chosen to retain the honorifics and awards of the Soviet units granted by the Soviet government under Soviet constitution. These awards can never again be awarded to any other Ukrainian unit, and retention of the "Red Banner" is doubly ironic. Seems to be a bit of a first in military history for one country to 'borrow' achievements of another for its armed forces--mrg3105mrg3105 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should the units give those award up, those awards were earned by soldiers who served in them, its part of the units history.Ceriy (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The units no longer exist as is the armed forces (Soviet Army) and the country (USSR) within which they served. Russia may claim the unit histories because it recognises the awarding of the awards of the Soviet era under the current Constitution, but Ukraine does not. Simply renaming the units in the same way it was done after the Second World War and retaining the honorifics is not right because during the Soviet era the units were reflagged also, this means a new flag was issued and the awards were transferred to it by the Central Historical Directorate of the Soviet Army. Where did the Ukrainian units get their flags? In any case, the only reason these units were in Ukraine is because of Soviet administrative assignment and not for any other reason. There is absolutely no connection for most of these units to the current independent state of Ukraine. The awards earned by the veterans are unrelated to the units, except the awarding of the Guards status which has also changed (see the badge?!) Take the 24th Brigade. It was raised in the Urals! How many Ukrainians served in that division? The 24th division has a rather longer history in the military history of Russia and was present at Borodino. Should that be included?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not 100% clear. The 24th Rifle Division fought at Borodino - but when? Against Napoleon or against the Germans in '41? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ukrainians have decided to de-Sovietize their military to the extent they changed uniforms and headgear and adopted NATO style organization, does this mean they'll eventually do the same with unit names. For example, when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe the kept the units but changed their names.Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Size ranking

The article states that Ukraine has the largest army in Europe and the second largest "in the region". If Ukraine is in Europe, then what does "the region" mean? Both Turkey and Russia have more troops, by the way. Russia occupies the largest percentage of the European continent in terms of area among all countries currently in existence and also has a lot more troops permanently stationed in Europe than Ukraine does. 69.206.178.34 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Edited. Can probably be done better. /Julle (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

locking the page

many incorrect grammatical changes (possibly by trolls) 2401:7400:4009:E55:74C9:FA3D:2BAF:8E9E (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

The last sentence in section "1.5 Ukraine and NATO Membership" reads:

 X> "President Zelensky made a renewed call to Western powers for NATO membership during the Russian buildup on the border in 2021 but his plan ultimately fell on deaf ears."

Rewritten to remove rhetorical/biased wording...

 Y> "President Zelensky made a renewed call to Western powers for NATO membership during the Russian buildup on the border in 2021 but was ultimately unsuccessful." 4.15.194.26 (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 13:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 13:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The reference six (army size statistics) might be bad

There are probably better sources for information about Ukrainean army than the Ukrainean Army Pages, which is ad driven site that has nothing to do with Ukrainean government.

The Ukrainean language wiki page has potentially better sources. 93.106.129.69 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please suggest exact change and change "yes" to "no" above Chidgk1 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

I want to update number of active personnel according to Chief of the Personnel Department of the ground Forces Command Headquarters colonel Roman Horbach mobilization of 1st Operational reserve is 100% complete sourse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ecPpzum5M Azerelia (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source per WP:NOYT. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Bias

This section is not biased at all /s: I suggest this be reworked.

"Second phase 2004–2010 - The Yanukovich Catastrophe (2011–2014)" appointment of Russian citizens to the ministry of defense and intelligence downsizing lack of funds for exercise, vehicle maintenance, and even monthly paychecks scrapping and sale of equipment incompetence in, and destruction of the military industrial complex" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fant123 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole thing needs substantial reworking, the constant references to "Russian aggression" are just not consistent with NPOV 175.36.24.216 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

If the RS states "Russian aggression," then that's what Wiki uses. 50.111.56.58 (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I am working on a (slightly) related article and see a lot of this wording (“Russian aggression”) from Ukrainian sources. I think that it stems from Russian insistence on not using the word “war”. I do however agree that it should not appear in wikivoice Elinruby (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

due to the way events have unfolded since and the way the words now pothole i withdraw my objections 175.36.24.216 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Яка армія в світі України?

Хотілось б данні з 2022 коли Україна втримує такого агресора таку стійкість. Або яка нація найбільш сильна. 213.109.224.7 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• English translation of the above "I would like data from 2022 when Ukraine maintains such an aggressor such stability. Or which nation is the strongest." Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not Detached, but Separate

(WP:BOLDLY copied from Talk:704th Regiment of Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Protection Buckshot06 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC))

окремий in Ukrainian has the same meaning as the Russian отдельный and the Ukrainian military uses окремий in exactly the same way the Russian (and previously the Soviet) military uses отдельный. It is when a command echelon is "skipped". A platoon in general reports to a company, a company reports to battalion, a battalion reports to a regiment, a regiment reports to a division, a division reports to an army etc. So if a platoon skips the company echelon and reports directly to a battalion or higher, this is a separate platoon. Same goes for a company reporting directly to a regiment or higher and so forth. The distinction is very important, because:

• a separate unit is normally commanded by an officer one grade higher than a regular unit, because
• a separate unit is reinforced by heterogenous units - for example a separate motor rifle platoon could have an organic tank platoon and an anti-aircraft battery or a self-propelled mortar battery, an ATGM platoon and a combat engineer platoon. As such
• the Soviet and post-Soviet distinction between for example a [regular] battalion and a separate battalion is similar to the NATO distinction between a battalion and a battalion battlegroup, the main difference being that the separate battalion is a permanent organisation and the battalion battlegroup is ad-hoc.
• it is an important distinction also because the separate units are an intermediate echelon, so if a company commander is reassigned as a separate company commander or a battalion commander is reassigned as a separate battalion commander, this is still a career advancement, not just a reassignment.

I tried to make it right, especially in my edits of the Ukrainian Armed Forces pages, but I gave up after keyboard-toating know-it-all idiots follow my edits and **** them up at their will by deleting crucial information such as this, just because they are convinced to be knowledgeable in thing they have absolutely no clue whatsoever and delete crucial information to keep things "tidy and neat" I suppose. Things are only going to get worse. The curse of social media is that people with zero understanding think they are entitled to contribute just as much as anyone else, because they feel like it.B.Velikov (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As per this talkpage message by B.Velikov I have reinserted "Separate" in a number of places where it is especially appropriate.

Split of page

This page is now 140kB, well over the guidelines for WP:SIZERULE. There are a number of other Armed Forces where a detailed breakdown of the structure has been separated; see examples at Category:Structure of contemporary armed forces. I think "Structure of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" might be a handy way of reducing the size of the page. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

I believe that one number is miss-cited. I think Citation 6 should be changed to Citation 11.

Citation 6, supposedly providing the number "245,000" (2022 numbers) does not do so. I think that number actually comes from citation 11 (2021 numbers).

The IISS Military Balance 2022 still uses 2021 numbers, I don't think 2022 exist.

Citation 6, Translated to English: https://www-ukrmilitary-com.translate.goog/2021/05/11000.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Citation 11, Translated: https://www-ukrmilitary-com.translate.goog/2021/02/utrymannya.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Citation 11 is a very good source, by the way. I think that the reporting it discusses for 2021 it may be where the latest IISS numbers come from. I feel like that information should be more prominent, the numbers are very exact. 52.119.114.80 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Someone (not me) changed the number to 196,600, the number reflected in citation 6. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

can someone update the budget and add 16 million+(haven't checked recently) dollars of military surplus from the USA Random kid who likes science (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022 clarification of hitmante

I'm linking Hetmanate to the Hetmanate wiki page to clarify what it means. Random kid who likes science (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Clarification of hetmanate performed but done by expanding prose rather than simply wikilinking. Hetmanate leads to a disambiguation page and that's generally discouraged. —Sirdog (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2022

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: no consensus. Consensus in favour of this phrasing is unlikely to emerge. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Armed Forces of Ukraine → Ukrainian Armed Forces – According to English grammar, as well as international encyclopedias such as Britannica, as well as the Institute for the Study of War. 4Gestur (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Independent-Ukraine

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates 4Gestur (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose  Both are perfectly grammatical, so the first rationale is bogus. Current title is a direct translation of the official name Zbroini syly Ukrainy. ISW uses both names.[2] Britannica doesn’t use a formal name with capital initials at all, only a descriptive phrase with lowercase.[3] The proposal offers no convincing rationale to rename. —Michael Z. 14:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Surveying reliable sources, per WP:SET:

  Google Advanced Book Search:

  • "Armed Forces of Ukraine" -Wikipedia Page 31 of about 27,000 results
  • "Ukrainian Armed Forces" -Wikipedia Page 43 of about 35,200 results

  Google Scholar Search:

  • "Armed Forces of Ukraine" -Wikipedia Page 100 of 5,850 results
  • "Ukrainian Armed Forces" -Wikipedia Page 100 of 1,220 results

  It looks like academic sources in Scholar results are much more likely to use the official name. There is not a single clearly most WP:COMMONNAME. —Michael Z. 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  As you pointed out, the current title is simply a direct translation from the original language. And since, very often, when writing articles, authors use Wikipedia as a primary source, this entails a chain of using the current name. This is what gives the statistics that you provided based on the results of a Google search. This name also creates bad configurations like "...OF the Armed Forces OF Ukraine...".

Why then is it used without the particle "of" in relation to other countries? For examle Polish Armed Forces, United States Armed Forces,Republic of China Armed Forces, Norwegian Armed Forces etc. As far as I understand, within one encyclopedia, all such articles must be standardized and unified. Would this be a convincing rationale to rename? 4Gestur (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mzajac, Michael Z. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because we are reflecting the way Ukrainians use their own language, in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. That rule specifically states that we follow the official useage, unless COMMONNAME clearly indicates otherwise. I have been working on militaries-of-different states article for over a decade; I know of no rule that such name need to be standardized and unified, *unless* no official name is clear. Then, in that case, we use Military of X, thus Military of Ukraine. Here however it's clear, in accordance with MILMOS#UNITNAME: Armed Forces of Ukraine. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  • "...official name is clear." - I understand you mean names like Israel Defense Forces(but then why not Tzahal?) , Bundeswehr, Japan Self-Defense Forces, etc.
  • "...use their own language." - a number of questions arise regarding the translations of other formations:Spanish Armed Forces(not Armed Forces of Kingdom of Spain - Fuerzas Armadas del Reino de España), Polish Armed Forces(not Armed Forces of Poland - Siły Zbrojne Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej) or even Russian Armed Forces(not Armed Forces of Russia/Russian Federation - Вооружённые силы России/Российской Федерации), etc? So it is interesting about this examples, because in their native languages the names of the Armed Forces sound identical in terms of form.
  • According to the WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME:"...armed forces are only provisionally located at "Military of X", and should be renamed"... - Here is the rule that such name need to be standardized and unified. 4Gestur (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:commonname. 103.255.6.252 (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please actually read the discussion before commenting in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as an unnecessary/pointless move, given that our source research so far shows there isn't a single clearly most-common name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please actually read the discussion before commenting in it...(c) Because I have ALREADY counterargued with examples to all the comments against renaming this article. And if you think that such articles should not be brought to a logical and standard figuration, then what kind of encyclopedia is this? 4Gestur (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2022 (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.

Prisoners

From Prisons in Ukraine:

According to the Penal Department of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a number of decrees pardoning 363 convicted veterans of hostilities, who were positively characterized and expressed a desire to defend the state in the ranks of military units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The source is in Ukrainian. If you can check it supports the claim, you can add it to the article. Error (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, that is what it says

Так, за інформацією Департаменту виконання кримінальних покарань Мін’юсту станом на 5 березня 2022 року Президент України помилував 363 засуджених, які відбували покарання у виправних центрах і мали нетривалі строки покарання та ненасильницькі статті

Thus, according to the Department of Criminal Punishments of the Ministry of Justice, as of March 5, 2022, the President of Ukraine pardoned 363 convicts who were serving sentences in correctional centers and had short sentences and non-violent articles.

-Error (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 July 2022

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: no consensus. Consensus in favour of this phrasing is unlikely to emerge. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Armed Forces of Ukraine → Ukrainian Armed Forces – According to English grammar, as well as international encyclopedias such as Britannica, as well as the Institute for the Study of War. 4Gestur (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Independent-Ukraine

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates 4Gestur (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose  Both are perfectly grammatical, so the first rationale is bogus. Current title is a direct translation of the official name Zbroini syly Ukrainy. ISW uses both names.[4] Britannica doesn’t use a formal name with capital initials at all, only a descriptive phrase with lowercase.[5] The proposal offers no convincing rationale to rename. —Michael Z. 14:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Surveying reliable sources, per WP:SET:

  Google Advanced Book Search:

  • "Armed Forces of Ukraine" -Wikipedia Page 31 of about 27,000 results
  • "Ukrainian Armed Forces" -Wikipedia Page 43 of about 35,200 results

  Google Scholar Search:

  • "Armed Forces of Ukraine" -Wikipedia Page 100 of 5,850 results
  • "Ukrainian Armed Forces" -Wikipedia Page 100 of 1,220 results

  It looks like academic sources in Scholar results are much more likely to use the official name. There is not a single clearly most WP:COMMONNAME. —Michael Z. 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  As you pointed out, the current title is simply a direct translation from the original language. And since, very often, when writing articles, authors use Wikipedia as a primary source, this entails a chain of using the current name. This is what gives the statistics that you provided based on the results of a Google search. This name also creates bad configurations like "...OF the Armed Forces OF Ukraine...".

Why then is it used without the particle "of" in relation to other countries? For examle Polish Armed Forces, United States Armed Forces,Republic of China Armed Forces, Norwegian Armed Forces etc. As far as I understand, within one encyclopedia, all such articles must be standardized and unified. Would this be a convincing rationale to rename? 4Gestur (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mzajac, Michael Z. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because we are reflecting the way Ukrainians use their own language, in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. That rule specifically states that we follow the official useage, unless COMMONNAME clearly indicates otherwise. I have been working on militaries-of-different states article for over a decade; I know of no rule that such name need to be standardized and unified, *unless* no official name is clear. Then, in that case, we use Military of X, thus Military of Ukraine. Here however it's clear, in accordance with MILMOS#UNITNAME: Armed Forces of Ukraine. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  • "...official name is clear." - I understand you mean names like Israel Defense Forces(but then why not Tzahal?) , Bundeswehr, Japan Self-Defense Forces, etc.
  • "...use their own language." - a number of questions arise regarding the translations of other formations:Spanish Armed Forces(not Armed Forces of Kingdom of Spain - Fuerzas Armadas del Reino de España), Polish Armed Forces(not Armed Forces of Poland - Siły Zbrojne Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej) or even Russian Armed Forces(not Armed Forces of Russia/Russian Federation - Вооружённые силы России/Российской Федерации), etc? So it is interesting about this examples, because in their native languages the names of the Armed Forces sound identical in terms of form.
  • According to the WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME:"...armed forces are only provisionally located at "Military of X", and should be renamed"... - Here is the rule that such name need to be standardized and unified. 4Gestur (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:commonname. 103.255.6.252 (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please actually read the discussion before commenting in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as an unnecessary/pointless move, given that our source research so far shows there isn't a single clearly most-common name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please actually read the discussion before commenting in it...(c) Because I have ALREADY counterargued with examples to all the comments against renaming this article. And if you think that such articles should not be brought to a logical and standard figuration, then what kind of encyclopedia is this? 4Gestur (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2022 (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.

Prisoners

From Prisons in Ukraine:

According to the Penal Department of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a number of decrees pardoning 363 convicted veterans of hostilities, who were positively characterized and expressed a desire to defend the state in the ranks of military units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

The source is in Ukrainian. If you can check it supports the claim, you can add it to the article. Error (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, that is what it says

Так, за інформацією Департаменту виконання кримінальних покарань Мін’юсту станом на 5 березня 2022 року Президент України помилував 363 засуджених, які відбували покарання у виправних центрах і мали нетривалі строки покарання та ненасильницькі статті

Thus, according to the Department of Criminal Punishments of the Ministry of Justice, as of March 5, 2022, the President of Ukraine pardoned 363 convicts who were serving sentences in correctional centers and had short sentences and non-violent articles.

-Error (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References