Talk:List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 2

Financial Aid by Germany

I read in this Wiki article :

"Financial aid

• €1.83 billion in bilateral aid since 2014.
• Approx. €4 billion via the EU in the form of grants and loans since 2014.
• €240 million via the EU in loans in 2022."

All of these 3 informations lack the information "until 12.02.2022". See the source there.

The source also says that Ukraine got loans over 350 Mio. € from Germany until 12.02.2022 (to that time, Ukraine could get loans over 150 Mio. € more from Germany, so in total 500 Mio. €).

That "Financial aid" part seems to be out dated anyways ... --2003:E5:771E:1A1:E915:DF45:6E84:124A (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Nazi salute image?

Refers to the image added by @Cimmerian praetor in the revision 11462329550, since 23 March 2023, that seemingly depicts or rather strongly suggests, respectively, an Ukrainian soldier performing a Nazi salute – furthermore, the only image in the article besides the map and which, too, is nowhere else used on Wikipedia [besides French special page].

1. What is the purpose of using precisely this image there?
2. Is the source trustworthy?
3. Is it really informative and objective or just suggestive or, at least, misleading?

David Schopenhauer (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

1. It is not a nazi salute, it doesn't look like one, and I've never seen a nazi salute performed in this way. The soldier is clearlz pointing in the direction that the salvo is being shot at. It is a picture of RM 70 firing, which all have been donated from the Czech Republic, and one particular piece was crowdfunded, which is why that picture is next to the part talking about Czech crodwfunded weapons.

2. I consider Ministry of Defense of Ukraine trustworthy.

3. Sorry, but you are seeing things that are not there. It is informative and objective picture accompanying information about RM 70 being crowdfunded.

I agree a couple more pictures of crowdfunded / donated equipment would be good on the page. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, after reassessing the file, @you are probably right. But, even then, its usage is inappropriate here (WP), since being promotional, partisan, ambiguous, emotionally charged, and distract from the actual information.

1. Obviously, I haven't recognized it correctly. I.a., due to manipulated hue and gamma of the image, the rotation of his arm isn't apparent. Or will it for everybody else? Methodological: Considering omnipresent misinformation campaigns, could it be abused for allegedly showing such?
2. That source isn't said ministry, but some particular profile whose authenticity isn't trivial (to me). Moreover, such source is all but a neutral observer.
3. Hence, again: Is it really objective? Is this depiction neutral, ergo, sufficiently suitable for encyclopedic use? (If including the soldier and gesture.)

David Schopenhauer (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but nevertheless I don't want to waste the time of either of us and so I replaced it with a different picture of the RM 70.

At the same time, thank you for your manners and bringing it to the talk page instead of simply deleting it, as many other users would do.

Have a nice day. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"France was the largest arms exporter to Ukraine between 2014 and 2020".

This is a list of aid, so why has someone suddenly mixed arms export into the matter? Solbaertaerte (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The Dutch Patriot SAM Launchers

The Netherlands already delivered the 2 Patriot SAM launchers last month (in April), according to Oryx (the source of the list of military equipment the Dutch sent to Ukraine). May someone please change the words “to be delivered” to “April 2023”? Maximations (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2023 (2)

Please update the Canada section of the main table to include the latest Canadian military pledge announced on 25 May 2023, consisting of 43 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for Ukraine.

the source is an announcement on the Canadian government website: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2023/05/defence-minister-anita-anand-announces-military-aid-for-ukraine-at-the-twelfth-meeting-of-the-ukraine-defense-contact-group.html

Thank you for your time. Panzerpampfpony (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Borysk5 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Please modify the Austria section of the main table to include the most recent aid announced on the 27th May consisting of €2 million euros from their Foreign Ministry's Foreign Disaster Fund to the International Trust Fund for the purchase of demining equipment for Ukraine.

Source is the Austrian government website. https://www.bmeia.gv.at/ministerium/presse/aktuelles/2023/05/oesterreich-finanziert-entminungsgeraet-fuer-die-ukraine-im-wert-von-2-millionen-euro/

If this aid is deemed more appropriate for the humanitarian aid article I will add it to that table instead.

Thank you for your time. Panzerpampfpony (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Borysk5 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did Switzerland go?|

I can't find them. Did they not send anything? Not even helmets or vests? 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:B87E:8763:BE40:EAC2 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Switzerland was never on the list, as far as I know. Borysk5 (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Switzerland trains Ukrainian deminers. Source - Swissinfo--Artemis Dread (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Switzerland is on the humanitarian aid list. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Egypt and Serbia

Do Serbia and Egypt supply or have previously supplied arms to Ukraine? I read that both of these countries are supposed to deliver but I don't know if it's true. What about them? Know anything? Adijos08 (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Egypt is mentioned in the Pentagon leaks as selling shells to Ukraine via Western countries. However besides the leak there's no proof it actually happened. When it comes to Serbia, Canada bought Grad rockets from Serbia company and gave them to Ukraine (which is mentioned on the page). However there's no proof Serbian government knew about it or was involved so i didn't add it for Serbia. Borysk5 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2023

Please modify the Canada section of the main table to include the most recent military aid pledged to Ukraine consisting of contributions to training of Ukrainian pilots on western jet aircraft, 10,000 105mm artillery shells and 288 AIM-7 missiles, not 287 as stated in the table.

Source is a official statement on the website of the Canadian Prime Minister.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2023/06/10/prime-minister-visits-kyiv-ukraine

Thank you for your time. Panzerpampfpony (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Borysk5 (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Panzerpampfpony Are you interested in receiving extended-confirmed permission so that you can directly edit the article instead of posting in the talk page and wait for someone to edit it for you? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be very convenient yes, I would make sure to properly format and cite any new information regarding military aid to Ukraine. Thank you for your trust in this matter. Panzerpampfpony (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Panzerpampfpony Granted. Cheers. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to add donations to Denmark

Please add the following for Denmark:

-Training of Ukrainian fighter pilots on F-16s (starting this August).

https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-denmark-f16/denmark-to-propose-august-start-of-ukraine-f-16-pilot-training-ritzau-news-agency-idUSKBN2XZ1MT

-Denmark also recently donated another 9000 artillery shells in cooperation with Norway.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/norway-denmark-donate-9000-rounds-artillery-ukraine-2023-06-15/ Bormscrop (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Borysk5 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Denmark has also shipped AT4s.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_april_2022_global_security_army_industry/denmark_has_delivered_at4cs_man-portable_anti-tank_weapons_to_ukraine.html

A list needs to be made for the opposite side

Why are country's support to the other side not listed and documented such as Iran and North Korea. They're mentioned in various articles, but no specific list exists for documenting the details. Sylvester Millner (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Are the aids free of charge?

It would be interesting to see whether Ukraine has to pay for the weapons they receive from each country. To my knowledge, the US signed a Land Lease with Ukraine, meaning, Ukraine will have to pay back for the help provided by the US.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3025302/biden-signs-lend-lease-act-to-supply-more-security-assistance-to-ukraine/ Nakonana (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It depends. Some countries donated the materials, some purchased materials on behalf of Ukraine. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have a column in the table that provide information on this. I was curious about this question and came to this article in hopes that it would have a handy overview. Nakonana (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, none of the weapons for Ukraine from U.S. are land lease. It's all free: [1]. However this list does contain equipment that was purchased by one country from another and given to Ukraine. Borysk5 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. I'm absolutely no expert on the topic, that's why I asked. I've read that things must be paid back one way or the other. So, it might be really helpful if that kind of information would be reflected somewhere in the article. Here are some sources that speak about repayment (not sure about the reliability of the sources, though):

https://thegeopolitics.com/myths-over-ukraine-military-aid-how-the-lend-lease-works/

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/ukraine-war-dispelling-popular-lend-lease-myths/

Given the domain names of these two, I have to wonder whether there's a link between them.

And then there's also the Wikipedia article on the lend lease that cites the text of the lease:

"Any loan or lease of defense articles to the Government of Ukraine under paragraph (1) shall be subject to all applicable laws concerning the return of and reimbursement and repayment for defense articles loan or leased to foreign governments."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Democracy_Defense_Lend-Lease_Act_of_2022

So, now I'm confused. Is it just that weapons from the US are free of charge while other types of aid are not? Or what exactly is it that needs to be paid back (if anything needs to be paid back at all)?

It would also be interesting to see that kind of information on the aid of other countries. I only brought up the US as an example because I heard about the lend lease. I also heard that some countries don't ask for repayments, but I don't know which countries. Nakonana (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything military the US has given so far has been under the PDA (Presidential Drawdown Authority) or USAI (Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative) mechanisms. Lend-lease exists but hasn't been used yet. It seems the Biden administation is keeping the Lend-lease mechanism in reserve in case Congress is unwilling to authorize and appropriate additional funds for Ukraine - because Lend-lease is a loan, not a gift, it doesn't need funding from Congress - just renewal. 82.194.220.91 (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Not relevant and unsourced"

"Most of the South American, African and Asian countries (or roughly the 75% of wolrd countries) haven't provided any military aid to Ukraine." [2]

How isn't it relevant? It's utterly relevant to state that only around 25% of countries provided military aid, despite all the pressure by West. The position of the 75% of countries on Earth is irrelevant? Unsourced? It's inferred from the information, no source needed.

While the West add fuel to the fire, a whole continent like Africa prefers to be neutral and contribute to peace, peace plan and mediation efforts aren't even mentioned in this article or in Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Then we have to read how Wikipedia talk a lot about the Global South and to do many activities in those countries, while in practice any position that is out of the West mindset is ignored. emijrp (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Please keep your personal opinions about the "West" off the Talk Pages, and discuss Reliable Sources to improve the article. Your own view is less than useless here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@HammerFilmFan Let's not feed the troll. The June 9 version of the "Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine page had a whole section on Chinese peace proposal and contents about Brazil. Either it was wilful blindness or they're simply trolling. I'm pinging RadioactiveBoulevardier as he restored the troll's comment despite a clear violation of using the talk page as a forum/sopabox that was correctly removed by an IP. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason I restored the comment was that I came across it in the course of combing said IP's long contrib list for bad behavior after noticing a pattern of them systematically erasing talk page posts, some of which, in my view, fell, at worst, in a gray area. The IP has demonstrated a familiarity with WP protocols that on some points is more extensive than my own, yet consistently has chosen boldness instead of caution re: WP:TALKO in the course of a larger pattern of serious civility issues, 3RR violations (in one case a hardened editor well-known for controversy intentionally spared them when reporting an edit war at ANI on the clearly irrelevant grounds that IP was more correct about the content), and other egregious behaviors flagrantly inconsistent with encyclopedic courtesy.

Yes, this IP has, not infrequently, been shown to have been technically correct on the points of the matter they dispute. However, if they were a logged in user and/or not acting from a POV that the editing population happens to be highly sympathetic to, they would probably have long since acquired a reputation and perhaps also a block log.

In my edit summary I wrote (emphasis added): "unless tp guidelines have been unambiguously violated, POV-motivated habitual suppression of others’ views is unacceptable".

The thinking behind my evaluation of Emijrp's message was that although I didn't necessarily agree wholly, they hardly appeared to be acting in a way that warranted erasure. Particularly as the issue of viewpoints other than that of the editing population not being given WP:DUE weight is a very serious one that absolutely needs to be aired.

If you want, as you put it, Reliable Sources, I can fish out an article from the Ugandan Independent that I came across last week, for starters.

I base such decisions on the typical practices at TPs such as Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, where AGF posters are typically either given a succinct, calm response, or ignored.

This sort of hair-trigger erasure can quickly become an extremely deplorable habit and should be avoided as a matter of principle lest it become a practice or, heaven forbid, a norm.

If others disagree with the general problem re: the Western vs. Global South viewpoint, I'd respectfully ask them to try zooming out a bit and flying around with the camera. There are many methods of doing this, ranging from Marshall Rosenberg's Non-Violent Communication method to astral travel. For example, have a look at this issue that I fixed here, which was accepted by the many watchers of that page and even thanked by one of them.

Or, for a particularly stark example, have a gander at the differences between WP's verbose treatment of the Ukrainian refugee crisis (2022–present), complete with pathos-laden topline image of an adorable little blond girl, and its coverage of some other comparable and/or concurrent refugee crises, such as the one resulting from the Tigray War.

Also, as far as I'm aware, Emijrp has little history of controversy before recent and occasional RUSUKR edits regarding possible issues of a large-scale Anglosphere POV.

I also think it's interesting that the first response, later characterized by a third editor as "feeding the troll", was a bit uncivil itself 🤔

That's why I did that.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary said "Manually rv..." which means you had read through the content and did not agree with the IP's removal at that time. I'm not sure if you checked the article history, which Emijrp added (without sources) and also reverted by another registered editor. I think you can read the room on that matter. Remember that IP editors are human too. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I actually had not had a look at the article history at that point.

The edit was obviously problematic (for one thing, it looks to have been inserted in the wrong place in the article) but what I'm seeing is that a highly experienced editor made an edit that someone else (understandably) didn't agree with and then the first editor started a BRD discussion. Out of all the responses that they could have gotten, the one they receive is… Your own view is less than useless here. followed by a second editor referring to them (in the third person) as a troll.

When I restored the comment, I was unaware that it was a BRD post. (Probably my reading comprehension had been reduced by sleep issues.)

To quote a friend of mine, "Like, seriously, what the f**k?"

Regarding the personhood of IP, I see them as essentially a somewhat experienced editor (given their edit count and extensive familiarity with WP namespace), and believe they should be held accountable as such for their systematically obnoxious behavior.

Honestly, I'm not interested in contesting the article content as I don't choose to have anything to do with it, at least for now. But what I'm seeing is that one thing Emijrp seems to have a point about is that in practice any position that is out of the West mindset is ignored (contra WP:BIAS, although I'd have preferred them to state it more clearly and in less directly confrontational terms.

Of course the intersection of WP:BIAS with high-profile controversies is bound to arouse a gamut of reactions from editors. Hell, looking at some of the comments major contributors to the article routinely make at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, you can see how contentious topics can easily induce tunnel vision about WP guidelines.

Maybe try pretending all this happened 150 years ago? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

38 - number of AMX-10 given to Ukraine

In a interview, the french senator Philippe Folliot that goes on Ukraine for NATO missions, said that Ukranian force told him they received 38 AMX-10 (without confirming the exact version, other sources and pictures show the RCR version) Is that enough of a source to clarify the numbers ? He also said they are delivered, not just promised. Here's the link of the interview, in french.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/manifestations-en-ukraine/guerre-en-ukraine-la-grande-contre-offensive-n-est-pas-encore-engagee-declare-le-senateur-centriste-philippe-folliot-apres-s-etre-rendu-pres-du-front_5942027.html 178.23.152.132 (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)