Talk:List of wars involving Ukraine

un titled

Tell me please what Ukraine has incommon with Kievan Rus. It's mainly Russian history which started by founding od Novgorod in 882. Ukraine never existed till 20th century. Even If old Russian capital was Kiev, it was sacked by Mongols in 1240 and all it's papulation was annihilated. Then capital moved to Novgorod and them to Moscow and Saint Petersburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovanja (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL. The history of Ukrainian nationality can be traced back to the kingdom of Kievan Rus' of the 9th to 12th centuries. It was the predecessor state to what would eventually become the Eastern Slavic nations of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. So you better check your history again. Other than that, I strongly think Ukraine's history from 1922-1991 should be in the list because of USSR. Well, no doubt Ukraine was involved in something during that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:2D8F:2A6:7632:5619 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you have information about their written documents from these early periods and in what language they were written? 46.40.119.229 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

First Russians are not totally East Slavs it is well known that much or Russia is Finnish decent with & Russian language is a mix of Slavic & Uralic. Second 1922-91 would be interrupted by WW2 Ukraine fought against the Soviet from 1941 to the 1950s also there was Carpatho Ukraine 47.229.144.239 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Technically Ukrainian language is the direct descendant of languages spoken in Kyyivan rus, however valid point on the asking of Kyyiv. However in the west there was no such destruction and the people there especially became the Ukrainians & Rusyns, however do the Symbian’s count for this list? What about the Kyyiv Culture the supposedly first recogniseble Slavs who where invaded by the Huns 47.229.144.239 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Iraq

Why isn't the Ukrainian participation against Iraq om the list? 2A02:AA1:1624:1283:4A7:53FF:FE58:F687 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You can add it 47.229.144.239 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

German–Polish War

I don't think Kyivan Rus' was involved with the German–Polish War of 1002–1018. Although this war partially overlapped with the Kyivan succession crisis of 1015–1019 in time, and the fact that Bolesław I the Brave of Poland was involved in both, the Kyivan succession crisis does not seem to have been caused by, or merged with, the German–Polish War, which ended a year earlier than the succession crisis. It was caused by the (apparently natural) death of Volodymyr I on 15 July 1015, who does not appear to have been involved with the war at all, nor do Svyatopolk and Yaroslav appear to have participated in it after 1018. I think this war should be removed, and replaced with an entry for the Kyivan succession crisis of 1015–1019. Bolesław's intervention is still part of that. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Based on the text, the intervention began in June and ended in September 1018. The Peace of Bautzen already ended the German–Polish War on 30 January 1018. Therefore, the conflicts are entirely separated in time. I will remove German–Polish War. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Result column

I think we should take care when using the Result column, especially when assigning 'Victory' or 'Defeat' to 'Ukraine' at times when no state was calling itself 'Ukraine' yet, or when multiple factions were calling themselves 'Ukrainian'. When no belligerent claims to be 'Ukrainian', or when multiple belligerents who are fighting each other claim to be 'Ukrainian', how can we say that it was a 'Ukrainian victory' or a 'Ukrainian defeat'? This depends on who we regard as the legitimate 'predecessor' or 'representative' of modern Ukraine, which might sometimes be subjective or contested.

Pre-modern states. I am prepared to go along with the idea (originally promoted by Ukrainian nationalists, which seems to have varying degrees of acceptance by modern scholars) that any independent state on the territory of the modern Republic of Ukraine since the 9th century may be called a 'Ukrainian state', particularly Kyivan Rus', the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (Ruthenia), and the Cossack states before they were incorporated into the surrounding three Russian, Ottoman and Austrian empires. But this leaves open a lot of questions.

• The first main question involves multiple claimants to a throne: the intradynastic conflicts ('internecine war', Ukrainian: Міжусобна війна Russian: Междоусобная война), which mostly were either wars of succession or princely rebellions between various claimants to the Kyivan throne. As Wikipedians, we cannot assume any claimant to have been legitimate or illegitimate without violating WP:NPOV (see also what I wrote about that at Talk:War of succession#Princely rebellions and imposters). E.g. we cannot assume Yaroslav to have been legitimate just because he won, or just because he was positively viewed in historiography as 'the Wise', nor that Svyatopolk was illegitimate just because he lost, or just because he was negatively portrayed in historiography as 'the Accursed'. Both these lines of reasoning would be hindsight bias-derived POV. The easiest way to solve this would be to use the purple background and just say 'X victory' (or 'X–Y victory' in case of a coalition) if belligerent X won, because it is not up to Wikipedians to say who was the legitimate claimant to the Kyivan throne, and thus represented 'Ukraine'. I have already applied this to the 1015–1019 Kyivan succession crisis by writing 'Yaroslav victory' and putting it in purple.
• The second main question involves multiple Ukrainian states: in many conflicts, there are multiple arguably independent Ukrainian states at war with each other, especially when Kyivan Rus' gradually falls apart (this decline is traditionally dated between 1054 and 1240). The Principalities Halych and Volhynia and later the unified Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (Ruthenia) already rose to prominence long before the 1240 fall of Kyiv, and in the time in between they fought several wars. Who is to be considered the legitimate representative/predecessor/embodiment of pre-modern Ukraine in these cases? Do we continue to mark it as a 'defeat' whenever the Principality of Kyiv participates in a war and ends up on the losing side, even though Halych and/or Volhynia participated on the winning side? Who are we, Wikipedians, to say was the true representative of 'Ukraine', and who was not? I think this will get us into No True Scotsman and POV territory. Because when we frame the Result as 'Defeat', Wikipedia is de facto saying that the Principality of Kyiv was the legitimate representative/predecessor of modern Ukraine until the very end, by which time Galicia–Volhynia already greatly overshadowed it. This may violate WP:NPOV. I think that in such cases where multiple independent Ukrainian states participated in a war, too, we can best use the purple background and just say 'X victory' (or 'X–Y victory' in case of a coalition) if belligerent X won, because it is not up to Wikipedians to arbitrare on which state was Ukrainier-than-thou and thus be framed as the victor or the loser. I have already applied this to the 1097–1100 internecine war by writing 'Peremyshl victory' and putting it in purple.

Modern states. This still leaves a third main question unresolved, which I presume may be very contentious. E.g. from a contemporaneous right-wing nationalist Ukrainian's point of view, the Ukrainian People's Republic may have been the legitimate representative of Ukraine during 1917–1921 (and arguably independent, apart from the April–December 1918 Ukrainian State period, and the post-Treaty of Warsaw (1920) period), whereas from a contemporaneous left-wing Ukrainian's point of view, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic may have been the legitimate representative of Ukraine (and arguably an independent Ukrainian state before it was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1922). Both called themselves 'Ukrainian', and claimed the other was illegitimate and just a 'puppet' of foreign states (the UPR from the crumbling German Empire, crumbling Austria-Hungary, and the new Second Polish Republic; the Ukrainian SSR from the new Russian SFSR), and to an arguable degree both were supported by these foreign powers indeed. The best course of action to ensure WP:NPOV seems to me to apply the same solution: to use the purple background and just say 'X victory' (or 'X–Y victory' in case of a coalition) if belligerent X won, because it is not up to Wikipedians to arbitrare on which state was Ukrainier-than-thou and thus be framed as the victor or the loser. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What about the Trojan War?

Achilles lived on the Isle of Snakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by MATRIX0077 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Makhnovishchina War

I added a conflict to the Independance war section about the Soviet Makhnovist conflict since Makhnovishchina was mostly made of Ukrainians & at one point wished to create a Ukrainian statehood. I am very new to editing Wikipedia & do not Know how to attach Wikipedia page links to things, if somebody could attach the link from the Soviet-Makhnovist Conflict page that would be great. 47.229.144.239 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Polish-Ukrainian conflict in 1940s

This conflict was about control over Galicia and Volhynia, and eventually, most of them were occupied by the Soviet Union. AK/AL didn't win as Polish gov didn't regain control over those regions; UPA didn't win as the regions came under Soviet control. This is what is called "Another result" and is normally painted blue.

Also, UPA was not defeated in this conflict, as Poland couldn't fight it on the main territory of UPA's activity. Polish gov. only stopped it on the post-war Polish territory, but UPA continued activity on the Soviet territory until 1960s. Dƶoxar (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The anti soviet resistance is a different conflict and the Polish Ukrainian conflict in Volhynia and Galicia isn,t considered a Polish-Ukrainian war but a Genocide.[1] Olek Novy (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section contains information about the whole Polish-Ukrainian conflict in the 1940s on the territory of Galicia and Volhynia, not only clashes behind the Curzon line. And that conflict ended without either side's winning.--Dƶoxar (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Overall the poles were able to remove the threat from the UPA and were able to liquidate them. Olek Novy (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This is rather an alternative history. In fact, neither side won.--Dƶoxar (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

And how is that? Olek Novy (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

UPA was not liquidated after the Vistula operation, it continued its activity in Soviet Ukraine until 1960.--Dƶoxar (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

In Polish territories it was liquidated. There is a Literal "Anti Soviet activity" below this Olek Novy (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, this article refers to the whole conflict, not to the one on the Polish post-war territory.--Dƶoxar (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

And it should also refer to the Summary of the whole conflict. Olek Novy (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? I feel like you're just ignoring.--Dƶoxar (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You literally said that the UPA continued it's activity until 1960. Which has nothing to do with the conflict Olek Novy (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my main quote: This conflict was about control over Galicia and Volhynia, and eventually, most of them were occupied by the Soviet Union. AK/AL didn't win as Polish gov didn't regain control over those regions; UPA didn't win as the regions came under Soviet control. This is what is called "Another result" and is normally painted blue.--Dƶoxar (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I added three sources: British (Davies), Polish (Motyka) and Ukrainian (Subtelnyi) comfirming that both sides didn't win the conflict. --Dƶoxar (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

These soirces prove absolutely nothing that neither sides won the war. The Poles liquidated the UPA and their threat to the Polish Population, for the UPA this is a defeat. Olek Novy (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If "Poles liquidated UPA", how could UPA fight till 1960?--Dƶoxar (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The UPA fought against the soviets till 1960 lol Olek Novy (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

So, if UPA fought against the Soviets till 1960s, it wasn't liquidated by Poles in 1940s, right? Don't you see a contradiction in what you're saying? --Dƶoxar (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is what Motyka writes: The epilogue of "Burza" was tragic. The Polish troops who revealed themselves were disarmed. The officers were arrested. The Home Army soldiers were given an alternative - going to the labor camps or joining the army of General Zygmunt Berling. At the same time, NKVD began actions aimed at detecting and destroying the Polish conspiracy. Is it a victory?--Dƶoxar (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is a Davies' quote: On July 26, when the 3rd Guards Tank Army was approaching the outskirts of Lemberg, Polish soldiers of the underground Home Army surfaced, clashed with the German garrison and captured both the citadel and the city center. About 5,000 Home Army members were then unceremoniously arrested by the NKVD. By July 28, former Eastern Galicia was under Soviet control.--Dƶoxar (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

and the Conflict doesent end in 1944. Olek Novy (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Poland lost those territories after 1945 as they were given to Ukraine. For the Poles, this is a defeat. @Dƶoxar is right when he says that a more complicated result than "Defeat" should be put in that square. +JMJ+ (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Lost it to Soviet ukraine not to the Ukrainian State.

The UPA failed to acheve its biggest goal in the conflict - establish a Ukrainian nation. The POlesliquidated the UPa after Operation vistula while the Soviets liquidated the UPA in 1960.

As well as Poland failed to regain control over Galicia and Volhynia. Both failed.--Dƶoxar (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How could UPA have been liquidated twice?--Dƶoxar (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

1. On Polish Territory

2. On Soviet Territory Olek Novy (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Galicia and Volhynia were internationally recognized as Polish territory until 1945. The sources I mentioned (and all of them belong to reliable historicians) prove that neither side could have achieved its goals. But anyway, you're ignoring most of the arguments and sources, therefore I consider your actions as vandalism. As I see this is quite typical behavior for you, as you were banned in Russian Wikipedia. If you want to continue the discussion you should provide reliable souces. Otherwise your edits will be reverted.--Dƶoxar (talk) 14:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The SOurces you put only talk about the Russian occupation Volhynia and Eastern Lesserpoland and not that it was indecisive. Alos why are you removing the Link to Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict lol. The Result parameter should discuss the Overalll result of the conflict which was a Polish victory. the Soviets also achieved a victory in 1953. Also the Soviets alligned with Poland during the conlfict and both sides supported eachother. Olek Novy (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources I mentioned say both sides lost as a third power intervened in the conflict.

You didn't provide reliable sources: the first link is an anonymous article, and the book was published in Communist Poland, so it can't be neutral on this topic.

I remove the link to the article because it's misleading and manipulative (and I've told you this on the talk page there).--Dƶoxar (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"The book was published in Communist Poland so it can't be neutral" Its actually neutral and explains the actions of the UPA in Poland and it's Liquidation. The manipulation of the Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict was already explained and it talks about the entire conflict. None of you're sources prove nothing to the conflict being indecisive. Olek Novy (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you removing the link to Polish People's Republic lol. You say that I am vamdalising. Olek Novy (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion regarding the conflict result is "Another result" with the following explanation.

Soviet intervention into the conflict:

• Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine
• Polish–Soviet border agreement
• Population exchange between Poland and Soviet Ukraine
• Vistula Operation and subsequent defeat of UPA in Polish People's Republic
• Anti-communist resistance movements in Poland and Ukraine after the WW2

I think this is well balanced and historically correct statement.

References