This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: History / Military / Politics and law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Ukraine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. NATO (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Change language from "signed" to "adopted or agreed".

Sentence "The alliance rejected Russia's demand to keep Ukraine out of NATO forever, pointing out that Russia had signed agreements affirming the right of Ukraine and other countries to join alliances"

Technically incorrect. Russia didn't SIGN, just AGREED, just as the US and the 52 countries at this Summit. NO signatures are ever placed on these. Under OSCE Rules of Procedure, a declaration is considered "signed" at the highest political level the moment it is adopted by consensus. The document is not signed by ANY nation/state.

Provide an actual citation to an actual source, not a 3rd party "here say". For citation 98 and 75, would like to add citation to the actual 2010 OSCE ASTANA Summit (https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/b/6/74985.pdf).

Dilemma is that when presenting Russia with the 2010 OSCE ASTANA documents which they agreed to, citing paragraph from the document:

"(States) will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence"

It technically can be used by any nation that seeks to increase military activity in the name of "its defense" ~2025-38263-75 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That will read weird, "AGREED AGREEMENTS"? If they were considered to have snined it I see no real issue. Maybe "Russia made firm commitemnts"

 Not done: I also don't see an issue with the wording used here if, as you say, Russia was considered to have signed the declaration. Day Creature (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As of early 2026, the United States has committed or appropriated over $175 billion in aid to Ukraine since the full-scale invasion in February 2022. This total includes military equipment, humanitarian aid, and financial support, with over 55% dedicated to security assistance. Over $69 billion has been allocated for direct security assistance, including ammunition, combat vehicles, and drones. Congress has passed multiple supplemental funding packages, with total allocations reaching roughly $175 billion.

The U.S. remains the largest single donor of aid to Ukraine. Considering the fact that if the USA stopped funding the war, the war would without question turn in Russia's favor, the United States should be listed in the lede as a commander or leader in the war. Can we get consensus to add President Trump and the USA as a 'commander/leader" in the infobox?

I am open to debate and further discussion, no arguments intended or needed. Ri5009 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 No I'm assuming good faith here, but honestly not sure if this is serious or not. In any event, obviously not. --McSly (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Trump" should not be in the infobox. The reason is the next.

Are there forces sent by him to fight against Russia ? The answer is no.

A country can help another one without being a "Belligerent" or in a situation of "Co-belligerence".

You can read the next articles :

1.Military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian war

2.Foreign involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)

3.List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian war

4.List of humanitarian aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian war Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Iran not included in the Belligerent section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeerBaba (talk • contribs) 07:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No troops, no invasion force entering Ukraine from its soil. See numerous previous discussions. Arnoutf (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

put the natural causes template next to Gennady zhidko in the infobox because he died of natural causes ~2026-93778-9 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. TylerBurden (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was just scrolling and was wondering if I may implement this? I can't see how there will be any controversy seeing as his article says he died after "a long illness". 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(I am ECo but I don't want to go against what you have said) 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 that this is an uncontroversial edit. Lova Falk (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed previously, but the main reason that the natural causes mark has been omitted is because the statement on the cause of death is reliant on Russian state sources. Note that both The Times (UK; paywalled) and The Moscow Times put 'illness' in quotation marks; though TMT also cites an independent journalist that states that Zhidko had cancer and that his death does not appear suspicious. I have no opinion on the matter, but that's the context. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr rnddude for giving this context! Yes, now I do agree that the death symbol needs consensus. Lova Falk (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that, in the past discussion there was consensus to have a deceased tag, but in this discussion it was decided to remove it. While I agree the natural causes template is not appropriate, I think the best thing to do is restore the previous (Deceased) tag with a footnote. The latter discussion decided to remove it due to irrelevancy, but I would argue it's quite relevant whether or not he is alive, and the natural causes template exists, which also includes non war-caused deaths. Additionally, we should add the same template to the navbox, which I removed the natural causes template from. As an aside, we should probably create a template for this. It would be best if we could find an acronym or symbol for unclear/undetermined cause of death, but if we can't, we can just do deceased and recommend its use only when less general templates do not apply. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why does what matter? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether is is alive or dead, and when he dies. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel like it being in the infobox without tag in a current conflict makes me think he is still a part of the conflict. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So all of the others are still the active commander? Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right that there is no precedent for this. Aleksandr Dvornikov is also retired, and I'd imagine we'd see that in any other war infobox. I was mistaken. Might be worth considering in the future, but that's beside the point. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is the best. The infobox should summarize the article, which doesn't say anything about his death, because he died after being dismissed. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per his page, I believe he died while still an active commander. However, if we need to mention in the article, we can, especially if his presence in the war was important, which I imagine it was. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He died while in charge of the Eastern Military District, which is in the Russian Far East. He was dismissed from the role in October 2022 and did not command anything since then. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well then perhaps former, transferred, dismissed, or something along those lines. Either way, to me including him in the infobox without tag makes me personally think he's still commanding the forces. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And including a cross or some such implies he died as a result of the war. So maybe just remove all of them except the current leadership. He was only in charge for a few months. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

His role in the war was as the Deputy Minister of Defense. Then he was transferred, then he died. And you're right that none of the current templates apply, because of the transferral. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We could also date them like in Arab–Israeli conflict or just leave them like in War on terror. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]