Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Add NATO and its member countries as belligerents

Dozens of military experts from such countries have boots on the ground. Why is North Korea added as belligerent under the argument that there are 'experts' on ground and wikipedia has been reluctant to describe all the aid Ukraine is receiving when there is confirmation of large groups of nationals from NATO countries to be operating in Ukraine (take the swedish group that was blown out around mid-year). 2806:107E:D:468C:BC74:7199:BF2C:1E3E (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Combat 'boots on the ground'? NO. Advisors, yes. Not the same thing. 2603:6080:21F0:67F0:61B6:3857:A818:52EC (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There are North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine, there are no NATO member countries fighting in Ukraine. Send military advisors and military aid isn't the same thing as being a belligerent. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Terrainman: Even if there would be "NATO member countries fighting in Ukraine" it doesn't automatically mean that's involvement of NATO. Eurohunter (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Although that wasn't my point and is sort of off-topic, it is true that no NATO member country has soldiers fighting in Ukraine, but North Korea does. I would have to read the inclusion of NK as a beligerent discussion for more insight beyond this as to why NK was added as a belligerent, but boots on the ground seemed to be a major point. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You are so dishonest 149.62.206.81 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there an international law definition of belligerency that would be applicable here? NK sends a small number of token soldiers who die as fodder whereas the US basically provides Ukraine's entire military arsenal + teaches them how to operate it. The latter is clearly far more impactful to the war yet the US gets a get-out-jail-card because of some legalese interpretation of what "belligerent" means. Also quite interestingly, Belarus is listed in the infobox despite not providing any soldiers. Odd to list Belarus but not the US/NATO. JDiala (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read some (of the many) discussions before on how we arrived at this decision (in short - soldiers fighting-belligerent, attack sorties from your soil - supporter). Several of those are archived or even on other threads on the current page. Arnoutf (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that discussions were had and a decision was reached does not mean I have to agree with it. The explanations given for why Belarus is more of a "supporter" to Russia than the US is to Ukraine are not convincing and consist of loads of OR from both sides as noted by the closer to this discussion. And, for the record, it seems that the last formal RfCs on including NATO and other Western arms-supplying parties to the infobox were in February 2022 (this and this), mere days after the start of the war, and one ended in no consensus with the closer explicitly suggesting further discussion. I think it might be worthy of re-litigation since the role the West has played in this war has only become more apparent three years later. JDiala (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

From both my searching and recollection the most recent RfC discussion touching on this was closed in November 2023 where the closer noted: Q: Do we need to add any other countries to the infobox? A: With thanks to RadioactiveBoulevardier for his stalwart, impassioned and rather well-argued case for this, other editors don't seem very persuaded, and there's no consensus to add anyone else to the article. We should also note that the term "supported by" has been deprecated (see template doc) but retaining Belarus here was a result of RfC linked in accordance with the RfC by which "supported by" was deprecated. Unless something has significantly changed and unless there is a reasonable indication that an RfC would succeed where it has not previously, opening a further RfC could be seen as disruptive. This discussion so far is not indicating a will to change. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

not convincing to YOU doesn't mean that consensus was not reached .... 2603:6080:2100:47CB:BC04:46E0:2998:13AA (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

True, you also have to convince everyone else. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Then find a suitable name and add NATO too, or otherwise this only shows our hypocrisy. "Founders and logistics providers" maybe?

Pretty sure you would have gladly added NATO if the situation on the terrain were different. But how when Russia is dominating, right? Markomario (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what's with the lack of WP:AGF for the editor you're responding to, as they said nothing about the situation on the "terrain". I wouldn't call getting territory occupied by the country you're invading as we're seeing in Kursk at the moment "dominating" though.

As a non-extended confirmed editor you should keep in mind you're commenting in a contentious topic, WP:RUSUKR, where "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions". Assuming bad faith and talking about your own opinions about "domination" is not constructive.

Once we're seeing WP:RS telling us how Ukrainian soldiers are burning "NATO" faces to hide their involvement maybe you'll have a point. TylerBurden (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Hiding it is bad. Take this for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065 2001:B07:A3C:95AB:11C7:C052:F4F1:829E (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, what is this, a childish joke or a serious web page where information are supported to be valid and correct? Without NATO Ukraine wouldn't exist anymore, but you refusing to add them as belligerents. Even though NATO trains troops, send money, send weapons, sends even officers to help Ukraine on the ground and provides endless logistics, you didn't add them? Providing logistics is nothing but participation in the war and you know this too. Who is coordinating launching atacms, Ukraine itself maybe? This war will end, but Wikipedia's reputation won't get back. All this only goes on Russian hand and they seem right when calling the West hypocritical. Markomario (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

When RS say they are actually involved in combat we can add them, that is what a belligerent is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The article makes it extremely clear what aid "the West" is giving Ukraine, and what is NOT happening - there are no British, French, etc., troops on the ground firing guns at the Russians. That is "belligerency." I can donate to the aid of those who are burning down in the LA fires, but that doesn't make me a fireman (and God bless them, btw.) 2603:6080:21F0:79E0:C979:D10F:D4D1:95E5 (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any factual evidence of NK involvement?

Other than sources from Seoul or Western countries media, is there clear evidence of NK troops in the conflict? I think there's the risk of falling in the classic propaganda exchange between the Koreas when it comes to fake news (examples are countless). And also in a time where Ukr is seeking military aid from Seoul.

Saw a video showing a couple of asian soldiers in the front but this wouldnt be telling taking that Russia houses various ethnicities.

Why did wilipedia jumped to add NK as belligerent based on a few articles?

Why dismiss Russian media as propaganda and take the Seoul & NATO sources as proof? 2806:107E:D:AA9A:537F:2734:A35C:C669 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say. We have reliable sources that say that North Korea is involved. If you have some reliable sources contradicting that view, please provide them here. There is nothing to discuss if sources are not provided. --McSly (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• "Other than sources from Seoul or Western countries media..." - You can't demand evidence and then dismiss nearly all of the evidence that actually exists on the spurious ground that it is reported by reliable sources based in North America, Europe, Japan, and South Korea. The sourcing supporting North Korea's involvement in the war was talked to death in the RFC on the matter, and includes media reports, intelligence agency output, and academic analysis. Since then a great deal of other information has come out including captured documents, video footage, and drone footage.

"Why dismiss Russian media as propaganda..." - Good question. The presence of North Korean troops was first reported by ASTRA Media, a Russian outlet. Reports of North Korean participation have also been put out by Kremlin-aligned Russian MilBloggers. Interestingly, I am not aware of any Russian media reports that North Koreans are *not* involved in the conflict - at present the Kremlin is not even denying the presence of North Koreans.

So we have credible reports of North Korean involvement from reliable sources in a number of different countries, carrying on for a period of months. We also have reports of North Korean involvement from media outlets in Russia. We also have the Kremlin not even denying their involvement. I have to ask whether you have any specific reports that cast doubt on the presence of North Koreans? FOARP (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a policy of set of guidelines for determining what a co-belligerent is? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In not sure that helps I guess I was more asking what defines belligerency entails, I see from above discussions; weapons supplying isnt by consensus.

American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

Lists Hessian and other German mercenaries as combatants. This might be an elegant way to present the information that sidesteps the need for a determination.

Assuming, of course, people agree that the sources supporting NK's being in Ukraine and verifiable I guess LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia is concerned its if RS say they are a belligerent. In practice trigger pulling by regular armed forces is the standard most of the world works to.145.40.145.144 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper - Whether or not North Korea is a combatant in this war is not a question for WP policy because that would require us to do original research on the topic. For our purposes it is sufficient that reliable sources state that they are a combatant in this war. Many, many sources were discussed as showing this in the RFC, but here's one just to illustrate this. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Please introduce this into the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Im not suggesting OR and it doesnt require OR;

North Korean soldiers 'legitimate targets' for Ukrainian military, US official says

"They entered a war, and they are, as such, combatants and are legitimate targets for the Ukrainian military.  We have seen North Korean soldiers who have been killed in action on the battlefield inside Russia."

Zelenskyy to West: Let us hit North Korean troops in Russia – POLITICO

Ukraine’s partners should permit Kyiv to strike North Korean troops inside Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Saturday, as more than 10,000 combatants prepare to enter frontline combat.

South Korea’s Deepening Dilemma Over Ukraine – The Diplomat

The Times view on Russia’s use of foreign forces: Korea Move

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, November 18, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War

No OR needed LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper - to explain further, I am arguing against the idea that Wikipedia should have its own standard for what is/isn't an combatant. We don't, we rely on reliable sources to make that call for us. Creating our own standard would require OR. FOARP (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And once again I am not asserting a standard merely providing an alternative remedy so that the page can convey information in a non contentious way LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your reliable sources are all bias and pro NATO and frequently lie and peddle propaganda 149.62.206.81 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

A, Russia is one country, not the media of many separate countries. B, No other country has laws relating to the reporting of this war (in fact in Russia you cannot (legally) even call it a war). C, its not only western sources [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"B, No other country has laws relating to the reporting of this war (in fact in Russia you cannot (legally) even call it a war)"

Not entirely true:

"Two of Ukraine’s operational commands, in the country’s east and south, released new rules in March governing how media can operate in areas under their control."

"Under martial law, the Ukrainian government imposes certain restrictions on the work of journalists covering the war."

"Ukraine’s new media law has triggered controversy, dividing lawmakers and media professionals. Entering into force on March 31, the bill reforms Ukraine’s media landscape, specifically expanding the powers of the National Council for Television and Radio (NCTR) regulator to allow it to block outlets without a court ruling."

"Major networks pooled their resources into a shared daily programming roster known as the “United News” telemarathon, an arrangement that was soon codified into law and that numerous media-watchers initially saw as a positive development."

"Months after attacks on investigative journalists provoked a public outcry and condemnation, media still face different forms of pressure from authorities, according to Ukrainian editors and press freedom watchdogs interviewed by the Kyiv Independent.The most significant recent cases include censorship attempts and political interference at a state news agency, allegations of journalists being drafted for the war as retribution, and the de facto withdrawal of a Ukrainian public broadcaster from the controversial state-imposed and controlled television news programs called telemarathon."

Therefore yes, martial law in Ukraine limits both access and which stories Ukrainian journalists and news organisations are allowed to publish. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically those are not nationwide laws. Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

More to the point, it's totally irrelevant to the present discussion - North Korea is described as a combatant in this war because that's how reliable sources consistently describe them. Asking that Russian media's viewpoint be included misses the point that Russian media cannot report freely on the subject but anyway has carried reports supporting the idea that North Korea is a participant. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Martial law is. But I used the qualifier "entirely" on purpose. Ukrainian news claims shouldn't be taken as fact, but independent WP:RS should be sought out. There is enough WP:RS outside of Ukraine to justify DPRK's inclusion in the infobox, so we are in agreement there. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Martial law is what? What claims of fact do we have sourced solely to Ukrainian news sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"Martial law is what?"

A law that applies in the whole country.

"What claims of fact do we have sourced solely to Ukrainian news sources?"

The start date of DPRK's involvement/belligerency. The article states that the DPRK has been a combatant since October, while the Pentagon and other sources relying on US officials have DPRK involvement starting in December. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yes Ukriane has SOME restrictions (that seem to relate to operational information) I agree, they do not (however) have laws saying what you can say, only what you can report. Russia has laws on what you can say. And we do not base this solely on what Ukrainian sources say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine just released a video where they interrogate a wounded DPRK soldier. According to people they are speaking a DPRK dialect and the accent is correct. He was captured in Kursk, so it seems that DPRK troops are fighting Ukraine in Kursk. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes there is 2003:C0:2735:571D:E980:8B35:6CE5:D0B7 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References

RfC: Adding countries as supporters of Ukraine to the infobox

The last RfCs on the topic were over two years ago:[2] [3] [4]

Question: Should countries be added as supporters of Ukraine to the infobox?

Option A: No.

Option B: Yes, add United States, United Kingdom, EU and NATO.

Option C: Yes, add United States, United Kingdom and individual countries as merited.

Option D: Something else. (please explain in the comments) TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Option B. While "supported by" is deprecated, exceptions can be made in case there is special/extraordinary/exceptional support that warrants inclusion.

WP:RS have called the support given to Ukraine "unprecedented". Checking the Cambridge dictionary, synonyms of "unpredecented" are exceptional, extraordinary, unique. The Collins dictionary agrees with this, and also adds unusual and abnormal. But not only is the support unprecedented, it is also "vital" and "critical".

• For the United States:

"Since February 2022, the U.S. has provided an unprecedented amount of equipment to Ukraine."

"the United States is providing Ukraine vital military assistance to defend itself"

• For the UK:

"the United Kingdom has provided unprecedented aid to Ukraine"

"Ukraine and the United Kingdom have signed a new unprecedented security agreement."

"Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to put Ukraine in the "strongest possible position" on a trip to Kyiv where he signed a "landmark" 100-year pact with the war-stricken country."

Some analysts have suggested that the war continued because of the actions of Boris Johnson.

• For the EU:

"The European Union (EU) and our 27 Member States remain united and determined in our unprecedented support for Ukraine."

"The European Commission stands firm in its commitment and solidarity with Ukraine. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the EU and its Member States have mobilised unprecedented economic, humanitarian, and military assistance to Ukraine and Ukrainians"

"This crucial funding will help Ukraine keep its administration running, pay salaries, pensions, and provide basic public services, as it continues to defend itself against Russia's aggression."

• For NATO:

"we need to do everything possible to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs in terms of training, in terms of equipment, to prolong the fight and to prevail in this fight"

"Mark Rutte branded Ukraine his "top priority" as he formally became NATO secretary-general at a ceremony in Brussels on Tuesday."

"NATO's secretary-general said he wants to discuss ways to put Ukraine in a position of strength for any future peace talks with Russia"

"Rutte praised Ukraine's resilience in the face of Russia's military onslaught, emphasizing the alliance's resolve to ensure Ukraine prevails."

• The scope of the assistance to Ukraine:

70% of weapons Ukraine used in 2024 came from abroad, ~30% from EU, ~40% from US.

"The document noted that a record influx of foreign aid in December allowed Ukraine to cover state budget expenditures"

"More than 100,000 servicemen of the Ukrainian Defense Forces have already been trained in the territory of partner countries, says Deputy Chief of the Main Department of Doctrine and Training of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Yevhen Mezhevikin"

"Ukraine's allies were preparing for a lengthy conflict."

"Austin announced the creation of a standing Ukraine-focused "contact group""

According to Wikipedia "By March 2024, mostly Western governments had pledged more than $380 billion worth of aid to Ukraine since the invasion"

For context/comparison, the value of lend-lease assistance given to the Soviet Union was $180 billion (in today's dollars).

EDIT: I'd like to address the two arguments that seem to be against inclusion: 1) "The Supported by is deprecated" - That may be so, but "Supported by" exists in the infobox already, it is against WP:NPOV to include it for one side but not the other; 2) "addition requires there to be special/exceptional circumstances" - Please read my comment above, because WP:RS call the support "unprecedented", which satisfies the exceptional requirement. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• No as nothing has changed, and Russia was a beligerant in WW2, so its not comparable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Two years ago you were in support, to quote you: "I have no issue with including it. It helps the reader to understand just how isolated Russia is. Wikipedia doesn't exist to make Russia, or any country for that matter, look bad. Please consult WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are correct the one thing that has changed is we now deprecated "supported" in fnfoboxes, what I meant is that nothing has changed to overturn that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I opposed adding them as a beligerant at that time, and only supported "support" if we added it, we did not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note that blogs and forums are not RS. Also why not all aid, why not Poland or Iran? In addition, Belraus in fact was used in the invasion, which is why its included, because it sits between support and beligerant. As (as pointed out is every RFC about this, and Belraus and North Korea) how do we determine what is and is not significant aid (we go back to Iran, lets add china)? No new arguments have been presented from the last time this was raised. Nothing has changed on the ground. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Note that blogs and forums are not RS."

  There are 27+ links, to which are you referring?

  "how do we determine what is and is not significant aid"

  We go by what WP:RS say. WP:RS call the support "unprecedented", "vital", "critical", "crucial", and so on. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  These do not all mean significant, I can give an unprecedented amount, that would not however be significant. How about vital [[5]], so again why not add China? Or "comprehensive strategic partnership” [[6]] so why not Iran? This is the point, where do we draw the line, or do we end up with a bloated info box, Poland, Germany, France? It will be a mess. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Your first link [7] talks about China as a "vital [economic] partner" as the article states that China has not given any weapons to Russia. Your 2nd link [8] talks about Russia purchasing weapons from Iran and the article is mostly about Syria, rather than the conflict in Ukraine.

  There are WP:RS calling the military assistance to Ukraine significant or significantly increased, however:

  "Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, bilateral military assistance has been significantly stepped up"

  "Over the course of 2023, European allies and partner countries have significantly increased their investments in assistance to Ukraine," and "European countries have significantly increased the pace of security assistance to Ukraine in 2023, spending nearly the same amount on security assistance in just the first six months of this year as they did during all of 2022."

  "the United States is sending Ukraine a significant new package of urgently needed weapons and equipment to support the Ukrainian military" TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• No Option B is not valid in any case given that Nato, EU are no countries (and overlap) and in addition would suggest either ALL Nato, EU countries do support (they don't) or that the organisations do (they do not as they do not have much own budget but rely on member states). Option C would be a nightmare as the word "merit" would lead to endless (my country does, does not contribute, my country contributes X% of GDP, but my country does more monetary value.... etc etc ) debates. In any case if we were to include weapons supplies as support than we should also expand the Russian supporter sides with each and every country that supplies weapons (and possibly even all those that help Russia evade UN sanctions), which would create yet another endless discussion stream. Arnoutf (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  "in addition would suggest either ALL Nato, EU countries do support (they don't)"

  That can be explained with a footnote.

  "In any case if we were to include weapons supplies"

  It is much more than weapons supplies.

  "From 2014 to 2022, the US employed a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to support Ukraine, encompassing humanitarian, judicial, economic, and security sector assistance. For security and defense, the US leveraged a diverse array of tools, including the European Deterrence Initiative (formerly the European Reassurance Initiative), USAI, the Global Security Contingency Fund, FMS, FMF, and International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs."

  There is also sharing of intelligence between US, NATO and Ukraine.

  "The United States provides some intelligence to Ukraine on Russian forces in Russia,"

  "Indeed, in Ukraine the United States has gone particularly far in bilateral intelligence sharing—a level of exchanges associated more closely with the Five Eyes countries or Israel—while Ukraine remained somewhat guarded in its disclosures. Nevertheless, the course of war during 2022 has revealed other information domain aspects where U.S. —and international—assistance has proved significant."

  "American and British intelligence disclosures in the prelude to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine were at an "unprecedented scale", according to some observers." and "When Putin decided to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO was unified, and in that sense, the Anglo-American campaign was successful in rallying Allies."

  Do you have a source saying the support for Ukraine is "just weapons"? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Footnotes would bloat it all and that is what I try to avoid. And no I do not have a source just weapons (also there is military training), just as much as you have no sources that Mars aliens do not support Russia. It is unlikely that there are sources for all things that do not happen. Arnoutf (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, Support Option B There's no good reason to include Belarus but not the US. It's frankly intelligence-insulting to neutral readers. JDiala (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  How many Ukranian attacks on Russian territory were launched from US soil? If that number=0 there is your good reason (There is plenty of evidence Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory were launched from Belarus soil). Arnoutf (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, this is intelligence-insulting stuff. Everyone knows the US is far more intimately involved in the conflict than Belarus is.JDiala (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Supplying weapons is not the same as active combat.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we please just allow, people to say their point,. and then we say ours, and not turn this into a huge tit for tat argument. someone has to read this and make a choice. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• A/No. - I don't believe anything has changed since the last RfCs, besides North Korea's direct involvement in combat operations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option A - We've been through an entire cycle of removing information that needs caveating from the infobox. Let's not reverse that work - the infobox is there for the most basic information, not stuff that requires a lot of explaining or is peripheral. FOARP (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting how concerns of peripherality arise for NATO but not NK/Belarus. Serious NPOV concerns here. JDiala (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you're so concerned about NPOV, how come whenever these expand infobox suggestions come up it is always just add ″NATO″, interestingly never accompanied by also adding countries aiding Russia like Iran and China. For whatever reason, the expansion is only desired if it means Ukraine having more support added, and this desire only seems to have grown more desperate since another belligerent actually joined the war with thousands of boots on the ground, except it was on Russia's side. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --TylerBurden (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because Iran's and China's material involvement in the war allegedly in support of Russia is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the United States support of Ukraine. JDiala (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  And it's laughable to claim the entirety of NATO, including countries like Hungary and Slovakia, are Ukraine supporters. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  To be honest I am coming round to the point of view of removing Belarus too. I understand the POV that Belarus's involvement is special, since the invasion was launched from Belarussian territory and so-forth, but I would like to see whether e.g., academic analysts treat it that way.

  Too often on Wiki we have essentially editor-created standards for things that should necessarily be decided by reference to reliable sources. Reliable sources are very clear about Russia and North Korea's involvement in this conflict, less so about Belarus. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Option B. Giving 100's of billions in military aid is strong support. China/Iran seem to be willing to sell weapons to Russia but they don't give Russia 100's of billions for free. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option A (Summoned by bot) per arguments of Arnoutf and FOARP. 'Belligerents' has a fairly precise meaning which should not be muddied IMO. It's questionable whether Belarus should be included IMO, since allowing access to one's territory is still fairly passive involvement and does not constitute 'boots on the ground' or 'pilots in the sky', which constitute active involvement of one's troops. I don't see a reason to alter the norm here the infobox is there for the most basic information, not stuff that requires a lot of explaining or is peripheral per FOARP.Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  You misunderstood the RfC. The RfC isn't asking whether to add "belligerents", but whether the support given to Ukraine warrants an exception to the deprecation of the "Supported by" heading. Editors have agreed that Belarus has provided significant, exceptional support to Russia and therefore is included as a supporting country to the infobox. This RfC is asking if an exception should be made to add other countries to the infobox as well. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I understand it perfectly well, "supported by" is a sub-heading within "belligerents". I'm saying that for many reasons the box should not have that sub-heading. There are sound reasons for it having largely been dropped. It muddies the waters IMO and leads to endless discussion/dispute about the level and kind of support needed for inclusion. Clearly Ukraine is receiving massive diplomatic and material support and that should be recorded in text, but IMO not in the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Pincrete - I too am coming round to the idea that Belarus should probably be removed, though this is a separate disucssion. Their position in this war is ~not entirely dissimilar~ to that of Sweden in WW2, and we never chose to include Sweden as a "support" or whatever. In an article about a war, only the actual belligerents should be included, which in this case is Russia and North Korea on one side, and Ukraine on the other. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option A The Support field is poorly named. The issue is that 'Support' is a vague term, what level of support is 'Support'? What supportive actions constitute 'Support'? Would a loan on favourable terms be enough, unrestricted access to buy military equipment from the companies in a certain country, what if a country allowed private companies in its territory to train soldiers, what about something like Lend-Lease? These are all rhetorical questions, but it shows how complicated it would all become. The deprecation of 'Supported by' was meant to stop this, I don't see why it should be resurrected here. If the European countries (not EU as not all EU countries support Ukraine) allow Ukraine troops to invade St. Petersburg from Estonia, or there are reliable reports of those countries troops being on the front line, then there would be reason for a change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also EU has no military, almost no foreign policy (except on trade and general matters). Pincrete (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  That is incorrect. Defence forces of the European Union TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is a complicated topic area, but these are not an EU army per se. Instead they are essentially EU-authorised groupings to which member-states provide personnel and equipment. The situation is similar to UN forces - there are UN forces set up by UN member states, but there is not a UN army per se. FOARP (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  UN is listed as a belligerent in the Korean War despite not having an army per se. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is defensible given the specific context of the Korean war (i.e., all forces fighting under a unified UN command authorised by the UN security council) and is backed up by how the conflict is described in reliable sources (see, e.g., Britannica: "The United Nations, with the United States as the principal participant, joined the war on the side of the South Koreans"). No reliable source describes the EU as a beligerent in the Ukraine war. FOARP (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't saying EU is a belligerent in the Ukraine War in the same way UN was in the Korean War, I am pointing out that "not having an army per se" doesn't preclude a party from being included in the infobox. Another example is the DPR and LPR, many editors have argued that the two aren't a recognised State/sovereign entity, yet they are present in the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Can I suggest that if you want to discuss this further that the two of you moved it to a discussion section, or under your own comments? This doesn't have anything to do with my comment, only Pincrete's reply to my comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option A (no). There were several RfCs on this page about it (here, here, here and more). All arguments are there. Nothing has changed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option A (oppose) nothing has changed since the last RFC—blindlynx
• Option A The only thing that has changed since the last RfC is that North Korea has joined the war as an actual belligerent on Russia's side, unsure how that would translate to support being added for Ukraine, since NATO/Western/US/Japanese and whatever else is constantly being shouted about on this talk page reaction has been lukewarm. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• A. The US and other Ukrainian allies have specifically and deliberately avoided actions that would classify them as belligerents in the war. Their support should be noted in a foot note since it is important to both the conduct and understanding of the war but they shouldn't be listed as supporters in the Infobox itself. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option D: I'm sympathetic to the arguments above that "support" is vague and that the supporters section of the infobox has been deprecated, and therefore should not be used. But we currently, on this page, are using it. I don't think that the support Belarus has given Russia is more exceptional than the support the US and NATO have given Ukraine. Either limit the infobox to belligerents or don't, but don't half-ass it, because that's far more deceptive than either option. Loki (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I support removing Belarus. The reasoning for including them was basically OR (i.e., "this is my own interpretation of the facts, which is why they should be included as X"). Clearly they are a particularly important country supporting Russia, clearly launching an invasion from Belarus makes them way more complicit in this war than any country that isn't already listed as fighting on Russia's side, but that doesn't make them a belligerent. But none of this justifies including them in an infobox that really should only list actual belligerent states, which Belarus still isn't. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agree Pincrete (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you start an RfC on removing Belarus, I will support it, for the sake of consistency. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option A I don't think that the magnitude of arms supply is a useful benchmark, but rather the effect of the arms supply on the course of the war, even if the magnitude is unprecedented. A billion dollars in military gear would make a much bigger difference to Bob's Neighborhood Guerrillas than to Ukraine. And I think the effect of foreign arms supply in this war isn't much different than in other wars with other suppliers — there have been plenty of belligerents in conflicts that get bankrolled by foreign governments Placeholderer (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  "rather the effect of the arms supply on the course of the war"

  70% of weapons used by Ukraine came from foreign aid, this is according to Zelenskyy himself. I think it is safe to assume that the war wouldn't continue without foreign military support. That is quite significant. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  What I mean to say is that the thing that is described as unprecedented is the quantity of support, not the effect of the support, and that the effect of the support is not unprecedented Placeholderer (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  "the effect of the support is not unprecedented"

  I can't think of another war between two countries that continued because one side received enough military support to fight the war.

  "there have been plenty of belligerents in conflicts that get bankrolled by foreign governments"

  Do you have some examples? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, the mujahideen and Hezbollah Placeholderer (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Neither of those are countries, the situation is a bit different. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fair, but there are some (maybe less explicit) examples, like Israel or the Allies before US entry. Heck, throw the US in there.

  There are also territory-holding pseudo-states like the Houthis or Rojava. Some, like Abkhazia/South Ossetia or Idlib, end up blurring the line between country and non-country Placeholderer (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Comment: I don't mean to assert that each one of these examples would've lost a war if not for foreign "support", I just mean to give a general sense that military dependency has been a thing Placeholderer (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  In the Abkhazia/South Ossetia article there is a "Supported by" heading in the infobox. It makes me wonder if "Supported by" was deprecated just so that NATO countries wouldn't have to be included in the infobox of this article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like it pre-dates the deprecation in that infobox and didn't get updated — could be worth changing after this. Infoboxes where "Supported by" got removed explicitly because of the deprecation include Sudanese civil war (2023–present) and The Troubles Placeholderer (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Option A: No YBSOne (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) lists no supporters War in Abkhazia (1998) it was added today (How odd). Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Rename article to Russo-Ukrainian War

The war has been going on for nearly three years and is way past the invasion stage. Still, the article name hasn't been changed to Russo-Ukrainian War to reflect that. This has lead to inaccuracies like North Koreans being listed as belligerents in the invasion, even though they are only participating in the reconquest of the Sudzhansky District, Kursk Oblast, Russia, or related articles having to contain strange phrases like:

On 6 August 2024, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine as part of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Armed Forces of Ukraine ...

instead of the more readable (and sensible)

On 6 August 2024, during the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Armed Forces of Ukraine ...

On top of that, the article for the broader conflict holds the name this page should have. (I may add that it's very unusual for conflicts with ceasefire phases in-between to still be referred to as "wars". In most cases, they are simply called "conflicts".)

Therefore, I suggest, renaming Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict and splitting this article into Russo-Ukrainian War which covers the entire war and (2022) Russian invasion of Ukraine (with or without the year) which just covers the invasion phase, the first three months.

(The fact that the article name isn't WP:COMMONNAME compliant, either, has already been highlighted enough. So, I won't go into that.)

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 23:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Disagree. You need some clear way to distinguish the events of 2014-2022 with those of 2022-. Not sure about the COMMONNAME situation, but COMMONNAME can be disregarded on grounds of ambiguity or naturalness concerns which I think apply here. The invasion of Ukrainian territory by Russia is really the defining feature of this war. JDiala (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The 2014 Annexation of Crimea was a covert invasion of Crimea that saw little fighting and had concluded after about one month.

The 2014-15 War in Donbass was a proxy war between Russia and Ukraine, that lasted about a year and ended with Minsk II agreement. There were smaller skirmishes later, but they were not part of the main war. Compare with Armenian-Azeri skirmishes after the first war ⇾ those didn't extend the war. Similarly, the 2014 Gaza war is distinct from the 2023–present Gaza war, even though there were skirmishes in 2018, 2019 and 2021. (Wikipedia is also unique here in insisting that the Donbass war lasted 8 years.)

The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War started in February 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

All together are the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

THIS. THIS. THIS. (More or less). 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:CC79:793D:B460:23D3 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I entirely support your proposal. When it comes to the period 2022–2025, "war" is definitely the common name, compared to "invasion", which continues to be used less and less over time. Indeed, "invasion" does not seem to be an appropriate term to describe what is going on now, especially with prolonged combat within Russian territory, as you note.

I agree that the end of Russian operations in northern Ukraine in April 2022, which represent the end of their attempts to capture Ukraine's capital, would be an appropriate cutoff point for the "invasion" period, unless a more appropriate date emerges through careful analysis of use of terminology by reliable sources. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• The Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014 and is ongoing. That is the scope of the article. The Russian invasion of Ukraine from 2022 marked a new phase in the ongoing war. That is the scope of this article. It is neither anomalous nor surprising that the events since 2022 are also referred to as a war since they are part of the ongoing war. Retitling Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian conflict would be an artificial distinction contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. These other conflicts are a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, which is only valid if they represent best practice and are directly comparable. At this point, I see no good reason for change. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's like saying the Iraq War already started in 1990 because of the Gulf War.

  The 2014 Annexation of Crimea and the 2014-15 War In Donbass, as well as subsequent skirmishes, are distinct from the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

  Only Ukrainians insist that it's the same war (for whatever reason).

  ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @Cinderella157, we've discussed this over on the Russo-Ukrainian War talk page, but I think it's clear that most reliable, independent sources no longer follow the POV that the post-2022 phase was simply an escalation in a war that began in 2014. Instead, the majority of high-quality, reliable, independent news media sources have switched their coverage of the post-2022 conflict to "Russia-Ukraine War" (or similar), reported 24 February 2024 as the "second anniversary of the war" (or similar), and reported 12 November 2024 as the "1000th day of the war" (or similar).

  Additionally, academic analysis of the conflict tends to refer to is as the "Russia-Ukraine war" (or similar) using a formula of pre-24 February 2022 as "pre-war" and post 24 February 2022 as "during the war". This is particularly seen in statistical analysis (e.g., medical, economic, scientific, or environmental) where accurately defining a start-date to the conflict they are covering is important. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it is true that there were a thousand days of warring since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this make a good headline for NEWSORG sources. But NEWSPORG sources live in the present for the next story. I don't think they are a good basis for renaming an article such as this. I doubt they gave much consideration (if any) to how we name the post 2022 events and the 2014 to 2022 events. For this, we should be making an objective survey of good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming. The sources added here do not represent such a survey. If there is no clear consensus, then there is no clear reason to rename these. What we call these articles is much less important than the quality of the content within the scope as defined by the lead. Do we really need to change these titles? Arguably not unless there is a substantial benefit. It is clear that these articles can be easily found. At the time, I would have preferred that Russo-Ukraine War covered the events pre 2022 and Russian invasion of Ukraine covered the events subsequent in much the way that War in Donbas ceases at the time of the invasion. That way, Russo-Ukraine War would have remained relatively stable and complete. It would still be a much better approach. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think the academic source describing post-24 February 2022 as “during the war” and pre-24 February 2022 as “pre-war” are pretty clear here as what those period should be described as. It’s certainly true that the way in which we cover these two topics has been decided in a way that probably made sense in February 2022 but makes much less sense now. The present war is undeniably the WP:PRIMARY topic for “Russia-Ukraine War” or similar, not the earlier Donbas war. FOARP (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  You appear to be missing the point I was making. We are not going to rename Russo-Ukrainian War to Russo-Ukrainian pre-war. We need to look at good quality contemporary sources that address both events to see if there is a consensus for naming [both events]. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am not proposing that move. I am saying that these sources do not consider there to have been a war pre-24 February 2022 in the sense that there was after 24 February 2022. FOARP (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yep we already have that article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  "That article" would be renamed to "Russo-Ukrainian conflict", as was said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  And I disagree, we already have an article on the war, if anything this is all just an argument to change this one to be about the invasion only. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  The scope of the two articles are not trying to be changed; this is merely an argument that right now the naming structure does not follow WP:COMMONNAME, which it should. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  But this is not its common name, as the name was in use in 2014 [[9]], the article was correctly named.[[10]] and 2015, shall I go on? NOw I have had the decency to not question your option, kindly give me the same courtesy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  The first source isn't a WP:RS afaik, but a Ukrainian shill site. The second one just calls it Ukraine conflict in the title.

  ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 12:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  The article as of now covers the broader conflict that started in 2014 and is therefore wrongly titled.

  ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  PLease read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  I removed it.

  ~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 11:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note is will up to the closer to judge the merits of any argument, they do not need us to tell them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• My view on this is, go with what the sources say. Here's what they say:

• The Times - "Russia Ukraine War" (paging laboriously through this archive it appears to start in 2022 - for some reason they won't just let you input a page number in the URL)
• The New York Times - "Russia-Ukraine War" (the earliest article under this heading was 20 July 2023, and therefore it has only been used about the present war, not the conflict 2014-2022).
• The Guardian - Now using "Russia-Ukraine War" in headlines, though the section is called "Ukraine war". States that this is the section about the conflict starting in 2022, coverage began in January 2022 and was originally called "Ukraine Crisis".
• BBC - Uses "War in Ukraine", paging back to the earliest page in the archive this section started in 2022. Looking at archived pages from 2015 (e.g., this one) the pre-2022 fighting was typically referred to as "Ukraine crisis".
• The Telegraph - the URL and section-name (you have to scroll to the bottom to see this) is "Russia-Ukraine War". Paging through to the earliest page - page 285 - this section began in early 2022.
• Associated Press - Russia-Ukraine War.
• Britannica - "Russia-Ukraine War" (2022-), though the article is a bit of a mess frankly.

What we can see from the above is that reliable sources are no longer using the name "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for the conflict beginning in 2022. Whatever else might be the case, "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not the common name for the present conflict, nor can it really be defended as a descriptive title now either since the conflict has long-since spread outside the internationally-recognised borders of Ukraine (e.g., conflict in the Black Sea, fighting in Kursk).

Additionally, the idea that the present conflict was simply an escalation of the conflict beginning in 2014, is not supported by these sources. Instead, whilst the above sources began their coverage in early 2022 with names like "Ukraine crisis" or "Ukraine escalation", they are now coalescing around the name "Russia-Ukraine War" for the conflict beginning in 2022.

It is true that prior to 2022 *some* sources used "Russia-Ukraine war" for the 2014-15 conflict (though "Donbas war" or similar were more common), but we can now see that this has changed and when sources refer to "Russia-Ukraine War", they are talking about the conflict starting in 2022, and they do not include the pre-2022 fighting as part of the same war.

This was also made very clear in the widely-reported 1,000-day length of the war, which only happened recently if you consider the present war to have begun on 24 February 2022:

• Associated Press: "1,000 days of war"
• BBC: "'Push Russia harder' Zelensky urges allies on war's 1,000th day"
• Le Monde: "War in Ukraine: After over 1,000 days of war, morale is being tested"
• Al Jazeera: "Ukraine marks 1,000 days of war with pledge to ‘never submit’ to Russia"
• Sky News: "Nearly three years since the start of the war in Ukraine, Sky News asks experts how the conflict is going from a military standpoint and what the coming days could look like."
• Euronews: "1,000 days of war"
• Reuters: "In pictures: 1,000 days of war in Ukraine"
• Deutsche Welle: "1,000 days of war in Ukraine in graphics"
• France 24: "1000 days of war: Moscow now controls nearly one-fifth of Ukraine's territory"
• ABC News: "Tuesday marks 1,000 days of the war in Ukraine"

For this reason I favour moving this article to either "Russia-Ukraine War" (first choice) or "Russo-Ukrainian War" (second choice), and moving the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian War to a different title such as Russo-Ukrainian conflict. FOARP (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It is true that prior to 2022 *some* sources used "Russia-Ukraine war" for the 2014-15 conflict Yes, and we see that, as you said, in 2014–15 those using "war" were in the minority, with "crisis" and "conflict" being far more common, especially in non-Ukrainian sources. [11] [12] [13] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the Ukrainian POV should be discounted just because it is Ukrainian, but the governing consideration when deciding a page-title is how it is described by reliable sources *in English*. In English it appears that most sources typically refer to the war that began on 24 February 2024 2022 with Russia's full-scale and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, as a separate war to that which came before. FOARP (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that FOARP is referring to the date 24 February 2022. If that is the case then I agree with what FOARP is saying. BobKilcoyne (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ooops, thanks for the correction - yes I mean 24 February 2022. FOARP (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And I fully agree with your reasoning; the Ukrainian PoV should not be discounted, but all I'm saying is that Ukrainian sources would have been more likely to use the term "war" in 2014 than Western sources may have. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and we see that, as you said, in 2014–15 those using "war" were in the minority, with "crisis" and "conflict" being far more common
We need to analyze the situation as of today, not in 2014–15.

A quick look at Scholar gives "2014 war" "2014 war" Ukraine - Google Scholar about 2 times advantage against "conflict" "2014 conflict" Ukraine - Google Scholar. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert - Unfortunately, due to (completely unwanted) changes in the Google algorithm you can no longer rely on Google to provide accurate counts for the number of results that use a particular phrase. Have a look at the results you're getting in your search - they include hits that do not include the phrase "2014 war" at all (e.g., the third hit I see from your search is this, which doesn't use the phrase, and instead is primarily discussing the post-2022 war). Additionally many of these hits are mentioning the 2014 war in Gaza (e.g., this, this, and this). FOARP (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

the third hit I see from your search is this, which doesn't use the phrase, and instead is primarily discussing the post-2022 war
There are deficiencies in this quick approach. But we still should not rename 2014 war article as "conflict", given there are solid sources naming it "war".

Also, your source still refers to it as "2014 Russo-Ukrainian war". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"we still should not rename 2014 war article as "conflict" - 1) Why not? As we've discussed a Ghits search is no longer reliable enough to show what the common name is, 2) We have a separate article about the 2014 war - War in Donbas, 3) as is shown below, high-quality reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name Russia-Ukraine War about the conflict which began on 24 February 2022 exclusively, particularly by defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and by defining the period before that day as "pre war". FOARP (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

as is shown below, high-quality reliable sources overwhelmingly use the name Russia-Ukraine War about the conflict which began on 24 February 2022 exclusively, particularly by defining 24 February 2022 as the start of the war and by defining the period before that day as "pre war".
This is not how you show "overwhelmingly".

• The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books
• Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine - Google Books
• Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War - Google Books
• Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine - Google Books
• Hiding in Plain Sight - Google Books
• The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine - ScienceDirect
• Journalism in the Crossfire: Media coverage of the war in Ukraine in 2014: Journalism Studies: Vol 19, No 7
• Project MUSE - Self-Determination and the War in Ukraine
• Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine: The Challenge of Change - Google Books
• Energy Resources and Markets – Perspectives on the Russia–Ukraine War | European Review | Cambridge Core
• Full article: Values, rights, and changing interests: The EU’s response to the war against Ukraine and the responsibility to protect Europeans
  We are not contesting whose list they collected is larger. You actually need to show a preference in some stats. Like, search results which show preference for "war" in Google Scholar results, even if imperfect. And sources need to be of good quality.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Google Scholar is no longer just imperfect, it sadly just gives no reliable count at all any more.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by citing books and articles published in 2015 (Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine), January 2022 (Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War), 2019 (Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine), 2015 (Hiding in Plain Sight), 2016 (The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine), 2016 again (Journalism in the Crossfire), 2017 (Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine), and 2020 (Energy Resources and Markets).

I think we all can agree that none of these sources seriously impacts the present discussion, which is about what the common-name is for this topic which did not exist until February 2022 is in 2025. FOARP (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Google Scholar is no longer just imperfect, it sadly just gives no reliable count at all any more.
Well, we still need to show a preference in some stats, not just collect a list of preference of ours. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the review of high-quality media sources I collected above covers this, no? Were there other broadsheet newspapers/magazines or high-quality broadcasters I should have included? Maybe Newsweek, the Economist, the LA Times, the Globe and Mail, NBC, CBC? Who else? Because I don't think there's many I missed in this review.

Saying "the sources have to be academic" is not supported by WP:NEWSORG because an ongoing war is not primarily an academic topic, but even with this standard the best that can be said is that academia is equivocal on the topic (honestly I think they're pretty clear on 24 February 2022 as the start of the war actually) so the overwhelming preference of high-quality reliable news media for this being a war that began on 24 February 2022 should be decisive. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the review of high-quality media sources I collected above covers this, no?
It's just the list of your preference, not the preferred wording of a whole set of sources.

And again, we should give preference to academic sources - When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources WP:SOURCETYPES. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If it’s just a list of my preference, then which high-quality broadsheets or reputable broadcasters should I have included that I did not include? Tell me and the odds are I will find an article where they refer to 24 February 2022 as the start of the war. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

which high-quality broadsheets or reputable broadcasters should I have included that I did not include?
You either need to analyze the naming preference in all the reliable sources, or in a significant and representable set of all the reliable sources.

Or, to show how the reliable sources say the subject should be called. And there were reliable sources presented saying that events started in 2014 should be called "war" - Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Manyareasexpert-20250122112800-FOARP-20250122112500 ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"You either need to analyze the naming preference in all the reliable sources" - I analysed in all of the high-quality broadsheets and broadcasters that I am aware of - and they *OVERWHELMINGLY* cite 24 February 2022 as the start of the war. Which did I miss?

"And there were reliable sources presented saying that events started in 2014 should be called "war"" - all of them predating 2022 or doing so in a way that made it clear they were arguing against a perceived consensus. And even with that, we have an article about the War in Donbas that will remain where it is. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• No. This invasion is a very significant part of the wider Russo-Ukrainian War which started earlier. Hence, a legitimate sub-page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  If this war is part of a war that began in 2014, then why were there many article last year about "1,000 days of war"? Why will 24 February 2025 be heralded as the "third anniversary" of the start of the war? I understand that it might be part of an over-arching conflict, but 2022 marked a massive escalation of that conflict in to full-blown war, similar to how China was attacked by Japan in 1931-2, and then again in 1933, but that doesn't meant the 1937 full-scale invasion of China by Japan in 1937 is not recognised as the start of the Sino-Japanese War. FOARP (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm having trouble sending messages(I think my relevant score authority isn't high enough or something), but yes this is the main argument case i use, plus Artsakh and Sudan and Libya. And common sense. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  why were there many article last year about "1,000 days of war"?
  Sources may view events separately, or together, or both. But we can't rename 2014 war as "conflict":

  The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books
  Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine - Google Books
  Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War - Google Books
  Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine - Google Books
  Hiding in Plain Sight - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  "But we can't rename 2014 war as "conflict"" - Similarly, we can't refer to an article the scope of which long ago spread outside the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine, and which reliable sources (both in news media and in academia) overwhelmingly refer to the "Russia-Ukraine war", as "Russian invasion of Ukraine". You need only look at the below sources to see that the way we cover this topic no longer conforms to the way reliable sources do. FOARP (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hard no. Renaming it as per your suggestion would severely compromise the neutrality of this article by suggesting that Ukraine and Russia are both equally responsible for this war taking place. This war is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, hence the title of this article. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable reader thinks the name Sino-Japanese War means that China and Japan were both equally responsible, or that the name Iraq War means that Iraq just happened to start a war with itself. Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME of conflicts. DecafPotato (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Long list of high-quality media sources referring to 12 November 2024 as the "1000th day of the war"

• Associated Press: "1,000 days of war"
• BBC: "'Push Russia harder' Zelensky urges allies on war's 1,000th day"
• Le Monde: "War in Ukraine: After over 1,000 days of war, morale is being tested"
• Al Jazeera: "Ukraine marks 1,000 days of war with pledge to ‘never submit’ to Russia"
• Sky News: "Nearly three years since the start of the war in Ukraine, Sky News asks experts how the conflict is going from a military standpoint and what the coming days could look like."
• Euronews: "1,000 days of war"
• Reuters: "In pictures: 1,000 days of war in Ukraine"
• Bloomberg: "Russia grinds deeper into Ukraine after nearly 1,000 days of war"
• WaPo: "Zelensky addresses E.U. as Ukraine marks 1,000 days of war"
• Guardian: "Zelenskyy says North Korea may send 100k troops to Ukraine, as war reaches 1,000 days"
• ABC News: "Tuesday marks 1,000 days of the war in Ukraine"

Long list of academic sources defining the start of the war as 24 February 2022

• Mayday! Mayday! The airlines stock returns are failing. Analysis of the impact of Russia–Ukraine war - "This paper investigates the short-term market impact of the beginning of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine (February 24, 2022) on a set of airline stocks listed."
• A Comparison of Ukrainian Hospital Services and Functions Before and During the Russia-Ukraine War - "before" here is defined as pre-2022 - "Data were abstracted from hospital databases for the prewar period (before February 23, 2022) and during the war (February 23, 2022, to May 30, 2023)."
• The impact of Russia–Ukraine war on crude oil prices: an EMC framework - "Ever since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war on February 24, 2022..."
• The Russia-Ukraine war: Implications for global and regional food security and potential policy responses - only refers to events post 24 February 2022, not to events before that (e.g., "Since the outbreak of the war in February 2022 and up until January 2023...").
• Economic costs of the Russia-Ukraine war - refers to 24 February 2022 as the start of the conflict which is the topic of the article, repeatedly refers to the post-2022 conflict as "the war" and pre-2022 as "pre-war".
• Repercussions of the Russia–Ukraine war - analyses "war shocks" around the period of the 2022 start of the war, refers to before 2022 as "pre-war" (e.g., "...local governments remained able to borrow at the pre-war cost of funding".
• Telecoupled impacts of the Russia–Ukraine war on global cropland expansion and biodiversity - analyses statistical impacts of the war starting with 2022, refers to 2022 as the start of the war (e.g., "Since the onset of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Russia–Ukraine war has relentlessly disrupted agricultural production in Ukraine") and to pre-2022 as "pre-war".
• Reactions of Global Stock Markets to the Russia–Ukraine War: An Empirical Evidence - again, the start of this statistical analysis is 2022, and it refers to 2022 as the start of the war (e.g., "This study measures the immediate impact of Russia–Ukraine war on the global stock markets for the first four months since Russia’s first invasion attempt on February 24, 2022") and it refers to pre-2022 as "pre-war"
• The impact of the Russia–Ukraine war on volatility spillovers - starts with 2022, repeatedly refers to 2022 as "...the onset of the war" and to pre-2022 as "pre-war"
• The failures of Russian Aerospace Forces in the Russia–Ukraine war and the future of air power - "In the prelude to the 2022 Russia–Ukraine War...".

FOARP (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Similarly, we can't refer to an article the scope of which long ago spread outside the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine, and which reliable sources (both in news media and in academia) overwhelmingly refer to the "Russia-Ukraine war", as "Russian invasion of Ukraine".
  We need to find an adequate naming for both then.

  The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books
  ... I decline the temptation to identify the date of February 24, 2022, as its beginning, no matter the shock and drama of the all- out Russian assault on Ukraine, for the simple reason that the war began eight years earlier, on February 27, 2014, when Russian armed forces seized the building of the Crimean parliament. Two sets of agreements, called Minsk I and Minsk II, ended that stage of the war in diplomatic terms a year later, in February 2015. Nevertheless, an undeclared war involving shelling and shooting across the demarca- tion line in Ukraine’s Donbas region continued for the next seven years, killing more than 14,000 Ukrainians but attracting little international attention. That phase ended with Russia’s formal withdrawal from the Minsk agreements and the start of its all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  That is only one source; WP:COMMONNAME or even simply the "correct" name is not determined by one source, even if the author states his opinion very strongly. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I like Serhii Plokhy and bought that book when it came out. However, this is Wikipedia, not Plokhypedia. As even Plokhy admits, this is is strictly his own interpretation. This is also a source that was originally published in May 2023 and would have been written in 2022, so we can ask if Plokhy's view is prevailing in 2025 - based on my review of high quality sourcing I don't think so. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  You know there are more sources for that. See Google Scholar search above, which, while not perfect, do not favor "conflict" term.

  Russia's Overlooked Invasion - Google Books
  The Russia-Ukraine War - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  As is hinted at even by the title ("overlooked"), Jakob Hauter's book explicitly states that it is against what they believe the consensus to be:

Extended content

The war in Ukraine did not start on 24 February 2022. It began eight years earlier in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region. In his new book, Jakob Hauter investigates the escalation of violence in the spring and summer of 2014. He demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, the pre-2022 conflict was not a civil war. Ukraine has been fighting a Russian invasion since the armed conflict's very beginning.

There is of course nothing wrong with arguing against a perceived academic consensus, and Hauter's work (a review of open-source documents available on the internet) is surely a valuable contribution, but it is not evidence of what the consensus is right now.

You see something similar in Fedorchak's book - he openly acknowledges that he is arguing against a consensus when he identifies 2014 as the start of the conflict ("In the perception of the global audience... the common perception..."). FOARP (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, we are not substituting "popular belief" and "common perception" with "academic consensus". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We definitely are not taking pieces where it is clear that the author is arguing their opinion against what they perceive as a consensus, as evidence of what the academic consensus is though.

And this is all setting aside the easy-to-demonstrate tendency of media *AND* academia to define 24 February 2022 as the start of the war.

I'm happy to set aside this discussion until the 24th of next months when the media, think-tanks, politicians, and academics will again overwhelmingly herald an anniversary of this war. If they don't that will be evidence that you are correct - but do you really think that is likely? FOARP (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

an anniversary of this war
This is not an argument to rename the 2014 war as "conflict". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone proposing renaming War in Donbas? FOARP (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The Russo-Ukrainian War started with the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The Russo-Ukrainian war article covers both the 2014–2022 war in Donbass and the 2022–2025 war in Ukraine, in addition to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2018 Kerch Strait incident.

One interpretation holds that this series of events constitutes ten (soon eleven) years of war. Another interpretation holds that the 2014–2022 events in Donbass and the 2022–2025 events throughout Ukraine constitute two separate wars. I would argue that these two framings are not mutually exclusive, and that we do not necessarily need to embrace one and reject the other, acknowledging that both interpretations have their merits, as well as their passionate adherents.

The main issue at hand in this talk page discussion is that a growing consensus of editors regard Russian invasion of Ukraine to be an unacceptable title for an article covering the events from 2022 to 2025. The debate over the future title of Russo-Ukrainian war is secondary, and can be resolved in a number of ways that do not entirely reject the "ten years of war" interpretation. One potential compromise, though it would be confusing, is:

Russo-Ukrainian war → Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–present)

Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)

There is also the option of shortening the scope of the former article:

Russo-Ukrainian war → Russo-Ukrainian war (2014–2022)

Russian invasion of Ukraine → Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd welcome any of these as an improvement. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Having read through all the previous comments, I should also note that I share your preference of "Russia–Ukraine" over "Russo–Ukrainian" per WP:COMMONNAME. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd also raise WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here: the conflict that began on 24 February 2022 is inarguably the primary topic for "Russia-Ukraine war"/"Russo-Ukrainian war", not the invasion of Crimea, nor the Donbass war, nor an over-arching conflict beginning on 26-27 February 2014 (or earlier). To see, this, the ten-year anniversary of the invasion of Crimea last year was barely noted in IRS news media, but the second anniversary of 24 February 2022 and 1000th day since then were widely marked. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Jumping in to this discussion to say that I'd support renaming this article to "Russia–Ukraine war" (I don't think "Russo-Ukrainian" is adequately supported in COMMONNAME; those combining forms of country names have largely faded out of modern English). For the overarching conflict beginning in 2014, I think "Russia–Ukraine conflict" or "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" works best, I have no preference for "Russia" or "Russo" in that case. DecafPotato (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That's basically it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just going to repost a statement I made a month ago on this

☁ TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok it got deleted, but TLDR "Look at how we sort Japan's invasions in the 1930s, look at Nagorno Karabakh, look at Sudan, thank you" TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have supported this proposal for years, but it has consistently been shot down by editors who support the status quo. For that reason I recommend that, as this move will affect two highly visible pages, an RFCBEFORE should be followed (like this), to gather sources that support this move. It should be an easy job, since few sources support the current title. Once an RM is opened, I will enthusiastically support. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is basically a WP:BEFORERFC anyway, since it is not a properly-formatted RM discussion. I've found it useful because when you dig in to the sources they're very clear: the topic of this article is a war that began on 24 February 2022. at this point, here in 2025, it is neither strictly accurate, nor does it represent the common name of this conflict, to call it simply Russian invasion of Ukraine. EDIT: if, as seems likely, this discussion is archived without action, I will - if everyone is OK with this - open a proper WP:BEFORERFC on this after 24 February 2025, which I expect to be widely reported as "the third anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war". FOARP (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Like I said, we should have 3 articles.

  One for the overarching conflict from start to present, including the long frozen conflict period.

  One for the initial 'limited war', far less involved in scope than the 2022-present conflict, but still notably hotter and more intensive than the frozen period(Feb 2014-Feb 2015, the Ukraine equivalent of Japan invading Manchuria)

  One for the full blown, full scale, war, which started 3 years ago. This one. This one should be Russo-Ukrainian War. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• You (the OP) are correct, of course. Russo-Ukrainian War was invented purely by accident, by Wikipedians. It used to be a conflict article, with annual RMs to extend the date. Some years before this invasion, it was renamed in participation of like 3 editors. The title and the idea that there has been a standing state of war since 2014 to 2024 was complete fiction. It's incredible that article has survived with that title so long. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Article length

The article is currently too long (>18,000 words). In the coming days, I intend to shorten the article per WP:SS: subsections with their own child articles should be summarized in the parent article in a manner similar to the lead of the child article. To preempt possible disputes this could cause, and also to facilitate any other discussion re: article length, I'm creating this discussion section. JDiala (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you should make a draft article that people can comment on and make edits to, rather than edit the main article. That way any potential edit warring on the main article can be avoided. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, will consider. JDiala (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This is highly complex subject, and it needs a large page. While something can be removed (I just removed a couple of pieces), one must be very careful and follow WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This Page is astroturfed by pro-US Propaganda.

Just be honest, not adding the USA or other west european nations to the infobox, but Belarus for Russia, just shows how afroturfed this page is. The United States needs to be involved to fire ATCM missiles into Russia. USA shares intelligence with Ukraine. They give weapons ams training. They have CIA assets on ground. What gives? We know this is not an organic page and heavily cured and controlled by Pro-US interests. 149.62.206.81 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

See RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"Afroturfed" - that would be an interesting lawn, for sure. FOARP (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You’re joking, right? 173.67.182.46 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Belarussian territory has been used for attacks on Ukraine. At least do a bit of reading on the topic. BeŻet (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Nobody said they werent, and stop avoiding the topic please. There are several other nations involved in helping Ukraine. Why arent they there? 149.62.208.245 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The general reason is that having countries as "Supporters" in infoboxes was deprecated, so "Supporters" aren't supposed to be listed unless editors decide on an exception. A while ago, some editors on this page discussed and narrowly decided that Belarus should be included as an exception, because of something to do with being an "aggressor" while not being "belligerent", so that's why Belarus is here.

There currently is a discussion on whether or not to make an exception for Ukraine's main supporters, since it had been a long time since the last discussion on the subject and the war had changed a lot. I'll mention though that several people have said that they'd like Belarus to be removed from the infobox. I personally think it's likely that Belarus will be removed, and that Ukraine's supporters won't be included, in order to avoid having "Supporters" in the infobox Placeholderer (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

In this "war", NATO is on the side of Ukraine, so in table where you are adding only Ukraine, add whole NATO, Israel, South Korea, Japan 77.46.232.86 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done. The inclusion of supporters is a frequently and hotly debated topic on this page. An edit request for such a controversial issue stand no chance before change in status quo is agreed on. Arnoutf (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

A useful source on who is/isn't a party to this war

Wentker A. At war? Party status and the war in Ukraine. Leiden Journal of International Law. 2023;36(3):643-656. doi:10.1017/S0922156522000760. Key quotes:

• "Supplying arms to Ukraine does not establish a sufficiently direct connection to hostilities, since only the actual use of the weapons causes harm to Russia. For this assessment, it does not matter what kind of weapons or materials are supplied, or whether Ukrainian soldiers are additionally trained on those weapons. Repeated affirmations from Western states that such assistance has not made them parties are therefore in line with the legal framework outlined above."
• "Reports also indicate that the US was aware that its intelligence contribution was part of operations directly harming Russia and that it had a role in the decision-making on these operations. Based on these reports, there seems to be a good case for considering the conditions of co-party status fulfilled. The facts can, of course, not be fully ascertained, and the US contends that it did not share intelligence that was sufficiently granular ‘explicitly to target and kill Russian soldiers’."
• "Russia has launched significant parts of its invasion from Belarusian territory. This could constitute a sufficiently direct connection to the harm caused by the Russian invasion. Accordingly, Belarus’ putting its territory at Russia’s disposal could conceivably make Belarus a party on Russia’s side, depending on how Belarus’ territorial contribution has been co-ordinated with Russia’s military operations, and Belarus’s awareness thereof."

Based on the above there is no real ground for including states as parties to the conflict in the infobox just because they supply weapons and training to Ukraine. There might be based on intelligence sharing, but the author does not appear convinced that this was the case. The author appears more convinced of the grounds for including Belarus since the invasion was launched from there, but again the author does not appear fully convinced.

Of course this is just one author's view, but based on it, I think, if anything, rather than adding anyone else, we might consider removing Belarus from the infobox, since their involvement is something that needs heavy caveating. It made sense in February 2022 when the situation was less clear, but I'm not sure about now. However, this doesn't change anything about how we should describe Belarusian involvement in the body-text of the article. FOARP (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This source is also interesting on Belarus and is closer to justifying a special status for Belarus in our infobox, but it also spends a lot of time making it clear that, in their view, Belarus is not involved "directly" in the war. FOARP (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Iran’s Support For Russia

Why hasn’t Iran been listed a supporter of Russia yet just like North Korea (before becoming a belligerent) and Belarus? Despite claiming to be neutral, they’re literally sending the Russians military aid (in drones and missiles)! Maximations (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

We do not list providers of arms for either party in the infobox. Read the FAQ before posting questions which have been answered previously. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the above, I think we should be looking at removing Belarus, at the very least unless secondary sourcing can be found for a "special status" for Belarus. I definitely wouldn't favour adding Iran, China, or other states that have supplied Russia during their war of aggression. FOARP (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Belarus is fine. It was discussed previously on this page (see the consensus to keep it in the infobox here), and it is different from countries-suppliers: the war was started by Russia from the Belorussian territory. If Finland would allow Ukrainian forces to attack Russia from the Finnish territory, then it would also need to be included. Moreover, Russia and Belarus is nearly the same state. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

China has not supplied weapons to Russia during the Ukraine war. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no consensus among WP:RS that that is the case. Here are some WP:RS that deny weapons were sent:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/public-and-private-iran-insists-it-did-not-send-russia-ballistic-missiles

https://www.reuters.com/world/irans-president-says-tehran-did-not-transfer-weapons-russia-since-he-took-office-2024-09-16/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/11/is-iran-supplying-ballistic-missiles-to-russia-for-the-ukraine-war TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• We have a page Iran and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course they did send their drone instructors to Crimea, some of whom were killed, but this probably does not warrant the infobox inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, WP:CIRCULAR. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That was not an argument (I agree with your point that Iran should not be included), but just a link to a page with info on the subject. As about China, not only they delivered a lot of drones to Russia (just as Ukrainians were buying drones in China), but the military collaboration here goes even deeper [14]. But again, I am not suggesting to include China to the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Drones aren't considered military equipment. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I am a bit confused regarding the two reverts made to my edit [15] [16] and I don't agree with them.

@Manyareasexpert I undid your revert.

1) A published book is considered reliable, WP:PUBLISHED. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge the veracity of a published source.

2) The article includes every sensationalist claim made by Zelenskyy, such as: "Zelenskyy also showcased footage which he said showed Russian troops burning the faces of killed North Korean soldiers in an attempt to conceal their presence on the battlefield."

Then you have Politico's reporting on alleged China deliveries is included "Politico reported in March 2023 that Chinese state-owned weapons manufacturer Norinco shipped assault rifles, drone parts, and body armor to Russia between June and December 2022, with some shipments via third countries including Turkey and the United Arab Emirates."

WP:NPOV might be a good guide in this situation.

@Cinderella157 I undid your revision because the discussion you linked [17] is discussing whether to include the UK into the infobox, it isn't about including the BBC article into the article itself, therefore your reasoning for undoing my revision is not good. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I fully concur with TurboSuperA+'s edits. As I've discussed extensively in the past, this article has a serious pro-Ukraine POV. JDiala (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

A published book is considered reliable is untrue. Being published – and the term has a Wikio-syncratic definition simply reading made available to the public in some form – is a requisite for something to be considered a source, but this does not confer reliability. Editors do determine the reliability of a source and there are dedicated processes for doing this, including WP:RSN.

I have no opinion on the quality of Polska na Wojnie as a source, but it is important that it is not being cited as stated in the text. The direct source is a website called 'DeclassifiedUK.org', which has been discussed repeatedly at RSN including most recently here. The views on its reliability are mixed, though lean towards: heavily biased but generally factual. I would prefer the named source be cited directly, rather than a marginal intermediary.

Regarding the statements introduced into the article, they fail to relate themselves to the conflict in any discernible way. In a similar vein to what I said about North Korean troops in Siberia months ago, the mere presence of special forces in Ukraine is unremarkable. Whether they are worth discussing is dependent upon what they are doing there. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If the presence of the special forces is at all a function of the war (rather than e.g., a pre-existing arrangement), it's absolutely notable enough for inclusion. JDiala (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I have cited the book directly in the article. Here is the relevant part from pg. 74:

Minister X: - Without the people, nothing can be done. From the first day of the war we should have been there as much as possible. And the army, and the services, and the diplomats. Other countries didn't cower. I remember being in mid-March in Kyiv. I was returning via the Zhytomyr route. It was a time when the Russians were still in Bucha, and the route was a gray zone. It was possible to run into Russians. We passed the last checkpoint. The Ukrainians told us that we continue at our own risk. And who did we meet next? Ukrainian soldiers and... British special forces. Uniformed. With weapons. They moved with Ukrainians in trucks and off-road vehicles with artillery radars. They were tracking targets. They were learning this war. This type of radar locates the place where mortar or rocket shells fall and are fired.

TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can link with an actual diff, so I can see what was added or removed? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Text added refering to a BBC article, Ukraine war: Leak shows Western special forces on the ground was reverted with this edit summary: Previously discussed at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 15#US/UK special forces in Ukraine. WP:VNOT applies. Article says nothing about what they are doing there. The linked discussion directly addressed the BBC article at about the time it was published. The article specifically states: The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing. The discussion identified that there are many reasons why such soldiers might be present such as embassy security. The consensus at the time was not to use this source anywhere in the article. (ping Slatersteven with some diffs)

The source (refering to strengths in march 2023) has been placed in a way to imply confirmation of events in March 2022, which it does not do. The material was reinstated here before opening this discussion and without achieving a consensus for reinstating this material per WP:VNOT. There is still no consensus to include this particular edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

[[18]], I see no issue with this, the USA seems to have confirmed that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you might review your comments regarding the BBC source when it was previously discussed at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 15#US/UK special forces in Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"The consensus at the time was not to use this source anywhere in the article."

I don't see it. I see consensus that the infobox shouldn't be modified on account of it, not that it shouldn't be a part of the article. I don't see anyone disputing the reliability of the source (BBC) or the veracity of the claim. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a consensus not to modify the infobox but as a result of the discussion, the BBC report was not used at all in the article. The previous discussion identified there were WP:MILL reasons for their presence in Ukraine, which is the pertinent point being raised here. The report states: The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing. One cannot infer from that (as your edit would do), that the personnel were acting in support of Ukraine or that they were present a year earlier. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that the BBC reports some of these leaked documents as having been doctored to say something they did not say in the original, raising doubts as to their accuracy. I also agree with @Cinderella157 that, since there are WP:MILL explanations for why there would be special forces in Ukraine, it could be undue to discuss it here. Whilst I personally wouldn't be surprised if UK special forces were present in Ukraine, we need more instances and reporting to establish this being WP:DUE. I'd also say that the edit was not an accurate portrayal of the report in any event: anonymous Pentagon officials were reported as confirming the validity of the documents in general, but it's not clear that they were conferring the accuracy of the specific documents related to special forces - since at least one of the documents was in fact not genuine (i.e., it had apparently been altered) this is rather important.

This isn't a situation like that with the North Koreans - there has been so much reportage of the presence of North Koreans at the front, including in Russian sources, that this is beyond doubt. FOARP (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we do know that British and other instructors trained Ukrainian forces, mostly abroad. But we need to know more details to include such info. How many such forces were deployed in Ukraine? 10 or 10 thousand? What did they do? Did they just protect an embassy of fought on the front lines? Where? We know all of that about the North Koreans, as this has been widely reported. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The single source and the claim look a little suspicious because these guys might be just the soldiers of the International Legion (Ukraine). Better sourcing would be great. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Politico

Al Jazeera TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

These are all reporting essentially the same thing - leaked documents, some of them doctored. FOARP (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is an RS and it says there were around 100 "personnel" from EU and around 100 from US. It says "The leaked information does not specify which activities the forces are carrying out or their location in Ukraine." It also says that "POLITICO has not independently verified the documents, and there have been indications that some of the leaked pages were doctored." Does it pass a threshold for inclusion to the page? I would rather not include it given the amount of disinformation promoted about this war from all sides. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

By that logic we can remove every claim by Zelenskyy or UA MoD that "cannot be independently verified", starting with the casualty numbers, but also the claim that Russians are burning North Korean faces for example, and others.

You cannot pick and choose which claims to include. That's why we go by WP:RS, if a reliable source reports on a claim, we include it. Otherwise we run into NPOV problems. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The report casts doubt on the documents being valid - points out that they have been partly doctored even - whilst reporting on the documents' content. That's the issue here, not the lack of independent verification. FOARP (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Only the part regarding casualties: "One document, which detailed the number of casualties suffered in Ukraine on both sides, did appear to have been doctored." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 22:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The BBC and other sources pointed out that this was the one document that they knew of. This is not high-confidence information. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that disputes the veracity of the leaks or claims they didn't happen? If the leaks were fake, I doubt that so many news organisations would report on it, or that the US would launch an investigation into the leaks. If I created "leaks" in Photoshop with made up information, I doubt the DoJ would investigate them.

"Although some of the files shared online appear to have been doctored, US news outlets including the New York Times have reported that US officials acknowledge many of the documents are genuine and were initially shared online without alterations."

I am not against an edit/addition that says some of the leaked documents were doctored. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I have an RS saying that at least some of the documents in the leak were doctored. That’s sufficient grounds not to include when the only basis is the leak.

Really, this is the kind of thing where if this was as significant as it was presented, there would have been further information beyond this leak. And there hasn’t been in some years now.

Contrast this with the North Korean involvement which has been report after report ongoing for months, including in the Russian media. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying that the infobox should be changed based on this information. However, it does fit into the article, because the article is full of claims. Many claims cannot be independently verified and some claims were denied, yet they still made it into the article.

We either include all claims that appear in WP:RS, or we remove all claims that can't be independently verified. You can't just choose to include claims that make Ukraine look good and Russia look bad. WP:POVPUSH. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

If Zelensky or Putin claims something, that's relevant because they're making that claim, though it should always be made clear where it is just them making that claim. For this reason we've included claims from Putin about a NATO build-up in Ukraine that is totally groundless and without evidence in the article - because Putin made it.

But who is making the claim in this case? Some ostensibly leaked documents, that were partially doctored, and of which there has been no real corroboration in getting on two years. That's the problem. That's also exactly how the RS report them - they do not make this claim, they cast doubt on this claim.

As for POVpushing: sorry if a lot of the facts about this war tend not to be very favourable to Russia. If you want to remove information you don't think is substantiated in sourcing, please go ahead and let everyone know what the edits you propose to make fixing that are. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Not only Zelenskyy, there's also "Ukrainian MoD", "intel sources", etc. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, now can you see the difference between government sources saying something, and partially-doctored documents saying something? Or even a general appearing to suggest something? FOARP (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@TylerBurden

Nobody has complained about the inclusion of the "Poland at war" book. Do you have a WP:RS that criticises the book or denies the veracity of the claims in it?

Assume good faith, WP:AGF.

Also, you don't own this article, WP:OWNERSHIP. Why do you personally have to be convinced for something to be included in the article?

Both @JDiala and @slatersteven said they agreed with the information being included. @JDiala said it should be included, and @slatersteven was not opposed to its inclusion. If you have problems with BBC or the book Poland at war as a WP:RS you should discuss it at RSN, because as it stands now they are reliable sources of information.

Furthermore, removing information from a BBC, Al Jazeera, Politico article, while leaving in stuff like this "Exclusive: Russia has secret war drones project in China, intel sources say" is an example of WP:POVPUSHING and going against WP:NPOV.

WP:ONUS doesn't apply here. No statement of fact is being made, and multiple WP:RS cover the claims. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

No I said I had no issue with it being included, that is not quite the same as saying it should be. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Edited. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Well you sure seem to love coming out swinging at anyone that doesn't agree with you, which was already obvious by your WP:BLUDGEONING above, there is no point in addressing the personal attacks, so I'll just state the obvious, which is that WP:ONUS absolutely does apply here, since you're looking to include the content, which you're apparently willing to WP:EDITWAR to the point of risking a block for WP:3RR for. I suggest you read policy you cite more carefully, particularly ONUS and your ironic usage of WP:AGF, while assuming zero good faith yourself. It's a shame that there seems to be so little experienced editor and administrator activity on this article these days that you can edit war and WP:BLUDGEON your way to inserting your narratives.

You talk about neutrality, while another editor had to add basic context that you omitted such as the ″leak″ being partially doctored. That's something you would think a ″neutral″ editor would include. But if people really consider your two year old exposé WP:DUE (interesting that you don't add newer sources, which you would think would exist if this was so notable), then so be it. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith on your part when I made two separate edits: 1) Including the information from the book "Poland at war", and 2) including the leaks reported on by the BBC.

You used the complaints against 2, to remove 1 and 2. How is that good faith?

The only one in danger of breaking the 3RR rule is you, because I made additions to the article, while you reverted them. It's called the three revert rule, not the 3 edit rule.

Furthermore, you claimed there was consensus among editors when there was none.

Do you have any complaints against including the book 'Poland at war'? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Your reverts in 24 hours: One two three.

My reverts in 24 hours: One.

Once again, your statements do not line up with reality, might explain the narratives you're pushing. As for your book, see below. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think my behaviour is bad and disruptive, then write an ANI. I'm tired of you threatening me and pinging administrators on my Talk page, all in efforts to stop me adding information that you think reflects negatively on Ukraine.

I'm not the only one who has complained about NPOV problems in this article. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sidestepping the entire discussion on the reverts (personally I am not convinced presence of special forces is that notable as they may be present as observer or e.g. to protect diplomatic posts/be on standby to evacuate citizens of said countries, the document did not say why they were there), I would propose to change the text to past tense as we do not know the status today to: "According to a leaked "top secret" document, UK, Latvia, France, the United States and the Netherlands had special forces present in Ukraine in 2023". Arnoutf (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not opposed to that change. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It now says "According to a partially-doctored set of leaked top secret documents..." [the claim]. I would rather not include any "doctored" info to the page even if it was published. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

For accuracy, it has to be mentioned that the documents were partly doctored if we're mentioning this. FOARP (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sure, we must notice it. But then we should probably do not include it at all, in my opinion. Of course if there is a consensus to include (I am not sure), then fine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• We now have five sources spread over two paragraphs of which three specifically deal with the leaked documents and are repeating what is stated in the originally reported BBC article. We have three separate reports from the start of the war, March 2023 and May 2024. Please note that my recent edits to those two paragraphs do not infer my agreement to retain those paragraphs.

The first para recounts an observation by a Polish minister who observed armed soldiers in British uniform with Ukrainian soldiers near the front moving in vehicles with artillery radars. The minister reported these as British special forces. The conclusion that they were British Army appears to be based on the uniform, which as My very best wishes observes, is not conclusive. How were they identified as special forces? Were they wearing ski masks? A combat uniform would not show markings that would identify a unit. The assertion that they were special forces would appear to be speculation. If they were indeed British Army, they were most likely Royal Artillery that operate such equipment. Whether they were there to advise or observe is speculation. The latter does not support the Ukrainian war effort.

The problem with the leaked documents is that: The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing. One cannot infer or imply anything from the documents, that the soldiers' presence is related to the war or that their presence is in any way supporting the Ukrainian war effort because there are other reasonable WP:MILL explanations for their presence.

The third report suggests UK special forces were operating in Ukraine based on doctrinal changes that might be made in the light of direct experience but also might have been made in light of observation. The conclusion is speculation.

Contrary to what TurboSuperA+ appears to believe, per WP:VNOT verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Editors have a responsibility to determine what information/sources contribute encyclopedically to the article and what information/sources are pertinent. Implying or inferring something not specifically stated in sources is WP:SYNTH. We also have WP:NOTEVERYTHING (WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS) and WP:DUE.

These two paragraphs are placed in a section about foreign support for Ukraine. Their placement infers foreign special forces supporting Ukraine. What do we really have from these sources? In summary: There is speculation and unconfirmed reports that foreign military personnel have been operational within Ukraine. While it has been confirmed that foreign special forces personnel have been present in Ukraine, it is not confirmed that they have conducted military operations or otherwise supported the Ukrainian war effort.

When put that way, it isn't very pertinent to the article and particularly, it is not pertinent to a section about foreign support for Ukraine. What might be more pertinent to this section is this NYT article about UK providing in-country training linked from the BI article already [19]: Ukrainian commanders told The Times of London as long ago as April 2022 that special forces were in there to train local recruits on British-supplied NLAW anti-tank missiles. However, that is old news and I am pay-walled from reading the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely agree with your comments above. There are too few factual details. We do not even know what they actually did in Ukraine if anything. Even if true, how significant is such info for this very general and very long page? Very little, unless someone is trying to make a point that NATO countries are involved here. Yes, of course they are involved, but more significantly by providing weapons, training, money, sanctions to Russia and intelligence, as this page already say. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I agree that the leaks should not be included.

"How were they identified as special forces?"

But they were identified, does it matter how? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You're asking for evidence even when it is present in sources. Why are you singing a different tune here? --TylerBurden (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Zelenskyy seems to know the intent behind the actions of the soldiers on the video. How? Can he read minds?

Also, how do we know those are DPRK soldiers? 1) drone video is low res, and 2) even if we could see their faces, there are many "Asian-looking" Russian citizens who aren't North Koreans. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So were back to arguing that North Koreans aren't in this conflict again? Look, if you really want to remove this content (or include the "NATO special forces" claim? I'm not clear which you are trying to do) then start an RFC on it. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you should read my comments again, more carefully this time.

I specifically say this isn't about North Korea being a belligerent in the conflict.

This is about including Zelenskyy's claim that a drone video allegedly showed Russian soldiers burning the faces of North Korean soldiers to hide their involvement in the war.

I cannot say it any more clearly. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"Zelenskyy's claim..." - There's your answer. A head of state of one of the belligerents made this statement. This is the same reason we include Putin's claims about "Nazism" and "NATO infrastructure". You're getting in to WP:BLUD territory here. FOARP (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Updating A4 in the Q&A

A recurring question on this page is about including support for Ukraine in the infobox. In the FAQ, this is addressed by referencing this no-consensus RfC about arms suppliers closed in March 2022. I think that that discussion isn't as helpful by now, because 1. the war has changed a lot since March 2022, but I think more importantly 2. use of a "Support" field in situations like arms suppliers was deprecated in this July 2023 RfC. I think a more helpful answer in the FAQ would say that "supporters" aren't normally included in conflict infoboxes (linking to that 2023 RfC); mention/link to discussions around inclusion of DPR, LPR, and DPRK; and clarify that the inclusion of Belarus was decided as an exceptional case. Thoughts? Placeholderer (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely didn't notice there was an active RfC related to this, but I guess this proposal is unchanged, except that if other countries are added to the infobox they be referenced in the FAQ answer too Placeholderer (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between these two paragraphs, why is one allowed in the article but the other isn't?

Allowed: "Zelenskyy also showcased footage which he said showed Russian troops burning the faces of killed North Korean soldiers in an attempt to conceal their presence on the battlefield.

Not allowed: "Polish journalist Zbigniew Parafianowicz related in his book Polska na wojnie an interview with a Polish minister who said that during a visit to Ukraine shortly after the start of the war he saw armed and uniformed British special forces soldiers working with Ukrainian soldiers."

@TylerBurden pinging you, since you seem to have declared yourself owner of this article. You are reverting edits and single-handedly deciding what goes in and what stays out of the article. Your editing is becoming distruptive. WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:STONEWALL TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

See wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Why AGF for the first, but not the second? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yours was the only comment. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I added the second paragraph and it was removed. I'm asking why AGF doesn't apply in that case? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again going to ignore the absurd personal attacks, but you're making a great case for yourself at WP:ANI. Are you familiar with the WP:DUEWEIGHT policy? Doesn't seem like it. Zelenskyy's showcase of the face burning has been widely covered in WP:RS, can you demonstrate that the same applies to this book and journalist that you repeatedly keep adding back after several editors have reverted you? --TylerBurden (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Zelensky showing something as evidence of North Korean involvement in a presentation that was widely reported is clearly WP:DUE. We also include claims made by Putin, even the ones that are very clearly totally false, because they are made by Putin as an alleged justification for the war which was widely reported.

In contrast random claims made by an author as to what an unidentified Polish minister said they saw in 2022, with no real coverage, are much less likely to be WP:DUE.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Some things just aren’t worth mentioning, even if verifiable. FOARP (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"an unidentified Polish minister"

Wikipedia doesn't require that journalists reveal their sources. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have requirements for inclusion that go beyond mere verifiability. In this case, it’s not at all clear why this information is WP:DUE.

Putin's claims that Ukraine has become a base for “NATO infrastructure” are included in the article, not because anyone thinks they’re true, but because Vladimir Putin made that claim as a widely reported justification for the war. FOARP (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think mentioning foreign special forces helping Ukraine in the section about foreign help for Ukraine is giving in undue weight. In fact, the suggested "burning of face of North Korean soldiers" is unnecessary detail that doesn't add anything to the section of North Korean soldiers helping Russia. The section already has plenty of sources about claims of NK soldiers being there, why is it important that their faces are getting burned?

So, in fact, the first paragraph is undue weight on account of unnecessary detail, while the second paragraph adds new information regarding foreign special forces helping Ukraine. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"I don't think mentioning foreign special forces helping Ukraine in the section about foreign help for Ukraine is giving in undue weight" - It wouldn't be if Putin was the one saying it and it was widely reported (and.... yes we do include Putin's claims about NATO infrastructure in Ukraine). But in this case it is instead an anonymous Polish minister saying things that, even if true, do not necessarily mean "foreign special forces helping Ukraine", and are reported in a single source, not widely.

But if you really want to push inclusion of this content, start an RFC on it. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"are reported in a single source, not widely."

Actually, there are at least two english-language sources reporting on it, probably more in Polish. I haven't found a single source disputing it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"In September 2024, Reuters reported documents indicating Russia had established a weapons programme in China to develop and produce long-range attack drones, with assistance from local specialists, for use in the invasion of Ukraine."

Here is Reuters reporting on "documents" that was included in the article.

It is very obvious that the article will quote any "document" or "intelligence sources" as long as it is against Russia or foreign assistance to Russia. But when it comes to foreign assistance to Ukraine, suddenly we need Putin to claim it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So you want to remove that content? FOARP (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Well yes, I just can't cause it will be reverted. If we're going to remove content on the grounds that it is undue and not claimed by anyone noteworthy, then I think we should apply that standard across the board and to all content in the article, not just to one party in the conflict. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The leaks were widely covered in WP:RS, still removed

The book was covered in at least two WP:RS, then someone said it's better to quote the book directly.

"a great case for yourself at WP:ANI."

Stop threatening me and do it already. I welcome the scrutiny. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

”the leaks were widely covered in WP:RS - in a way that cast doubt on their validity by pointing out that the leaked documents had partly been doctored. And we’ve also had more time from the leaks for more reports to come out, and they haven’t.

In contrast, as time has gone on the presence of North Koreans at the front has become an established fact with a heavy weight of evidence behind it from a whole range of sources. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not disputing the inclusion of North Korea, I am disputing the paragraph about their faces being burnt. How can we judge intent behind the alleged actions from a drone video? What evidence is there that those in the video are in fact DPRK soldiers? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to, the source makes that interpretation for us (and we are clear that this is something that Zelensky said, not something we are saying in the voice of Wikipedia, and is clearly WP:DUE because Zelensky is head-of-state for one of the belligerents in the conflict and this was widely reported.

If Putin did something similar, it would also be included most likely. FOARP (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"the source makes that interpretation for us (and we are clear that this is something that Zelensky said, not something we are saying in the voice of Wikipedia"

Why doesn't that reasoning apply to the second paragraph? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it’s not WP:DUE. It’s neither a statement by anyone prominent nor is it compelling evidence due to all the issues everyone has already discussed in great detail. Zelenskyy’s statement is at least from Zelenskyy even if you don’t accept the evidence presented.

Either put this to an RFC or drop the topic. I don’t see any point in going round and round and round the same talking points over and over. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

lol, Zelinski, the president of one of the two combatants is not noteworthy. With that idea I am out of here with a firm, there is your difference. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Who said that? Why even respond if you're not going to respond to the comment?

Zelenskyy is absolutely noteworthy in this conflict, as he is the lesder of one of the warring sides, as you have so astutely noticed. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Then there you have your difference, you have answered your own question, so (as I said) with that I am out of here,. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Would you agree that the following paragraphs should be removed according to the same argument?

"In September 2024, Reuters reported documents indicating Russia had established a weapons programme in China to develop and produce long-range attack drones, with assistance from local specialists, for use in the invasion of Ukraine."

"Reports of an alleged leak of Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) documents by US intelligence sources said that the FSB had not been aware of Putin's plan to invade."

"By November, British intelligence said that recent weeks had "likely seen some of the highest Russian casualty rates of the war so far.""

"On 21 November, CNN quoted an intelligence assessment that Iran had begun to help Russia produce Iran-designed drones in Russia."

"In June 2023, US military intelligence suggested Iran was providing both Shahed combat drones and production materials to develop a drone manufactory to Russia."

etc. etc.

There seems to be a double standard applied in this article. When a "document", "leak", "anonymous source", "intelligence source" say something regarding Russia, it is included in the article, no questions asked. But when one wants to include similar information about Ukraine, suddenly we need Putin himself to claim it.

I am not the only editor to point out serious NPOV problems in this article, and the double standard isn't helping. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

1) If you’re only raising these in the context of information you want to add, not because you actually want to remove them, see WP:POINT.

2) I can see removing at least some of these to deal with length issues with this article, but every one of these is more WP:DUE than the information you are trying to add for the reasons we have already discussed ad nauseam. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Should Belarus be removed from the infobox?

The 2023 RFC on this topic can be found here.

Belarus is presently listed in the infobox under Russia and North Korea in a section headed "Supported by:". Should this listing of Belarus be removed? FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Options:

• Yes
• No
• Other (please define)

Survey

• Yes - For a number of reasons:

1) Whilst Belarus is clearly an important enabler in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, there is no secondary sourcing analysing all of Russia's supporters and singling out Belarus as a special class of country that Iran and other backers of Russia do not belong to. Listing them as such is therefore WP:OR based on editor interpretation of primary sources.

2) The designation of Belarus as a "special supporter" is something that requires detailed explanation that is not suitable for the infobox. Per the 2023 RFC that deprecated the "supported by" section in infoboxes for wars in general, and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE only the most simple information should be included in the infobox.

3) No sourcing is provided for Belarus being a supporter of North Korea, yet, with the addition of North Korea to the list of belligerents on Russia's side, the infobox now states that they are a supporter of both Russia and North Korea in this conflict.

4) Consistency with high-quality articles such as World War II, where there is no list of supporters, special or otherwise. This despite, for example, the role of Sweden in allowing Axis troops to cross their territory, and the USSR's pre-Barbarossa support for Nazi Germany, having some parallels with Belarus's role in this war.

For all of the above reasons Belarus should be removed from the Infobox, with no other changes to article content. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• No, it should remain in the infobox. The Institute for the Study of War assessed Belarus even as a "co-belligerent" . This page uses Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine. The "special supporter" parameter RfC was about another template. The RfC about "special supporter" was closed by a non-admin in July 2023. The RfC about infobox, specifically for this page, was closed in November 2023. The participants of the latter, me including, were well aware of another, "special supporter" RfC. This is the case of consensus specifically for this page. What has changed for Belarus since then? One of important changes was placing the nuclear weapons by Russia at the Belarusian territory. Another was their involvement in the abduction of Ukrainian children. During all this time, Russian forces were located in Belarus. Informally speaking, Belarus is no longer an independent state. One can also consult with our page Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• No, as we have sources that say they were a belligerent [[20]], [[21]]. We do not need an explanation, just a footnote. We have plenty of sources for them allowing Russia to attack in the body, and this is unlike any other example given, neither Sweden or Russia allowed attacks from its soil. As such it goes well beyond just support, but stops short of being a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  How does sourcing describing them as a belligerent support the listing of them as "supported by"? FOARP (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  It shows that there is a middle ground. That this is not a black and white issue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Identifying a middle ground that is not stated in a reliable source is WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  These and other sources say that Belarus was a direct participant in the war in a lot of different ways, such as providing their territory to Russia to attack Ukraine, hosting Russian military forces and nuclear weapons, giving up to Russia nearly all military equipment and ammunition they had, uniting in the same state, kidnapping Ukrainian children, and helping to resolve the rebellion by Wagner forces. That is why Belarus should be included to the infobox either as an "ally" to Russia or "supporter". My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  OK, but we're not saying in the infobox that Belarus is a direct participant in the war. We're saying "supported by". FOARP (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Did Belarus support Russia during this war per multiple RS? Yes, it certainly did. Hence, this is correct info. Even though I think we need to include Belarus as a "co-belligerent". My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  We not only need to show RS cites showing Belarus support for Russia/North Korea, we need to show RS cites for a kind of special support that (according to RS analysis) other countries (e.g., Iran) don't give Russia/North Korea. I actually have more sympathy for a belligerent status than I do for "supported by", but ultimately am against it because it gives us nowhere to go if Belarus ever does directly intervene with their army in this war. FOARP (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You say we need to show RS cites for a kind of special support that other countries don't give Russia. Yes, of course. And such "very special support" is noticed in numerous RS. It includes: (a) providing their territory to Russia to attack Ukraine, (b) hosting Russian nuclear weapons, (c) kidnapping Ukrainian children as a part of genocide conducted by Russia, etc. None of other countries helps in the same way to Russia or Ukraine.My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Do RSs treat that as a "special support"? FOARP (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• NoNeutral - We all agree that Belarus let Russia invade from Balarusian territory, right? If that's not support, I don't know what is. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  No-one's denying Belarusian support for the invasion. The question is whether it makes sense to call them out in the infobox like this given we don't mention any other supporting country (e.g., Iran) and generally don't name supporting countries in the infobox. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Great question. What defines "support"? My understanding is that Iran sold Russia weapons used in the conflict. If selling weapons is "support", we'd probably need to list a whole bunch of people. My sense is that letting another nation's troops on to your territory is more meaningful "support" than simply selling weapons. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Obviously Belarus has given important support, but it's very hard to draw the line in a way that makes including Belarus and no-one else make sense. Particularly, reliable sources don't seem to do this. FOARP (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know. Drawing the line at "has provided troops" and/or "has allowed use of territory for launching attack" seems like a reasonable line to me.

  Asking for a source that says "These countries count as supporters and these countries don't" is a bit of an extraordinary request. I can't imagine there are many sources for many conflicts that really lay things out like that.

  The problem is that "Support" is always going to be somewhat subjective. For us, and for sources.

  If we follow your reasoning, we'd basically have to eliminate "support" from all infoboxes of this nature. NickCT (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Eliminating support from all info boxes was basically what was decided back in 2023. An exception was made for this info box, but I don’t think that makes sense. FOARP (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  Can you link the 2023 decision? NickCT (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  After reading the RfC's more closely; it's not 100% clear to me why the template RfC calling for the removal of "Supported by" from the template doesn't apply here. While I think saying Belarus "supported" the Russian invasion is probably neutral and verifiable, the rationale for stripping "Supported by" from these templates also seems pretty good. I'm changing my position to neutral. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  This page uses Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine. The RfC was about another template. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC was about the manner of usage of 'infobox military conflict', which that template page uses. The RfC also explicitly refers to 'related templates' and applies to them. It does apply here. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. I'm inclined to agree with RnD. If you look at the closing rationale for the RfC, all the same reasoning would seem to apply to this template. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC about the Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine was more recent, and specifically about this page and this template. Hence, it ether overrides the previous RfC for this page or simply is an RfC about another template. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC at Template: Infobox military conflict (see here) clearly applies to similar infoboxes such as Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, which incidentally also invokes Template: Infobox military conflict. The closers comment was: ... in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted. However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. A strong affirmative consensus is reasonably interpreted as an RfC. Arguing that the RfC deprecating "supported by" somehow doesn't apply here is splitting hairs. The 2003 RfC referred to in the OP of this herein for retaining Belarus under "supported by" (see [22]) was initiated because "supported by" had now been deprecated and the OP in 2023 specifically linked to that. Per the close of the discussion at Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, the 2023 RfC for listing Belarus created an exception to specifically list Belarus (and only Belarus) under "supported by". There is no reasonable doubt as to the scope and relationship between the two RfCs. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per FOARP, it’s a bit ridiculous to have Belarus there and not the US etc. If it is to stay, Ukraine’s support parameter in the infobox should say Various, see Russian invasion of Ukraine#Support for Ukraine Kowal2701 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• No, as they were a co-belligerent. YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• No. The majority of sources characterize Belarus' actions as "aggression" or "violation of the law of neutrality"[23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• No. - please have a look at this Times Radio (which I do not endorse in any way, btw) YT video - guest comments about Belarus and Russia : "Why pausing war in Ukraine could signal a Russian invasion of NATO" HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Informative video but does not actually seem to explicitly address the nature of Belarus's involvement in this war or its role as a "belligerent" or "supporter" thereof. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Disagree. He speaks of how Belarus's military is now joined at the hip with the Russian Federation's (in so many words.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  20:58-22:47 – His main takeaways regarding the Belarusian military were that it is small and of poor quality, lacks combat experience, and is needed internally by Lukashenko in case of civil unrest. He thus came to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that they would take part in the war.

  8:13 – He spoke of the existence of some "combined battalions" composed of paratrooper companies from both the Russian and Belarusian militaries but did not elaborate on whether or not they had taken part in combat in Ukraine or otherwise acted as "supporters" or "belligerents" in the war.

  18:54 – He spoke of a Belarusian officer publicly warning Belarusian forces in 2022 not to participate in the war in Ukraine, without suggesting that any Belarusian forces had actually done so.

  What am I missing here?

  SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• No There have been extensive discussions regarding the status of Belarus in the infobox and most particularly the 2023 RfC. By virtue of allowing Russia to launch attacks from its territory, Belarus is a party to this armed conflict (arguably a belligerent/co-belligerent) but it is unique in that it is not a combatant in that it has not physically engaged in the conflict. Note that the parameter in the infobox is called combatant but those listed as combatants appear under a heading belligerents. The consensus in the 2023 RfC was to list Belarus under "supported by" because of this unique situation. I believe that it probably remains the best solution. The fact that Belarus's support was for the initial invasion but not subsequent does not alter that Belarus has been involved. That involvement remains a key fact. Also, I give no credence to the argument of ambiguity because Belarus supported Russia but not North Korea that is now listed as a belligerent. Infoboxes are blunt instruments that supplement the lead, where such detail is clarified. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• No - Belarus allowed Russia to utilize its territory to launch the initial invasion and missile strikes against Ukraine, but hasn't committed its own troops. The infobox is sufficient as a general overview, with more context in the main body of the article. I would also be in favor of adding Iran under Russia and NATO under Ukraine. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Extended discussion to be put here. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Not again, did we not have of thee a few months ago? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussions but no RFC (unless I missed it in my search in which case please feel free to post a link - I only saw the 2023 RFC), and a number of editors in the above discussions have voiced dissatisfaction with listing Belarus, which indicates consensus may have changed. Additionally, adding North Korea to the infobox has created an ambiguity in listing Belarus as a supporter. FOARP (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I do not think that placing North Korea to the infobox has created any ambiguity. Why? The placing of North Korea is very much obvious and unrelated to Belarus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It is right under North Korea in a section labelled "supported by". A natural interpretation is that North Korea is supported by Belarus. FOARP (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No its does not, that is a total misunderstanding of how headings work. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A list that reads:

A

B

Supported by:

C

Naturally implies that C supports both A and B. I don't see the misunderstanding here. FOARP (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I have had my say, and suggest readers read wp:bludgeon, nothing has changed since the last RFC. So I am out of here with a firm no, nothing has changed so we should not change anything .Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

My personal opinion is nuanced on the topic of removing Belarus. The access Belarus gave to Russia to launch attacks on Ukraine were at that time a substantial and unparalleled support to Russia. So therefor in the first year of the invasion there was clear merit to make the exception to the "avoid support" suggestion and add Belarus. The impact of Belarus support has been less substantial after that initial phase as far as I know. Hence, in the larger scope of the ongoing war, this initial support of Belarus becomes less and less influential in the scope of the entire conflict. Therefor I can imagine that at some stage the support of Belarus does no longer warrants inclusion in the infobox (although it should remain in the main text). That also means in my view that the longer the war goes on, we should be open to review our position in the light of the extended war (hence not focus too much on RfC that were relatively long ago). Whether the moment to remove Belarus is already here.... I have no opinion on that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think their recent hosting of Russian nuclear weapons was such a thing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Context – key to the RfC discussion were the ISW, which considers Belarus a direct co-belligerent in this specific conflict and the OSCE which considers that 'use of force' (i.e. initiating combat) triggers party status. It is retained under the 'supported by' heading because that had existed from early in the article's history. A more precise heading, if retained, would be 'contested status'. The 'supported by' heading is both misleading and has been a recurring problem: if x's support is listed then why isn't y's? That's a legitimate question to ask, especially with how weakly handled the inclusion of Belarus is presently. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the Institute for the Study of War assessed Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in their multiple publications . We could include it as a "co-belligerent (disputed)". My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Would it be worth considering to add a timeframe (e.g "During 2022") in the infobox to try to communicate that Belarus's involvement was by far concentrated at the start of the war? I feel like there's valid reasoning to include Belarus, but most of it applies only to the initial invasion, and I'm not sure that they're still actively maintaining the exception-worthy support from before Placeholderer (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I have previously advocated for using Supported by: Belarus (2022); see discussions of July 2024 and August 2024.

The primary argument to include Belarus as a "supporter" is the fact that a Russian army group travelled through its territory in order to invade Ukraine. It is very important to note that this arrangement only lasted for ~40 days of a nearly 3-year-long war – today is day 1,070, so that represents under 4% of the duration of the war.

Belarus's "support" ended with the Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine in April 2022, and to leave this unaddressed in the infobox falsely implies that Belarus's "support" has been continuous through 2025.

That being said, I have some concerns about whether or not this is a level of nuance unsuited for the infobox and whether or not this proposal approaches WP:OR per FOARP above, and I may be leaning towards excluding Belarus from the infobox outright. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this change (appending the year) is necessary and helpful if we opt to retain Belarus as a supporter. Personally I'm in favour of this as Belarus permitting the initial assault of Kyiv to be launched from its territory was a crucial aspect of the initial invasion. Jr8825 • Talk 10:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course it was a crucial aspect of the initial invasion. Ironically, as some commenters noted, this help by Belarus played against Russian forces. If, instead of attacking Kyiv, they kept these forces in reserve and/or use them at the South and East of Ukraine, they would occupy a lot more and faster. But who could predict what had happen? My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Every single "No" votes I've seen so far is essentially stating that Belarus is a belligerent. At present Belarus is listed as a supporter, not a belligerent. Should we have another option for simply adding Belarus as a belligerent? FOARP (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

References and notes

References

Notes

Bias toward Ukraine in "War Crimes" section.

The war crimes section on this article exclusively includes war crimes allegedly committed by the Russian forces, and presenting allegations as fact. I believe this is obviously biased, and we should reference Ukraines alleged War Crimes even if there are far fewer, and state Russian war crimes to be Alleged War Crimes, rather than just War Crimes. 2001:8003:3430:8100:9058:A600:5D7A:8A13 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind providing reliable sources that describe such war crimes, or allegations by notable people (e.g Putin)? Placeholderer (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

For one case I direct us to another wikipedia article.

Other sources on this specific torture of POWs include: Reuters, HRW.

A more general article is: Al Jazeera.

Kakhovka Dam: Reuters, BBC (Blame by both sides).

In Kursk: 9 News Australia.

From the Russian Government: Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Office in Geneva (On Donbass Shellings.)

And for the Crimean Bridge: ABC Australia, PBS.

Hope this helps. 2001:8003:3430:8100:9058:A600:5D7A:8A13 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)