Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

North Korean troops

With the formation of Buryat battalions, I think it's time to consider whether or not North Korea is considered to be a participant in the war. 92.11.10.240 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, i believe it’s time to add North Korea as official participants. Gonzafer001 (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/23/politics/lloyd-austin-north-korea-troops-russia?cid=ios_app

Agreed, many news outlets are reporting this now 2600:1014:A108:6C6C:D53D:48FF:AB07:DF45 (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

NOt that they are seeimg combat. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

A recent article by the FT describes North Korean troops in Ukraine seeing combat. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The source is the Ukranian goverment. Remember, the source must be independent.

It has been well over a month, do we have any proof of POW or videos where we can hear North Koreans? ReflexSpray (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@92.11.10.240 I would say yes, but are they organic KPA units fighting alongside Russian units, or are they soldiers acting as augmentees in Russian units?

Also, do we have confirmation of this? Either with proof of captured NK soldiers, or announcements from KCNA stating that units are "volunteering" with Russia?

That's what needs to be answered to ensure an accurate change of NK acting as active participants. Aridantassadar (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's try to have a centralised discussion here; there is already one about this issue at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#north korea should be listed as an ally of russia, and as this is the larger-scope article, any change in belligerence is going to happen in the 2022-present article first. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it should definatley be considared as a possibility, but we do not yet have any formal statements from the North Korean government. Some reports are saying thousands of troops fighting on the frontlines, while others are just saying a couple being sent to man missle batterys. We should wait for further developments before possibly exaggerating the extent of North Korea's involvment in th war. Dareldrem (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

When an RS actually says they are a combatant we can, they have top say it, not imply it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: The special Buryat battalion is a formation operating under the flag of the Russian Federation. The troops are composed of North Korean citizens, but they are not operating under the auspices of the North Korean government. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And what is the source for that statement? XavierGreen (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russian-army-forms-special-buryat-battalion-1728996935.html Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

And everyone else that has reported on it. It's a formation of the 11th separate airborne assault brigade of the Russian Armed Forces.1 It's curious that one of the few established facts about it, is the statement that gets questioned. Why does nothing else need a source in this whole discussion? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude and until North Korean forces are fighting under their own flag, then they are just a supplier and not an "active participant", even though in all intents and purposes they are. Aridantassadar (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to provide a condensed summary about the special Buryat battalion (SBB) that South Korean and Ukrainian intelligence, reliable news sources, and lastly Wikipedians are dealing with. I've surveyed about a dozen sources – in collaboration with other editors – in the parallel discussion linked by Flemmish Nietzsche, such that this is drawn from that analysis.

The 'special Buryat battalion' is a formation of the armed forces of the Russian Federation composed of an estimated 3,000 North Korean either citizens or troops, depending on the source consulted. They are in Sosnovyy Bor, Buryatia receiving equipment and training. That puts them about 4,500km / 2,800mi from Ukraine. They are not presently deployed in the conflict, and are not expected to become active until the end of this year. Ukraine has also indicated that they have not yet encountered any active North Korean combatants. Once activated, intelligence sources are unclear on how they will be deployed, but it's possible that they'll be providing relief support in the Kursk region, particularly around the Kursk salient, thus freeing up Russian resources inside Ukraine. That's assuming that the battalion will be deployed in combat, instead of in a logistical role which is another possibility. Russia is denying practically all allegations. I am, however, unaware of any statements from North Korea.

That's the highly condensed version, see the linked sources for greater detail and depth. The most detailed accounts are in The Washington Post, Kyiv Post (two sources), and RBC Ukraine.

When can we reasonably list North Korea as a belligerent? I will borrow the wording employed by Cinderella157 in answering the same question: [w]hen there is a consensus in good quality secondary sources in their own voice that North Korea is a belligerent, then we might make the same statement in a Wiki voice in the infobox. This standard abides Wikipedia policies. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

How about now: We now have official confirmation of the United States with the official words of belligerence/participants of North Korea. this comes from secretary, Lloyd Austin directly from him in a press conference. Gonzafer001 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

A recent article by the FT states that Ukraine has directly fought with North Korean troops. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The situation you described would mean that North Korean forces are Auxiliaries, which under international law are foreign or allied troops in the service of a nation at war. In essence, a nation lending its military personnel to another. For infoboxes on such situations, the nation providing the auxiliary force should be bulleted under the principal belligerent to whom they are lending their troops. See for example how Hesse-Kassel is treated in the American Revolutionary War infobox. Alternatively, if all we have are Ukrainian allegations, than the infobox can list North Korea as a belligerent and say (Alleged by Ukraine) next to it, just how russia was listed in the Donbas War infobox early on in that conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Update to this: South Korean Intelligence Community seems to confirm that North Korea is supplying troops. Source is YNA:

https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241018006855315?section=nk/nk 73.62.249.156 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There is also footage of NK troops being requisitioned their equipment https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/dOrwGc5UvF 142.189.77.27 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

reliable enough for use https://kyivindependent.com/north-korean-soldiers-reportedly-equipped-at-russian-military-camp-video-shows/ LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With the video released today I think this should go ahead with a footnote. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This should have been posted the moment it was announced by Ukraine in October 17. 2600:6C50:637F:8A55:49E:5F7F:478C:C15A (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Buryatia is a Russian Republic not an independent state of Russia. The situation with North Korea is developing rapidly as we speak but it is still developing, we have yet to see whether NK soldiers will be incorporated into Russian units(doubtfully), or if they will have their own battalion. There IS a recording, however, of Russian soldiers complaining about NKs getting supplies, and they frequently referred to the NK troops in Russia as the "K-Battalion". Again it's a developing situation and we will see events unfold in the next few days and the name "K-Battalion" likely suggests it's some kind of a placeholder or slang name coined by Russian troops, but given this information as well as other factors such as the fact that the NK troops will likely speak very bad Russian if any at all, suggests they will have their own battalion, but we will just have to wait and see. Regardless, North Korea is still providing manpower and other support to Russia so they should probably be listed in the belligerents section. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Numbers vary from 10 to 13,000 (basing on BBC, RAI, DW (in several languages), France 24, Freedom, RFE/RL, etc. + ~10-20, mail feeds (25+ sources)), depends on source/intention/command line, etc. ... ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 18:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Reminds me a song, 'I Want to Break Free' (Queen) Performed In North Korea... ;-) ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 18:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source that says they are in combat. Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Srry, have been (and am) busy... ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 20:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

South Korea says ... are in Russia; North Korea sends ... to support Putin's war — as you can see, these sources are not saying in their own voice that the North Korean troops are yet on the frontline (i.e. in combat). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My "favourite" from the above-cited WP article is The troops were issued Russian uniforms, weapons and IDs, Seoul said, and assigned to units composed of Siberian soldiers to try to disguise them as Russians rather than North Koreans. ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 20:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would question whether it matters whether or not they are directly involved in combat. The fact they are there is contributing directly to Russia's combat strength because they will presumably free up Russian troops from other areas to be redeployed to the frontline with Ukraine. However at this moment in time the nature of the involvement of North Korean troops seems more akin to a kind of mercenary deployment, they are auxiliaries, in the guise of troops loaned by one state to another state, a practise common in the early modern era of European warfare. Rather than it being a state action against another. There is no clear evidence that NK is acting directly against the state of Ukraine, it has rather conducted a transaction with Russia. Therefore I don't think NK should be considered a belligerent yet Anvib (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have issues with this line of reasoning. If we apply your logic further, we could argue that we cannot call this a war because war has not been declared by either side, something we can all agree is beyond nonsensical. Like with all things on Wikipedia, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and with the news coming today that NATO confirms the presence of regular KPA troops on the frontlines, I think we have found this line and it is time to add North Korea as an official belligerent in this conflict. With an asterisk if you want, but pretending like they are not in this is absurd. I'm sure I can find plenty of examples of pages about major wars where some belligerents' unclear engagement is nonetheless expressed in the infobox. SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

... and with the news coming today that NATO confirms the presence of regular KPA troops on the frontlines ... - Source? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We have to wait for three days, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-north-korean-soldiers-putin-zelensky-latest-news-b2636015.html, for them to be deployed. Then we can add them if they are deployed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

According to the Associated Press, Ukrainian troops have already begun engaging with North Korean personnel. I think it's time we add North Korea as a belligerent.[1] Block345 (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely dont understand whats taking so long and why this hasnt been done already. It is almost weeks into their involvement and THOUSANDS of troops have joined and Ukraine has already had their first encounters fighting them, pretty much every media in the world is reporting about the NK troops, yet wikipedia is somehow not budging and wont put north korea as a belligerent supporting the russian side in the infobox thingy 112.199.151.17 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Because a reliable source is needed. As simple as that. If you have any proof beyond an "undisclosed source" please provide it and the changes will be approved. 46.6.48.222 (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14le0p4310o

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/05/world/europe/north-korea-russia-ukraine-kursk.html

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-north-korea-troops-c8cf9599591e50caf1c48a98b6841fe4

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-details-first-ukraine-attack-north-korea-troops-russia-kursk-2024-11

This enough sources? CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

And NATO has confirmed it too. I'm unsure of why the mods are taking so long to add North Korea to the belligerents box. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Multiple sources have been provided, officials have confirmed it. There is more proof supporting NK involvement than there is proof supprorting their non-involvement. There is no reason not to add it. AhiruRat (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not about a source, its about reliable sources.

No one is denying the possibility and there is no problem adding once it meets the criteria, its just wikipedia rules, wanting to provide reliable information to the readers.

A reliable source needs to be a independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The first three sources are based on the Ukranian goverment (NATO is just passing on Ukranian information), third is behind a paywall. And there is no way to fact check it.

The good thing is that is there is plenty of footage in this war due to the use of drones. Do you have any video o images of North Korean soldiers? Its needs to be possible to fact check it, and be beyond doubt. Then there it will be added. ReflexSpray (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There is plenty of North Korean troops receiving Russian military equipment in Russia, satellite footage of them training in Russia and radio recordings of Russian soldiers talking about supplies going to the north koreans. However, according to my searching, there is little to no drone footage of north korean troops however Ukraine has confirmed their first casualties suffered fighting North koreans. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how it isn't beyond doubt I see no reason why NATO would lie about North Korean troops, the US confirmed it, Russia will never admit it and I doubt North Korea is. The point is there is no doubt. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont really want to talk in circles. NATO is not only not independent, but so far they have not provided any proof beyond doubt of North Korean troops fighting in Ukraine. Training in Russia doesnt make them part of the war just as Ukranians being trained in the EU or EU instructors training them in Ukraine doesnt make those countries part of the war.

Again, I am not saying that it isnt happening (Even Putin has said in the media that the alliance allows this), I just say that to keep Wikipedia reliable, there must a reliable source, not just a source. Its a formality, not wikipedia picking sides nor being biased.

This is a very well documented war, so an image or video that can be fact checked will be available at some point. ReflexSpray (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a section in the infobox: "Location: [...] spillover into Romania" with this source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66727788 which is a 1st party source (Romania claiming spillover on their own terriory). Why do you think this source is valid but not any of the ones listed above? What, in your opinion, would be a hypothetical reliable source in this situation? What kind of institution would it come from and what details would the source have? And how would you fact check that source?

If a video of NK soldiers in Russia isn't proof enough, what kind of video would be in your opinion? AhiruRat (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the admin you replied to believes we need drone combat footage. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

They're not an admin. Their account was created a day ago and their only contribs are in this talk page. AhiruRat (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I see. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I am no admin, just someone trying to clarify how it works.

A video of North Koreans in Kursk engaging in the battlefield would prove that North Koreans are fighting in Kursk.

Regarding Romania, there is proof via pictures and video of both the crash and more importantly, the remains of a Geran.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-destroys-25-38-drones-russian-attack-air-force-says-2024-07-25/ ReflexSpray (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

How would you be able to prove that the soldiers are North Korean? You need to be close enough to see their face, and even then there are Russians with korean genes. They could be wearing Russian uniforms to disguise their origin.

Just because there are pictures of the remains of a Geran in Romania doesn't mean those are a result of this war, in the same way that videos of North Koreans training in Russia aren't in your view proof of them participating in the war. Because there was no footage of the drone in action. I am simply using your own reasoning against you. AhiruRat (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There were also videos of NK troops receiving Russian equipment and training, and most importantly, Russian military fatigues. I agree, how does one plan to distinguish between Russian and North Korean with a drone, unless you get dangerously close? CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that many Russian conscripts and soldiers are, in fact, not Russia, but Siberian and Far Eastern soldiers like Buryats, Tuvans, Yakuts, Evenks, Tatars and more, many of whom look rather similar to Koreans people. Even there it would be hard to distinguish. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The Geran was designed during this war and there are remains found, for which proof has been provided. If you want to edit it you can propose it but I think that there is substantial evidence to prove that the drone is of Russian manufacture and a result of this war.

I would recommend keep searching as should be a matter of time until the Ukranian authorities release the proof. I am personally not against adding it, but it needs to meet Wikipedia's criteria, otherwise people would add claims based on unverified accusations.

Please see more information in:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ReflexSpray (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@ReflexSpray,the sources they provided are trusted news sources that are used here on wikipedia UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Except for like,Bussiness insider maybe UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say, that was my point. But their point seems to be that the "original source" is from the Ukrainian Government and NATO. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, I dont see where is the issue with waiting for a good such as.

- A video with people speaking Korean fighting alonside russian forces that can be geolocated.

- Identifiable North Korean losses (I take this is hard).

- Ideally, North Korean POW (they have a different accent) that can be interviewed.

We talk about tens of thousands of soldiers and apparently increasing in numbers. I would advocate to wait for the material and approve the changes. Should be pretty easy and comming in days. ReflexSpray (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You were right, there now appears to be footage in the Kursk region of a Ukrainian drone finishing off what appears to be a North Korean soldier CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, can we add it now? AhiruRat (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Can people please read wp:rs with reference to wp:primary and wp:or, no us interpreting a video would not enable us to add it, we need an RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Billal Rahman AND Michael D. Carroll. North Korea Sends 10,000 Troops to Russia: Pentagon.
"North Korean Troops Already Deployed to Fight Ukraine, NATO Confirms"
 ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 20:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

we already know this, to add them we need to see that they have engaged in a specific battle not just semantics CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article says We believe that the DPRK has sent around 10,000 soldiers in total to train in eastern Russia that will probably augment Russian forces near Ukraine over the next several weeks. If this comes to pass we'll definitely mention this in the article here. Alaexis_¿question? 22:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Lets say it again, we need an RS saying, in their words, not as an attributed statement, that North Korea is engaged in combat operations for us to add them as a belligerent. until you have a source that does that, its dose not matter how many you find that do not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Citations
Notes References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

adding North Korea as a Belligrent because of them sending troops into the war. 84.231.3.144 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See multiple threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

In the invasion article's talk page you asked for more sources than the State Department one, and more were given. From South Korea and Ukraine and Blinken, all characterizing North Korea's involvement as "combat". How is that still not sufficient? --haha169 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

See multiple threads above, we do not need 15 discussions on this, one is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Because there is no actual proof. South Korea never confirmed that North Koreans are in Kursk. Training in Russia doesnt make them part of the conflict just as Ukranians training in UK doesnt make the UK part of the conflict.

Most, if not all the intel, seems to come so far from Ukraine, who shares intel with the US.

This is a very well documented war with daily footage from plenty of sources, if there is going to be 100 000 soldiers as claimed its just a matter of time we start seeing videos of POW or combat footage.

Remember, Wikipedia must be based on facts to keep the neutrality, the second that the first video appears it will be added. Pacience. ReflexSpray (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC North Korea

Should we add NK as a beligerant? Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why you keep opening topics?

Please, stick to one. Also, if you have actual verifiable footage please share it.

We need anything that falls into: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

So a side of the war (Ukraine goverment and allies) do not fall under this category.

Remember that Wikipedia Project depends on its reliability, backed by facts. ReflexSpray (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Discussion presently underway at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on inclusion of North Korea in infobox. Do we really need a second RfC on this topic?

ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 02:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think yes, as this is more appropriate in this article as it covers the whole war, not just Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 22:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Participation of the North Korea troops is undeniable. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion.110 and 135 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• comment - I see only supports here, and the other RFC has closed with North Korea being added, so I assume it will be uncontroversial to add North Korea. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • comment - Agreed. Considering the aforementioned, it shouldn't be an issue to add here.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Re:McSly talk contribs 340,014 bytes −8,070 Revert. Same remark as before. And the whole section looks like complete WP:OR.

Two discussions started by user who has been topic banned afterwards Rsk6400 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My edit om 2024-11-24 is not WP:OR. I am a very experienced wiki-editor, and I went into a great length to provide reliable citations for my edit: added a section "== Analysis of the causes and results of the Russo-Ukrainian War by political scientists == . I demand, that every deletionist provide a similar level of justification for their next move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) Hello @Walter Tau:, first. as a "very experienced wiki-editor", the fact you don't seem able to format this section correctly, that you forgot to sign, and that you just included your section in the article twice without even noticing it [2] (also very badly formatted), I would qualify your statement as dubious at best. Second, the procedure in case of disagreement on a change is to follow WP:BRD. As a "very experienced wiki-editor", I find surprising that you don't know that. Lastly, the reason I reverted your changes is because it is clear WP:OR for example with statements like "This statement is a lie", it contradicts the main article linked in the section Russia–Ukraine_relations and contains unacceptable statements such as "This section addresses some of the alternative views on the Russo-Ukrainian War, which are required per Wikipedia’s Point of View policy]". I'm going to delete the section again. As a "very experienced wiki-editor"", I'm sure you are aware of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW. --McSly (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Analysis of the causes and results of the Russo-Ukrainian War by Political science| political scientists I claim, that the article as written violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy= means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, ALL the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Please note, that I do not insist on adding anything about Douglas Macgregor's and Scott Ritter's views (although I support others, if they want to write about them), but I cannot disregard John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and several other political scientists (as well as of journalists such as Gabrielle Krone-Schmalz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pZKTbgftHQ) I shall start with addressing the statement by Manyareasexpert on 2024-11-26T10:35:23 : “undo back to consensus version - objections raised in talk, edit war”. Let’s talk about the consensus first. Here is a citation from the Talk Page for Russian invasion of Ukraine on ca. 31 October 2024 (UTC): Some comments: This article about the invasion itself doesn't need to cover anyone's perspective on why the war started. It should, and I think currently does, focus on the war instead of political science. There's no section in the article about "reasons for the war" apart from where it's key to the subject, for example, the announcement of the "Special Military Operation". While analysts are mentioned, like "Analyst Vladimir Socor called Putin's 2014 speech following the annexation a 'manifesto of Greater-Russia irredentism'", it's within the context of specific topics. However, the Russo-Ukrainian War article which you had edited is a different situation. There, there's much more talk about perspectives on stuff (though I'm not sure that I agree it should be that way), and I think it would be appropriate to consider including Mearsheimer's views there. As such I propose moving this discussion over to the Russo-Ukrainian War article. I think that article does have some problems worth addressing (there are some tags I'd put in myself but don't have clearance yet). We should also heed IP's warning that this is heading into WP:FORUM, and if we do move over try to talk about specific proposed additions/removals. Placeholderer (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC) So, Placeholder proposed on 2024-10-31 to move this discussion from Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian War. This THE ONLY CONSENSUS, that have been reach to the best of my knowledge. And this is exactly what I am trying to do this week. The text of the section, that I proposed to add/restore can be found here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Walter_Tau/sandbox . Walter Tau (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Why do we need this discussion on two pages? But it does seem more relevant here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC) It's already answered above Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#c-McSly-20241125031500-Re:McSly_talk_contribs_340,014_bytes_−8,070_Revert._Same_remark_as_before._And . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC) What is the exact question, that is answered above? Where exactly the "here" is? By the way, what I am trying to now are Wikipedia:CONACHIEVE and WP:BOLD in order to achieve Wikipedia:5P2 and to avoid WP:WAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) The section telling you why they reverted you? Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC) The reason your edits were reverted is given there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC) @Walter Tau: Please sign your comments. You are not trying to avoid an edit war, because you were edit warring already. If you claim to be an experienced editor[3], you should not ask to be explained the meaning of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:DUE. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC) @Slatersteven:@Manyareasexpert:@Rsk6400:: Dear colleagues: could you please provide web-links to support your statements "your edits were reverted is given there"? Where exactly and what are those reasons? As far as I recall, the ONLY consensus, that was reached on the Russian invasion of Ukraine page was to move this discussion to Russo-Ukrainian War.Walter Tau. It seems now, that you are playing the game of 1) avoiding a fair discussion on the Russian invasion of Ukraine page by asking to move it to the Russo-Ukrainian War page, and 2) then falsely claiming on the Russo-Ukrainian War page that the question has been addressed on the Russian invasion of Ukraine page. This is an interesting approach, that reminds me of WT:SPECIALSTYLE, but I am not sure, if Wikipedia has an exact name for it.Walter Tau (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC) @Walter Tau You're topic banned, you may not want to immediately violate your ban. TylerBurden (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC) I can AGF that they essentially had an edit conflict and hadn't seen the notice yet. But yes, they are no longer welcome to participate in Russo-Ukrainian war topics due to persistent tendentious editing. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC) You may have been topic band, but I will still answer your question for future defense [[4]] is where a user tells you what their objection was. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC) @Walter TauDo not surrender to them, editors like ManyAreasExpert are known for being incredibly biased in their editing, use a different account if means be, don't be afraid of being called a sock puppet for standing up for what's right. Usanamepolicy (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC) He is topic banned, this is over. Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC) It's only over if he decides it is. Usanamepolicy (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC) As he is banned, he does not fact not get to make that choice.As such this can go nowhere. So keeping it open is waisting users' time. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of naming this and the 2022 invasion article

While I don't want to reopen that can of worms nor do I have the authority to, I do want to cite a similar situation just for context purposes.

Japan invaded Manchuria under mostly false pretexts in September 1931, taking advantage of internal conflict in China. Manchuria was turned into a puppet state in mid-1932 and Japan would continue to fight in the nearby border regions and especially Inner Mongolia until March 1933, leaving the ground work for another puppet state to be eventually formed and serve as the pre-text for a full scale invasion of China proper in 1937.

The 1931-1933 war is generally* (*mostly, usually) considered it's own war as the Chinese Military did not initially respond and the area was involved in separatist fighting hailing back to the fall of the Beiyang Government to the KMT in 1928, and Japan did not yet invade China proper. The full scale war started in 1937, marking the Second Sino Japanese War and the start of that theater of what eventually became WW2.

I and other people have suggested multiple times to reserve the name Russo-Ukrainian War for the full scale invasion in 2022 which saw Russia actually intend to go after the full country and Ukraine respond with full force instead of the crippled response in Crimea. I'd argue there was a war from February 2014 - February 2015, War in Donbas and annexation of Crimea. Then a low intensity conflict with occasional flareups like Kerch Strait and Avdiivka that lasted from Minsk II to February 2022. Then the full scale Russo-Ukrainian War.

This is closer to how the articles were originally organized, this page was originally 'Russian Military Intervention in Ukraine' up until the late 2010s after Kerch and while this next statement is purely anecdotal I do recall both at the time and right before the full scale war a lot of people generally agreed that if a full scale invasion happened that would become the war page.

I could cite other precedent as well. Nagorno Karabakh, for example. You had full scale war in the late 80s and early 90s leading to a separatist puppet occupation. It was never resolved, but it died down. There were occasional flareups, in the early 2000s, an especially nasty one in 2016, but it was a frozen conflict. Until it wasn't in 2020 and war broke out. Then a couple more years of low intensity conflict until the blockade and the 23 hour overrunning of Artsakh. We don't just call that whole thing one war.

Or Sudan. First Civil War was primarily about separatism, it happened, there was a peace deal, but a ton of stuff was unresolved and low level fighting continued afterwards. Then it escalated back into a full scale war again, cue second war. More separatist violence, a new front in Darfur opens as the escalating violence ignites problems there, eventually peace in the main front is reached and a few years later peace in Darfur. Low intensity conflict continues, there's still border disputes with South Sudan and a few factions of separatists who aren't stepping down, there's still militia groups locally active in Darfur, there's still problems. Then last year it escalates again, this time originating from the Darfur front, but this in turn reignited the separatist conflict in the south too.

I just want to point out that changing the titling is precedented and lines up closer to the general public understanding of the conflict. Splitting it and using 'conflict' for the overarching thing and saving war for the specific high intensity periods is the norm. I lead with Japan as it lines up the best, but there's Nagorno Karabakh, Sudan, Libya, Afghanistan, lot of similar cases. This isn't coming from a place of trouble or hatred, I deeply respect the Ukrainian cause, I have blood from that region on my fathers side. This is coming from a place of linguistics and academic consistency. The current titling scheme is highly inconsistent with these other conflicts, it's misleading to the situation implying a decade of equally intense fighting rather then what it actually was, and a lot of the discussion on it has been overly politically charged rather then focusing on other cases of how we title and discuss as people these sorts of things.

So if it comes up again for an official vote, I'd say make this 'Conflict', use 'War' for the 2022 onward full scale war, and split War in Donbas into a section for the high intensity 2014-2015 war and the low intensity 2015-2022 war, it's long enough as it is. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

(I also want to note along with what I already said, the 2014-2015 war was mostly fought between militias and groups not fully controlled by either government, as well as police and guard forces. The first half was almost entirely those groups, and while by the second half Russia had the 'little green men' and the Ukrainian Army had mustered, the bulk of the fighting was still being done by LDR/DPR separatists and Ukrainian militias like Azov. Russia also never admitted to actually being involved(outside of Crimea where the Ukrainian Military did not resist), the official line was those were just suspiciously well armed separatists who happened to show up on the borders miles away from the actual separatists. Meanwhile after this both sides reigned in the groups and centralized. By the end of 2015 the LDR/DPR leadership had been purged and they had been integrated into the Russian Military Command, most of the actual separatists or moderates or people just too popular removed. And Ukraine ended up either dissolving or integrating many of the militia groups, removing extremist elements(like the original 2014 Azov and some other lesser known groups) while integrating the larger militias. The Ukrainian and Russian militarys proper never officially fought publically(even if they totally did), the bulk of the fighting was done by militias on both sides as well as Ukrainian guard and police, and neither side ever fully commited to a war footing(Russia denied the whole time and only sent a limited special forces segment and equipment, Ukraine treated the first half more like a policing action and even when they commited serious forces at the airport and Debaltseve there was never a draft or full scale war economy) and it never spread past Donbas and Ukraine.) TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

TheBrodsterBoy, Manchuria actually has its own population which is somewhat (ethnically) different from Chinese Han. The population of eastern Ukraine is no different from the rest of Ukraine. Your proposition has intention to justify the Russian legend about the Russian insurgency in Ukraine over the fact of the diversions by Russian special operation forces. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not my intention and I thought i made that as clear as I could without just screaming 'I have a Ukrainian grandfather' into the heavens a bunch of times. Both your responses just seem to be straw manning me, again, this is a linguistic and organizational argument. Russia invading places bad, Japan invading places bad, ethnic cleansing bad. I shouldn't have to cover every paragraph of my case with this just to avoid this and yet here I am.

Also Manchuria was not really significantly ethnically different from Mainland China by the 1930s, the Manchu had been a minority for centuries at that point and had lost the bulk of their culture to Chinese colonization and conversion. There were more Mongolians there then Manchus at that point, let alone Han Chinese. It's not counted because the conflict didn't spill over into the rest of China for a while, Japan stopped. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

TheBrodsterBoy, occupation of Georgia as well as Ukraine started soon after the Russian military maneuvers: Caucasus 2008, Zapad 2013, Zapad 2021. (Understanding Russia’s Great Games: From Zapad 2013 to Zapad 2021).Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

yes and TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that a reorganisation of this page and the Russian invasion of Ukraine page is probably in order. This is particularly in light of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" page having a scope that covers conflict outside the borders of Ukraine, particularly within Russia (both the Kursk incursion and also strikes within Russia) and the fighting in the Black Sea. Whilst these topics all should be dealt together, "Russian invasion of Ukraine", whilst an OK title, is no longer completely 100% accurate and it would be nice to see a better title.

I also agree that the Japanese invasion of China is probably a good example of where previous encroachments 1931-35 turned in to an all-out attack in 1937, but what I would say is that Wikipedia has to follow the lead of reliable sources, so I would like to see whether reliable sources are taking the approach of calling the conflict since 2022 "Russo-Ukrainian war". I think it's likely that they either do or will in the future given the completely different scope of the conflict after 2022, but we should still have evidence to support this. FOARP (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's what news outlets are calling their coverage of the war in Ukraine at present:

• BBC - War in Ukraine
• The Times - Russia-Ukraine War
• New York Times - Russia-Ukraine War
• Financial Times - War in Ukraine
• Guardian - Ukraine
• The Telegraph - Ukraine
• The Economist - War in Ukraine

"Russia-Ukraine War" would seem to be favoured once you exclude the vague "Ukraine" and "War in Ukraine". FOARP (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War is basically just an academic version of that, it caries the same meaning. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:C898:250E:6215:475 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)