Jump to content

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JDiala (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 18 October 2024 (→The word "expansion" and the recent RfC: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC: Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion in lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RFC resulted in a consensus in favour of the proposed addition. Those in favour of the proposal showed that reliable sources consider the demands a significant part of the prelude to the war, and as a significant reason for the war. Those opposed to the proposal mostly argued that the demands were not serious, or that NATO expansion as a cause to the war is Russian propaganda, but provided few sources to support their claims. A great majority of the participants did not find these arguments convincing or relevant, and favoured inclusion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lead mention Russia's pre-invasion demand for a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine? A proposed wording: "In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine." — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion of this topic on this talk page can be accessed here, here, and here. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The current version of the lead mentions two of the reasons which Putin has advanced for Russia's decision to invade Ukraine: (1) a Russian irredentism based on denying Ukraine's right to exist as a state, and (2) overthrowing its alleged neo-Nazi government (which we correctly identify as a falsehood). Equally important and relevant as these are Russia's pre-invasion security demands, issued on 17 December 2021 in the form of an ultimatum to the West, and whose most pertinent item was a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine. Mentioning this point does not imply that it is the genuine reason behind the invasion, to the exclusion of the other reasons, but presents it as one among several, as the reliable sources do.
In reflection of the reliable sources which it cites, the current article body mentions NATO more than 30 times, mostly in the Background and Prelude sections. Here are representative sources which identify NATO expansion as one of the causes of the war, both within and beyond this article:
  • News "explainers" from major outlets, which all describe in detail the history of the collapse of the USSR, ensuing NATO expansion, and how this process caused increasing tensions between Russia and Ukraine over decades; all of these sources also describe the December 2021 security demands when discussing the causes of the war. For examples, see NYT, CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Vox, Bloomberg, US News, and NPR. Most of these mention the "irredentism" and "denazification" points on either equal or lesser footing to the NATO expansion point.
  • U.S. think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations: "Why did Russia launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022? [...] Some Western analysts see Russia’s 2022 invasion as the culmination of the Kremlin’s growing resentment toward NATO’s post–Cold War expansion into the former Soviet sphere of influence. [...] Other experts have said that perhaps the most important motivating factor for Putin was his fear that Ukraine would continue to develop into a modern, Western-style democracy that would inevitably undermine his autocratic regime in Russia and dash his hopes of rebuilding a Russia-led sphere of influence in Eastern Europe." See also this article, which is specifically on the NATO point.
  • International relations scholars including both John Mearsheimer, a leading figure in the realist school, and Joseph S. Nye, a leader of the liberal school. Mearsheimer puts more emphasis on NATO expansion (see [1]), while Nye puts less but still examines it at length (see [2]: "the intermediate cause was a refusal to see Ukraine as a legitimate state [...] The prospect of NATO enlargement was a lesser intermediate cause").
I support the proposed wording. — Goszei (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goszei – You might be better served by presenting your proposed wording with the RfC question. It gives concreteness to the change that you are hoping to effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Goszei (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Doesn't matter if you disagree with it or think it's a pretext. The reality is that it is an aspect discussed heavily in reliable sources (as demonstrated by Goszei above), perhaps more than any other individual causative factor, and thus warrants inclusion in the lead. I will add another source in as a datapoint, a book I am currently reading, The Story of Russia by famed historian Orlando Figes released in 2022 following the invasion. The following is on p. 292-293.
"At the Bucharest conference in 2008, NATO had declared that, along with Georgia, Ukraine would become a member of the alliance once it met the necessary requirements (among them better measures to combat political corruption and ensure the rule of law). The declaration was opposed by several NATO leaders, especially the German chancellor Angela Merkel, who warned that it would be seen as a dangerous provocation by Russia. But George Bush forced the measure through. In his final months in the White House, he was desperate to leave a legacy of promoting US interests and democracy in the former Soviet Union. He was supported by the east European member states, which were most alarmed by Russia’s growing aggression. They saw Ukraine’s NATO membership as ‘an important historic opportunity to cage the bear’, in the words of Lech Wałęsa, the former Polish president.
NATO’s involvement in Ukraine set alarm bells ringing in Moscow. After the invasion of the Crimea, the alliance gave $3 billion in military aid to the Ukrainian government, helped it to modernise its weaponry and trained its troops in joint exercises in Ukraine. The war had strengthened Ukraine’s national unity. But it also gave rise to a violent hatred of Russia reflected in the cult of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist leader who had fought on the Nazi side against the Soviet army in 1944–5. Bandera streets and squares were newly named. Statues of the partisan leader were erected in cities such as Lviv and Ternopil. The Bandera cult was a gift for Moscow’s propaganda about the threat of ‘Nazis’ in Ukraine.
Putin saw the role of NATO in Ukraine as a direct military threat. In an hour-long address to the Russian people on 21 February 2022, he claimed that Ukraine would ‘serve as an advanced bridgehead’ for NATO’s forces to attack Russia unless Moscow intervened. Under the guise of its training missions, NATO, he declared, was building bases in Ukrainian cities like Kharkiv, near the Russian border, from which its nuclear missiles could reach Moscow in a few minutes. ‘It is like a knife to our throat,’ he said. From a Western point of view this seemed mad and paranoid. NATO, after all, was a defensive alliance and had no reason to attack Russia. But as Putin saw it, it was the conclusion to be drawn from his reading of the history of Russia and Ukraine." JDiala (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes the NATO (a defensive alliance) is such a threat that we have to invade Ukraine so now we (Russia) can border with 9 NATO countries instead of 5. "Putin saw" is clearly his pretext not a "causative factor". YBSOne (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't Putin invade Finland for their accession in NATO? No "advanced bridgehead"? No "alarm bells"? NO "dangerous provocation"? Weird right? Almost as if Kremlin didn't work on destabilisation and propaganda against Finland. YBSOne (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a new book, the historian Orlando Figes argues that the war on Ukraine is only the latest instance of a nation twisting the past to justify its future. YBSOne (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read more than just the by-line. The reviewer criticizes Figes for blaming NATO’s expansion for creating “the very problem it was meant to counteract” because in Feifer's view it goes against his own case for the importance of invented enemies to Russia’s self-image. It's clear from that review that 1) Figes does place emphasis on NATO's role in the conflict and 2) that Feifer disagrees with that analysis. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. My point is that just because a historian reports what is Russia/Putin saying does not mean it is a causative factor. When we know that Putin just wants to recover/recreate his belowed Soviet Union and any sovereign states like Ukraine not sharing his idealistic vision need to be punished for their independence and forced into submission. Also on the outside they need to create fake image of being the ones in the right, "fighting nazism", "rescuing russian-speaking civilians" Allegations of NATO provocation and aggression etc. YBSOne (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Putin didn't invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia's power, eradicate Ukraine's statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues".105" YBSOne (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that now quoting a source that quotes a beligerent (Russia, Putin) is a reliable source, but when a source quoted an Ukrainian official it was not reliable. Interesting. YBSOne (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So think tanks which form part of the "reliable sources" as you put it Goszei have provided above are reliable when providing reasoning for Russia invading Ukraine, but not when questioning Russia's great power status.
Hopefully whoever closes this RfC will take such editor inconsistencies into account when evalutating the input of said editor. TylerBurden (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bizarre personal argument, especially in an RfC . Address the content, not what I may or may not have said in an unrelated discussion. To address what you wrote, note that Goszei provided a number of sources including standard newspapers, which no one disputes are reliable, in addition to scholars like Mearsheimer and Nye. The CfR source was just among many. On the issue of think tanks, the most important thing for me is consistency. If we're going to accept think tanks are reliable for anti-Russia material, then to be consistent it makes sense to accept them for anti-NATO material. JDiala (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You speak about consistency? You've proven to be anything but, which is exactly why I added this analysis so that the closer knows how you present sources differently based on motive. TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but in case of inclusion it needs to be stated that it was just a pretext to feed the zombified masses ie disinformation, and real reasons were different ie Russian imperialism. YBSOne (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, its a blank cheque, what is it we intend to say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had asked Goszei to place their proposed wording with the question. They want to introduce a sentence to the lede approximating: In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders and issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I answer the question as it is still asked. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the proposed wording to the RfC text. The mention should certainly be no longer than a sentence clause. — Goszei (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"vote" now struck. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is part of the war's background. See the well-developed article World War II, where there's a dedicated section on the developments up to several years prior to the war's outbreak, including German demands. — kashmīrī TALK 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our WWII articles do not give dues to Nazi Germany's pro-war propaganda, as is being proposed here with Russia's pro-invasion propaganda. Unless most RS view Putin's demands on Ukraine's NATO bid as legitimate, we shouldn't treat them differently from Hitler's violations of the Versailles and Locarno treaties. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A significant number of high-quality sources, as detailed by Goszei and JDiala, suggest that Russian fears over NATO's eastward expansion may have contributed to the origin and (with the 2022 invasion) to the escalation of the conflict with Ukraine.. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol. The "conflict" as you call it led to the fact that Russia recieved +750 miles border with Nato Devlet Geray (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if supported by reliable sources. No matter whether Russia meant their demands or not, including them is notable and encyclopedic. If reliable sources say that the demands were disinformation, of course that should be added, but I don't see that as a reason to remove the demands entirely. JSwift49 00:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes To me, it is irrelevant whether Russia actually considered this to be a cause of the invasion or not. If we mention that Russia massed forces in late 2021, we should also mention the demands Russia made accompanying that buildup. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No because this claim by Putin was pure propaganda and disinformation. It had nothing to do with the actual reasons he decided to attack Ukraine. As the Institute for the Study of War frames it [3]:
Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t invade Ukraine in 2022 because he feared NATO. He invaded because he believed that NATO was weak, that his efforts to regain control of Ukraine by other means had failed, and that installing a pro-Russian government in Kyiv would be safe and easy. His aim was not to defend Russia against some non-existent threat but rather to expand Russia’s power, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues.
My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which statement are you claiming is disinformation? That [i]n late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's border ... or that it ... issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russia ... issued demands including a ban on future expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Ukraine.. The demand for a ban on the future expansion of NATO was disinformation/propaganda by Russia/Putin because it was framed as a reason to attack Ukraine. It was not a reason at all (see quote from the ISW above). Now, we uncritically repeat the same in the lead without saying it was disinformation/propaganda, thus giving it some legitimacy, which misinforms a reader. This is not a good summary of content on the page, but rather placing an irrelevant propaganda claim to the lead. Yes, such claim was made by Putin, but it does not belong in the lead, especially in such context. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's ISW's opinion only. The hard fact is that such a demand has been put forward and has been widely publicised in the sources as well as responded to by governments. We're an encyclopaedia, mind you. — kashmīrī TALK 11:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Putin publicly demanded a ban on the future expansion of NATO. He did it long before the invasion. It was merely a demand, not an ultimatum, because Russian government publicly asserted they have no intention to attack Ukraine. But why on the Earth this should be included to the lead? That would make sense if it were an actual reason for the invasion. But it was not - according to many RS, including ISW, which probably one of the best sources for such claim. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from the ISW source you have cited: "Putin then issued an ultimatum to the US and NATO in December 2021 that aimed to force the West into surrendering Ukraine’s sovereignty on its behalf and abandoning partnerships on NATO’s eastern flank. [...] Putin's 2021 ultimatum to NATO and the West was an actual ultimatum, not the basis for a negotiation." — Goszei (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it uses such wording, in the most general meaning of the word, i.e. demands with threats, rather than a specific demand with a specified timeline for specified consequences. More exactly, as this source says, Putin published an essay saying that Ukraine has no right to exist unless it will be a puppet state of Russia, etc. Yes, true, that is what Putin said and what he meant. But it was all about subordinating Ukraine to Russia, not about membership of Ukraine in NATO (which would never happen as Putin was well aware about). Why include NATO to the lead? My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should mention NATO in the lead because it has been conclusively demonstrated that the subject dominates discussion of the war's causes in reliable sources (newspapers, think tanks). We can argue back-and-forth and present sources which disagree on the degree to which it was pretext or propaganda, but the truth is that reliable sources do not simply dismiss the topic out-of-hand. Reliable sources, including the ISW article, instead fully engage with and examine the topic from a historical and scholarly perspective, which is all that is required to mention it here. — Goszei (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see: it probably suppose to replace the phrase In late 2021, Russia massed troops near Ukraine's borders but denied any plan to attack. That sounds good and true. Indeed, they denied any plan to attack. But it means there was no any ultimatum by Putin as the proposed change about his demands misleadingly implies. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why the lead, according to OP's proposal, should mention only Putin's NATO demand, without its assessment by secondary RSs, and without other, maybe more notable, reasons for the invasion? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this would fall under WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and would risk throwing the lead off balance to add too much context to an overview of the article. To the best of my knowledge, that is the most notable demand that was made. Those should absolutely be (and I believe they are adequately) articulated in their appropriate sections in the article. Adding secondary analysis of a statement or saying something like "Although Professors of political science John Smith and Jane Doe dispute the veracity of the demand and state that the demand was to create pretext for invasion" may be useful as an addition, but I would be careful with how much is added given it's for the lead. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, that is the most notable demand that was made.
It may be, or it may be not. Sources need to be analysed and a summary should be made to reach such a conclusion.
Now, why is the desire to include demands, but not the reasons for the invasion, into the lead? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the proposer.
We do not know, nor can we be certain of the true reasons.
All we have is what russia said (which is possibly false) and speculation (which are effectively opinions, and you know what they say).
I think the proposed change is a net positive. DarmaniLink (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong NO. No, this is just a propaganda trick, not a real demand. And you are substituting concepts. Russia has put forward a deliberately impossible demand for NATO to return to the 1997 borders, and not at all about further non-expansion. Including those funny "demands" neither encyclopedic, nor notable - Wikipedia is not the place for any-country propaganda. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So-called "CIA involvement" is WP:FRINGE, see Orange_Revolution#Outside_Ukraine In Russian nationalist circles the Orange Revolution has been linked with fascism because, albeit marginally, Ukrainian nationalist extreme right-wing groups and Ukrainian Americans (including Viktor Yushchenko's wife, Kateryna Yushchenko, who was born in the United States) were involved in the demonstrations; Russian nationalist groups see both as branches of the same tree of fascism.[85] The involvement of Ukrainian Americans lead them to believe the Orange Revolution was steered by the CIA.[85] You are spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories jumping to far-reaching conclusions based on rumors. Ukraine was not under USA nor CIA occupation and their voluntary willingness to be part of NATO/EU was and still is voluntary. YBSOne (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why aren't Ukraine's supporters listed?

Ukraine has so many nations which support it directly in the war trough arm deliveryes. Why are those not listed? For example Germany the US the UK and so on. These arm and also munition deliveryies are vital for the AFU i think these should definitly be listed. Waranalyst (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed - see the Ukraine support section. If you mean being listed in the infobox, there have been many discussions on that, but they were not in support of including them in the infobox. Gödel2200 (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listing all of Ukraine's supporters on the infobox will make it unnecessarily long and difficult to navigate -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsible show/hide button? Adonnus (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have two entire pages for that as well foreign aid to Ukraine and a link to those pages on Russo-Ukrainian War. I think anything else would be repetitive. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: closed. There is clear consensus to close this promptly and requestor has also indicated a desire to withdraw this. (non-admin closure) JDiala (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian invasion of Ukraine → Full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War – The subject of this article is not just the invasion itself, but the entire war that followed the full-scale invasion. The common term for this conflict is the Russo-Ukrainian War. However, since there is already an article titled Russo-Ukrainian War, which covers the entire conflict starting from 2014, we need to include a disambiguator. A natural disambiguator is preferred, thus I propose Full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War. What are your thoughts? Sakakami (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close – There has been no change to the core arguments since this discussion was held a month ago. The proposed rename is not a title used by reliable sources let alone the WP:COMMONNAME for this article subject. It therefore has virtually no possibility of being adopted. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the common name is not "Russian invasion of Ukraine" (by this point) either, it is indeed "war in Ukraine" (which isn't an appropriate title) or "Russo-Ukrainian War". The previous RM was so unsuccessful mainly because of the suggestion to move this page to prefix with "timeline of", not entirely from the main point of the proposal. Maybe an alternative titling of "Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present)" would work. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given articles like War in Afghanistan (2001-2021), War in Iraq (2013-2017), and war in Donbas, I wouldn't consider "war in Ukraine (2022-present)" to be an entirely inappropriate title, but I definitely prefer your proposal and concur that "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is no longer WP:COMMONNAME for the events described in this page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A natural disambiguator is preferred over using years in parentheses. Additionally, 'Full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War' serves well as a non-judgmental, descriptive title. Sakakami (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the WP:COMMONNAME for this conflict though (additionally, the label "full-scale" is about as unnatural as you can get). The common name is "War in Ukraine" both in colloquial and media usage (either that or "Ukraine war"), which Wikipedia has been trying to ignore for two years. This title runs afoul with Russo-Ukrainian War, which as an article is trying to carry a low-level, minor insurgency and a major war under the same umbrella. Thus the more sensible title for that article is Russo-Ukrainian conflict, which describes ten years of continuous conflict, but not of continuous war, akin to Afghan conflict. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My belief has been for years that this article should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian War (or, better yet, War in Ukraine (2022–present)) and the article currently at that title should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian conflict (I believe that was proposed a while back). The so-called "Russian invasion of Ukraine", like in 2003 invasion of Iraq, should serve only to cover the first month or so of the war, while the rest, clearly a war, should be called as such. As for the preceding eight years, it mostly consisted of a low-intensity conflict for the first year and then a frozen conflict from Minsk to 2022. Calling that the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than the more appropriate Russo-Ukrainian conflict is fundamentally misleading. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Given PaulOfTarsus' examples of similar titlings (war in Foo) I would support a move to War in Ukraine (2022–present) (which initially sounded too colloquial to me) and further a move of Russo-Ukrainian War to "Ukraine conflict (2014–present)" or "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" which appear to be more sensible and common names (see ngram) than "war", provided we are only going to use "War in Ukraine" for 2022 onwards. "War in Ukraine" has nonetheless been used by media since 2014, but to differentiate between the article readers will want to go to realistically (this one, which has far more coverage of events after Feb. 2022) and the broad, main article the titling of the latter should imply the scale of the conflict. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The conflict from 2014-2022 and the conflict from 2022-present are two related but separate conflicts. This article should move to take the "war" article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close We should not keep having to deal with this issue, there is an article about the general war, that is a non argument. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as per Slatersteven, Flemmish Nietzsche and others. GreatLeader1945 TALK 18:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposed name is nowhere near a COMMONNAME. When full-scale is used it is in lower case, i.e. as an adjective and not as part of the war's name. This makes the proposed name OR. I support the procedural close proposed by all others. It was important to me also to state what is wrong with the name. gidonb (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, While consensus of a common name seems to be a bit all over the place, I have seen sources referring to this as the Russian invasion [of Ukraine]. Full-scale Russo-Ukrainian War never occurred and seems to be quite muddy as to what it is referencing (as someone who is not super well versed on Ukrainian history, I might confuse this with Crimea or even as a term to conjoin the Crimean and this invasions). ✶Quxyz✶ 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close. WP:SNOW, WP:COMMONNAME Andre🚐 01:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose close per WP:SNOW. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 02:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where is supported by list under Ukraine in info box?

Where is supported by list under Ukraine in info box? 202.47.36.141 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's absent from the infobox on purpose. See FAQ item #4. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ did not claim 1 million dead in Sept 2024

This article claims WSJ reported 1 million dead in Sept 2024. They did nothing of the kind. As the cited WSJ article clearly states: 1 million dead or INJURED. Not exactly a small difference. This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder what the point of Wikipedia even is, or why it’s considered any more credible a source of information than a Reddit post. Should be corrected asap. Lukestark (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In September 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that there were now one million Ukrainians and Russians who were killed or wounded" — note the lack of a full stop after "killed". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I’m hoping this was a correction based on my post here as I thought I re-read that sentence ten times with dropped jaw before posting here, but if not I don’t know what to say except to recede into the corner with tail between legs like a shamed puppy. Doesn’t help that I originally posted this accidentally on the talk page for “Russo-Ukrainian War” (apparently after an inadvertent thumb swipe to the article I was previously reading), so my batting average around here could be better. I’ll just go away now. Apologies. Lukestark (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add A Fact: "Adoption surge in Ukraine post-invasion"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

The number of Ukrainian citizens seeking to adopt children has increased dramatically since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.voanews.com/a/adoption-applications-in-ukraine-soar-since-russian-invasion-/7802068.html


This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Rc2barrington (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

north korea should be listed as an ally of russia

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/40037


they are literally sending troops NotQualified (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim made is not supported by the source. It says that NK officers were present in Donetsk observing personnel training in the area when six of them were killed and three more injured by a Ukrainian missile strike. Unless NK troops are directly involved in combat – and this doesn't claim they are – then they aren't party to the conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what about if we were to add North Korea as a (Support) role. Gonzafer001 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not list others other than Belrus for for specific reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the impulse on this talk page to freeze the infobox in time and reflexively oppose any updates to it despite changing conditions on the ground.
Uniformed North Korean officers have been confirmed to be operating in Ukrainian territory by both Ukrainian and South Korean officials. No uniformed foreign troops of any country, Belarus included, has been confirmed to be operating in Ukraine. So this is a big development and leaving North Korea out of the infobox entirely is a disservice.
This thread is as good as any to start the discussion for reaching a consensus to add DPRK to the infobox in some capacity. --haha169 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unture, the British also have forces in country, just not in combat roles. So lets see a source that says NK is directly involved io military operations. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just go around saying something is untrue without any justification. What reasoning do you have to disbelieve Kyiv Post's sources in the Ukrainian intelligence services? Or the reporting from the South Korean intelligence services?
And I do not see anything in consensus that a support role in the infobox requires active uniformed soldiers engaged in direct combat. Belarus certainly has no frontline soldiers.
Regarding your other claim, the limited British presence is far behind the frontlines, hence no deaths. Most countries have some military presence in Ukraine anyway for purposes such as guarding embassies. This is not directly related to the war. Whereas the North Korean officers were in Donetsk conferring with Russia troops fighting there. --haha169 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the media outlets reporting both the Ukraine and South Korean intelligence reports are reliable sources. To add to the Kyiv Post source originally posted, which cites Ukrainian intelligence, The Guardian [4] also cited Ukrainian intelligence as well as South Korea's defense minister. And these are not the only two source reporting on this either. --haha169 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there is the issue, the guardian does not say it is true, they say others say it is true. So we can say it in the body but the infobox is for verifiable facts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing is literally the definition of "secondary sources" that Wikipedia relies on - sources that cite the primary source. The Guardian is the reliable secondary source, citing the primary source which is the intelligence agencies. --haha169 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this being a claim, not for it being true, thus this is not verified as a fact, thus has no place in the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At what point is something a "verified fact" by your standard? Since neither WP:RS nor WP:V have a "verified fact" standard, I'm having to answer to your goal post here.
As for my understanding of the word "fact", I argue that the claims of two different national intelligence agencies reported on by reliable sources is considered factual. --haha169 (talk) haha169 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an RS puts it in its voice as true, and not as a claim made by others, and as this is going round in circles now I am bowing out, assume no to this edit until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian-linked news sources have shown bias in the past. If North Koreans are actually fighting in Ukraine, there will probably be more concrete evidence in the coming days. Video recordings/photos would be ideal before labeling North Korea an active combatant. Hammer128 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of 'supported by' in such infoboxes was deprecated following a centralized discussion over a year ago. Belarus retained its pre-existing listed status following a separate RfC here that determined that Belarus' involvement in the conflict was unique and merited highlighting specifically because it allowed its territory to be used as a staging ground for the invasion. That is not the case for any other state. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Belarus is not a direct belligerent with uniformed troops on the ground. What's in contention here is a bit different, related to a country who has uniformed forces on the ground. --haha169 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That contention has already been addressed. I have no reason to repeat myself on that point. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you've made a comment directly addressing the new information about North Korea's involvement in this conflict in the past few days when this news came out, I don't think you've addressed it. You've only commented on the 'supported by' label for Belarus, which is not related to North Korea. --haha169 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is brazen to assert that I have only commented once after I've indicated that I've responded to this discussion previously. Instead of spending four minutes to post an ill-informed response, spend one minute using the search function. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To preempt another pointless response and another devolution to a merry-go-round I will re-iterate both contentions and both objections once.
Contention 1: North Korea has troops in Ukraine, they should be listed as a belligerent. Objection 1: the troops are not engaged in combat and their mere presence does not constitute belligerency. Resolution 1: if North Korea commits troops to combat or formally enters the conflict, then reconsider listing North Korea as a belligerent.
Contention 2: North Korea has troops in Ukraine, there is a 'supported by' sub-classifier and North Korea should be listed there. Objection 2: the 'supported by' parameter is deprecated. You need a special reason to use it and that exists only for Belarus. The mere presence of troops is not sufficient justification for special consideration. Resolution 2: this is a dead-end to discussion, I am firm on this position.
That is all I have to say on the matter of both contentions. Yes, I've read both sources, and neither claims that North Korean troops are engaged in combat so they don't resolve the original contention. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mere" presence of troops is massively trivializing the reality of the situation. In what world is the deployment of uniformed troops within the active conflict zone a "mere presence"? These are not logistics or support units far in the back. These people were on the frontlines and killed there along with and while supporting the Russian belligerents. --haha169 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTNEWS. Not everything goes in an infobox. It is for significant key facts. These people were on the frontlines and killed there along with and while supporting the Russian belligerents [emphasis added]. Supported by is deprecated. It is used for Belarus because of the strong affirmative consensus to do so. There is WP:NODEADLINE. If the nature of North Korean presence changes and/or becomes clearer (further sources), then, we can reconsider this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what world is the deployment of uniformed troops within the active conflict zone a "mere presence"? I'm responding merely because I was heretofore unaware that 'mere' had different meanings in Br and Am Eng. In BrEng it emphasizes how small or insignificant something is (OED), and in AmEng it means being nothing more than (Merriam-Webster). You may substitute ... their mere presence ... with ... just their presence ... or ... their presence alone .... AusEng shares the AmEng definition according to the Australian Oxford Dictionary, but I don't have Macquarie on hand to confirm. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What conditions have not been satisfied yet if the deployment of uniformed troops into the conflict zone is simply a "presence" and not enough to be considered a belligerent? --haha169 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what are the specific reasons that Belarus is and not others? GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
belarus is used as a staging ground for soldiers, rockets, etc. NotQualified (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to include DPRK in infobox. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask again what conditions need to be met for those currently opposed to the DPRK's addition as a belligerent in the infobox to change their views. So far, the only condition I've read is evidence of troops engaged in direct combat. Yet I do not see what other purpose the deployment of troops within the active combat zone could possibly be if not direct combat.

So I ask again: what specific further evidence is needed that has not already been provided? --haha169 (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same as last time, an RS actually saying that NK is, in fact, a belligerent and is in direct combat operations against Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that North Korea was already added to the infobox by @Scu ba. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. An explicit consensus is required for the use or expansion of the use of the supported by section, per this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how anyone can argue North Korea isn't at least supporting Russia, at least 1 North Korean servicemen has died, and we have satellite photos of trains full of artillery shells leaving North Korea for Russia for over a year now. Scuba 15:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most countries that exist are at least supporting the war effort in some capacity, especially in the provision of materiel. We'd need to list well over a 100 countries if we were to apply that metric. This is a large part of why that usage is deprecated, because it can be used indiscriminately and to push a narrative. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these countries, Belarus included, have sent troops directly into the active combat areas, including some who have died in Ukrainian strikes. The argument at this point, at least in my view, based on what all of the sources being cited, isn't to put DPRK as a "supporter" but a direct belligerent. --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I agree that this discussion should be on status as 'belligerent'. That said, no source as yet presented uses that term, co-belligerent, or 'party to the conflict' which is used in International Law. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replicating the sources that Scu ba cited for perusal here CNN and the Moscow Times. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see the sources that @Mr rnddude salvaged from my edit. Both Ukrainian and South Korean intelligence have reported that North Korean personnel have been boots-on-the-ground in Ukraine per the CNN article. Russian sources have also reported that at least one of them have died per the MT article. Scuba 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Zelensky says", "Seoul's defense minister said Tuesday.", its not the RS saying it.We need an RS saying it is true, not an RS saying someone has said its true. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can justify saying that the Ukrainian President or the South Korean defense minister are not RS. Their statements are being reported by reliable secondary sources. This is the bedrock of Wikipedia sourcing policy: using reliable secondary sources that report claims from primary sources that the reliable secondary source deems reliable. ISW, a reliable secondary source that we use repeatedly in this article, has also repeated those claims and deem them credible. [5] The assessment of all of these sources is that the DPRK has already deployed troops in Ukraine combat areas, some have died, and more are on the way. I think it stretches credulity to claim that these soldiers are in Ukraine and (specifically confirmed) in Donetsk for anything other than combat/military operations. --haha169 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are not third party, that are involved (read wp:rs). "The Washington Post reported on October 11 that South Korean and Ukrainian officials stated that North Korean soldiers are operating alongside Russian forces in Ukraine.", it does not put it in its voice, they do not view this as a reliable claim. If they did they would say North Korean soldiers are operating alongside Russian forces in Ukraine.", that is called taking ownership of a claim, its what RS do when they know something is true. As nothing new has been added I will stick with NO and bow out, do not ask me again until you produce a source that puts it in their name. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are proposing is a standard that I do not believe is supported by policy, or even supported by past precedent in this article. For example, map edits in the infobox are largely supported by ISW updates. ISW does not usually make claims in their own voice, rather making assessments based on chatter and social media posts/videos by Russian milbloggers and sometimes from the Ukrainian MOD. Yet we still update the map based on that info. --haha169 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't the South Korean defense minister be a reliable source? you'd think the South Korean government would lie about something like this for clout? What would Ukraine gain? Applause for standing up to Kim? Russia is just as sanctioned as North Korea at this point.
There is an entire battalion worth of North Koreans on the front line if that doesn't count as being a belligerent than I don't know what does.
[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
Scuba 23:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now read both articles twice. The CNN opens with a statement from Zelensky that North Korea is sending its citizens to help Russia’s military fight Ukraine. The authors calls this statement an allegation. The choice of 'citizens' rather than 'soldiers' or equivalent language is significant. The article cites a Ukrainian intelligence source that gives insight into the role that North Koreans may have saying that a small number of North Koreans have been working with the Russian military, mostly to help with engineering and to exchange information on the use of North Korean ammunition. It also acknowledges that Russia is denying the allegations. The piece also discusses Kim Yong-hyun's (South Korea's defense minister) and South Korean National Intelligence Service's statements about the North Korean presence, potentiality of casualties, and the possibility of further increases to the North Korean military presence. Bottom line, everything is presented intentionally as speculative and alleged with appropriate attribution. This is inadequate for Wikipedia to claim in wikivoice that North Korea is a belligerent.
The Moscow Times article opens with North Korean soldiers are likely fighting in Ukraine alongside Russian troops, with some believed already killed and more expected to be deployed attributing the statement to Kim Yong-hyun (mentioned by position in government, rather than name). It then covers the same incident that has been discussed above in the Kyiv Post source, where a group of North Korean soldiers have been killed near Donetsk (the city, not Oblast). From the Kyiv Post, the troops killed were apparently observing Russian personnel in training. The article then dedicates a section to discussing the potential purposes of North Korean troops being there, which are broadly weapons handling and war-time training. There is additional speculation on the use of North Korean labour. This too is inadequate to claim in wikivoice that North Korea is a belligerent.
I was about to propose that the sources and material be incorporated into the article body, but we already have that with an appropriately attributed statement that reads: In October 2024, Ukraine and South Korea claimed that North Koreans engineers had been deployed to the battlefield to help with the launch of these missiles, and had suffered some casualties citing The Guardian, Politico, and Bloomberg. I'll review those sources as well, but I won't be presenting an analysis as I have of the two presented here. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd debate the Moscow Times article.
There are confirmed North Korean troops in occupied Ukraine. It doesn't matter that they're advisors and behind the lines in this instance, they're still in occupied Ukraine openly assisting the Russian army. Scuba 23:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to both your last posts here. With regard the first, please read your sources carefully. The Buryat battalion that is being formed is operating under the flag of the Russian Federation.[a] The soldiers are recruits from North Korea, but they aren't operating under the North Korean flag. This is intentional. It keeps North Korea out of the war officially. Reliable sources notice this and so consistently refer to North Korea as supporting the war effort.[b] They also are not on the frontline, they're several thousand kilometers behind it receiving equipment and training and won't be combat ready until the end of this year.[c] The deserters are also several kilometres behind the frontline.[d] Equally, there are no reports of North Korean troops being engaged in combat yet.[e] With regard your second post, nobody here is claiming that North Korea isn't assisting Russia in their war effort; as noted previously in fact, most extant nations are assisting a party to the conflict's war effort. The question is wholly on whether that assistance constitutes belligerency or, more precisely, qualifies the state as a party to the conflict. Only one is listed, because only one has been described by reliable sources as a co-belligerent. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting all the sources together. I'm sympathetic to the NOTNEWS argument for waiting a little, based on the current situation that you've described in the reliable sources' reporting. However, I disagree on one point regarding this Buryat division. If they were to be found on the frontlines under the Russian flag to avoid making DPRK's participation "official", but the reliable sources are clearly stating that these are North Koreans, then North Korea should still be a belligerent. Wikipedia should be reflecting that facts of the matter and not playing to the Kremlin's political games. Ukraine's foreign legion is made up of volunteers, while there is no doubt that any North Koreans fighting for Russia is being deployed by their government. --haha169 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we aren't putting North Korea as a full fledged member, but in the Supported section, a la Belarus. Scuba 15:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it's better to wait to see if things get more concrete and just add them as a belligerent if they do, since the "supported" section is deprecated and Belarus is only there because consensus was specifically found for it due to its extraordinary circumstances. If RS start reporting that NK is actively participating in the war there is no reason to omitt it, particularly after all the talk about adding "NATO" or whatever for sending aid. This is clearly another level of foreign involvement not previously seen. TylerBurden (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a sound argument. It's just that North Korea is, to my knowledge, the only country to have actual government-sanctioned boots on the ground on Russia's side. Scuba 16:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the well sourced post Mr rnddude. I agree with your decision that we should wait until the North Korean soldiers that are currently being trained actually enter the battlefield (allegedly by the end of 2024). Until North Korean troops actually begin fighting, North Korea is not yet a belligerent. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to issue a correction with regard the special Buryat battalion. I say that they are several kilometres behind the front, actually it appears to be several thousand kilometres. The battalion is currently in Sosnovyy Bor, Burytia. The source for their location is:1. The eighteen North Korean deserters were in Bryansk/Kursk, several kilometres behind the front. The EUToday source conflates the two events, which I replicated, see the opening paragraph:2 I have corrected my original comment, which can be identified by the presence of underlining. This is sort of the consequence of dealing with emerging and conflicting sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts from the article. Belligerency in a war is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. When 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 might include a consensus in sources (to the same standard) that North Korea is actively engaged in combat operations against Ukraine (ie a smoking gun). However, the discussion to this point has not established either. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Legion (Ukraine), do we list each nation represented in this organization as a belligerent? No, as they are not official there serviing under their nations flag, same here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

haha169 made a good point about this above, that is a volunteer unit, just like nationals from other countries volunteer to join the Russian military, the difference is that it appears the North Koreans are being deployed directly by their government. TylerBurden (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BUt they are still not official NK units, and if they become that they become a belligerent, not a supporter. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, said the same thing above, as for "official" I guess we'll just have to wait and see if RS fall for Kremlin propaganda. You can dress up a donkey as a horse but it's still a donkey. TylerBurden (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As haha169 and TylerBurden pointed out, International Legion (Ukraine) is a volunteer force as opposed to the North Korean government directing its soldiers to join the Russian military. A similar example is the Yom Kippur War, where North Korea sent pilots to join Egypt and so it is listed as a belligerent. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite "Israeli F-4s Actually Fought North Korean MiGs During the Yom Kippur War", not just pilots they were there officially as North Koran forces. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We might be getting ahead of ourselves here, but if Russia tries to pass North Korean soldiers off as part of a Buryat regiment, North Korea should still be considered a belligerent. Facts don't care about what the Kremlin has to say and North Korean soldiers wearing a Buryatia patch are still North Korean soldiers. --haha169 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think some users need to read wp:or and wp:primary, only if an RS says they are a belligerent can we say they are belligerent, not how we interpret videos or photos. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear -- surely you don't mean that RS need to call North Korea specifically a "belligerent" to the conflict? Belligerent is not a commonly used word. A Google search of "Ukraine is a belligerent" yields a single result from Völkerrechtsblog calling Ukraine a belligerent.
I am asking because we need to be clear and consistent about the standard here. As I have asked before, and in my previous reviews about what the standard is, RS simply need to confirm that North Korean troops and in combat. Shooting a gun, firing a missile, engaged with the Ukrainians. Am I correct with this? --haha169 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we do not call Belurus a belligerent, as RS has not said they are. But, no, not the word, but they must be in some way explicitly described as active combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Let's wait a little bit. As of now RS attribute it to Ukrainian sources, see this BBC article published a few hours ago

We should only add it to the infobox when RS become much more certain about it. Alaexis¿question? 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the confirmation by Zelensky suffice to change the infobox?
'First step to World War' — North Korea preparing 10,000 soldiers to join Russia's war, Zelensky confirms (kyivindependent.com) JustEnthusiastic (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Zelensky ... Moscow plans to "actually involve" North Korea in the war in the coming months (emphasis added). That's a prediction of the future, not a statement on the present. Similar with ... the president said that Russia is planning to train and engage not only infantry but also North Korean specialists in various branches of the military. We need for events to occur before we say they have occurred. This introduces an updated piece of information though in that the number of North Koreans in Russia is now estimated to be ~10,000. That information was released on October 15th. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zelensky also said: "some North Korean officers are already in the occupied territories of Ukraine and joined the Russian army." This is a very strong statement from him that definitively ties North Korean soldiers to Russian military operations on Ukrainian territory. Although we already knew that after news of the North Korean casualties from a few days back. --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox doesn't have space for context, so it should only contain information that is known with a high degree of certainty. As long as RS attribute these claims to Zelensky or publish vague statements made by South Koreans (the possibility of such a deployment is highly likely [13]) we definitely shouldn't add NK to the infobox.
These claims are mentioned in the article, this is sufficient coverage for now. Alaexis¿question? 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the South Korean intelligence is not really vague about it anymore: "N. Korea participates in Ukraine war, decides to dispatch 12,000 soldiers: S. Korean spy agency" [14] --haha169 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If regular North Korean troops are being integrated into the Russian military, they would be Auxiliaries under international law, which are regular foreign or allied troops in the service of another nation's military. 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 related article infoboxs see here and here for examples. 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) 22:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should wait how this story develops. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Givibidou (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for more evidence. If and when North Korean involvement with combat troops is confirmed, it should be listed as a belligerent (not as a "supporter", like Belarus). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte:[15] "at this moment, our official position is that we cannot confirm reports that North Koreans are actively now as soldiers engaged in the war effort."
We need multiple, first-class sources that support without any doubt that there is North Korean involvement. Mhorg (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Let's assume that North Korea, in October 2024, is officially sending troops to Ukraine to support Russia. If this is true, then I would support a note accompanying it saying that it only became a belligerent from 2024 October onwards.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Citations

Notes

  1. ^ According to these sources, the North Koreans will form part of the “Special Buryat Battalion,” organized within the 11th separate airborne assault brigade of the Russian Armed Forces[1]
  2. ^ North Korea is one of Russia's top supporters in the war against Ukraine.[2]
    ... raising questions about whether the military cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow has advanced to a new stage[3]
    The use of North Korean soldiers in the Russian military highlights the Kremlin’s expanding military collaborations with Pyongyang ...[4]
    In response, North Korea, a key ally, is stepping in to provide large-scale support – not only with weapons and military equipment but also by supplying personnel, according to Kyiv Post sources in Ukraine’s Military Intelligence (HUR).[5]
  3. ^ Currently, the process of equipping these soldiers with firearms and ammunition is underway.[6]
    The Washington Post reported that several thousand North Korean soldiers are undergoing training on Russian territory before being sent to the front in Ukraine, potentially by the end of 2024[7]
  4. ^ The incident occurred approximately seven kilometres from the Ukrainian border, where the North Korean troops had been stationed as part of the Russian occupying forces.[8]
  5. ^ The official said North Korean officers are already on the ground in Russia-occupied Ukraine to observe Russian forces and study the battlefield, but Kyiv hasn’t seen any North Korean units fighting yet.[9]

References

  1. ^ https://www.kyivpost.com/post/40556
  2. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russian-army-forms-special-buryat-battalion-1728996935.html
  3. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/11/north-korea-russia-ukraine-military-cooperation/
  4. ^ https://eutoday.net/russian-army-enlists-north-koreans/
  5. ^ https://www.kyivpost.com/post/40556
  6. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russian-army-forms-special-buryat-battalion-1728996935.html
  7. ^ https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russian-army-forms-special-buryat-battalion-1728996935.html
  8. ^ https://eutoday.net/russian-army-enlists-north-koreans/
  9. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/11/north-korea-russia-ukraine-military-cooperation/

Foreign support should be updated and clarified

The foreign support section only mentions Belarus and China, but the two biggest supporters of Russia aren't mentioned at all, Iran and North Korea. Also, the map that shows nations sending aid to Ukraine should be changed to add Russia's supporters as well, which would also more clearly illustrate the global situation and balance of power. I can do this if you don't mind (thinking just a lighter shade of red for Russia's allies). Adonnus (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image in this article conflicts substantially with image in the list article despite them supposedly showing the same information. Both images are also ultimately sourced to a Wikipedia article: List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

700,000 Russian personnel

I'm pretty sure this number should be updated to a more recent estimate anyway, but the source for the 700,000 Russian personnel in the strength category says that there is "almost 700,000 Russian personnel". While I do think that this is a minor problem that doesn't matter much, I would personally add "~" or "almost" before "700,000 active personnel in the area" since it doesn't say that that amount of personnel has actually been reached as far as i've read. Minewit (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strength over a protracted war varies with time. We should be treating this the same way that we treat casualties. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties

As of 31 August 2024, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) had verified that conflict-related violence had killed 11,743 civilians and injured 24,614 in Ukraine since 24 February 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.47.121.25 (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add North Korea as Belligerent in Infobox

While North Korea’s support for Russia previously involved supplying weapons and munitions, recent reports, such as (Politico), indicate that North Korea is now supplying thousands of troops to fight in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The presence of North Korean soldiers on the battlefield should warrant their inclusion as a belligerent in the infobox, or at minimum be added under the 'Supported by:' heading.

Russia, for its part, has denied North Korean soldiers joining the war. The most recent sources support that North Korea has in-fact sent troops drawing from Ukrainian statments as well as statements from the South Korean Defense Minister: (Washington Post). Washington Post reports that "several thousand North Korean infantry soldiers are undergoing training in Russia now and could be deployed to the front line in Ukraine by the end of this year." Additionally, Washington Post notes the report of six North Korean officers killed on 5 October near Donetsk, however they were not directly involved in combat. Pithon314 (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already being discussed in a thread above, we do not need two conversations. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed that discussion, thanks for pointing it out. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2024

Recent information about deployment of a few thousands Korean People's Army soldiers shall be added AxeDeodorant123 (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed. Check the talk page before requesting an edit. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "expansion" and the recent RfC

The recent RfC on NATO expansion in the lead proved a success for the yes side. Thus, discussion of NATO is now in the lead, but interestingly the specific word "expansion" is not used. This is odd. The RfC opener, Goszei made express use of the word "expansion" both in the title of the RfC and the RfC phrasing, which I remind everyone was specifically the following: " Should the lead mention Russia's pre-invasion demand for a ban on future expansion of NATO to Ukraine?". Most of his sources (Mearsheimer, CfR, various reputable news outlets) make use of the specific word "expansion." The RfC closer, Maddy_from_Celeste, also made express use of the word "expansion" in their closing.

I attempted to include the word but I was reverted. The rationale given for the reversion is that this amounts to a stylistic disagreement not affecting the substance of what is said. There are two responses to this. First, this is false. Don't take my word for it. Some of the no voters, like Super Dromaeosaurus specifically and strongly objected to the word "expansion", indicating the substantive importance of the word. The word "expansion", after all, connotes aggression. It is important to understand the context here; the mere "ban on membership" wording (as it currently is) misses the point that this Russian concern pertains to a decades-long physical, geographically expanding encroachment by a belligerent alliance. A mere "ban on membership", on the other hand, which is the current phrasing, connotes Russia as making a frivolous demand, almost as if it is a mean parent not letting their daughter join a sorority. To summarize, the RfC discussion, the sources provided, voters on the other side, and common sense makes it clear that the word "expansion" is significant. It's not a stylistic issue. But even if I steelman this and assume for sake of argument that it is not significant, why would a stylistic variation not in concert with the vocabulary used extensively in the RfC be preferred to the variation that is? Why should the unsuccessful no voters have a veto on the style used?

Pinging TylerBurden, Cinderella157 (those reverting my edits) and Maddy_from_Celeste, Goszei (RfC opener and closer). JDiala (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1251930531"