This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay
calm and
civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and
do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
Only
extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make
edit requests related to articles within the topic area on
article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply
page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to,
Articles for deletion nominations,
WikiProjects,
requests for comment,
requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced
trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to
deny recognition and refer to
WP:PSCI,
WP:FALSEBALANCE,
WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards.
Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
RM, Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russo-Ukrainian War, Moved, 16 June 2020,
Discussion
RM, Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo-Ukrainian Conflict, Withdrawn, 14 July 2020,
Discussion
RM, Russo-Ukrainian War → Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–2022), Not moved (SNOW), 3 March 2022,
Discussion
RM, Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo-Ukrainian conflict, Procedural close, 4 March 2022,
Discussion
RM, Russo-Ukrainian War → Russia-Ukraine War, Not moved (SNOW), 8 March 2022,
Discussion
RM, Russo-Ukrainian War → Russian-Ukrainian War, Procedural close, 18 June 2022,
Discussion
RM, Russo-Ukrainian War → Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Not moved (SNOW), 20 January 2023,
Discussion
RM, Russo-Ukrainian War → War in Ukraine, Not moved (SNOW), 22 February 2023,
Discussion
RM, Russo-Ukrainian War → Russo–Ukrainian War, Procedural close, 27 September 2023,
Discussion
Older discussions:
RM, Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russian military intervention in Ukraine, No consensus, 1 May 2018,
Discussion
RM, Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russo-Ukrainian war, Not moved. , 25 May 2016,
Discussion
RM, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine → 2014 Russian military interventions in Ukraine, Not moved, 18 September 2014,
Discussion
RM, → Russo-Ukrainian War, Not moved, 14 September 2014,
Discussion
RM, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine → 2014 Russian military intervention in the Crimean Peninsula, No consensus, 14 April 2014,
Discussion
RM, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine → 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea, No consensus, 20 March 2014,
Discussion
Lucas Ropek (18 October 2022).
"Researchers Say 'Suspicious' Edits on Wikipedia Reek of Pro-Russian Propaganda".
Gizmodo. Retrieved 20 October 2022. The new report analyzes the activities of 86 editors who had previously been banned due to various breaches of Wikipedia's code of ethics (editors can get kicked off Wikipedia if they behave badly). Among the many pages to which they'd contributed, the editors had a history of making edits to the Wiki entry for the Russo-Ukrainian War.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in
2022, when it received 18,817,027 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report5 times. The weeks in which this happened:
RFC on listing of Belarus as "supported by" since 2022
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.
There is no consensus for option B. Because that option failed to meet the burden placed upon it by the RfC on "supported by" fields in infoboxes, option A (the status quo) prevails. (
non-admin closure) —
Compassionate727Â (
T·
C)02:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Should
Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of this article) concerning the
events since 24 February 2022: A) no (as at present); B) as "Supported since 2022 by: Â Belarus" (in Russia's side).
Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors in the Survey section. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section (that's what it's for).
Note to closer and other participants: this RFC was started because the
previous similar RFC (started on 16 March 2024) was
closed on 17 May 2024 without a clear consensus regarding options A and B, but the uninvolved closer Compassionate727 stated that "Finally, there seems to be a consensus that if added, Belarus should be added with a note that its support began in 2022, although there is no reason that shouldn't be confirmed in the next RfC, which I assume will be forthcoming shortly". --
Pofka (
talk)
20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Survey
B. The role of Belarus in this war should be described as "supported since 2022 by: Belarus" (in Russia's side) because during the highly intensified phase of this war
since 24 February 2022 the Russian Army's forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (
1,
2); 2) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine and Russian jets have taken off from Belarus to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (
3,
4,
5); 3) see more information in a dedicated article
Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the
Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine, the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that. Moreover, in June 2023 Belarusian President
Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see:
full article), so Lukashenko's Belarus clearly tractate the current Ukraine as an enemy and by exceptionally supporting Russia since 2022 sought for Ukraine's military defeat in this war. --
Pofka (
talk)
20:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A. (Summoned by feedback request service). Infoboxes are for basic factual uncontroversial information that can be consumed at-a-glance. They are not suitable for contested statements or statements where some nuance is required.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
21:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A for the same reason we should not list the United States on Ukraine's side. We should only list groups that have soldiers fighting in the war, which Belarus does not and has said that they will not.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
B the US's role in the war is similar to that of Iran; the better comparison for Belarus would be Poland, assuming that Poland starts shooting down missiles as it said it was considering. Arms suppliers should indeed be left off but those countries/territories that have used or provided their territory in combat engagements in Ukraine should be included in the infobox as belligerents (this is after all the definition of being a belligerent).
DantheAnimator03:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
B Per Pofka, while role is not equal to Germany, NK, Iran... Belarus has nonetheless provided support and Lukashenko wants Ukraine defeated.
O.maximov (
talk)
12:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: May be a good idea to include supporters rather than suppliers in the infobox. Then the role of Belarus should be included as a supporter of Russia and US as a supporter of Ukraine.
IOHANNVSVERVS (
talk)
17:10, 4 June 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.
Confirmed presence of italian volounteers fighting for Russia
Many founts have confirmed the presence of italian volounteers fighting for the russian army and some of them have even been interwieved.So should we add in the list of belligerants even volounteers from other countries like franco-american for Ukraine and italo-sirians-lybyans for Russia?
2.47.239.31 (
talk)
10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Noticing that there seems to be contention in the contribution history of this article about North Korea's involvement as a belligerent:
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34893
IMO Sending state-sanctioned foreign troops under a defense pact constitutes belligerency, not involvement as mercenaries.
Cyali (
talk)
19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is the first time in over a decade that a foreign military besides Russia and Ukraine is putting boots on the ground. North Korea has stated its intent to deploy troops there. However, I can understand if users would rather wait until North Koreans are actually there. Dozens of countries have been providing weapons to both Russia and Ukraine for some time but this is the first time a military is being deployed to the fight, AFAIK.
Ecrusized (
talk)
10:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Please see
article from NK News titled "Fact check: North Korea has not announced plans to send troops to Ukraine — yet" which traces the source of this information to a rumor on South Korean television, noting that no such announcement has been made by the North Korean government, and characterizes the Kyiv Post and others as having referenced an incorrect description of the deployment claims as an official North Korean announcement... without verifying the source of the rumors.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (
talk)
20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have re-removed the material. No nation should be listed as a de facto belligerent without RS explicitly identifying the party as a party to the conflict or co-belligerent. Whether support rises to such a level as to merit inclusion in the infobox under the support banner, however, is up to editorial discretion. It requires an explicit affirmative consensus at the talk page first though, as the use of the support parameter is broadly deprecated.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
07:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the
Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox, Belarus is listed as "Supported by" with a note attached. I propose that, for the Russo-Ukrainian war article, we simply move this note to be attached to Russia instead of Belarus, looking something like:
This would only state the facts of how Belarus has supported the war, and wouldn't create any confusion over the duration of Belarusian support.
Gödel2200 (
talk)
14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply