Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

RFC on listing of Belarus as "supported by" since 2022
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: 🇧🇾 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". -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A. See previous RFC. Ivan (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * A per my comment at previous RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * B per my comment at previous RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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). Dan the Animator 03:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Discussion
Pinging all the participants of the previous similar RFC who had voted in the Survey section because I think they should be informed about this RFC and are welcome to express their opinion regarding this question once again. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

I dislike an RFC on a subject we had one recently about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * No, as that would not be national support, rather they are mercenaries. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

North Korea as belligerent
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)


 * We should remember that it hasn't happened yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * They would have to be involved in actual combat. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , I note that you have now twice reverted to reinstate this material while the WP:ONUS to add this material to the infobox has not been met. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024
Add North Korea to the belligerents list since they are sending troops. Chechen and Syria has also supplied troops so they should also be added. 2A00:801:7AA:8752:F004:AC6D:546E:2156 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been contested and now requires consensus discussion which cannot be sought through an edit request. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

New proposal for listing Belarus
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:
 * 🇷🇺 Russia

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)

Russian success, change in international order
@Walter Tau, you add the success of Russia's "special military operation" against NATO-backed Ukraine manifests the end of the USA-lead unipolar "rules-based " international order. I don't see the first source provided to refer to the war as such (a "special military operation"). I also haven't found yet where the source characterizes it as a success. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contributions to the article. I've got most the cited text from here http://apir.iir.edu.ua/index.php/apmv/article/download/3885/3536 . The "special military operation" (in quotation) is term used originally by Putin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_military_operation.
 * The "success" is mentioned by 3rd parties here: One can argue, that some of these sites may be biased (BTW, the most biased news agency that I’ve heard personally is BBC- do you know what they say about the USA?), but you can’t argue, that all of them are:
 * https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/03/what-russias-momentum-in-ukraine-means-for-the-war-in-2024/
 * https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/russia-is-winning-the-war-in-ukraine/news-story/10a5d440434ef6e365fb4c056c50085e
 * https://www.naturalnews.  /2022-06-23-army-colonel-russia-already-won-over-ukraine.html
 * https://consortiumnews.com/2022/09/12/scott-ritter-why-russia-will-still-win-despite-ukraines-gains/
 * https://tfiglobalnews.com/2023/04/26/its-official-russia-wins-the-war-us-ready-to-pull-out-of-ukraine/
 * https://www.globalresearch. /russia-has-won-this-war-german-journalist-says-west-lying-about-ukraine-war/5784111
 * https://www.rt.com/russia/588937-russia-ukraine-preparing-winter-battles/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/21/barely-10-per-cent-of-europeans-believe-ukraine-can-defeat-russia-poll
 * https://www.russiamatters.org/news/russia-analytical-report/russia-analytical-report-jan-2-8-2024 Walter Tau (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, too. We shouldn't be constructing theses using words taken from multiple sources, it's WP:SYNTH. I also checked the first source - IISS - and it reports on the success at Avdiivka, not on the success of the war.Wiki article also should not be using Putin's terms. We also should not be using Russian propaganda outlets. Thank you! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have relatives in Kharkiv, who were killed in this war, when Putin's bomb hit their appartment building. I do not think, I have any inclination to advance Putin's propaganda.
 * Special military operation is an article on wikipedia, and I used it in quotation marks to underscore the hypocrisy of the term.
 * I tried to provide multiple references to prove the "success" point, that it is better for Ukraine to get a peace deal sooner than later. Putin's goal was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, and he got it, when the first Russian missile landed in Ukrainian territory. The cited experts state, that there is no other way for Ukraine and its allies to end this war. Walter Tau (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

On 2024-07-14 Walter Tau wrote:


 * Soon later user Asarlaí deleted this whole section, even though he did not question "the change in the International Order" and did not check the provided references. Youtube is in fact an admissible reference source for wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links . Besides youtube, I provided peer-reviewed journal articles.
 * In reply to ManyAreasExpert: I did not try to do WP:SYNTH. I cited a statement from a single reference, written by a Ukrainian political science professor. Other references are added to corroborate his conclusion.

I also suggest linking this explanation of Putin's goals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer/2014 Russian annexation of Crimea & 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Walter Tau (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You responded to arguments criticizing your addition with something unrelated. You enhanced your edit with some russian propaganda youtube and widely criticized Mearsmeier. Having not addressed the argument, it stays. Naturally, the new addition gets removed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)