Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?

The following discussion 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.

---

can we add North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox? Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion:

• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#north korea should be listed as an ally of russia
• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Should we add North Korea as ally of Russia
• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024
• Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea in infobox note wording

Note I have not linked the closed RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Defining the question The question is whether to add it to the infobox without qualification where it is presently listed with Belarus under supported by. Previous discussions have established that Belarus is a belligerent but not a combatant and that, for North Korea to be added without qualification, it would need to be a combatant. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Polling

Support Inclusion as Co-belligerent My full rationale is discussed below in the comments --haha169 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Inclusion as Co-belligerent I think now we have enough statements saying they are to pass. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Thinking about it now oppose as this is about the invasion of Ukraine, not the wider war. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The Kursk operation is within the scope and part of this article, so North Korea's involvement in that theater is relevant. In addition, I believe this RfC is relevant to the entire Russo-Ukrainian War, and if consensus changes here, the infobox should change there too. --haha169 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course, and this is about the options people think is appropriate, not the discussion (that is below). Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Inclusion as Co-belligerent per haha169's convincing arguments, particularly regarding the ISW source. Seems clear they are engaged in combat. HappyWith (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As this is all over the place with 3 or 4 separate threads let's just have one discussion, an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Note, this is because this debate is spread all over the place, it is not to exclude any editors, your comments in the above threads can still be viewed. If your arguments are persuasive they will sway other editors. so before you offer up a choice, read all of the threads above so you can get an informed opinion as to the arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If this is all over the place with 3 or 4 separate threads, as you state above, please link all relevant existing threads, ideally in the RfC statement. We should not be expected to waste time hunting them down ourselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion Thank you for putting this together Slatersteven. Perhaps a notice can also be added to the talk page of Russo-Ukrainian War, where this discussion is also ongoing.
  Over the past 1.5 months, as information has slowly trickled out about the details of North Korea's involvement in the conflict, many editors have settled on the criteria that in this conflict, North Korea must be shown to be directly "in combat" by several reliable secondary sources.
  I think we have reached this threshold. Not only has the Ukrainian MOD stated that they are directly engaged in combat with North Korean troops [1], but uninvolved third parties have made the same assessment: with the US State Department [2], Blinken [3], South Korean intelligence [4], and ISW [5] all separately stating in clear words that North Korea was engaged in combat operations with Russia and against Ukraine. We also have similar assessments made by other experts in the field being reported by reliable secondary sources such as Newsweek [6] and the Irish Star [7]. And here is NPR using in their own voice that North Korean and Russian "forces [have] joined in battle against Ukrainian troops" [8]. --haha169 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning toward inclusion. The evidence of direct NK military involvement appears to be too solid to ignore at this point, and not just at some little encyclopedically insignificant level. I could entertain the argument that we need to see even more such military engagement on NK's part, but that's a case someone will have to make compellingly, perhaps based on prior co-belligerent inclusion/exclusion discussions and a clear pattern arising from them. At present, it's starting to feel that our article (at least for readers zipping by on their phones and looking at the infobox before moving on to something else) is incomplete and a bit misleading as of 2024-11.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's been some prior discussion about the term "co-belligerent" over at the talk-page of Axis powers and the general trend is to deprecate using the term unless reliable sources use it consistently about the country. For example, the Finnish wartime government claimed to have been only a "co-belligerent" of the Axis, but reliable sources describe them simply as an Axis country when listing the Axis, and so they are included as an Axis country, not a "co-belligerent". In contrast some editors have suggested including Iraq as a "co-belligerent" Axis power, but since no source uses this terms, nor do they describe Iraq as an Axis power, Iraq is not included.

  For this discussion, I would simply include North Korea as a combatant on Russia's side without any qualifying language (e.g., no need for "co-belligerent") since this is how they are described in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion as co-belligerent YBSOne (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support There is no point in delaying and wasting editor's time with an RfC when RS have reported on the combat and this is now in the article, if anything not including at this point is doing an injustice to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. TylerBurden (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Not yet When there is a consensus in good quality secondary sources in their own voice [note the plural]. This is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I don't see that we have satisfied that burden. However, it is likely to be sooner rather than later. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

PS If this RfC is about explicitly labeling NK as a co-belligerent, then I oppose adding an explicit label of co-belligerent to NK. This was extensively discussed in an RfC at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War here in respect to similarly labelling Belarus and it was rejected. The same reasons apply. Such a label constitutes nuance and a subtle distinction for which an infobox is most unsuitable. They are either: an active combatant (an entry made in the infobox without qualification); they have a status similar to Belarus as supported by; or, their actions do not rise to the same level of Belarus (yet) and they doshould not appear in the infobox. While it is asserted that there are multiple sources for NK's combatant status (without detail), the fact is they come from less than a hand-full of independent reports duplicated through multiple outlets with attribution (see WP:NEWSORG) and an equally strong denial of confirmation (at this point in time). Even the most recent report of an NK officer's death in Kirsk by a cruise missile does not establish they were an active combatant v an observer. I will repeat, claiming NK is an active combatant is WP:EXCEPTIONAL not to be made lightly. It is not an unreasonable standard. We are not there yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

PS (since reopening) Per this version of the article (and the sources cited therein), we have the Pentagon saying that (again) on 2 December that [they] have not seen North Korean soldiers actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines[9] and Ukraine doing a backflip on its earlier claim that NK troops were in combat. Ukraine now tells us that [NK] forces are likely not on the front lines (ie they are likely not engaged in combat) but [t]hey are in closed camps, undergoing training.[10] Associated discussions have established a consensus that Belarus is a belligerent but not a combatant and to raise NK from supported by it would need to become an active combatant. Recent information tells us this is not a fact that can be reported in the infobox. Those of us that have been circumspect in this discussion have been vindicated for not rushing the gate on this question. This also tells us that, as a group, we should be equally circumspect in the future, since there will come a time when it will be appropriate to add NK - but not before. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

PS I see a lot of claims regarding sources that support NK being listed without qualification - ie, they are a combatant. The acid test is whether such sources could be used inline in the article to substantiate such a claim. No, the language being relied upon is ambiguous and the context is usually broader (eg the potential international ramifications of NK support). If we look at the sources that directly address the question, at this point, they are contradictory. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• This report by the BBC released 7 hours ago is very circumspect about the actual combat involvement of NK troops. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please point out which of the eight sources that I supplied are not good quality secondary sources making the claim in their own voice? --haha169 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  All of the sources I have seen linked in this discussion are WP:NEWSORG sources. As such, they are qualified as being secondary sources. None of them make a statement in their own voice. Where they have quoted a government etc, that source is a primary source by definition (contrary to your assertion). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  "their actions do not rise to the same level of Belarus (yet) and they do not appear in the infobox."

  It is in the infobox. Rc2barrington (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Cmt on a technicality it would seem that since the involvement, at time of writing as far as I know, isn’t taking place within Ukraine, this whole discussion would be better for the parent TP at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War, no?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The events of the Kursk incursion are treated as in-scope within the text of the article, and the incursion itself only happened as a response to and as a result of the ongoing Russian invasion. Therefore, since the rest of the article treats the Kursk incursion as in-scope for the invasion article, the infobox should too. --haha169 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Long discussion regarding sources Nemov (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hard to argue that the US State Department is directly involved in the combat area to be able to report this information as a primary source, but even if we were to remove those as sources, you have nonetheless not addressed the wealth of other sources (plural) saying that Ukraine and North Korea are in combat in their own words. I'll link them again here for you: NPR [11], ISW [12], and geopolitics experts from RUSI Newsweek source, and Chatham House Irish Star source, which have all been linked above. RSIS is also making this claim in their own voice: [13], and academia is famously slow and meticulous with sourcing before making big claims. The fact that we are slower than them is indicative of an impossibly higher standard being placed on this exceptional claim than anything supported by policy. --haha169 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC) I didn't say that the US State Department was directly involved but that is not the distinction between WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. I don't see that these are unambigously reporting this in their own words. Almost all are NEWSORG, which is very qualified. Most of these are just regurgitating the same reports by Ukraine, US State Dept and South Korea, which lack any degree of detail (substance) - even on different days. [14] The US, Ukraine and South Korea say ... [15] Allegedly around 10,000 North Korea's servicemen are currently involved in the conflict as per US intelligence reports [16] not seeing anything here that is not ambiguous journalese [17] South Korean and US intelligence separately confirmed that North Korean troops have deployed into combat alongside Russian forces in Kursk Oblast. [18] North Korean soldiers have engaged in combat operations against Ukraine alongside their Russian allies, South Korea's spy agency said on Wednesday. [19] we see North Koreans being active in Ukraine A bit contradictory v Kursk and what is "active"? NATO press release - primary source [20] North Korean troops have begun engaging in combat operations alongside Russian forces, the U.S. State Department said on Tuesday [21] North Korean soldiers have clashed with Ukrainian troops for the first time, Ukraine's top officials have revealed. [22] and there have been reports of North Korean soldiers killed. The hyperlink in that passage does not support the statement. No evidence of editorial oversight per secondary source. Basically WP:RSOPINION. WP:RSCONTEXT also applies since this is primarily about the [potential] impact on international relations. Per WP:RSBREAKING: Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Per WP:PRIMARY: breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. The initial reports are breaking news with no follow-up with any substantive detail. Given the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of the claim, we are not there yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Your collection of quotes is highly misleading. The criteria you offered is that secondary sources make the claim in their own voice. These sources do so. Your quoting of seperate passages where they cite someone else for additional information or details related to that claim doesn't negate the fact that these sources made the claim in their own voice. I'll refute your quotes below in the same order you mention them: NPR is comfortable saying in their own voice that North Korean troops were engaged in combat: ”This week saw North Korea and Russia sign a major treaty, as their forces joined in battle against Ukrainian troops.” What you quoted is later on in the piece where NPR is citing the US etc for the specific number of North Korean troops involved only. Irish Star: "North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia in Ukraine may never see home again and instead face a grim fate, experts have warned." They are citing Keir Giles of Chatham House, saying so in their voice. "North Korean leader Kim Jong Un could use his country's troops that are fighting for Vladimir Putin against Ukraine as leverage for Pyongyang pursuing provocations in East Asia. That assessment, by geopolitical analyst Sang Hun Seok, Indo-Pacific Visiting Fellow at London's Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)." RUSI analyst saying so in their own voice. ISW: "ISW assessed on November 5 that North Korean troops had entered combat in Kursk Oblast, citing reports by Ukrainian intelligence and Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov" - yes they are citing the Ukrainian MOD but ISW explicitly stated that they, ISW, are making the assessment that this information is credible and are saying in their own voice that North Korean troops have entered combat I did not provide sources 5-8 so I won't comment "North Korea’s deployment of troops to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine expands the conflict" ... "The Ukraine conflict is expanding and escalating with the introduction of North Korean troops to the battlefront" ... "Europe and NATO have been quiet about North Korea’s entry into the war." This source easily passes RSCONTEXT: it is published by one of the preeminent schools for international relations in Asia, and NTU is one of the topped ranked universities globally; they would not publish something that has not been reviewed extensively. It also passes RSOPINION, while the author is offering his opinions on certain geopolitical impacts of North Korea's combat entry, the premise that North Korea has entered combat is presented as factual and not as an opinion. RSBREAKING suggests that we wait "a day or two" for journalists to correct accurate information. Ukraine first reported the deployment of North Korean troops nearly two months ago now and the discussions on this talk page started around then. The sources I have provided, published long after the original breaking news reports, are no longer breaking news. Lastly, two months ago this would have been EXCEPTIONAL but at this point this news doesn't even meet the standard of that policy. North Korea's entry into combat has already (a) been reported by multiple sources, (b) is not credibly challenged by anyone, (c) is not describing any actions that are out-of-character for the main players, and (d) not contradicted by any prevailing or mainstream voices in geopolitics. --haha169 (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Two months ago, the breaking news was that NK troops might be deployed to fight in Ukraine. Until they act as belligerents, their presence in Russia does not make them a belligerent and until then, the support offered by NK does not rise above that provided by any other nation except Belarus. The actions of Belarus rise to being a belligerent but not a combatant. The new breaking news is that NK might actually now be a combatant (and has a treaty with Russia) and that remains EXCEPTIONAL. The sources I have cited were all originally cited by you. Most are NEWSORG and RSCONTEXT does matter. The sources are certainly not categorical in what they say - ie there is ambiguous journalistic hype which is the sort of thing WP:RSBREAKING is warning us about (never let the truth get in the way of a good story). The current breaking news hype context is the treaty and not confirmation that NK troops are actually engaged in combat. In my original order: This week saw North Korea and Russia sign a major treaty, as their forces joined in battle against Ukrainian troops. The context is the signing of the treaty, not NK entering battle. Add this to the quote I gave. Read the source in full rather than construing meaning from a passage in isolation. North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia in Ukraine may never see home again and instead face a grim fate, experts have warned. Allegedly around 10,000 North Korea's servicemen are currently involved in the conflict as per US intelligence reports. Again ambiguous given: This could mark North Korea's first involvement in a major conflict since the Korean War ended in 1953. RSCONTEXT: it is about the treaty. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un could use his country's troops that are fighting for Vladimir Putin against Ukraine as leverage. Again ambiguous given: South Korean and US intelligence separately confirmed that North Korean troops have deployed into combat alongside Russian forces in Kursk Oblast. RSCONTEXT: it is about the treaty. ISW assessed on November 5 that North Korean troops had entered combat in Kursk Oblast, citing reports by Ukrainian intelligence and Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov. ISW is always circumspect in attributing material. 9. North Korea’s deployment of troops to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine expands the conflict ... The Ukraine conflict is expanding and escalating with the introduction of North Korean troops to the battlefront ... Europe and NATO have been quiet about North Korea’s entry into the war. Again somewhat ambiguous with respect to whether this has happened or is on the cusp of happening. Again, the RSCONTEXT is about the treaty and its impact on international relations. The context is not about confirming NK combat involvement. Passing RSOPINION does not mean it is a good quality secondary source for confirming the fact that NK is engaged in combat. I also pointed to an inconsistency in a link in the article. These sources focus on the announcement of the treaty between NK and Russia and the ramifications. They are not offering anything new as to confirming NK engage4ment in combat but refer to the previous vague reports by the US, SK and Ukraine. So no, I am not convinced that these sources rise to the level of EXCEPTIONAL for NK being a combatant. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC) First of all, the breaking news from two months ago is that North Korean officers were killed in Donetsk, Ukraine [23]. So at that point, deployment would have been underway with advance teams of North Korean soldiers having already been sent to Ukraine. The context of the article is about the treaty but NPR nonetheless makes the claim that North Korea is deployed in combat in Ukraine. How does the article being about a treaty negate NPR's other claim? It doesn't. A separate sentence giving additional context is ambiguous because it being North Korea's first conflict since 1953 was a fact that the outlet could not fully verify. Yet, the sentence where they claim North Korea's involvement in the conflict itself is not ambiguous. Similar to above What? Of course ISW is very circumspect, which is why they are one of the highest quality sources. And even "ISW has assessed" that North Korea is engaged in combat against Ukraine! Are you trying to reject this source because ISW is too careful? This is an example of a highly reliable secondary sources written by an expert in geopolitics with excellent understanding of parsing the reliability of sources in an academic context, likely reviewed by grad students or other professors at one of the best universities in the world...being disregarded as not useable. I don't know what to say. Separately, you keep talking about the treaty under your reading of RSCONTEXT. The reason why the treaty is being mentioned so much is because the treaty is the news, the underlying factual understanding that North Korea and Ukraine is in combat is accepted truth. We are long past BREAKING, or as I mentioned in my last post, long pas even needing to meet the requirements of EXCEPTIONAL. There are still more sources flooding in in the meantime, of course. [24], which you'll deny because the source cited SecDef one time, despite the entire premise of the article being that North Korea and Ukraine are in combat. [25], which you'll reject because the CONTEXT of the story is about North Korea-Jaapan relations even though the author states explicitly that "Tokyo reaffirmed its support for Ukraine, which is battling Pyongyang's fighters in Russia." [26] is delivering news of Russia's latest airstrikes against Ukraine, but does later in the article mention Ukraine's challenges: "To add to the pressure, North Korea has sent thousands of soldiers to the Russian region of Kursk to help Moscow fight off a Ukrainian incursion that started in August." This is again in the source's own voice, but since the context of the article is not solely about North Korea entering combat, I presume you will reject it. Your assertion that all sources that ultimately rely on UKR/US/ROK "vague" intelligence is not acceptable is troubling me in the sense that, if I'm interpreting your goalpost now correctly, you require an uninvolved third party reliable source to be in Kursk and witness themselves Ukrainian and North Korean soldiers shooting at each other. Correct? That seems unlikely to happen given the understandable lack of journalists on the front line. It's also not a standard that any policy reasonably is expecting us to achieve, despite your claims to the contrary. At this point we have reached a fundamental disagreement, so I don't think there's much point hashing out individual sources again. If even ISW's own assessment is not enough for you, well I don't think what you're asking for is reasonably achievable. --haha169 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC) remember - the NK soldiers are wearing Russian uniforms - whether Kim has given some of his troops to Russia and whether technically Ukraine and NK are at war - is debatable 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:ADA8:EC7C:ED8A:DB3A (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC) You can dress up a chimp as something else but it's still a chimp, and evidently WP:RS haven't fallen for the uniform tricks since they are still being described as North Korean soldiers. TylerBurden (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) You're right, just comes across as WP:STONEWALLING at this point. TylerBurden (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support I don’t know what further evidence we need. This has been going on for over a month now and it is long past clear that North Koreans are involved on behalf of the NK government. If people have a problem with this I would also support adding a note clarifying the unique nature of the contribution. There are some people here that seem to have an impossibly high standard… plenty of other articles list belligerents for much less and we are well past the point of breaking news. Blervis (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Solid sourcing to add as such.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note In this article of 18 November, the Pentagon is explicitly not confirming NK troops are engaged in combat:

  The Pentagon has not confirmed that these troops have engaged in combat with Ukrainian troops who are inside a portion of the Kursk region, she said, adding, "They're moving into Kursk for a reason. We have every expectation that they would be engaged in combat operations."

This clearly casts doubt over the breaking news stories of whether or not NK troops have actually been deployed in combat yet. We cannot yet say this as a fact in a Wiki voice in the infobox. We are clearly not there yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh FFS sake, This is getting silly, first we have a source saying it, now we have a source not saying it. This needs to be put firmly on hold. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think an important distinction needs to be made clear. "Has not confirmed" is very different from "confirmed that it is not happening", and the DOD is very clearly not rejecting the assessments made by State, Ukraine, and South Korea. There are many reasons for press secretaries to "cannot confirm" something for political/diplomatic reasons rather than actually not knowing. Absent a more clear rejection of the premise, I don't believe that this DOD press conference introduces a conflict between sources. --haha169 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, no reason to put this on hold. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Not yet per Cinderella157. It can't hurt to wait and later if this is indeed the case I can't imagine there being much objection to this change. I really don't understand the rush to jam this into the infobox. The infobox is supposed summarize key facts. This isn't the place to rush in new information. Reviewing the discussion below, North Korea's involvement is still a developing story. The nuance should be described in the body of the article until it's indisputable. Nemov (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support (re-list update: Strongest Possible Support) Including North Korea as a participant in the war together with Russia without any modifiers/qualifiers (so not "as a co-belligerent" or anything like that). The evidence (captured North Korea troops, killed North Korean troops, intelligence reports, News reports, officials quoted by Bloomberg etc. etc.) is overwhelming. To pick one example from many, this article on the BBC treats the presence of North Koreans in Ukraine fighting on the Russian side as a known fact.

There appears to have been a very artificial, editor-generated standard for what should and should not be included in the infobox here, where North Korea won't be added unless we have (more than one?) independent journalist report where they directly see North Koreans in combat themselves - something that isn't going to ever happen because the front line is way too hot for independent journalists to simply rock up and report from there. Either that or official confirmation from North Korea I suppose?

We have multiple usually-reliable sources stating that North Korean troops are fighting on the front line, that should be enough. Let's get real - nobody here seriously doubts that North Koreans are in combat now.

Relist update 5 Dec: since it's been decided to relist this, let me update my !vote by pointing out that multiple independent academic experts now say that North Korea in involved as a combatant in their own voices. This includes:

Long, long list of sources

Dr. Choi Yonghwan of the INSS in a paper published by RUSI and Dr Edward Howell of Christchurch College, University of Oxford, in a paper published by Chatham House. There's also this article from Le Monde which states "For the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), fighting alongside the Russians is a kind of return to its roots... The deployment of North Korean soldiers on the Ukrainian front is the first break by Kim Jong-un from an isolationist policy". There’s also this analysis of video footage of the destruction of North Korean materiel at the front from David Axe (a credible journalist in this field) published in Forbes which says ” Without those thousands of North Korean troops and dozens of howitzers and launchers, the Russian war effort would be even more fragile than it already is”. And this Newsweek article "In a further escalation of the war, thousands of North Korean troops last month joined Russian forces in frontline areas like Kursk, where Ukraine has been carrying out a counteroffensive since August. And Kari Schake in Foreign Policy in an article titled “North Korea Joining Russia’s War Is A Sign Of Weakness”. Yet another reliable source is [Japan Times], which states in an article "North Korea shocked the world by sending more than 10,000 troops to Russia for its war against Ukraine — Pyongyang’s first deployment of troops for large-scale combat since the end of the Korean War in 1953.".

Also very worth reading is this analysis submitted for the Lieber Institute's Ukraine Symposium by Steve Szymanski and Joshua C.T. Keruski, both officers of the US Army's JAG, on the position of North Korean forces in the Ukraine war under the laws of war:

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) affirms there is no specific intensity threshold for finding that an IAC [International Armed Conflict] exists. The ICRC also notes that even minor skirmishes between armed forces, by land, sea, or air could trigger an IAC. In short, the test for whether an IAC exists is de facto and thus objectively assessed based on the totality of the circumstances. Based on the above standards, an IAC had certainly ripened between the DPRK and Ukraine as of the November 4, 2024 combat engagement. Despite a Ukrainian official’s characterization of “small contacts, not full-scale engagement,” the circumstances nonetheless support the conclusion that an IAC exists."

Regardless of whether you are willing to accept the views of US army officers on this (and I note Szymanski is a Fellow and Instructor at the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in Sanremo), they at least define a standard for judging whether a country is actually a party to a conflict that isn't just editor-created. And North Korea's involvement in this war most definitely fits it, because there is no de minimis rule to involvement in a conflict, nor is it a requirement that troops be "involved in offensive actions on the front line" or whatever - skirmishes/strikes are sufficient.

FOARP (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The extended quote by Howell is not saying that NK troops are engaged in combat and Choi prefixes their article: The details of North Korea’s troop deployments to Russia will likely become clearer over time. The quote by Axe is not saying that the troops are actually being used. The quote from Newsweek is referring to a report of a month or more ago when NK troops first arrived in Kirsk oblast. As I said in discussion then, while it is not inaccurate to label Kursk oblast as a war zone or frontline area, Kursk is a big place and the actual occupied area is a small part of it: there is an awful lot of the oblast that is a very long way from the pointy-end of things. The situation is confused by this sort of ambiguity and by the use of futurate present tense. However, we are firmly dealing with the present in making this decision. Even if the future is very likely (possibly inevitable), it is still not yet. The situation is that the presence of NK is being seen as enabling Russia without it actually becoming a combatant in a similar way that Belarus enabled Russia, making it a belligerent but not a combatant. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Unlike almost every other source, the JAG source you added is pertinent and goes directly to the question. Belarus is also a belligerent (a party to the conflict) but not a combatant. Raising NK from a similar stutus to Belarus depends on it being a combatant. The JAG conclusion is based on two premises which are questionable. It asserts that the move of NK troops on October 23 to Kursk was a movement to the Forward Line of Own Troops (FLOT). The definition of this is: a line that indicates the most forward positions of friendly forces - ie the front lines. It further presumes that the alleged combat engagement on 4 November occurred. Ongoing reports from the Pentagon (yesterday: they have not yet participated in active hostilities) and contradictory reports from Ukraine place both premises in doubt. So, on balance, we cannot yet say this is a fact to be reported in the infobox - particularly given the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of doing so. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We've talked this to death so I'll try to keep it simple: you're applying an overly-restrictive definition of what being a belligerent in a war is. If troops are deployed in the war-zone, even as "second echelon", they are participating in the war as a combatant. With this confirmed (and reliable sources treating it as confirmed) it really doesn't matter if other details are not clear. This is doubly so when we have credible reports of them being on the receiving end of Ukrainian strikes. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

- captured North Korea troops

no evidence of this.

- killed North Korean troops

no evidence of this.

- intelligence reports, News reports, officials quoted by Bloomberg etc. etc

hearsay, anonymous officials and opinionated journalists are not evidence.

"To pick one example from many, this article on the BBC treats the presence of North Koreans in Ukraine fighting on the Russian side as a known fact."

OK, based on what? Just because a source says something doesn't mean we have to give it equal weight WP:FRINGE WP:BALANCE WP:UNDUE 77.241.128.28 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per many of the above, especially FOARP. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support - If this doesn't count as participating I don't know what counts. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 04:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Press coverage has now made this WP:DUE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support based on reports that soldiers from the DPRK are engaging in combat with Ukrainian soldiers. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support North Korean soldiers are fighting on behalf of their government. Hence the country is actively waging war. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support There is no doubt whatsoever that troops from North Korea are fighting as cannon fodder for Putin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the sourcing provided by Nemov above. It's what's happening and what the reliable sources state is happening. TarnishedPath^talk 09:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support; supported by sourcing. seefooddiet (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support; there's ample evidence from reliable sources of North Korean soldiers engaging in combat with Ukrainian soldiers by the thousand. Open and shut case.--Nihlus1 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support due to evidence shown Rc2barrington (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - To expand on why "co-belligerent" is bad, we had a long discussion on this term on the page about the WW2 Axis and the outcome was that "co-belligerent" is a very vague term, often used in a self-serving/propagandistic/euphemistic way, that reliable sources don't use systematically anyway. Additionally, it's too complex a term requiring too much explanation for an infobox. Is any reliable source using it about the North Koreans in Ukraine anyway? Not as far as I can see. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Further comment - this discussion has been open a week and whilst there has been a few opposing !votes, the sentiment is numerically overwhelmingly in favour. I don't think we need to wait for a formal close, but please WP:BRD if you disagree. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd recommend reviewing WP:RFCCLOSE and WP:CON. This topic is still receiving comments and consensus isn't found by simply counting votes. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  What I'm getting at here is it's highly unlikely that a formal close is needed given the above discussion. Sometimes we can look outside and see it's WP:SNOWing. Like I said, if you disagree please WP:BRD. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was clear enough. The RFC can continue. Nemov (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• With all due respect the claim about North Korean involvement is a flagrant hoax and should be dismissed as such. Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Does any reliable source support what you are saying? Not even Russia and North Korea actually deny that this has happened. Multiple reliable sources now say North Korean troops are in combat alongside Russian troops in this war. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do any RS say they have moved into Ukraine? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Kursk operation is part of the scope of this article. Hence, North Korea's participation in this part of the conflict is still relevant. And just a reminder here that North Korean officers were killed in a strike in Donetsk in the beginning of October, which is what triggered this whole discussion. --haha169 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. North Korean troops in combat in Kursk = North Korean participation as a combatant in this war. If people want to change the scope/title of this article that's a different discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do we have any proof of any of it besides Ukraine / US and news articles reporting it?

  Has been well over a month and we have not a single footage.

  We have daily videos of drone drops and POW captured.

  The same source that claims that there are soldiers says that 100000 more are to join, so if they are there is impossible not to be filmed.

  I dont see where there is the rush in adding puting in risk the reliability of the wikipedia project. ReflexSpray (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  "North Korean troops sent to Russia have not yet joined the battle against Ukrainian forces partly due to poor training, say western officials." 77.241.128.28 (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

}@FOARP: I'm not making a claim that they aren't, I'm scoffing at the people who claim that they are. Don't you find it odd that Wiki treats corporate newspapers as reliable sources? Where is the evidence i.e. prisoners, that the NK are involved in the SMO? They haven't even 'dropped passports on the ground'. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You calling this conflict an "SMO" [special military operation] reveals your bias. Rejection of calling this conflict a war, and doubting the veracity of the information regarding some level of North Korean deployment to the frontline regions are both fringe views. --haha169 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Only in the Wiki NGO that's not an NGO universe. Do you agree that the US fomented a coup d'etat in 2014, using the local Banderite fascists as street thugs? Keith-264 (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Your contributions have thus far not been helpful at all, but this latest one is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. --haha169 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You just came off a partial block one month ago ... going for a deuce? 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:B840:A15:255F:CD42 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Keith-264 should be topic banned from editing topics related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, at a minimum. Super Ψ Dro 11:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on topic. If you believe there's a behavioural issue that needs to be addressed WP:ANI is the proper venue for that discussion. Nemov (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is about North Korea. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why, don't you believe in freedom of conscience? I am topic banned anyway because Wiki is unreliable on anything that adverts to US imperial interests. I will agree that the North Korean army is involved in the defence of Russia when prisoners of war or other incontrovertible evidence is produced. I've had my say, I'll leave the rest of you to it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - See also This WSJ report of an NK general wounded in Kursk from just today.

@Slatersteven, Cinderella157, and Nemov: - I really have to ask what exactly it is we're supposed to be waiting for at this point. It made sense to wait back in October because the reports seemed unconfirmed and unclear about what exactly the NK troops were going to do. Now we're getting reliable source after reliable source (WSJ, BBC etc.) reporting NK troops in combat in this war as simply a done-deal. I can only guess at what it is we're waiting for - is it:

• Official conformation from Russia/North Korea of the presence of North Korean troops on the front line? We are unlikely to ever get this.
• Eye-witness reports from independent journalists? Again, this is very unlikely to happen given the "hot" nature of the front line, and if it did happen the discussion would simply shift to what exactly it was the journalist had seen, and whether they really were "independent" if they were reporting from the Ukrainian side of the lines.

Whilst we should always be careful about arguing based on WP:WAX, I have to note that the sourcing required to list North Korea as a combatant on other pages is not nearly so strict. Consider the following examples:

• The sole source for NK taking part in the Vietnam war is this article from NK News ( a source that already long since reports NK troops as fighting alongside Russia).
• The source for NK taking part in the Yom Kipur war is this Business Insider article (again, a source long since reporting North Korean involvement in Russia's war against Ukraine).
• North Korean involvement in the Ogaden war is sourced to this article in the Diplomat, a source that has, again, already started to treat North Korean involvement in the Ukraine war essentially as a fait accompli.

Obviously some allowance should be made for this having been breaking news in October, but it is no longer breaking news per se. It also has to be emphasised that North Korean involvement in all of these conflicts was never confirmed by an independent eye-witness journalist, nor officially confirmed by North Korea, that no such report ever emerged even decades on from these conflicts. Requiring that kind of "super-sourcing" is tantamount to a permanent ban on including them regardless of how much sourcing there is in sources far more reliable that the NKNEWS/Business Insider/The Diplomat. FOARP (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ping me again and quit WP:BLUDGEONING. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not bludgeoning to update a conversation with more and different information, as only my 12th comment on this page (some have commented upwards of 70+ times, and you yourself 7 times) particularly when your position was "not yet" which implies that more information will change it (and indeed is a request for more information). You are welcome to try to take me to ANI if you believe otherwise. I'm happy to not ping you further, though I note that this is the first time I've pinged you so I do not believe I have pinged you excessively. FOARP (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My point is this article is about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not the Russso-Ukraninian war. When RS say they are figting inside Ukraine, then it is relevant until then it is undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already specifically addressed that in in the PS I made yesterday. As to WP:OTHERCONTENT, it is not a strong argument of itself and the flimsiness of the sourcing elsewhere is reason to question that other stuff. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you support adding it on the Russo-Ukrainian war page? FOARP (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I will not discuss this here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

And my point is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine article includes the Kursk incursion as within its scope. Therefore, North Korea's participation in the Kursk theater is also within scope. --haha169 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I was (explicitly) asked what MY criteria for inclusion would, be, that is what I was answering. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

We can still comment on your criteria, no? Especially if there is, as I believe and have explained, an inconsistency with how your criteria is being applied. --haha169 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You have, more than once, my response was a specific response to a specific question aimed at me. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You're continuing to use this inconsistent criteria as justification in discussion with other editors, so I think it is very reasonable to respond explaining how that criteria is inconsistent every time you use it without clearing up the inconsistency. --haha169 (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

What "inconsistent criteria", to b4e inconsistent I would have had to use a different set of criteria for a similar situation, where have I? Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I have explained this many times, and I don't know what is left unclear. You are arguing that North Korea's involvement is not in scope for this infobox because the Kursk theater is not part of the "invasion of Ukraine", correct? What is inconsistent about your position is that the rest of the infobox treats the Kursk theater as in-scope for this invasion article, so treating North Korea's infobox inclusion differently is inconsistent. --haha169 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW - I genuinely don't get what we're still waiting for. This comes down to an interpretation of sources in which the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of inclusion (16:3 numerically by my count). It's not like we haven't had a full and frank discussion in which the reasons for and against inclusion have been discussed fully. It's also not like the people arguing in favour of inclusion haven't given a reason in line with our PAGs for inclusion (i.e., they think that multiple sources and reports from agencies that are usually reliable, in outlets that are usually reliable, sustained over a period of months, is sufficient for verification).

Of the three opposes, two are "not yet" votes based on what amounts to requiring super-verification that is unlikely to ever occur (i.e., either the source has to say North Koreans are fighting against Ukraine in its own voice without attributing the statement to a source, or North Korea has to acknowledge it), and the other is essentially disputing the present scope of the article (i.e., saying that troops in Kursk are outside the scop of this article, despite the article including a paragraph on the Kursk incursion). This position has been argued against, again, not-unconvincingly, and with the best will in the world it's hard to see any close resulting in anything but inclusion, and as such this is a WP:SNOW case.

It's time to acknowledge reality: on Wikipedia we follow what reliable sources say, and in this case they overwhelmingly say that North Korea troops are fighting in this war. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a demicracy, it is based upon the strength of policy-based arguments, not the number of votes. And (yes) we have plenty of examples of sources saying X is true, there is no reason why (if they had evidence) they would not say it here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, but you're not saying that in your view there is a fatal weakness with the position that "reliable sources say this, multiple times, for getting on two months" is sufficient. For a 16:3 ratio to be overturned in an RFC would typically require a major fault in the argument being made by the majority, and I don't see you having pointed to one. I'm not saying you have to agree with that position, I'm just saying it is not a fatally flawed one of the type where you might see 3 prevail against 16 (and counting...). Instead, it really depends on what you think is sufficient to verify something.

I also hope you don't mind if I point out that your position (essentially "North Korean presence in Kursk doesn't mean North Korean presence in the conflict that should be covered by this article") basically doesn't contradict the idea that the presence of North Korean troops fighting against Ukraine is verified, you just think that that the fighting in Kursk shouldn't be part of this article. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, as we can have 100 votes of "some bloke done the pub told me" and 1 vote of "RS has not said this" and the one vote will win, it is only based on the srent3tgh of policy-based argument.

And no, we should cover the fighting a bit, as it it ancillary to the invasion, But not in the info box which should only cover matters directly regarding the the invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"No, as we can have 100 votes of "some bloke done the pub told me" and 1 vote of "RS has not said this" and the one vote will win, it is only based on the srent3tgh of policy-based argument."

OK, but the 16 people !voting in favour of inclusion are not making a "I heard it in the pub" argument, are they? They're saying that dozens of reports carried in what are typically reliable sources, over the course of two months, are sufficient for verification.

"And no, we should cover the fighting a bit, as it it ancillary to the invasion, But not in the info box which should only cover matters directly regarding the the invasion."

I think if you want to change the scope of this article to exclude events outside of Ukraine's borders (partially or wholly) that's something you're going to need to hold an RFC on. At present this article covers the Kursk incursion, the fighting in the Black Sea, and strikes deep within Russia. I can see the reason why you're proposing this and it's not totally 100% unreasonable, but I think it would just be artificial to treat whole theatres of combat as separate to the war that is going on simultaneously right next to them in Ukraine. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you keep on keeping this alive it will. not be closed, so why not wait, if you are correct you win anyway. By the way russo-ukrainian war is the article about the war. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"If you keep on keeping this alive it will." - Not sure what you mean here. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If a discussion is ongoing it is unlikely to be closed, as it is...still active, do I really need to explain this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

OK Steve. FOARP (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Reopened discussion - OK, since we're apparently doing this, let's look at a source that's emerged recently - this research paper from Dr Edward Howell, Lecturer in Politics at Christ Church, University of Oxford, that been published by Chatham House. Extended quote:

Extended content

"In late October, speculation that North Korea would send troops to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine – which had emerged following the signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership treaty in June 2024 – was confirmed, when the South Korean and Ukrainian intelligence services announced that more than 12,000 North Korean troops were to be deployed to Russia, initially in the Kursk region, where Ukrainian troops had made incursions from August 2024.54 This North Korean deployment, in wanton violation of sanctions, only emphasized the rapidly growing extent of cooperation between Pyongyang and Moscow, even if the impact of North Korean personnel – whether front-line soldiers or weapons technicians – on Russia’s overall war strategy is likely to be minimal."

They treat the involvement of North Korea in the Russo-Ukrainian war as essentially confirmed and are happy to say so in their own voice.

Here's another - a paper published by RUSI from Dr Choi Yonghwan, a senior research fellow at the INSS. Key quote: "The participation of large numbers of North Korean regular troops, especially combat troops, in the Russo-Ukrainian war means that the conflict has turned into an international one". Again, it appears that this expert in the field is happy to say that North Koreans are involved in their own voice.

In contrast, let's look at the RBC report that apparently triggered the re-opening of this discussion - they characterise the statement of a US defence department official as "no evidence of active North Korean military involvement in the fighting against Ukraine alongside Russia", but the actual quote is "To this point, we have not seen North Korean soldiers actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines. Although we do expect at a certain point in time that that will very likely happen". Not "actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines" is not the same as not being a belligerent in a conflict. This is especially so in the light of the report going in to detail about North Korea troops being integrated in to Russian units and having already been killed in combat. Indeed, this source treats North Korean participation in the war as a confirmed fact ("In November, North Korea sent troops to Russia for further participation in offensive operations against Ukraine. Specifically, these troops are expected to assist in the liberation of areas in the Kursk region controlled by Ukrainian forces". :The situation hasn't changed since the close of this RFC - North Korean involvement as a belligerent in this war is verified. Requiring reliable sources to do their own independent investigation and/or North Korean confirmation is requiring "super-verification" of a kind we don't require anywhere else on Wikipedia including within the infobox of this very article. FOARP (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Well actually that is what wp:v requires, and yes we do expect RS (which, to be fair) some seem to do) put it in their voice. And yes, to be a belligerent they would have to actually be involved in combat. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

OK Steve, but not "actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines" is not the same as not being involved in combat. Particularly, being on the receiving end of targeted strikes and suffering KIA/WIA would be being in "combat", and the same source happily states that this has occurred.

WP:V does not require super-verification of the type being requested (i.e., an independent investigation by the reliable source). It simply requires that reliable sources report it in a way that presents the information as high-confidence. Multiple typically-reliable sources reporting the same essential thing (North Korean participation in the war) as high-confidence information over a period of months should be sufficient.

I'm aware that I've probably commented way too much in this discussion and will step back unless something major happens. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"North Korean troops sent to Russia have not yet joined the battle against Ukrainian forces partly due to poor training, say western officials." 77.241.128.28 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Simple test, find another example of where we say (in our words) that an allegation (in the source's words) is true. As if we do not do this we are not applying some impossible to pass test about wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"Up to 190,000 troops", based on US officials quoted in the NYT, right there in the infobox of this article. Additionally the cites for Belarusian involvement in the infobox are 1) Ukrainian officials quoted by CNN, 2) a livestream video seen by CNN, and 3) Ukrainian officials quoted by BBC. If you want examples of North Korean involvement in articles about other conflicts being infobox-verified based on statements from quoted sources, Yom Kippur, Ogaden, and Vietnam are discussed above. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No I am asking for proof that wp:v means we can say as fact what RS only say as an allegation. Oh and Vietnam war [[27]], not just an allegation. Oagaden [[28]], not just an allegation. Yom Kippur [[29]], also (again) not just an allegation. All of these have sources (and in at least one case something you claim is impossible, as an admission by North Korea) that say North Korea was involved, not that sources have claimed they were involved. Yes, wp:v is clear, we can only say it if RS say it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Every example I've given above is an "allegation" in the sense that the news outlet was relaying what they had from another source (US officials, Ukrainian officials, a live-stream) and had not confirmed independently.

You've found an additional source for the Vietnam article, which is great, but that wasn't the source relied on to add North Korea to that article-infobox - that was this article from NK News.org. Additionally, North Korea only confirmed this in 2001, so whilst Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, I don't think we have to wait 26 years for North Korea to confirm involvement either.

The Diplomat article you've just cited for Ogaden says simply "The North Korean military provided technical assistance to Somali forces against their Ethiopian rivals, because of Barre’s diplomatic overtures and Pyongyang’s desire to retaliate against Ethiopia’s support for South Korea during the Korean War... North Korea followed the USSR’s lead, and provided support for Ethiopian forces", which is coverage of the type you've been saying isn't confirmation for North Korean involvement in Ukraine.

The source for Yom Kippur is literally Israeli pilots quoted in Business Insider - something that would appear to be an "allegation" according to the reasoning used so far. I've also added an article in Le Monde above you might want to look at.

I can understand caution, but we're getting way beyond that. Anyway, I already said this and then didn't do it, which is my bad, but I really need to step away from this discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

None of them say "according to", even your quote sources says "North Korea followed the USSR’s lead, and provided support for Ethiopian forces", they litterlay put it in their words. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

THey all say it in their words, they say "are involved in combat" not "according to...". Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? The (many) sources that have been provided to you also say that North Korea is engaged in combat with Ukraine in their own words. This discussion is going in circles and has been for a while now. --haha169 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not that many, compared to the number of sources that say "UNCONFORMED". Also (again) I disagree this article is about the wider war, and I am unsure if any source has said they are operating in Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Post RFC discussion

• Compassionate727, In this article: "To this point, we have not seen North Korean soldiers actively engaging in offensive combat operations on the front lines. Although we do expect at a certain point in time that that will very likely happen," said General Ryder. We also have this report by the BBC released 30 November which is very circumspect about there being actual combat involvement of NK troops. We don't actually have multiple sources independently reporting the NK combat involvement in their own voice. What we have is multiple WP:NEWSORGs attributing the same three vague statements (by US State Dept, SK and Ukraine) alleging combat involvement which is contradicted by US military (here) and by the DoD (here of 18 November and reported above) which says much the same. There is a sound P&G basis for not adding this to the infobox at this time. Unfortunately, many editors here do not appear to understand the qualification that goes with using NEWSOR sources. As REO Speedwagon said: "Talk is cheap when the story is good". Engagement in combat was the criterion for inclusion established in the discussion. Vague assertions that have been contradicted are not a fact and the infobox is for key facts. Calls for a snow close are based on votes but consensus is not a vote and there is not a consensus of opinion among experts as reported in news sources that NK is in fact engaged in combat. I submit that your close was premature. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157, generally if an editor has issues with an RFC close the first port of call is to discuss it on the closer's talk page and then if they are still not satisfied they may take it to WP:AN for review. TarnishedPath^talk 06:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157 - This is rehashing the discussion, but it's not that we don't understand the policy, it's that our interpretation of it is that it doesn't require that reliable sources essentially investigate and publish their own conclusions on it without relying on any source external to them, or that the subject necessarily confirms it themselves. Instead we are taking the position that these reliable sources would not be carrying this information if they did not also think it was reliably-sourced. A WP:SNOW-close in a situation where both sides have arguments based on different interpretations of policy, but one side clearly dominates in terms of the number of editors endorsing a position, is entirely justifiable - the accusation that this was just a vote-count is groundless.

Similarly the engagement of North Korean units "... in offensive combat operations ..." on the front line or not does not matter once their units have deployed to the theatre of war and once they have been they have been under fire. Again, that's a question of people choosing a different interpretation to you, not them simply not understanding.

The RFC has run its course and the outcome is entirely reasonable. I understand your position, but I, and the other people who !voted for this move, simply disagree with it on justifiable grounds. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The RfC has not run its course and the opinion of experts as reported in sources is divided. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no minimum time for an RFC to run, but this one ran for more than 2 weeks, by which time a reasoned, 16:3 consensus had emerged in favour of moving. I am not aware of single report claiming that the North Koreans have not deployed in Russia's support, the differences amongst experts are all along the lines of "where?", "when?", "how many?", "doing what?", and mostly not even disagreeing per se but instead putting different emphasis on different aspects.

By requiring an independent media investigation and/or confirmation by North Korea itself, you're proposing a level of verification far above that required anywhere on Wikipedia to verify infobox content. As discussed above that includes North Korean involvement in numerous conflicts. It also includes the infobox of this article, which cites a number of piece of information to officials quoted in reliable sources (e.g., Russian army strength being 190k).

Anyway, we've discussed this enough so I won't continue. If you want to you can raise this with the closer on their talk page and then, if you have no resolution, at WP:AN. However, I don't think it would be worth your time to do so. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"I am not aware of single report claiming that the North Koreans have not deployed in Russia's support"

No? Let me make you aware of some, then:

"North Korean troops sent to Russia have not yet joined the battle against Ukrainian forces"

"The US Department of Defense currently has no evidence of active North Korean military involvement in the fighting against Ukraine alongside Russia."

Bonus, france24 debunking all the "evidence" presented so far. Maybe something for the article? 77.241.128.28 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

FOARP basically said what I would have. You read the policy one way, other people read it another. Sometimes people read policy wrong, and it's my job as closer to discount those wrong arguments, but your argument here wasn't obviously the only right one; certainly not obviously enough to overcome the massive numerical preference. And early closures are appropriate whenever further discussion is extremely unlikely to change the outcome, which is certainly the case here: I can't imagine how any additional arguments could be raised here that would reverse or override the massive numerical discrepancy we currently see. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Compassionate727, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key facts from the article. The criterion to add NK without any qualification is that it is a combatant (ie engaged in combat). This was established in associated discussion and is the distinction made for Belarus, that is a belligerent but not a combatant. A close is determined by strength of argument and not force of numbers (per WP:DETCON and WP:NHC). Ultimately, this is determined by the consensus of reliable sources. Multiple sources repeating with attribution a press release from an organisation are essentially a single source (see WP:NEWSORG). This article was released at the same time the RfC was being closed and why it is premature. The timing of the release is particularkly pertinent to the close. There is clearly not a consensus in sources (or experts repored in sources) that NK is engaged in combat operation. Because of this, it is not a fact to be reported in the infobox that NK is a combatant. Reporting NK as a combatant in the infobox does not reflect the content of the article in respect to this issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

While your use of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is sound, I don't feel comfortable weighing arguments that weren't actually made in the discussion because nobody has had the chance to respond to them, which makes it difficult to weigh possible counterarguments. (And actually, at least one person felt that guideline is reason to include NK.) As should be obvious by now, your assertion that all of the provided sources were repeating … a press release without comment on its veracity is not widely accepted. You already mentioned the RBC-Ukraine article in the discussion, and someone responded that it isn't clear that the DoD is actually casting doubt on the nature of NK's involvement.

I appreciate your frustration with how this discussion unfolded and how you feel like your arguments aren't being heard. However, nobody is going to close this differently than I did, so I'm extremely reluctant to reopen it. My suggestion is to wait a month or two, and if you believe the situation hasn't meaningfully changed, begin a new discussion on this question. Many discussions on Wikipedia go differently once the underlying question is out of the news cycle. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not mention the RBC-Ukraine article in the discussion, I mentioned an earlier and quite separate DoD release of 18 November. The DoD report in RBC-Ukraine has now been duplicated in several other sources. The article now reflects the divided reports. My point is that the close was premature because of new information creating a new perspective. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a new perspective is reason to challenge a close. Consequently it is also a reason to withdraw a close. We cannot forget the propaganda value of claiming NK troops are in combat even if they are not. The reports of involvement have already resulted in extra support for Ukraine. Claiming something as a fact when it is not has implications of NPOV. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

…alright, I'll reopen it. Another week of discussion won't hurt anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked for a close it was closed, Thisd discussion if not for here, but rather the close (if you disagree within it), needs to be properly contested. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

S Marshall, thank you for your close. As you observe, the question is made in the context of the prior linked discussions. While the section of the infobox is headed belligerents, the parameters aligning to this are combatants. Entry in this field is a binary choice (they are either in or out). They are combatants or they are not. The infobox is not a place for detail or nuance. However, in this case, Belarus is a belligerent but not a combatant. There has been a specific consensus (RfC) to list Belarus against the otherwise deprecated description of "supported by" because of this distinction. Russia, Belarus and arguably North Korea are all belligerents in respect to applicable definitions. The previous discussions give context to the question which at face value is mis-stated - it is not whether North Korea is a belligerent but whether it is a combatant. At the point that this discussion was previously closed, sources reported in the body of the article indicated North Koreans had engaged in combat. The discussion was reopened because of new material casting doubt on earlier reports that North Korean troops had actually engaged in combat. Subsequent reports only affirm such doubt. A substantive point made in the discussion to reopen the RfC relates to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - that the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. At present, the body of the article does not support that it is a fact that North Korean troops have engaged in combat and are a combatant. While many sources might have been cited in the discussion, only a few are actually pertinent to what the article states and have been incorporated into the article. As also mentioned therein, claiming something as a fact when it is not has implications of NPOV. How does one address such a substantial inconsistency with the pertinent guidance as a consequence of the close? How does one reconcile the close with what the article (and the sources) tell us? It's not like we can write a footnote somewhere that says: Regardless of what the article says, we took a vote and the majority of Wiki editors believe it is a fact that North Korea is a combatant in this war. In the close, you state: This close does not preclude a subsequent discussion after new sources emerge or new battlefield events take place. Does this encompass or preclude those sources reflected in the body of the article since the earlier close? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• How does one address... consequence of the close? -- One does not. Per policy the role of the closer is not to judge the facts or the sources. I judge the consensus at the debate. The points you raise were made in the debate I closed. They were, in my view, largely disregarded by the community. This is unfortunate but it's part of the consensus model we use: the community does not owe you a detailed response to every point you raise.
• Does this encompass? -- No. This means new sources or battlefield events that postdate my close.

Hope this clarified sufficiently.—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to add if someone keeps denying the truth and not wanting this Rfc closed, the Pentagon has confirmed that a number of North Korean troops were killed in action in Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korean-troops-killed-combat-against-ukraine-first-time-pentagon-says-2024-12-16/ Rc2barrington (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

However if certain stuff that hasn't reached RS yet turns out to be true russia is issuing them ID cards claiming they are Tuvans.©Geni (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither because I have sources but they didn't reach the level of RS at the time that is changing mind and its not fringe because its a mainline position among those interested in ID cards carried by former members of the russian armed forces.©Geni (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That source is quoting the Ukrainian military rather than saying it in their own voice. The picture in the article was taken from an unnamed Telegram channel.

Is there a consensus among experts on Russian armed forces ID cards? If not, then it is fringe. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

North Korea RFC aftermath discussion

S Marshall has closed the discussion about including North Korea as a combatant and states "Taking my closer's hat off, and commenting as an editor, it's my hope that after these new sources or battlefield events, editors will revisit this to consider whether there's a way to state Russia's clear leadership and overwhelming contribution to the war, with North Korea as an active, but more minor, participant". I think this is already achieved to a large extent by placing Russia top of the billing in the infobox and by the article-title which calls out Russia specifically (though I also think we should be open to changing the article-name to "Russo-Ukrainian war" or "Russia-Ukraine war", since the conflict has spread much wider than the borders of Ukraine, and since reliable sources now appear to be referring to the post-2022 conflict by that name), but I think any suggestions about how this could further be achieved would be good. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe just put "Russia" in bold. We do this for example in Spanish Civil War where the sides were aided by "volunteers" from other nations as active, but more minor, participants.—S Marshall T/C 09:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good suggestion. FOARP (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What happens when the war ends and no DPRK soldiers are found to have been fighting against Ukraine? 213.149.62.204 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• New sources are written by proper historians, enabling us to improve the article.—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I look forward to removing propaganda from the wikipedia articles once the dust settles. 213.149.62.204 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sure bud, not like Russian forces are burning the faces of casualties in Kursk as we speak, nothing to see here. TylerBurden (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have a WP:RS that says that? If so, feel free to include it in the article. Otherwise, nobody cares about your crazy conspiracy theories, WP:OR.

  "It's very difficult to find a Korean in the dark Kursk forest," Pavlo noted sarcastically. "Especially if he's not here." 213.149.62.204 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  As a matter of fact I do mr anonymous, BBC. TylerBurden (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  "the US has said."

  "Ukraine's military intelligence agency, the GUR, has also said"

  The BBC article is relaying what someone else has said, rather than claiming it in their own voice.

  So, no, you don't have a reputable source to back up your claim. 46.188.232.131 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  What you find "reputable" is up to you, apparently WP:RS are confident enough to share the information with attribution. TylerBurden (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is not how it works. If it did, we'd have to say the Earth is flat.

  "the Earth is flat and horizontally infinite - it stretches horizontally forever".

  Oh look, the BBC says the Earth is flat! 46.188.232.131 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Go ahead and tell us when the BBC said that. Or do you just normally resort to trolling when proven wrong? TylerBurden (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• ... but, given N Korea is fighting, too, why do you propose "Russo-Ukrainian"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I favour "Russia-Ukraine war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" because that's a name that reliable sources appear to be giving to this war, including The Times and The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, The Guardian, Associated Press, Britannica, Chatham House, CIPS, and the book by Serhii Plokhy. It's certainly true that other names are used (some sources simply call their coverage "Ukraine" or "War in Ukraine") but none of these alternative names positively covers the topic sufficiently and in a clearly-identifiable way. Additionally, the conflict is in the Black Sea, and in Kursk and elsewhere within Russia, and so is taking place outside Ukraine as well as within it.

  At present we have "Russo-Ukrainian war" (covering the conflict from 2014 onwards) and this article, however sources seem to have moved to referring to the conflict since 2022 as the main conflict. Additionally we don't really have a specific article dealing with the initial 2022 invasion per se but instead just this timeline, which I think is a bad way of covering a military campaign. My preferred restructuring would be to move this article to Russo-Ukrainian war or Russia-Ukraine war, find a new title/structure for the article presently at Russo-Ukrainian war, and start a new article using the sources at Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (24 February – 7 April 2022) covering the 2022 invasion.

  However, there is no hurry for this kind of complex restructuring and I wouldn't even attempt it for some time and after more discussion. FOARP (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree with most of what you said, I think this "restructure" should consist of name changes only; the invasion never really "ended", nor is it clear when it "transitioned" into just "the war in Ukraine", so to create a largely redundant article on just the "invasion phase" would be improper. Maybe it could be achieved if future academic sources post-war clearly delineate between the invasion and the more attritional war that followed, but right now an article on just the initial invasion runs the risk of WP:SYNTH. The article titling should definitely be changed to align with what reliable sources are actually saying, and I agree with "Russo-Ukrainian War" to be reserved for this phase, though we should also clearly differentiate between the current conflict and the lower-intensity conflict beginning in 2014, which could be moved to to "Russo–Ukrainian/Russia–Ukraine conflict" (for usage of conflict rather than war, see [30][31][32]). This restructuring does not mean any new articles would have to be created, or even any words in either of the two articles changed; the retitled article on the war 2022-present would still be about the invasion, but would just have a different name, as would what is currently titled "Russo-Ukrainian War". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Pentagon has confirmed that a number of North Korean troops were killed in action in Ukraine.

  https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korean-troops-killed-combat-against-ukraine-first-time-pentagon-says-2024-12-16

  Rc2barrington (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think the outcome of the RFC is very clear: reliable sources presenting information about North Koreans being in the combat area, being on the receiving end of strikes, taking casualties etc. as credible, and experts saying in their own voice that North Koreans are part of the conflict, is sufficient. The proposal that we should wait either for an independent investigation by an RS (with no real indication of what might ever be considered independent confirmation) or confirmation from the North Koreans themselves, wasn't accepted as it was an artificially-high burden of proof that might well never be met.

  Particularly, it seems doubtful that there would ever be any kind of report of North Korean involvement which could not be attacked as insufficiently independent or conclusive enough by people motivated to do so (e.g., you can always ask whether the Korean-looking Korean-speaking soldiers wearing Korean decorations and and armed with North Korean weapons are really Koreans), and the North Koreans have tended either to never confirm their involvement in a conflict, or do so only decades after the fact. FOARP (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to cite(amongst several post-Soviet conflicts following this format) the Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

  Japan invaded a piece of Chinese territory in 1931, annexed it, and sent light forces along with local forces(either monarchists or old Beiping loyalists) to push a bit further. Fighting stopped by 1933 and was never full scale as Japan didn't want to commit all it's forces and China was busy. Then in 1937 a full scale invasion happened and THAT'S what we call the "Second Sino-Japanese War". This fits with that way better.

  We've got the initial lower intensity conflict(Lot's of volunteers and militias and national guard on both sides, especially initially in the first half.) By the end both the Russian special forces and Ukrainian military is involved, but neither goes to a full war economy or nation wide martial law, neither fully commits forces, Russia never admits to it, Ukraine continues elections as normal. That war(War in Donbas and Russian Annexation of Crimea) lasts almost exactly a year. Then we get years of low intensity fighting with occasional flare ups(Kerch Strait, Battle of Avdiivka 2018), but largely nothing major until 2022 when the Russian military commits to a full scale invasion and Ukraine mobilizes their population in response.

  This is also the styling used in post-Soviet conflicts. Even though Nagorno-Karabakh was occupied by a mix of miltia's and Armenian forces non-stop we don't say there was a single war lasting from 1988-2023. There was the first war in 1988 which ended in the mid 90s. Then years of low intensity conflict with occasional flareups, the nastiest being in 2016. Then a two month long full scale war in 2020(Like this was the first war to really showcase what drones could go in our modern understanding rather than the 2010s concept of drone war prior), followed by 3 years of uneasy peace and occasional flareups, ending with a full recapture of Artsakh. Or Libya. We split it into two wars even though the country wasn't fully unified from late 2011-early 2014 and hundreds of people died of fighting in that time, the fighting was super low intensity and the goals of the first civil war were met.

  Really Manchuria and Artsakh are the two best examples. This is also how people tend to talk about it, when they say 'the war' they generally mean 2022 onward. Even changing the other article from "Russian military intervention in Ukraine' to "Russo-Ukrainian War' was controversial and AT THE TIME the general understanding was that if full scale war actually happened they'd change the name to avoid confusion(and in discussions held in late 2021/early 2022 that was also the vibe). Most of the opposition to renaming it seems to be inherently political, Ukrainians who feel it's a slight or dismissive of them to not say the war has been going on for 10 straight years. I've been accused of Russophillia for making this argument. But it's not about that, anymore than it is for China or Azerbaijan. It's just not intelluctually honest to pretend those 10 years are all equal and one solid thing with no difference. Heck, even the 2014-2015 period is different than 2016-2021.

  The foreign reactions are also massively different and this gets more relevant. The earlier phase saw very little outside involvement, just the sending of some trainers/advisors to Ukraine. Not even Russia recognized the Donbas Republics. Then they did, they went from denying LGM to full scale army, the west went from 'nothing to a little bit' to full scale arming, Iran sent a ton of drones until they got bogged down elsewhere, North Korea straight up sent troops to participate(which ruins the name of this article. Russo-Ukrainian War works fine because those are the main two combatants, but Russian Invasion of Ukraine implies it's just them and it's also only one directional). Speaking of which this articles name also implies it should exclude Ukraines invasion of Kursk and the other smaller incursions. This article is titled "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" so in a literal sense those don't count. Yet we include them(and North Koreas stuff), as if this is a 'full scale war between Russia and Ukraine that started in February 2022'.

  I'm Ukrainian. This is an academic argument. I'm not trying to pick trouble, this just makes more sense in both a common usage standard and a historical/academic standard. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:1142:105F:21DB:304F (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Other article should be 'Russo-Ukrainian Conflict', covering everything from the initial diplomatic schism in late 2013 when Euromaiden started until today. That's how Afghanistan and Artsakh do it.

  The War in Donbas article should specifically cover the 20 February 2014 - 20 February 2015 period. The quieter phase afterwards can either be split off into it's own thing or covered in the broader conflict article with specific articles for major flareups like the Artsakh one does(Stuff like Kerch Strait and Avdiivka 2018, which already have articles thankfully).

  This article can be the Russo-Ukrainian War one. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:1142:105F:21DB:304F (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  IP, while I mostly agree with your reasoning, you need to provide sources that describe the "Russo-Ukrainian conflict" as starting with Euromaidan rather than the more conventional start date of Russian military intervention (Crimea) and the Donbas war as not being for the full eight years. If certain articles do it one way (Afghanistan and Artsakh), then that's usually because sources treat those conflicts as such, but they might not necessarily do the same for Ukraine. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  That works too. Honestly I just meant Euromaiden should be mentioned in the preamble. Probably Orange Revolution too. February 20th 2014 is best definitely. Battle of Debaltseve ended a year after that 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:1142:105F:21DB:304F (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?)

Could we add North Korean leaders and commanders? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

They are not mentioned in the body as having a significant role, so no. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What @Flemmish Nietzsche said, plus there's something pretty lazy about just adding in the names of heads-of-government and heads-of-state in to war articles when they actually played only a minimal role in the war. If you add Kim Jong-Un in to the infobox, what exact new information does that convey? I'm not sure it adds anything. Putin and Zelensky are obviously major figures in this war for different reasons, but Kim? FOARP (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I do see a good argument for including North Korean generals that have been dispatched to Russia to oversee their operations in Kursk, such as Ri Chang Ho and Kim Yong Bok ([33]) --haha169 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Your source says the DPRK is not fighting Ukraine yet, but that the troops are being trained by Russia.

"Since October, it has supplied Russia with more than 11,000 troops—which are now training for deployment against Ukraine"

Right now they are "training" and have not been deployed against Ukraine.

Would you like to include the information from the article and remove DPRK from the infobox? Open up an RFC, I'd vote yes. 213.149.62.204 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing about the Treasury press release is inconsistent with how we are treating North Korea's placement in the infobox. The specific concern you are raising has already been addressed at rfc. --haha169 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"now training for deployment against Ukraine" implies that they are not fighting against Ukraine YET. The infobox treats the DPRK as a belligerent engaged in fighting Ukraine NOW. You linked the source, and it states what it states in plain English for everyone to read. 46.188.232.131 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

They are fighting Ukrainian forces as I type this message. How else would they be killed in action? Rc2barrington (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Ryder said he did not have details on numbers of North Korean casualties but added that the North Korean troops entered combat last week.[34]" Rc2barrington (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you wish to amend when the DPRK had entered the war? Currently the footnote states "North Korea has been widely reported to be supporting Russia with troops since October 2024." but your source, dated the 16th December says they entered combat "last week" (sometime early December).

FWIW, I support amending the date. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The Pentagon has confirmed that a number of North Korean troops were killed in action in Ukraine.

https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korean-troops-killed-combat-against-ukraine-first-time-pentagon-says-2024-12-16

Rc2barrington (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Outdated duration of the War's

i have noticed that the duration date of the war to the present is still 9 months which should be edited on my opinion. Hritik Das (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"2 years, 9 months, 3 weeks and 5 days" is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Not ten years like the Russo-Ukrainian War article says?

"The Russo-Ukrainian War[d] began in February 2014." 46.188.232.131 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No as this is about Russia's direct invasion, not the wider war. Slatersteven (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?

To include countries whose armed forces personnel are directly contributing to Ukraine's war effort.

Sweden, for officially having personnel in Ukraine: "The minister noted that Sweden already has a physical presence in Ukraine through its defense procurement agency that works with the Ukrainian government to purchase military equipment."

Poland, Romania, for keeping Ukrainian F-16s and Ukrainian Air Force flying missions from those bases (the same reasoning used to include Belarus): "Serhii Holubtsov, head of aviation within Ukraine’s air force, said that “a certain number of aircraft will be stored at secure air bases outside of Ukraine so that they are not targeted here.”

"Test flights from Romania to the Odessa region have already been carried out multiple times. F-16s have flown over Tulcea, reached Vilkovo, and made several circles over Zmein. One of the missile launch zones was identified in this location, with the target being Crimea." (This claim is unsupported/denied by WP:RS)

"Ukraine plans to keep some of its F-16s at foreign bases to protect them from Russian bombing strikes."

"President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the Polish government has made a decision that will speed up the delivery of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine."

Slovakia, Germany, for repairing Ukrainian military equipment: "Germany has decided to move the repair center for Ukrainian large military equipment established in Slovakia to its own territory, according to ntv. According to a spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defense, the process should be completed by December 31, 2024."

United States, providing targeting, according to Ukrainian officials, "KYIV, Ukraine — Ukrainian officials said they require coordinates provided or confirmed by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes using its advanced U.S.-provided rocket systems, a previously undisclosed practice that reveals a deeper and more operationally active role for the Pentagon in the war."

France, direct participant in the war: "French special forces carried out several missions in Ukraine early in the war, though these were short-lived operations." ... "Similarly, the involvement of the National Gendarmerie — tasked with verifying Russian war crimes — was targeted and temporary."

“Officially, any intelligence gathered is only sent to NATO nations, but everyone knows that some of these nations quickly share the information with Ukraine, enabling them to counter incoming attacks,” a former Royal Air Force (RAF) officer said. “Western intelligence data offers Ukraine the ability to respond a wee bit quicker.”

"As well as gathering “real-time intelligence that theoretically could be shared with Ukrainian partners,”

This kind of support (especially France's direct participation) goes beyond sending weapons and aid. A country's armed forces personnel directly contributing to Ukrainian war effort justifies adding them as Ukraine's supporters in the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ on this page. "Supported by" is deprecated. It is being used here because of specific discussions that a party is a belligerent but not a combatant (with multiple sources). A similar case would need to be made. The sources you have cited do not establish this. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think they do. Perhaps an RFC is needed here, or on the Russo-Ukrainian war page. Where do you think the RFC would be more appropriate? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

An RfC is required; however, you may not open an RfC as a restricted editor under WP:GSRUSUKR. Another editor, eligible under A1, would have to decide to open an RfC if they assessed a legitimate case to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

To which restriction are you referring? Is it a general one? Because I don't see anything regarding creating RfCs on the talk page. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+: "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions." Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the discussion referenced by A4 in the FAQ took place before the RfC that deprecated the "Supported by" field, so this discussion might be helpful for clarity under the "revised" standards. It's my opinion that the RfC makes it clearer how to address the situation, which could be useful since the A4 discussion was so divided Placeholderer (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

We have discussed this, and discussed this again, and discussed this again, and nothing has changed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's consider France. According to several sources, there is French military presence in Ukraine helping the war effort against Russia.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/03/01/ukraine-s-western-allies-already-have-a-military-presence-in-the-country_6575440_4.html

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/western-special-forces-in-ukraine-openly-exist--just-unoffic

"According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent of special forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow Nato states Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."

It is obvious that certain countries are participating in the war in a way that goes beyond sending aid.

Russia is "supported by" Belarus, because they launched attacks from Belarus' soil at the beginning of the invasion. This is what Romania and Poland are doing by allowing Ukraine to store, repair and launch F-16s from their soil.

Russia is "supported by" the DPRK because DPRK troops are allegedly in the Kursk region, helping Russia push Ukrainians back. This is what France is doing and we have multiple sources saying so.

Clearly, the principle has been satisfied. The only objection can be made regarding the amount of support provided.

What is the threshold or the criteria that needs to be satisfied for a country to "support" Ukraine in the same way Belarus and DPRK are supporting Russia? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Which has already been discussed, many times. bring something new. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I did, you ignored it.

Re: Sweden, https://kyivindependent.com/swedish-defense-minister-does-not-rule-out-eu-nato-troop-presence-in-ukraine/

That article came out 4 days ago, I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the talk page, therefore it has not already been discussed.

"The minister noted that Sweden already has a physical presence in Ukraine through its defense procurement agency that works with the Ukrainian government to purchase military equipment."

Direct admission by the Swedish Defense Minister (recognised expert on the state and activities of the Swedish military) that Sweden already has a physical presence in Ukraine. The language is clear and unambiguous.

I ask again, what criteria needs to be satisfied for a country to be "supporting" Ukraine? Sweden sending military personnel to aid Ukraine's war effort goes beyond sending weapons and money only (which is what the infobox states now). TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

An RS saying they are a combatant, or at the (very least) said they have troops in combat. The same as it has always been. This is what I meant, this is a new supporter, it does not say they are involved in combat. Supporter is deprecated for a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Belarus doesn't pass that criteria, because Belarus has never used its own troops against Ukraine. I cannot find a single WP:RS that claims Belarus is a combatant.

Regarding your question on specifics:

"The British have been among the most transparent about their presence since Macron's statements. "Beyond the small number of personnel we do have in the country supporting the armed forces of Ukraine, we haven't got any plans for large-scale deployment," a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told reporters on Monday." [archive link to bypass paywall: https://archive.ph/qrG5R]

Is this the reason why "supported by" was deprecated, because WP:RS claim NATO countries are directly supporting Ukrainian military with their own personnel in Ukraine? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No, as its depreciated on other pages too. Belarus is rather unique (as you would know from reading every other discussion we have had on it, but fine. If you want to launch an RFC on this ask someone, I can tell you the result now. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

"I can tell you the result now."

Does that mean that no matter what WP:RS I find there is no way to include supporters for Ukraine in the infobox?

Because the issue is a complicated one, there seems to be a legal distinction between co-belligerency, support and parties to the conflict. Much as I have been saying, it is a matter of threshold. I can find scholarly (WP:RS) articles arguing for one side or the other.

We can all agree (and so do the WP:RS) that providing materiel support is not a sufficient reason to declare a country a co-belligerent or a party to the conflict. However, I am arguing that countries admitting to have personnel in Ukraine that directly aid Ukraine's war effort can be considered parties to the conflict. There are some WP:RS arguing that what NATO is doing is "common defense" which would make those NATO countries parties to the conflict.

This is why I asked what the criteria is for adding a country into the infobox, either "Supported by", "co-belligerent" or "party to the conflict" for Ukraine.

France has admitted to have had "limited" special forces and national gendarmerie presence (aiding Ukraine's war effort). Swedish defense minister has said "Sweden is in Ukraine". And we know that US/UK have been providing targeting info and operational support for HIMARS/ATACMS/Storm Shadow and other long-range missiles. This is why Germany has specifically denied requests to send their Taurus missiles, because they'd have to help Ukraine operate them, this could make them "party to the conflict" under international law.

I think there is an argument to be made for adding France, Sweden, US, UK and Poland (potentially others, but for the sake of brevity we can focus on those five to start).

I am happy to provide WP:RS, citations and arguments, I would just like to know what criteria must be satisfied. Military presence on the ground supporting Ukraine's war effort? (UK, US, Sweden and France satisfy this criteria, for example) Common defense? Breach of neutrality law? A WP:RS claiming they are belligerent? (There are WP:RS arguing some countries are providing "belligerent support", others arguing that what certain NATO countries are doing is breaching law of neutrality (as opposed to Austria and Switzerland who are holding to a strict interpretation of neutrality) TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think as of now we can summarize the criteria as belligerent. Or engaged in combat. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Belarus is neither belligerent (no WP:RS claiming so) and they are not engaged in combat. That means there are criteria beyond belligerency/combat that you seem unwilling to share. I think this is done so that any change perceived as unfavourable to how Ukraine and NATO are presented in the article can be denied and opposed. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it means nothing has changed since the 1500 other times this has been discussed. So the result will be the same, Supporter is (generally) deprecated and we will only ass a supported if there is something unusual about the support (I.E. more than just supplying arms/training). Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"we will only add a supported if there is something unusual about the support (I.E. more than just supplying arms/training)."

Such as providing intelligence/targeting information?

“Officially, any intelligence gathered is only sent to NATO nations, but everyone knows that some of these nations quickly share the information with Ukraine, enabling them to counter incoming attacks,” a former Royal Air Force (RAF) officer said.

“Western intelligence data offers Ukraine the ability to respond a wee bit quicker.”

"As well as gathering “real-time intelligence that theoretically could be shared with Ukrainian partners,”

"KYIV, Ukraine — Ukrainian officials said they require coordinates provided or confirmed by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes using its advanced U.S.-provided rocket systems, a previously undisclosed practice that reveals a deeper and more operationally active role for the Pentagon in the war."

Coordinates provided by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes using its advanced US-provided rocket systems goes beyond "just supplying arms/training". Because without that targeting data, the strikes would not be able to happen. Therefore NATO-provided intelligence plays a vital and necessary role in combat. I would like there to be an RfC where we can discuss the inclusion of any or all of the following countries into the "Supported by:" infobox section for Ukraine: UK, US, France, Sweden, as some of these countries have a confirmed, official presence in Ukraine while others are directly assisting the war effort (e.g. targeting). TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that Belarus having their country used to launch one of the main fronts of the early stages of the invasion, in an attempt to conquer the capital, is a few steps above keeping some planes in Romania for training and maintenance. Other Western support for Ukraine, like helping target missiles and supplying equipment/funds, is comparable in importance, but as "conventional" support I think it is more clearly covered by the RfC that deprecated the "support" field (as in, that's the type of stuff that was decided in that RfC to not include in infoboxes).

I think it would be WP:UNDUE to say that the presence of noncombatant Swedish defense contractors puts them in a super-exclusive category of support, and the source for French spec-ops doesn't actually say very much either (French and other special operations to evacuate foreign nationals from Sudan don't make those countries belligerent)

A big part of the Belarus RfC (I recommend checking it out) was discussing whether or not it's fair to include Belarus support while leaving out Western support. That discussion concluded, but not unanimously, that yes, it was fair to leave Western support out of the infoboxinfobox. Placeholderer (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"A big part of the Belarus RfC (I recommend checking it out) was discussing whether or not it's fair to include Belarus support while leaving out Western support."

I am surprised that that RfC was closed the way it was as one of the closing premises/arguments is wrong. The RfC close treats the Anglo-American perspective as acceptable and even desireable, when Wikipedia's position is in fact the opposite.

Q: Doesn't that breach NPOV? A: The English Wikipedia adopts the mainstream POV in Western democracies. For the thought and policy that underlies this, please refer to Anglo-American focus.

The statement in bold above is incorrect, according to Anglo-American focus:

English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries.

WP:CSB deals with this.

Other countries need to be added to the infobox to maintain WP:NPOV.

Furthermore, according to the RfC that deprecated the "support" field that you linked, it was decided that "crucial" and "critical" support is reason enough to include a country as a belligerent to the conflict:

In addition, it is also universally acknowledged that Turkey has armed Azerbaijan with drones, fighter jets, and other technological and artillery weapon advantages that decided the outcome of the war. Turkey's role in the war has been described as "vital",[9] "crucial",[10] "critical",[11] and "direct".[12]

It is widely accepted that the war would have ended long ago had not Ukraine received critical support from the US and UK (especially at the start of the Russian invasion). WP:RS call the support "crucial" and "critical":

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/western-support-critical-ukraines-fight

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/10/03/isw-ukraine-ramps-up-weapons-production-but-western-aid-still-crucial/

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-west-reaps-multiple-benefits-from-backing-ukraine-against-russia/

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/west-s-military-support-has-been-crucial-to-ukraine-s-defense-against-russian-attacks/2781979

We need an RfC to discuss the inclusion of US and UK (at the very least) as supporters of Ukraine in the infobox, to be consistent with Wikipedia's policy on the Anglo-American POV, to maintain NPOV and to follow the guidelines that were written when the "Supported by" was deprecated. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll point out that the comments about Turkey in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War were from a separate discussion had before the "Supported by" RfC, so that discussion was under different rules. Now, that war's article doesn't actually include Turkey under "Supported by" but rather as an alleged belligerent.

Michael Z. had a good comment in the Belarus RfC, that "Technically, Belarus is in the rare category of being a co-aggressor but not legal belligerent. Any serious argument for removing [from the infobox] it must be able to acknowledge this and explain why it should be left out. The current consensus is to consider it exceptional, so the pragmatic onus is on editors that argue for change to justify it and convince others." Belarus is in the infobox as an exception to the rule because it has not had a conventional position in the war.

To include more "conventional" support from the West in the infobox is deprecated by the "Supported by" RfC. It's not the quantity of support being critical, but the type of support given, that determines if something should be an exception to the "Supported by" deprecation. To take more examples from Sudan, it's widely acknowledged that support from foreign powers like the UAE has had a critical impact on the war, but that war's article doesn't include a "Supported by" field (there had been a "Supported by" field previously but it was removed explicitly because of the "Supported by" RfC) Placeholderer (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

- "Now, that war's article doesn't actually include Turkey under "Supported by" but rather as an alleged belligerent."

Indeed! The same could be said about some NATO countries (US and UK), since Russian officials (e.g. foreign minister Sergei Lavrov) have accused them of participating in the conflict, per WP:RS.:

https://www.reuters.com/world/russias-lavrov-says-us-nato-are-direct-participants-ukraine-war-2022-12-01/

https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-accuses-us-britain-of-helping-ukraine-in-crimea-missile-attack/7286812.html

"Russia’s foreign ministry said the Cameron remarks recognised that Britain was now de-facto a part of the conflict."

We could add US and UK as "belligerents (alleged by Russia)" the same way Turkey is added to the infobox with an (alleged by Armenia).

- "https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-accuses-us-britain-of-helping-ukraine-in-crimea-missile-attack/7286812.html"

I have agreed that Belarus should stay in the infobox, if the same provision can be used to add other countries to the infobox. This is to satisfy wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:CSB.

- "the type of support given, that determines if something should be an exception to the "Supported by" deprecation."

Yes, I consider helping Ukraine with missile targeting (in addition to other help) as sufficient for that exception to be applied here.

I ask again, that there be a RfC started that would consider adding US and UK as either "Supporters" of Ukraine (under the same exception as Belarus), parties to the conflict, or belligerents (allged by Russia).

I don't see how I will convince you, and I am sticking firmly by that the inclusion of Belarus while rejecting inclusion of other countries (regardless of what WP:RS say) violates wikipedia's policies on NPOV and Anglo-American bias.

Here's some more WP:RS that discuss NATO's involvement in the war that goes beyond "neutrality".

"He added: "But the main message is that the stronger the support for Ukraine and the longer we are willing to commit, the sooner this war can end."

"On the 1000th day of Russia’s atrocious war, Europe stands by Ukraine." (quote by Ursula von der Leyen, an expert on EU policy)

Since I am apparently not allowed to start an RfC and you are unwilling, where can I request an RfC be written? Should I start a new topic, where I summarise all the WP:RS that can be used for US and UK inclusion in the infobox? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I won't pretend to know much about the specifics of Turkey in the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war, but from a glance it seems Turkey's involvement there included (allegedly, hence "alleged") Turkish planes shooting down Armenian ones, as well as Turkey sending Syrian mercenaries to fight for Azerbaijan. That's a different type of involvement from what NATO has done in this war (I've seen no RS say that Ukraine's Foreign Legion is backed by foreign governments). It would be WP:UNDUE to include NATO countries in the infobox here because Russian officials say they're "belligerent" by their own standards — if Russian officials said that NATO battalions entered combat in Ukraine, on the other hand, then NATO would potentially go in the infobox (depending on what RS say about it).

I think our main specific disagreement at this stage (though I can only really speak for myself) is that I think targeting assistance falls under conventional support and shouldn't be enough to be an exception to the "Supported by" RfC. A question I'd ask you is: if the US didn't provide any material support and only provided targeting assistance, would you still support having them included under "Supported by", as an exception to the rule, in the infobox? Because I think infobox conventions are clear and consistent that material support does not justify including countries under "Supported by", regardless of quantity or effect on the war, because it was determined by other editors that that's not what infoboxes are for.

I'm not saying NATO is neutral, just like the UAE isn't neutral in the Sudan war. I'm saying that I think the support from NATO countries falls under the "Supported by" RfC's deprecation of the "Supported by" category and should therefore not be included in the infobox, and that I think this is consistent with other conflicts with foreign supporters Placeholderer (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence sharing is pretty routine. For example Britain was sharing a lot of information with Japan in the leadup to the the Battle of Tsushima but despite being decidedly annoyed by the dogger bank incident still ultimately remained a neutral party in the conflict.©Geni (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying NATO is a neutral party to this conflict? How can that be when NATO has offered Ukraine membership, while rejecting Russia's bid in 2003? NATO is clearly on one side of this conflict, and WP:RS support this.

There are primary sources arguing that NATO countries could be in breach of neutrtality: "Under the provisions set out therein, a neutral State must treat all belligerents impartially.12 In particular, ‘[t]he supply, in any manner … by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, of war-ships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden’.13 Even the provision of significant financial support to one side of the conflict may potentially be considered non-neutral.14 The legal problem with the actions of many ‘neutral’ States towards the Ukraine conflict is immediately apparent.TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Do not ask me, as I have already said we have had this discussion many times, and do not need another one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Remove Belarus from the infobox

According to @Slatersteven, for a country to be included in the infobox as a supporter we need "An RS saying they are a combatant, or at the (very least) said they have troops in combat."

I cannot find any WP:RS claiming Belarus has troops in combat or is a combatant. That is why I propose Belarus be removed from the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

We had an RFC on this, consensus was they are in a unique position. BY the way, you did not ask about "for a country to be included in the infobox as a supporter" you asked about "I ask again, what criteria needs to be satisfied for a country to be "supporting" Ukraine". Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

"you did not ask about "for a country to be included in the infobox as a supporter" you asked about "I ask again, what criteria needs to be satisfied for a country to be "supporting" Ukraine"."

Aren't the two the same or at least related? If not, let me rephrase: What criteria need to be satisfied for a country to be included in the infobox as a supporter for Ukraine? (how Belarus and DPRK are listed as supporters of Russia in the infobox) TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There are sources saying Belarus is a belligerent. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any. Care to share, or are they a secret? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

See Support for Russia section ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what the note says: "Belarus let Russia use its territory to launch the invasion and to launch missiles into Ukraine."

Since Romania is allowing Ukraine to launch F-16s from its territory, Romania could be added as a supporter of Ukraine into the infobox per the same criteria that included Belarus into the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The criteria is that Belarus is the belligerent. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That is circular reasoning: "Belarus is belligerent because Belarus is belligerent." TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you got a source for F-16s taking off from Romania and directly into combat outside of Romanian airspace?©Geni (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit: No.

I was wrong re: combat missions from Romania. My apologies. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

So will you now drop this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Belarus should stay, if there is a possibility of adding other non-combatant countries into the infobox under similar special circumstances. But if the provision/allowance exists only to include Belarus, then that is unfair and biased.

You can close this topic, I do not wish to remove Belarus from the infobox. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

DPR and LPR

Moved from Template talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox § DPR and LPR

 – ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest removing the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics as separate entities, instead mentioning them in a footnote about Russia of the following content: "The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic were unrecognized entities in eastern Ukraine created by Russia in 2014 on the eve of the War in Donbas, which, amid the full-scale invasion, were formally annexed by Russia, alongside partially-occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia." CapLiber (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand they were obviously just an extension of the Russian army, and we've excluded South Ossetia from being mentioned in the infobox on similar grounds. On the other, LPR/DPR formations were treated as being different in some ways by the Russians (e.g., giving them ancient rifles to fight with etc.). I guess I lean towards removing them but it's probably worth having an RFC on this. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are more often described together then separate. On these grounds, agree with the proposal. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you practically never see LPR referenced without also seeing DPR referenced. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So what will the decision look like? CapLiber (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Until the annexation months into the invasion in 2022, they were independent entities (legally), as were their militaries; that they are no longer independent right now doesn't matter at all, as they were when the invasion began. So yes, they should be included. That said, this discussion shouldn't be on this talk page at all, but rather at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, where it will be more widely seen. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

they were independent entities (legally)
They weren't.

having declared their independence from Ukraine footnote text should be removed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And why should it be removed? The rebel leaders did declare independence, just not to any diplomatic recognition; the two republics were completely unrecognized until 2022, but they were still entities that existed (as Ukraine certainly didn't control the territory held by the republics). Legally here means that Russia did not claim that the two entities were a "part of Russia" until 2022, and they still maintained a degree of actual independence until then. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The rebel leaders did declare independence
Note the difference
The Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic were Russian puppet states, having declared their independence ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• They existed as separate entities at the start of the war. Previous discussions were that they remain in the infobox subsequent to annexation. There have been robust discussions regarding this so there is a fairly strong consensus for the status quo version. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removal, because LPR and DPR were never recognised (internationally, anyway). If they aren't removed, then possible solutions could be: a) to put their names in quotes, b) add "so-called" in front of their names, c) call them either "Donbas separatists" or "Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas", d) a combination of the above. In any case, a change is required because as it currently stands it seems that they are indepdendent, recognised entities, when their "independence" was very, very shortlived before they were annexed by Russia. I don't think there is any talk of LPR and DPR being or ever becoming independent entities. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC) 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is OK as it is, nuance is for the body, not the info box. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Nuance would be still mentioning them as separate entities. I suggest uniting them into single "Pro-Russian militias in Ukraine" with footnote listing Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts and telling the story of their occupation and subsequent annexation by Russia. Military administrations set up by Russia in parts of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts could me mentioned there as well. CapLiber (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the “nuanced” option is mentioning them at all, since it requires footnotes that boil down to saying they were simply puppet-states. That said it would also be good to see whether reliable sources treat them at all as distinct from Russia. FOARP (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think "Russian-backed separatists" is more correct, unless you have a WP:RS claiming they are "pro-Russian" rather than being supported by Russia. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Russian militias in Ukraine" would be the most suitable name since we're talking more about armed groups rather than about political factions. CapLiber (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS overwhelmingly refer to them as "Russian-backed separatists".

- https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/4/ukraine-crisis-who-are-the-russia-backed-separatists

- https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-separatist-regions-crux-russian-invasion/story?id=83084803

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/what-is-the-background-to-the-separatists-attack-in-east-ukraine

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/22/what-are-donetsk-and-luhansk-ukraines-separatist-statelets

- https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/ukraine-war-the-future-of-russian-backed-separatist-territories-189536

- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/russia-plan-to-annex-ukraine-separatist-regions-referendum/101460210

- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-invasion-fears-separatists-military-mobilization-putin-rcna16937

- https://www.politico.eu/article/separatists-in-ukraine-luhansk-region-to-hold-referendum-on-joining-russia/

- https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-donetsk-luhansk-1.6588501

- https://abcnews.go.com/International/tensions-rise-ukraine-russian-backed-separatist-shelling-hits/story?id=82962555

There are many, many more sources calling them the same. Therefore the consensus among WP:RS seems to be that they are "Russian-backed separatists". TurboSuperA+ (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"The US and other countries have ruled out sending troops to Ukraine.[460]"

The part about "other countries" is factually incorrect and not supported by WP:RS.

France has not ruled out sending troops to Ukraine:

https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/15/macron-still-doesnt-rule-out-sending-troops-to-ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/sweden-rules-out-sending-troops-to-ukraine-after-nato-membership-agreed

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/2/frances-macron-doesnt-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240502-macron-doesn-t-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine-if-russia-breaks-front-lines

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/05/02/macron-doesn-t-rule-out-troops-for-ukraine-if-russia-breaks-front-lines_6670198_7.html

https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-doesnt-rule-out-sending-troops-to-ukraine-ammo/

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/27/europe/france-macron-troops-ukraine-intl/index.html

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/02/27/war-in-ukraine-president-macron-doesn-t-exclude-sending-troops-on-the-ground-announces-missile-coalition_6562295_4.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/world/europe/europe-ukraine-support-meeting.html

The section should be changed to "The US has ruled out sending troops to Ukraine." OR "The US has ruled out sending troops to Ukraine, while France has not." TurboSuperA+ (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Done - changed to "Sending troops to Ukraine was ruled out by the US and other countries in the early days of the invasion. President Emmanuel Macron of France later said in 2024 that sending troops was a possibility" as there was a significant gap (~2 years) between the source for the US+NATO ruling out troops and Macron's statement in 2024. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, good edit. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think military aid for Russia should be it's own separate page.

You see, I don't think the part of the page talking about it goes in much length, so I want a new page. Sure there may be not a lot of allies but it's important. It helps mappers, curious people, researchers, and more. So please let it have it's own separate page, as this page doesn't even have much info. Datawikicontributor (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)