Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

RFC on listing of Belarus as "supported by" since 2022

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for option B. Because that option failed to meet the burden placed upon it by the RfC on "supported by" fields in infoboxes, option A (the status quo) prevails. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of this article) concerning the events since 24 February 2022: A) no (as at present); B) as "Supported since 2022 by: Belarus" (in Russia's side).

Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors in the Survey section. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section (that's what it's for).

Note to closer and other participants: this RFC was started because the previous similar RFC (started on 16 March 2024) was closed on 17 May 2024 without a clear consensus regarding options A and B, but the uninvolved closer Compassionate727 stated that "Finally, there seems to be a consensus that if added, Belarus should be added with a note that its support began in 2022, although there is no reason that shouldn't be confirmed in the next RfC, which I assume will be forthcoming shortly". -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• B. The role of Belarus in this war should be described as "supported since 2022 by: Belarus" (in Russia's side) because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 the Russian Army's forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine and Russian jets have taken off from Belarus to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3, 4, 5); 3) see more information in a dedicated article Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine, the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that. Moreover, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article), so Lukashenko's Belarus clearly tractate the current Ukraine as an enemy and by exceptionally supporting Russia since 2022 sought for Ukraine's military defeat in this war. -- Pofka (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• A. See previous RFC. Ivan (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• A. (Summoned by feedback request service). Infoboxes are for basic factual uncontroversial information that can be consumed at-a-glance. They are not suitable for contested statements or statements where some nuance is required. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• A per my comment at previous RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• B per my comment at previous RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• A for the same reason we should not list the United States on Ukraine's side. We should only list groups that have soldiers fighting in the war, which Belarus does not and has said that they will not. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• B the US's role in the war is similar to that of Iran; the better comparison for Belarus would be Poland, assuming that Poland starts shooting down missiles as it said it was considering. Arms suppliers should indeed be left off but those countries/territories that have used or provided their territory in combat engagements in Ukraine should be included in the infobox as belligerents (this is after all the definition of being a belligerent). Dan the Animator 03:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• B Per Pofka, while role is not equal to Germany, NK, Iran... Belarus has nonetheless provided support and Lukashenko wants Ukraine defeated. O.maximov (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Pinging all the participants of the previous similar RFC who had voted in the Survey section (@Slatersteven:, @My very best wishes:, @Ortizesp:, @Gödel2200:, @Иованъ:, @Manyareasexpert:, @CVDX:, @RadioactiveBoulevardier:, @Cinderella157:, @Mellk:) because I think they should be informed about this RFC and are welcome to express their opinion regarding this question once again. -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: May be a good idea to include supporters rather than suppliers in the infobox. Then the role of Belarus should be included as a supporter of Russia and US as a supporter of Ukraine. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

Contentious topic warning?

Can someone please advise me re: WP:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics. There's a warning template there, but it requires a magic code and I can't see one listed for the scope of this page. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It falls under Eastern Europe. WP:GSRUSUKR are specific sanctions for this war but don't have a specific CT aware. The link to the GS might also be added to the DS alert. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, so just e-e is good, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed presence of italian volounteers fighting for Russia

Many founts have confirmed the presence of italian volounteers fighting for the russian army and some of them have even been interwieved.So should we add in the list of belligerants even volounteers from other countries like franco-american for Ukraine and italo-sirians-lybyans for Russia? 2.47.239.31 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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

North Korea as belligerent

Noticing that there seems to be contention in the contribution history of this article about North Korea's involvement as a belligerent: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34893

IMO Sending state-sanctioned foreign troops under a defense pact constitutes belligerency, not involvement as mercenaries. Cyali (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We should remember that it hasn't happened yet. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time in over a decade that a foreign military besides Russia and Ukraine is putting boots on the ground. North Korea has stated its intent to deploy troops there. However, I can understand if users would rather wait until North Koreans are actually there. Dozens of countries have been providing weapons to both Russia and Ukraine for some time but this is the first time a military is being deployed to the fight, AFAIK. Ecrusized (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

They would have to be involved in actual combat. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see article from NK News titled "Fact check: North Korea has not announced plans to send troops to Ukraine — yet" which traces the source of this information to a rumor on South Korean television, noting that no such announcement has been made by the North Korean government, and characterizes the Kyiv Post and others as having referenced an incorrect description of the deployment claims as an official North Korean announcement... without verifying the source of the rumors. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Lute88, I note that you have now twice reverted to reinstate this material while the WP:ONUS to add this material to the infobox has not been met. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I have re-removed the material. No nation should be listed as a de facto belligerent without RS explicitly identifying the party as a party to the conflict or co-belligerent. Whether support rises to such a level as to merit inclusion in the infobox under the support banner, however, is up to editorial discretion. It requires an explicit affirmative consensus at the talk page first though, as the use of the support parameter is broadly deprecated. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

Add North Korea to the belligerents list since they are sending troops. Chechen and Syria has also supplied troops so they should also be added. 2A00:801:7AA:8752:F004:AC6D:546E:2156 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been contested and now requires consensus discussion which cannot be sought through an edit request. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)