Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine

north korea should be listed as an ally of russia

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

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

The claim made is not supported by the source. It says that NK officers were present in Donetsk observing personnel training in the area when six of them were killed and three more injured by a Ukrainian missile strike. Unless NK troops are directly involved in combat – and this doesn't claim they are – then they aren't party to the conflict. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

what about if we were to add North Korea as a (Support) role. Gonzafer001 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we do not list others other than Belrus for for specific reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the impulse on this talk page to freeze the infobox in time and reflexively oppose any updates to it despite changing conditions on the ground.

Uniformed North Korean officers have been confirmed to be operating in Ukrainian territory by both Ukrainian and South Korean officials. No uniformed foreign troops of any country, Belarus included, has been confirmed to be operating in Ukraine. So this is a big development and leaving North Korea out of the infobox entirely is a disservice.

This thread is as good as any to start the discussion for reaching a consensus to add DPRK to the infobox in some capacity. --haha169 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Unture, the British also have forces in country, just not in combat roles. So lets see a source that says NK is directly involved io military operations. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't just go around saying something is untrue without any justification. What reasoning do you have to disbelieve Kyiv Post's sources in the Ukrainian intelligence services? Or the reporting from the South Korean intelligence services?

And I do not see anything in consensus that a support role in the infobox requires active uniformed soldiers engaged in direct combat. Belarus certainly has no frontline soldiers.

Regarding your other claim, the limited British presence is far behind the frontlines, hence no deaths. Most countries have some military presence in Ukraine anyway for purposes such as guarding embassies. This is not directly related to the war. Whereas the North Korean officers were in Donetsk conferring with Russia troops fighting there. --haha169 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

All of the media outlets reporting both the Ukraine and South Korean intelligence reports are reliable sources. To add to the Kyiv Post source originally posted, which cites Ukrainian intelligence, The Guardian [1] also cited Ukrainian intelligence as well as South Korea's defense minister. And these are not the only two source reporting on this either. --haha169 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And there is the issue, the guardian does not say it is true, they say others say it is true. So we can say it in the body but the infobox is for verifiable facts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

What you're describing is literally the definition of "secondary sources" that Wikipedia relies on - sources that cite the primary source. The Guardian is the reliable secondary source, citing the primary source which is the intelligence agencies. --haha169 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes this being a claim, not for it being true, thus this is not verified as a fact, thus has no place in the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

At what point is something a "verified fact" by your standard? Since neither WP:RS nor WP:V have a "verified fact" standard, I'm having to answer to your goal post here.

As for my understanding of the word "fact", I argue that the claims of two different national intelligence agencies reported on by reliable sources is considered factual. --haha169 (talk) haha169 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

When an RS puts it in its voice as true, and not as a claim made by others, and as this is going round in circles now I am bowing out, assume no to this edit until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian-linked news sources have shown bias in the past. If North Koreans are actually fighting in Ukraine, there will probably be more concrete evidence in the coming days. Video recordings/photos would be ideal before labeling North Korea an active combatant. Hammer128 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The use of 'supported by' in such infoboxes was deprecated following a centralized discussion over a year ago. Belarus retained its pre-existing listed status following a separate RfC here that determined that Belarus' involvement in the conflict was unique and merited highlighting specifically because it allowed its territory to be used as a staging ground for the invasion. That is not the case for any other state. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, Belarus is not a direct belligerent with uniformed troops on the ground. What's in contention here is a bit different, related to a country who has uniformed forces on the ground. --haha169 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That contention has already been addressed. I have no reason to repeat myself on that point. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless you've made a comment directly addressing the new information about North Korea's involvement in this conflict in the past few days when this news came out, I don't think you've addressed it. You've only commented on the 'supported by' label for Belarus, which is not related to North Korea. --haha169 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is brazen to assert that I have only commented once after I've indicated that I've responded to this discussion previously. Instead of spending four minutes to post an ill-informed response, spend one minute using the search function. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

To preempt another pointless response and another devolution to a merry-go-round I will re-iterate both contentions and both objections once.

Contention 1: North Korea has troops in Ukraine, they should be listed as a belligerent. Objection 1: the troops are not engaged in combat and their mere presence does not constitute belligerency. Resolution 1: if North Korea commits troops to combat or formally enters the conflict, then reconsider listing North Korea as a belligerent.

Contention 2: North Korea has troops in Ukraine, there is a 'supported by' sub-classifier and North Korea should be listed there. Objection 2: the 'supported by' parameter is deprecated. You need a special reason to use it and that exists only for Belarus. The mere presence of troops is not sufficient justification for special consideration. Resolution 2: this is a dead-end to discussion, I am firm on this position.

That is all I have to say on the matter of both contentions. Yes, I've read both sources, and neither claims that North Korean troops are engaged in combat so they don't resolve the original contention. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Mere" presence of troops is massively trivializing the reality of the situation. In what world is the deployment of uniformed troops within the active conflict zone a "mere presence"? These are not logistics or support units far in the back. These people were on the frontlines and killed there along with and while supporting the Russian belligerents. --haha169 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTNEWS. Not everything goes in an infobox. It is for significant key facts. These people were on the frontlines and killed there along with and while supporting the Russian belligerents [emphasis added]. Supported by is deprecated. It is used for Belarus because of the strong affirmative consensus to do so. There is WP:NODEADLINE. If the nature of North Korean presence changes and/or becomes clearer (further sources), then, we can reconsider this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

In what world is the deployment of uniformed troops within the active conflict zone a "mere presence"? I'm responding merely because I was heretofore unaware that 'mere' had different meanings in Br and Am Eng. In BrEng it emphasizes how small or insignificant something is (OED), and in AmEng it means being nothing more than (Merriam-Webster). You may substitute ... their mere presence ... with ... just their presence ... or ... their presence alone .... AusEng shares the AmEng definition according to the Australian Oxford Dictionary, but I don't have Macquarie on hand to confirm. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What conditions have not been satisfied yet if the deployment of uniformed troops into the conflict zone is simply a "presence" and not enough to be considered a belligerent? --haha169 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Change it now. It’s confirmed by NATO Gonzafer001 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A, an RS saying they are actually a combatant. B, an RS saying they are actually in combat. Not the source has to actually use words like combat or combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

what are the specific reasons that Belarus is and not others? GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

belarus is used as a staging ground for soldiers, rockets, etc. NotQualified (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

north korea has already sent troops and is likely to send pilots

https://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-news-pilots-could-fly-russian-warplanes-ukraine-report-1972650

https://www.twz.com/news-features/south-korea-intelligence-offers-assessment-of-north-korean-troops-fighting-for-russia Jmompeo (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hoe about “North Korea (alleged) Jaybainshetland (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We now have confirmation by the American government, and therefore North Korea should be listed as a belligerent. 2600:1017:B8CA:FC98:20CE:20CC:4ECD:6316 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree to include DPRK in infobox. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We have confirmation from the USA and South Korean intelligence agencies that North Korean soldiers are in Russia and appear to be mobilizing. I agree to include it in the infobox. Irisoptical (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support

"Whatever their role, the officials said, any significant contingent of North Korean troops will allow Russia to keep more of its forces in eastern Ukraine, where they can stay focused on seizing as much Ukrainian territory as possible before the harsh winter weather sets in."[2]

Dazzling4 (talk) Dazzling4 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The same as last time, an RS actually saying that NK is, in fact, a belligerent and is in direct combat operations against Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting that North Korea was already added to the infobox by @Scu ba. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed. An explicit consensus is required for the use or expansion of the use of the supported by section, per this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone can argue North Korea isn't at least supporting Russia, at least 1 North Korean servicemen has died, and we have satellite photos of trains full of artillery shells leaving North Korea for Russia for over a year now. Scuba 15:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Most countries that exist are at least supporting the war effort in some capacity, especially in the provision of materiel. We'd need to list well over a 100 countries if we were to apply that metric. This is a large part of why that usage is deprecated, because it can be used indiscriminately and to push a narrative. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

None of these countries, Belarus included, have sent troops directly into the active combat areas, including some who have died in Ukrainian strikes. The argument at this point, at least in my view, based on what all of the sources being cited, isn't to put DPRK as a "supporter" but a direct belligerent. --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, I agree that this discussion should be on status as 'belligerent'. That said, no source as yet presented uses that term, co-belligerent, or 'party to the conflict' which is used in International Law. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm replicating the sources that Scu ba cited for perusal here CNN and the Moscow Times. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

see the sources that @Mr rnddude salvaged from my edit. Both Ukrainian and South Korean intelligence have reported that North Korean personnel have been boots-on-the-ground in Ukraine per the CNN article. Russian sources have also reported that at least one of them have died per the MT article. Scuba 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"Zelensky says", "Seoul's defense minister said Tuesday.", its not the RS saying it.We need an RS saying it is true, not an RS saying someone has said its true. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how you can justify saying that the Ukrainian President or the South Korean defense minister are not RS. Their statements are being reported by reliable secondary sources. This is the bedrock of Wikipedia sourcing policy: using reliable secondary sources that report claims from primary sources that the reliable secondary source deems reliable. ISW, a reliable secondary source that we use repeatedly in this article, has also repeated those claims and deem them credible. [3] The assessment of all of these sources is that the DPRK has already deployed troops in Ukraine combat areas, some have died, and more are on the way. I think it stretches credulity to claim that these soldiers are in Ukraine and (specifically confirmed) in Donetsk for anything other than combat/military operations. --haha169 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Because they are not third party, that are involved (read wp:rs). "The Washington Post reported on October 11 that South Korean and Ukrainian officials stated that North Korean soldiers are operating alongside Russian forces in Ukraine.", it does not put it in its voice, they do not view this as a reliable claim. If they did they would say North Korean soldiers are operating alongside Russian forces in Ukraine.", that is called taking ownership of a claim, its what RS do when they know something is true. As nothing new has been added I will stick with NO and bow out, do not ask me again until you produce a source that puts it in their name. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a standard that I do not believe is supported by policy, or even supported by past precedent in this article. For example, map edits in the infobox are largely supported by ISW updates. ISW does not usually make claims in their own voice, rather making assessments based on chatter and social media posts/videos by Russian milbloggers and sometimes from the Ukrainian MOD. Yet we still update the map based on that info. --haha169 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the South Korean defense minister be a reliable source? you'd think the South Korean government would lie about something like this for clout? What would Ukraine gain? Applause for standing up to Kim? Russia is just as sanctioned as North Korea at this point.

There is an entire battalion worth of North Koreans on the front line if that doesn't count as being a belligerent than I don't know what does.

[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Scuba 23:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I've now read both articles twice. The CNN opens with a statement from Zelensky that North Korea is sending its citizens to help Russia’s military fight Ukraine. The authors calls this statement an allegation. The choice of 'citizens' rather than 'soldiers' or equivalent language is significant. The article cites a Ukrainian intelligence source that gives insight into the role that North Koreans may have saying that a small number of North Koreans have been working with the Russian military, mostly to help with engineering and to exchange information on the use of North Korean ammunition. It also acknowledges that Russia is denying the allegations. The piece also discusses Kim Yong-hyun's (South Korea's defense minister) and South Korean National Intelligence Service's statements about the North Korean presence, potentiality of casualties, and the possibility of further increases to the North Korean military presence. Bottom line, everything is presented intentionally as speculative and alleged with appropriate attribution. This is inadequate for Wikipedia to claim in wikivoice that North Korea is a belligerent.

The Moscow Times article opens with North Korean soldiers are likely fighting in Ukraine alongside Russian troops, with some believed already killed and more expected to be deployed attributing the statement to Kim Yong-hyun (mentioned by position in government, rather than name). It then covers the same incident that has been discussed above in the Kyiv Post source, where a group of North Korean soldiers have been killed near Donetsk (the city, not Oblast). From the Kyiv Post, the troops killed were apparently observing Russian personnel in training. The article then dedicates a section to discussing the potential purposes of North Korean troops being there, which are broadly weapons handling and war-time training. There is additional speculation on the use of North Korean labour. This too is inadequate to claim in wikivoice that North Korea is a belligerent.

I was about to propose that the sources and material be incorporated into the article body, but we already have that with an appropriately attributed statement that reads: In October 2024, Ukraine and South Korea claimed that North Koreans engineers had been deployed to the battlefield to help with the launch of these missiles, and had suffered some casualties citing The Guardian, Politico, and Bloomberg. I'll review those sources as well, but I won't be presenting an analysis as I have of the two presented here. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd debate the Moscow Times article.

There are confirmed North Korean troops in occupied Ukraine. It doesn't matter that they're advisors and behind the lines in this instance, they're still in occupied Ukraine openly assisting the Russian army. Scuba 23:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond to both your last posts here. With regard the first, please read your sources carefully. The Buryat battalion that is being formed is operating under the flag of the Russian Federation. The soldiers are recruits from North Korea, but they aren't operating under the North Korean flag. This is intentional. It keeps North Korea out of the war officially. Reliable sources notice this and so consistently refer to North Korea as supporting the war effort. They also are not on the frontline, they're several thousand kilometers behind it receiving equipment and training and won't be combat ready until the end of this year. The deserters are also several kilometres behind the frontline. Equally, there are no reports of North Korean troops being engaged in combat yet. With regard your second post, nobody here is claiming that North Korea isn't assisting Russia in their war effort; as noted previously in fact, most extant nations are assisting a party to the conflict's war effort. The question is wholly on whether that assistance constitutes belligerency or, more precisely, qualifies the state as a party to the conflict. Only one is listed, because only one has been described by reliable sources as a co-belligerent. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for putting all the sources together. I'm sympathetic to the NOTNEWS argument for waiting a little, based on the current situation that you've described in the reliable sources' reporting. However, I disagree on one point regarding this Buryat division. If they were to be found on the frontlines under the Russian flag to avoid making DPRK's participation "official", but the reliable sources are clearly stating that these are North Koreans, then North Korea should still be a belligerent. Wikipedia should be reflecting that facts of the matter and not playing to the Kremlin's political games. Ukraine's foreign legion is made up of volunteers, while there is no doubt that any North Koreans fighting for Russia is being deployed by their government. --haha169 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, we aren't putting North Korea as a full fledged member, but in the Supported section, a la Belarus. Scuba 15:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion it's better to wait to see if things get more concrete and just add them as a belligerent if they do, since the "supported" section is deprecated and Belarus is only there because consensus was specifically found for it due to its extraordinary circumstances. If RS start reporting that NK is actively participating in the war there is no reason to omitt it, particularly after all the talk about adding "NATO" or whatever for sending aid. This is clearly another level of foreign involvement not previously seen. TylerBurden (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's a sound argument. It's just that North Korea is, to my knowledge, the only country to have actual government-sanctioned boots on the ground on Russia's side. Scuba 16:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the well sourced post Mr rnddude. I agree with your decision that we should wait until the North Korean soldiers that are currently being trained actually enter the battlefield (allegedly by the end of 2024). Until North Korean troops actually begin fighting, North Korea is not yet a belligerent. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I do have to issue a correction with regard the special Buryat battalion. I say that they are several kilometres behind the front, actually it appears to be several thousand kilometres. The battalion is currently in Sosnovyy Bor, Burytia. The source for their location is:1. The eighteen North Korean deserters were in Bryansk/Kursk, several kilometres behind the front. The EUToday source conflates the two events, which I replicated, see the opening paragraph:2 I have corrected my original comment, which can be identified by the presence of underlining. This is sort of the consequence of dealing with emerging and conflicting sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts from the article. Belligerency in a war is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. When there is a consensus in good quality secondary sources in their own voice that North Korea is a belligerent, then we might make the same statement in a Wiki voice in the infobox. This might include a consensus in sources (to the same standard) that North Korea is actively engaged in combat operations against Ukraine (ie a smoking gun). However, the discussion to this point has not established either. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

haha169 made a good point about this above, that is a volunteer unit, just like nationals from other countries volunteer to join the Russian military, the difference is that it appears the North Koreans are being deployed directly by their government. TylerBurden (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

BUt they are still not official NK units, and if they become that they become a belligerent, not a supporter. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, said the same thing above, as for "official" I guess we'll just have to wait and see if RS fall for Kremlin propaganda. You can dress up a donkey as a horse but it's still a donkey. TylerBurden (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOXING, your job isn't to opine whether RS "fall for Kremlin propaganda", it is to accurately relay their contents. JDiala (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As haha169 and TylerBurden pointed out, International Legion (Ukraine) is a volunteer force as opposed to the North Korean government directing its soldiers to join the Russian military. A similar example is the Yom Kippur War, where North Korea sent pilots to join Egypt and so it is listed as a belligerent. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Not quite "Israeli F-4s Actually Fought North Korean MiGs During the Yom Kippur War", not just pilots they were there officially as North Koran forces. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

We might be getting ahead of ourselves here, but if Russia tries to pass North Korean soldiers off as part of a Buryat regiment, North Korea should still be considered a belligerent. Facts don't care about what the Kremlin has to say and North Korean soldiers wearing a Buryatia patch are still North Korean soldiers. --haha169 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Just to be clear -- surely you don't mean that RS need to call North Korea specifically a "belligerent" to the conflict? Belligerent is not a commonly used word. A Google search of "Ukraine is a belligerent" yields a single result from Völkerrechtsblog calling Ukraine a belligerent.

I am asking because we need to be clear and consistent about the standard here. As I have asked before, and in my previous reviews about what the standard is, RS simply need to confirm that North Korean troops and in combat. Shooting a gun, firing a missile, engaged with the Ukrainians. Am I correct with this? --haha169 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That is why we do not call Belurus a belligerent, as RS has not said they are. But, no, not the word, but they must be in some way explicitly described as active combatant. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

“ Russia’s army is forming a unit of some 3,000 North Koreans, a Ukrainian military intelligence source has told the BBC, in the latest report suggesting that Pyongyang is forming a close military alliance with the Kremlin.

So far the BBC has yet to see any sign of such a large unit being formed in Russia's Far East

”

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

Does the confirmation by Zelensky suffice to change the infobox?

'First step to World War' — North Korea preparing 10,000 soldiers to join Russia's war, Zelensky confirms (kyivindependent.com) JustEnthusiastic (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

According to Zelensky ... Moscow plans to "actually involve" North Korea in the war in the coming months (emphasis added). That's a prediction of the future, not a statement on the present. Similar with ... the president said that Russia is planning to train and engage not only infantry but also North Korean specialists in various branches of the military. We need for events to occur before we say they have occurred. This introduces an updated piece of information though in that the number of North Koreans in Russia is now estimated to be ~10,000. That information was released on October 15th. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Zelensky also said: "some North Korean officers are already in the occupied territories of Ukraine and joined the Russian army." This is a very strong statement from him that definitively ties North Korean soldiers to Russian military operations on Ukrainian territory. Although we already knew that after news of the North Korean casualties from a few days back. --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't have space for context, so it should only contain information that is known with a high degree of certainty. As long as RS attribute these claims to Zelensky or publish vague statements made by South Koreans (the possibility of such a deployment is highly likely [11]) we definitely shouldn't add NK to the infobox.

These claims are mentioned in the article, this is sufficient coverage for now. Alaexis_¿question? 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the South Korean intelligence is not really vague about it anymore: "N. Korea participates in Ukraine war, decides to dispatch 12,000 soldiers: S. Korean spy agency" [12] --haha169 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If regular North Korean troops are being integrated into the Russian military, they would be Auxiliaries under international law, which are regular foreign or allied troops in the service of another nation's military. In essence, a nation lending its military personnel to another. For infoboxes on such situations, the nation providing the auxiliary force should be bulleted under the principal belligerent to whom they are lending their troops. See for example how Hesse-Kassel is treated in the American Revolutionary War related article infoboxs see here and here for examples. Alternatively, if all we have are Ukrainian allegations, than the infobox can list North Korea as a belligerent and say (Alleged by Ukraine) next to it, just how Russia was listed in the Donbas War infobox early on in that conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we should wait how this story develops. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Givibidou (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait for more evidence. If and when North Korean involvement with combat troops is confirmed, it should be listed as a belligerent (not as a "supporter", like Belarus). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte:[13] "at this moment, our official position is that we cannot confirm reports that North Koreans are actively now as soldiers engaged in the war effort."

We need multiple, first-class sources that support without any doubt that there is North Korean involvement. Mhorg (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

South Korea's spy agency says North Korea has moved some 1,500 troops to Russia, to be used in Moscow's war against Ukraine. It said this was the first batch of an expected total of around 12,000 soldiers to be deployed on the front lines. Source YBSOne (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says there are North Korean troops in Russia, but claims he doesn't know what they are doing there. [14] Musketeiro8 (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

But still not an RS saying there are. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The Economistis very explicit in its title - North Korea IS sending… Maxttck (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

And the first line "UKRAINE’S PRESIDENT, Volodymyr Zelensky, declared last week that North Korea is sending troops to Russia,..." at least read it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I did - the title doesn’t give any space for interpretation and shows The Economist has no doubt in the information. Maxttck (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The title of an article is not a reliable source. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like waiting is the best alternative. With both Russian videos interacting with North Korean troops and Ukrainian troops in Kursk claiming to have fought them, it seems that it's only a matter of time to have visual clarification or their role in the war.

Better to wait a couple more days to see if KPA troops will be seen in combat footage than to to endlessly argue if Zelensky or the South Korean government are reliable sources or not. KaoKacique (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

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

Let's assume North Korea has sent troops to Russia, that would not make them a belligerent, as they might be working on roads or in factories. North Kora might have sent troops to Russa, but that does not make them a belligerent as they might be being used as garrison troops 100's of miles from the front. What would make them a belligerent is if an RS says they are actively involved in direct conflict with Ukrainian forces. UNtill we have an RS that says that, this is a pointless discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It has now been confirmed that North Korea has sent troops to Russia. I am requesting an edit-request that North Korea be listed as an active belligerent in the war.

https://apple.news/AanKaCzHUT6Kpi8PifGlGmg Rc2barrington (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

""What exactly they're doing is left to be seen," Austin said, adding, "We're trying to gain better fidelity on it." It's a "serious issue," he said, if North Korea's "intention is to participate in this war on Russia's behalf."", so no it has not been confirmed they are a belligerent. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/us/politics/north-korea-russia-military-ukraine.html?unlocked_article_code=1.UU4.YoBW.Ukv_daVNnwlt&smid=url-share

It has been confirmed that North Koreans are aiding fight Rc2barrington (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

They may not know the exact specifics but this is enough Rc2barrington (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What else would North Korean soldiers do in Ukraine but aid Russia? Rc2barrington (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Aid Russia is not the same as being involved in the war, and this new source "Though he said that what the soldiers were doing in Russia was “left to be seen.", so until I see a source that says they are involved in combat operation I say no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you hear yourself? North Korea has verifiably sent troops to Russia. That alone should be inclusion in the infobox. Scuba 14:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No, he's right; North Korean troops have been sent to Russia; Russia is a big place, and it will take time for the troops to get from the far east, where they actually are right now, to the frontline in Kursk (if they are sent there) or eastern Ukraine. North Korean troops are not on the front. As long as they are not in combat, they are not a participant in the war itself. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Love coming back to this conversation a week later and there is unquestionable evidence that North Koreans are on the front and still some disruptive editors are going "erm well North Korea might have sent troops to Russia, but that doesn't mean they're fighting." Add North Korea to the infobox like they should've been a week ago. Scuba 14:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Scu ba - Your aspersion about editors who hold disagreement with you being disruptive is in bad faith. This topic area has additional restrictions including on conduct. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Can't be bad faith when it's proven disruption. Plugging your ears shutting your eyes and yelling doesn't magically make all the sources showing North Koreans involved in the Russian army disappear. Claiming that North Korea isn't involved at this point is rejecting reality, and hence disruptive editing Scuba 20:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would usually agree but there is almost irrefutable evidence to prove that NK has indeed sent troops in the thousands to aid Russia militarily and likely in the Kursk region. In fact its not a question of whether theyre there but what they are doing at this point. ShovelandSpade (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• No need to attract criticism friend. You are not in a hurry that much, there will be sources solid enough, anyway. Just give it a few days. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus vote

This conversation is getting nowhere, lets have a simple consensus vote to finish this debate. Scuba 14:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support there is no debate anymore, there are confirmed North Korean troops on the front, per not just Ukrainian and South Korean intelligence, but from US intelligence and even Russian sources brazenly openly bragging about having North Korea the hermit kingdom on their side. Scuba 14:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose unless (and until) reliable sources say that North Korean troops have arrived at the frontlines. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I will point out that RS have shown that North Korean troops on the frontline over a week ago, with news of the death of the officers in Donetsk, and news of the 18 soldiers posted in Kursk who deserted and were caught.

These pieces of evidence have already been discussed above, and I don't believe there is any contention that DPRK troops are at the front. It is already clear that they are. What is in contention is if their activities constitute combat.--haha169 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I will point out reliable sources have provided evidence of the fact as of the past 24 hours, albeit not active combat yet. Irisoptical (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose No RS has said they are combatants or that those troops have even been used in combat. No source has in fact confirmed they are at the front, only that they are in Russia (as an attributed claim) and Russia is a big country. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  The Independent Reuters NBC LA Times CNN

  Why else would North Korean troops go through Russian bootcamp? They're just having a little camping outing? Scuba 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I had the curtesy to not reply to your vote, but if they are in BootCamp, they are not in combat. But there are many reasons why, it is not for us to guess. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I absolutely love the guys weekend camping theory. Scuba 21:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  They just cant wait a few more days :) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: I think we have a reliable source now: The New York Times. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Solid sourcing now.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support: In recent days, further reliable sources have become available, confirming North Korean troops are receiving combat training in Russia at several military bases. U.S. Lloyd Austin has now stated the same conclusion: Associated Press. Further reliable sources describe that North Korean troops will be deployed to Ukraine after training; South Korean intelligence has also concluded this: Associated Press. According to these sources, NK troops are expected to deploy to the front after training, so even more sources will arrive in coming days. Adam8410 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comment to add; earlier sources (presented a week ago at the top of this discussion) already confirmed the presence of North Korean troops on the frontline. What Adam8410 is showing is newer sources showing additional and larger numbers of DPRK troops in earlier stages of potentially being sent to the frontline. But earlier sources have already confirmed the presence of a small contingent of North Korean troops there. --haha169 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support: but, we should wait for the first report of them being on the actual disputed territory, even in Crimea. Then they should be moved from supported by to belligerent. YBSOne (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I agree. They definitely belong in "supported by" now. It's still too early for the page to say they are fighting. For now, it's only clear that NK troops are preparing to fight in the Ukraine, so whenever they are actually deployed the page can be updated to say they're belligerent. Adam8410 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comment a friendly reminder that North Korean soldiers have already been found on and killed on disputed territory (Donetsk). This is the information which spurred this whole debate to begin with. --haha169 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  North Korean soldiers have already been found on and killed
  Where? Sources? I missed the discussion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  News from two weeks ago: [15] [16] --haha169 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  do we have any other sources on this? Irisoptical (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not made clear whether this consensus vote is to include North Korea in the infobox as a co-belligerent of Russia, or add it to the "supported by" section alongside Belarus. --Katangais (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: As for the original intentions with this vote, I'm not sure. Regardless, I'd say most of us here would probably agree that we should have a consensus vote on including North Korea in the "supported by" section now, given the new reliable sources. So, that's what I think this vote should be used for. It'd be far too hasty to say they're a co-belligerent. That should only happen after NK troops have been reported deploying to the Ukraine or Ukraine declares war on them. Adam8410 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Support Adam8410 on this. I understand and hear the users who say the "Support" section of the infobox is deprecated, but at this point the exclusion of North Korea from the infobox is quite jarring given all the reporting on the DPRK's unprecedented and deep involvement. --haha169 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, being relatively inexperienced with past discussions like these as a wikipedia user that have been resolved, how can we make sure DPRK is included on the infobox because at this point opposing it is useless. I think general consensus has pretty much been achieved at this point. Do we need moderator intervention or what? Because only two people opposed it and a LOT of the majority support the inclusion of North Korea in the infobox. Rc2barrington (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well how it's supposed to work is that anybody who's allowed to edit this article will see the consensus vote, see what consensus was reached and implement it accordingly. Someone will probably do it eventually Adam8410 (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Also, consensus isn't achieved through a majority vote, but the strengths of one side's argument against all others. Personally I think there is an emerging consensus that DPRK be included under support in the infobox and the arguments for leaving it out is becoming weaker with every passing day and every new source. Someone will come by and implement it accordingly. --haha169 (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I also think that the consensus has been reached. Should we do an edit request? Rc2barrington (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: I agree with Adam. Due to many reliable sources being brought to attention, including the New York Times article that says explicitly North Korean troops are in Russia to aid Russia in the War against Ukraine, North Korea should be in the supported section. Rc2barrington (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Adam. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Question..... Is there a plan to make a list of other nations combatants?Moxy🍁 01:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What other nations are combatants right now ? Irisoptical (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support The footage is out there; I think it's more than safe to add this now. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that North Korea is not added as a co-belligerent, only as a supporter of Russia alongside Belarus. At least until we see reliable sources suggesting DPRK personnel are directly involved in combat operations. --Katangais (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Support - USA and South Korea governments have verified and confirmed DPRK military is in Russia. Currently, DPRK units have not been engaged in combat yet so I agree that we add them as a supporter of Russia for the time being, until DPRK combat is verified.

North Korean troops in Russia, but purpose unclear, Lloyd Austin says - The Washington Post

Officials say North Korea sent troops to Russia. What would that mean for war with Ukraine? | AP News Irisoptical (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support them being added under the "supported by" column only. Am I correct in thinking these soldiers serve in a Russian battalion, though? If so, they shouldn't be added as a belligerent as North Korea technically isn't a part of this war, they're just giving Russia troops. If I am incorrect about this and DPRK is actually operating then add them as a belligerent. — Czello ^(music) 06:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've argued previously that Russia can pretend the North Koreans are from Buryatia all they want, but we shouldn't parrot the Kremlin's smoke and mirrors in the same way that this article calls the invasion a "war" and not a "special military operation". --haha169 (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see the argument, but ultimately there is a technical aspect here - from what I've interpreted (unless I'm mistaken, happy to be corrected) these soldiers have been transferred to the command of Russia, and DPRK is not actually at war with Ukraine. Indeed, as you point out, it's certainly a matter of convenience for both parties that this is the case - but consequently I think we can only report on the technical facts of the matter. — Czello ^(music) 09:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  In brief, to answer your questions, these citizens or troops (sources vary) are being trained in far-eastern Siberia by Russia. Ukraine and South Korea allege that they are expected to form a battalion operating under the Russian Federation. One editor has also noted that these would be considered auxiliaries. NATO, South Korea, and Ukraine anticipate that these troops will be sent to the Kursk salient or Russian-occupied Ukraine. NATO's official position, as of yesterday, is that they do not know whether the troops are engaged in the conflict. The US's Secretary General has said that they do not know what Russia/North Korea are intending and that they are monitoring the situation as it unfolds. Russia and North Korea deny the allegations. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  The North Koreans are different from, say, the Ukraine Foreign Legion which is also made up of foreign troops fightig under Ukrainian command. The Foreign Legion is made up of volunteers, whereas the North Korean troops are being sent by their government. (You can not just "volunteer" for a foreign military as a North Korean, especially not at the scale of tens of thousands.) --haha169 (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a particular Russian unit that these North Korean soldiers would be integrated into? Say the "Russian North Korean legion"? If so, we can include that particular unit as opposed to the whole of North Korea.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Vice regent – You can find '11th separate airborne assault brigade of the Russian Armed Forces' in my notes (collapsed) in the citations section with a source attached. They've also been named the 'Special Buryat Battalion'. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Seems to be people are saying support whilst supporting different things, this needs therefore to be a properly formated RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Based off of what I'm reading, everyone is supporting putting North Korea in the infobox, with the primary consensus among the supporters to put it under "Support" alongside Belarus. There are no supporters who oppose doing that. --haha169 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It seems to be that some are saying as a belligerent, one is not the same as the other, this is why we need a formal RFC, why is this a problem? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not saying it's a problem? I just think it's unnecessary. There is a growing consensus for putting DPRK next to Belarus, and the support from the small contingent of supporters who did not specify is not needed for that consensus, based on my reading of the discussion so far. Besides, I don't think any of that contingent would object to DPRK being in the support section anyway. --haha169 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support this should have been added weeks ago, but the legions of editors who's only guiding principle is "America Bad" have stalled it, claiming "no reliable sources" despite there being MULTIPLE. Should be added right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeaponizingArchitecture (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd strongly advise against talking about your fellow editors that way no matter what side of the argument you find yourself on. A word to the wise. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I do think North Korea should be in the infobox per all the sources provided (but I'm not extended-confirmed so just ignore this) but I want to know, would this necessitate any major changes elsewhere in the article, particularly on the lead? Lazesusdasiru (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  A good point. A sentence at the end of paragraph 3 of the lead updating readers of the North Korea situation would probably be recommended. --haha169 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

support "supported by", this level of troop involvement is unprecedented for another state in this war NotQualified (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose until we have reliable sources saying North Korean troops have engaged in combat (e.g firing on Ukrainian positions). If they engage in combat while under North Korean command, they absolutely belong in the infobox.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  What about the "supported" section of the infobox? Like where Belarus is? Rc2barrington (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Rc2barrington wasn't that deprecated [17] VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  See the relevant discussion for this specific article here. --Katangais (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  That discussion applies to Belarus exclusively, as explicitly stated in the RfC question. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. North Korea obviously wasn't mentioned. But that discussion is why the "support" label exists in the infobox despite being deprecated according to the manual of style. --Katangais (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of North Korea in the infobox at present.
  Despite the claims of several participants here, North Korean troops have not been on the frontline. A handful of North Korean officers were present in the vicinity of Donetsk (the city), which is in Russian-occupied Ukraine, but is not on the frontline. Similarly there are reports of DPRK troops present in Kursk and Bryansk Oblasts, near the border, but again not on the frontline. As far as anyone is aware, Ukraine's statement that they have not yet encountered North Korean troops remains true.
  There are thousands – figures vary significantly – of North Korean citizens in far-eastern Russia undergoing training and equipping. The official position of Ukraine and South Korea is that these trainees will be transferred to either the Kursk salient or into Russian-occupied Ukraine by the end of the year, possibly as early as November. The official position of NATO, as of a week ago, is that they have no evidence of North Korean troops presently engaged in the conflict. The official position of the US, as of two days ago, is that they cannot confirm the intent of these troops and that they have not detected them being moved in the direction of Ukraine. That all comes from the sources linked in this discussion.
  There is a strong desire here to speculate on unfolding events before they occur. If North Korean troops appear on the front against Ukraine: add North Korea as a direct belligerent. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Notify me if/when North Korean troops appear in combat on the frontlines. I will update my !vote at that time. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241025001300315?input=tw

This good enough? PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I have read the reply and the attached source. It establishes neither that the troops are in combat, nor that they have arrived on the front lines despite the provocative headline claiming otherwise. This is why WP:HEADLINE exists. Sources have caught up since this was published a few days ago, but as of 29 October, from the Guardian, with AP and Reuters, as provided by Cinderella157 below: The South Koreans showed no evidence of North Korean troops in Kursk, according to European officials who were present for the 90-minute exchange and spoke to AP about the security briefing on condition of anonymity. The US, specifically Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh, is still saying [i]f we see DPRK troops moving in towards the frontlines, they are co-belligerents in the war (emphasis added). Link to source. That's the same position they held last week. I will continue to check-in regularly for updates. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (either as a belligerent or "supported by" for now). I will reiterate my comment above: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts from the article. Belligerency in a war is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. When there is a consensus in good quality secondary sources in their own voice that North Korea is a belligerent, then we might make the same statement in a Wiki voice in the infobox. This might include a consensus in sources (to the same standard) that North Korea is actively engaged in combat operations against Ukraine (ie a smoking gun). Mr rnddude (immediately above) has summarised the situation at present. The discussion to this point has not established either - ie that NK is a belligerent and/or it is actively engaged in combat per a consensus in sources (A handful of North Korean officers were present in the vicinity of Donetsk (the city), which is in Russian-occupied Ukraine, but is not on the frontline nor do the reports evidence that they were engaged in combat).

All of the reports being cited are referring to an intent to become engaged sometime in the future. WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL applies as does WP:SYNTH. While we might report in the body of the article this intent, it is not yet a fact to be placed in the infobox. Adding supported by is deprecated. The addition of Belarus occurred because of a specific RfC. The same level of affirmative consensus would be required to add NK (ie an RfC). As to comments in this section "consensus vote", consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. I would also point out that WP:RUSUKR applies and that non-ECP users may not participate in community discussions. This is not an RfC so such restrictions do not apply. Concomitantly, this discussion cannot be represented to be an RfC. In the first instance, it does not have the same degree of notification. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support (as a belligerent). This states North Korean troops have been deployed to the active combat zones of Kursk Oblast under Russian command. They're active combatants. I'll concede there're still no reports of casualties or direct combat, but that's the only condition left now. PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Answering your question above (This good enough?) - no. The link you give attributes the report (ie not in its own voice) to Ukrainska Pravda, which inturn attributes it to Ukrainian defence intelligence (DIU) which states: "The first North Korean military units ... have arrived in the war zone of the Russo-Ukrainian war. In particular, they were seen in Russia's Kursk Oblast on 23 October 2024. Kursk Oblast might be called a war zone but only perhaps five percent of it has been occupied by Ukraine and there is an awful lot of the oblast that is a very long way from the pointy-end of things (the front lines). The report goes on to say (paraphrasing DIU): ... [North Korean military personnel] have several weeks to train - ie we are still gazing several weeks into the future before this becomes a fact that can be reported in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I'll agree with you that the article isn't stating anything in its own voice. I will still maintain a Support vote on the basis that I do not believe reports of direct NK-Ukraine combat are necessary to include NK at the very least under Belarus as a supporter. PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support but we can't include them right now. They don’t have combat role. If they join in combat in future, then we can add them. Stranger43286 (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is about including them now, not latter. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Support as we have multiple sources in multiple countries ranging from reputable news agencies to governmental representatives confirming North Korean troops are already actively participating in the Russian campaigns. Just stick it under Belarus. Sinclairian (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Support as belligerent, there is a host of sources. North Korean troops were already assisting Russian troops in operating ballistic missile system prior to sending regular troops.XavierGreen (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Maybe we should have a vote for full belligerent or supported by. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this vote proposition Irisoptical (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - As this is an official deployment of North Korean troops and not volunteers it is simply an apparent fact that the North Korean state is in conflict against Ukraine and should thus be included. Labelled as support since their purpose is simply to assist in the Russian goals of the war.

Swipe4004 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Just put them on there and get this over with. Great Mercian (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

we clearly need a vote on supported by or co-beligerent NotQualified (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: Clearly involved in this war, as to co-belligerent or supporter I don't mind where in the infobox they are but they definitely should be.ShovelandSpade (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: North Korean soldiers have been confirmed to be deployed in the Kursk region and thus are involved in the war. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-29/nato-chief-confirms-north-korean-troops-deployed-in-russia-/104529628 Hu753 (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: IMO, it is okay to include North Korea in the info box right now...if there is doubt, there will be enough evidence by the end of this year, so we could decide then. Anyway, it's safe to say, this decision will be made. BASEseaDIVER (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus vote on 'Supported by or Co-belligerent'

there is large consensus on adding the DPRK to the infobox but there isnt consensus on what they should be categorised as (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Supported by seems to be more logical as of what we know to date NotQualified (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Adding to "supported by" is a matter for an RfC - see Template: Infobox military conflict documentation that links to the RfC close on deprecating "supported by". This then has implications re WP:RUSUKR and who may comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also can we not have multiple votes running?s let one (or close one) before starting another, this is just confusing things. Start a proper RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Supported by until there is a reliable source saying that they are in combat Rc2barrington (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@NotQualified Supported by Stranger43286 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reaffirming support as per discussion(s) above. Sinclairian (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Supported by ! It can always be changed to an actual combatant status but right now there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that North Korea has military resources in Russia pertaining to the war Irisoptical (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

We have to wait for three days, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-north-korean-soldiers-putin-zelensky-latest-news-b2636015.html, for them to be deployed. Then we can add them when they are. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There is not a single first-class source telling us that North Korea has active troops in combat against Ukrainian troops. There is no need to be in a hurry, if this happens we will have sources that will show us this fact.--Mhorg (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's people like you that are only dragging out this already long discussion. Great Mercian (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Great Mercian is right.

  I have filed a report on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Rc2barrington (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  As others have pointed out, we just need to wait for a few more days, and more solid and definitive sources should appear. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  The New York Times has said it. The U.S. military has said it. They are there to aid Russia. They haven't been involved in combat, so? They should still be in the "supported by" section in the infobox. Rc2barrington (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Rc2barrington Can we really call the US military a reliable source? Genabab (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes! That's the most reliable source in the world! Rc2barrington (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Rc2barrington Do you have any evidence of this? We wouldn't treat Russian army claims at face value. No reason to treat America like this. Genabab (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  First of all, my "most reliable source in the world" was a bit exaggerated. However, the U.S. military is considered a very reliable source under Wikipedia standards. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Where is this stated? Genabab (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Don't really get your continued opposition here as North Korea has already been added to the infobox. Rc2barrington (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well now there are, and Rutte's statement has been added to the article. The word "combat" has now been directly connected to North Korean soldiers and Ukraine's army, which is what many editors here have been insisting on, so are we done with the excuses? TylerBurden (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  The report from Nato (in Politico [18]) is only confirming the earlier Ukrainian DIU report in Ukrainska Pravda on 25 October [19] of NK troops in Kursk oblast. Neither report states more precisely where (it is a big place with awful lot of it a long way from the pointy end). The earlier report states that they still have weeks to train. The report from NATO states North Korean troops are now in — or ready for — combat - ie they may or may not be. Their status is still speculative. As I have said before, claiming a state is a belligerent is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Answering the question above (This good enough?) - the answer is still no. We are still crystal-balling. This issue is like taking a long trip with a car full of kids - we're not there yet but we soon will be (probably). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  PS - Here is the statement by Rutte and here is the transcript. Rutte does not mention the combat readiness of the NK troops or whether they may or may not be engaged in combat. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This report in The Guardian is clearly stating that NK is not yet engaged in a way that would make them a belligerent. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

SO the weekend is now over, and reports of them seeing combat? Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"North Korean soldiers assisting Moscow have been deployed to Kursk, the Russian region partly controlled by Ukrainian troops, NATO chief Mark Rutte said Monday." https://www.politico.eu/article/north-korean-troops-are-now-in-kursk-to-help-russia-nato-confirms/ 79.163.164.129 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Supproted by Now seems applicable given this recent news. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A general consensus has been reached. Rc2barrington (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• with the deployment at some scale to Kursk and the previous casualties I think we are moving into supported territory. Co-belligerent probably needs to wait until RS start talking about direct trigger pulling. Obviously with the directly of moment we can probably just wait for things to become less ambiguous. Assuming we do reach the stage of Co-belligerent we will also need to be updating Commanders and leaders (probably with Kim Yong Bok but we shall see).©Geni (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Supported by per everything I said in the vote above. Adam8410 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Supported by, at least for now.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Add without descriptor
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Russia Donetsk PR Luhansk PR North Korea Supported by: Belarus	Ukraine

Add without descriptor both supported by and co belligerent seem unnecessary to me, North Korea is the first country besides Russia and Ukraine to send troops into the war, and their flag should be added alongside Russia. Ecrusized (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is about what subheader to place them under in the infobox, they can't be placed in both. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is what I mean by without descriptor. Ecrusized (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is impossible as we already have two descriptors, so where do we place them? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't understand how a discussion works. Just because a single user suggested two parameters doesn't mean that everyone is obliged by them. Ecrusized (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If I may politely step in, because you are talking past each other. There is only one parameter available: 'combatant#'. The 'combatant#' parameter when invoked creates a 'belligerents' heading and lists parties to a conflict beneath that in its respective # column. The 'supported by' section is a written-in sub-heading. The term 'co-belligerent' is meant in its plain English sense. If there are two or more parties to a conflict listed in a single 'combatant' parameter they are definitionally co-belligerents. For example, the infobox of First World War lists the British, French, Russian, etc empires as co-belligerents on the combatant1 side and the German, Austrian, Ottoman, etc empires as co-belligerents on the combatant2 side. In some conflicts a combatant3+ side may also exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal, though we should perhaps a time descriptor would be best (Since ...) Dazzling4 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Supported by, albeit with a note similar to Belarus explaining the extent of involvement. --Katangais (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

First North Korean soldiers deployed inside Ukraine 29 October - CNN reports

Just highlighting this since its the first reliable confirmation of North Korean troops entering Ukraine. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/29/politics/north-korean-troops-ukraine/index.html Ecrusized (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"according to two western intelligence officials," not an official statement or named individual "A US official said the US can not yet corroborate reports that North Koreans troops are already inside Ukraine.", its a claim. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a fact, as reported by CNN. You can dismiss the earth being round by calling it a claim. WP:NOTGETTINGIT Ecrusized (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No, if it was a fact they would not have put "according to", they would have put it in their words, and not as an (anonymously) attributed claim. Please read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I going crazy or was North Korea added to the infobox and then removed? I thought a general consensus has been reached and @Slatersteven you cannot just agree and then change your mind like that because 99% of editors agree that North Korea should be in the infobox as North Korean troops are in Russia to fight Ukraine, it has been confirmed they are there to fight Ukrainian troops. So it shouldn't even be on the "supported by" section it should be listed as a co-belligerent.

My source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/10/29/north-korea-elite-troops-russia-ukraine-war/ Rc2barrington (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

it was there and removed NotQualified (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3949781/north-korean-presence-underscores-russias-struggle-pentagon-press-secretary-says/

"Initial indications are that these troops will be employed in some type of infantry role," Huhbilly (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

North Korea was added as a belligerent, and we are still discussing whether to add it as a supporter, until the discussion closes it is not agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why it was added to the infobox before the discussion was closed. There is clearly no consensus. Consensus on Wikipedia isn't formed by a simple majority of votes, it's formed by reasoned, policy-based arguments. A dozen new accounts copying-and-pasting the same sentence and not engaging with policy or their opposition is worthless "discussion". Yue🌙 19:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached. I think we should add it as a supporter until we see a RS that says they have been engaged in combat. Don’t keep engaging in disruptive editing please. Rc2barrington (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3951961/us-south-korea-concerned-north-koreans-may-soon-fight-against-ukrainians/

new information that may be contributed. Rc2barrington (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What that "they may soon fight", how is that new? Other than pointing out how so far they have e not in fact been in combat? Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wounded North Korean soldier captured by Ukraine

More evidence of North Korean's being actively involved in combat, following CNN report that confirmed they were in Ukraine. I don't understand why some users like @SlaterSteven: are still removing North Korea from infobox. Ecrusized (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Becasue we do not yet have an agreement, so lets have a close, and an uninvolved admin make a decision as to what consensus is? Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

And X is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Per the latest comments from the US "they may soon fight", ergo, they have not yet fought. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That still moves them into supported by. Its fast moving situation and while the non RS evidence is leaning towards NK trigger pullers we may have to wait a bit for that to covered by RS.©Geni (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is why we need to shut up and instead leave it a couple of days (and not post more links that do not say they are in combat or are not RS) and ask for a close, so an uninvolved admin can judge who has consensus (which is based on the strength of argument, not the number of votes). Its not that hard. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What for. Is anyone seriously arguing for the not supported by position at this point?©Geni (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea, as there are a few "lets wait and see" comments, so maybe they might well decide to object, thus we do this properly and no one has a valid complaint. Otherwise (yes) they might revert, also we still have people arguing for "combatant", so we need a firm close so no one thinks (as they have clearly done recently) we have consensus for that (unless, of course, the closer decides we do. So we need to know what the consensus is actually for. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a poster example of where WP:BOLD is appropriate Placeholderer (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that "supported by" is deprecated in military infoboxes and including it would call for a strong consensus that it explicitly appear under this heading. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As if to make my point, yet another attempted to add them as a Beligerant, which is explicitly objected to. And which many users who even support adding them have not supported. Why is it that no one seems to want to make the edit that might actually have consensus?Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh? A quick skim reveals almost no one objecting to North Korea being added to the info box. You are now entering the realm of status-quo stonewalling, because otherwise, people such as myself will notice the absence and try to add it in. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven is referring to the edit that included North Korea in the infobox but not under the "Supporter" section, which is the route that I believe has reached consensus. There is no consensus to include them without the qualifier. There are some editors who argue that there needs to be a clearer consensus or a formal RfC to include them under Supporter because that field is deprecated, but I fail to see the necessity of redoing this long thread all over again. --haha169 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I added it under the 'supported by' term for now[20]. This can be changed if consensus wants it too. Otherwise, I don't see any non- disruptive reasoning behind changing the infobox again. 'Wait a while until this discussion inevitably dies, save it to a DVD and replay it in a month' is not quite the best resolution to this. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Belarus appears under "supported by" because it is effectively a co-belligerent but has not actively engaged in combat. An RfC determined that these reasons were a case to over-ride the deprecation of "supported by". The Guardian (here) would confirm that NK is not yet considered a co-belligerent. Its inclusion would not be equivalent to Belarus. The reasons being given for including NK in any way fall to future actions that would make it a co-belligerent and are therefore crystal-balling. Consensus is not a vote. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I am well aware that consensus is not a majority vote. I said as much earlier in this same thread. But the arguments and sources to support a "supported by" qualifier for North Korea's inclusion in the infobox are strong and ongoing (not crystaling at all). The provision, integration, deployment of troops, officers, and even high level military officials into Russia's invasion force is unprecedented, and a step higher involvement than even Belarus. RS are clear that these troops are already in Kursk and occupied Ukraine, so they are directly involved in invasion-related activity. Again, there is no crystaling here at all - this is all current and supported by RS. We have reached a consensus based on these facts to include North Korea under the supported by subheader in the infobox. --haha169 (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Belarus has acted in a way that (per sources) would cause us to consider it a co-belligerent but not a combatant. It would appear that NK intends to become a combatant but to this point in time, it has not acted in a way that would cause it to be considered a co-belligerent. We have commentary (per The Guardian) that it has not yet acted as a co-belligerent. Therefore, its actions are not yet comparable to Belarus and the reasons why Belarus is in the infobox. We are getting ahead of ourselves by presenting NK in the infobox based on a reported intention. Fantastic Mr. Fox, we may/will add NK to the infobox if and when it acts on the reported intention. That we may need to have a discussion sooner or later (or again) is not a good reason for acting prematurely. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You're the only one opposing this. Even Slatersteven who was a main opposer to this is not opposing this anymore. You can voice your opinion but you cannot violate a consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I endorse this. @Slatersteven yes we can add a note Rc2barrington (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that North Korea has already been added. This discussion can be closed then.. right? Rc2barrington (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know why this X page is not opening for me but it isn't. Regardless, social media is not a reliable source. Furthermore, I am not seeing any follow-up in news sources regarding this. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Note

We will need a note explaining North Korea's situation is different from anyone else. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The wording of the note is vague for no reason. "North Korea has been widely reported to be supporting Russia" so has Japan supported Ukraine by sending humanitarian and financial aid. It is necessary to explicitly mention that North Korea has sent troops to fight the Ukrainian army in the side of Russia. I also find it interesting how the gist of the note is supported by one single citation but that North Korea has denied support is supported by three, as if the most exceptional thing needing a strong backing isn't a third country having sent troops to the frontline after over two years. Super Ψ Dro 22:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus See talk at Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox where the editor that added this has failed to provide a reason for going against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. TylerBurden (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian official says Ukrainians and North Koreans have engaged in combat (AP)

According to the Associated Press, the Ukrainian defense minister has reported engagements between Ukrainian and North Korean units. Notably, this claim cannot be independently confirmed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Citations

Citations
Notes References

RfC on inclusion of North Korea in infobox

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.

---

Should North Korea be included alongside Russia in the infobox? If so, should it be under "Supported by" or as a co-belligerent? PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 19:01, 27 October 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.

The article as written now violates wiki-policy Neutral Point of View

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view It is one-sided, completely ignores the viewpoint (and more importantly PREDICTIONS) of Realism (international relations) experts, such as John Mearsheimer. When I read this article, I get an impression, that it implies that Putin has schizophrenia, the demons told him to "conquer Ukraine", and he is doomed to fail. When I read Mearsheimer, I get an impression, that this invasion was a rational choice, and that Russia is going to win this war= which is exactly, what is happening now. Please do not call Mearsheimer a "fringe theorist" = he is the only ONE , who predicted the inevitability of this invasion and Russian victory. Regardless, whether you believe Mearsheimer or not, wiki-policy requires a 'neutral point of view" and alternative views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article (what wording should be changed to what?). Give reliable sourcs. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

On February 25, 2022 (on the 2nd day of the War) I wrote in article Russo-Ukrainian_relations a paragraph about John Mearsheimer, who predicted no later than September 27, 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4), that Russia will have no other choice , but to "wreck Ukraine", if Ukraine tries to join NATO. That paragraph was deleted 2 days later. My writing about the realist theory of Russian invasion survived, and it was expanded by others here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Mearsheimer&action=edit&section=23 . Walter Tau (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not only did Mearsheimer not predict a Russian invasion (he said Putin wasn't stupid enough to invade), plenty of people did warn that Russia was planning to invade. BeŻet (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote originally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Ukrainian_War&action=edit&section=42

United States

As early as 2014 American political science professor John Mearsheimer predicted, that eastward NATO expansion will lead to an inevitable confrontation with Russia. In fact, Mearsheimer stated, Russia had only one option to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO: it is by "wrecking Ukraine". The main security threat to Russia in such scenario is, that if the NATO launches cruise missiles with nuclear warheads from Shostka area in Northern Ukraine toward Moscow, it will be technically impossible for Russia to shut down most of such missiles. In his 2014 article Mearsheimer pointed out a similarity between Russia's concerns about Ukraine joining NATO and the US concern over deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962:

Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West.

I want to restore this edit, perhaps with some updates/modification to reflect what happens now.

That was 12 years ago. (In that time Ukraine has not entered into a military alliance with NATO, nor was it about to in 2020. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

In reply to Slatersteven previous comment, I post the following:

I think all the trouble in this case really started in April 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Walter Tau (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

So even further back in time, and still not acted upon. So why now? Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems, that Slatersteven did not watch the youtube video I referred to above. I understand that. I prefer to read also. For this reason I quote this: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/causes-and-consequences-of-the-ukraine-crisis.national-interest.pdf The short answer is, that Ukrainian presidents before Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not push hard for Ukrainian membership in NATO, because they were getting cheap/discounted gas and oil +other perks from Russia. Zelenskyy clearly stated, that joining NATO is a goal of his presidency.

Is my writing here a revelation for some folks? Could it be because mainstream media in the USA (where I live) suppress alternative views on this war? One can, perhaps, call Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter trumpists and their comments about this war biased, but they still deserve to be mentioned as alternative viewpoints. On the other hand, John Mearsheimer is heads above those two parrots: he is a respected (possibly the most accoladed in the World) political scientist, his works on this subject have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Thus, one cannot in good faith call John Mearsheimer (and Gilbert Doctorow) "fringe theorists". Also, you can watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aNMOEQ0248 (I know it is too long) and decide for yourself which of the two panelists only repeats slogans and which speaks facts and logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs)

In the case of Macgregor, I’ve actually met the guy once at an event so I might as well go on the record with my impression of him. Let me tell you he is a bitter SOB. While of his criticisms may be valid, he’s undoubtedly carrying a massive chip on his shoulder toward the defense and foreign policy establishment as a result of never getting a star, which happened because it’s not the 19th century. He comes off as very single-minded about whichever issue that comes up and seems to believe that we would do better to straight up cooperate with Russia (obviously a decade plus too late bro, although in the 50+ year timescale he’s not entirely wrong). Naturally, he has spoken extensively about Ukraine but his comments, from what I recall, were actually quite boring inasmuch as the points he was proposing could have been argued much more cogently by a normal person (something his segment of the right wing is short on at the top level).

I will say he seems much smarter than Tucker and the other Fox dudes, but he clearly has massive cognitive biases which he leans into in order to get his bread. I used to think characters like him only existed in books. Feel free to quote me on all this. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Walter Tau (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)RadioactiveBoulevardier Thank you for your note. You noticed, that I did not put Macgregor and Ritter into the same category, where I put Mearsheimer. Forget about the parrots (there are many more anti-Putin parrots than pro-Putin parrots), and focus on Mearsheimer. OK? Do you have any problem with putting a sentence about his views into the first paragraph of the article, and a paragraph or two somewhere downstream? Walter Tau (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well honestly I’d prefer to let time pass to allow the actualité to clarify, but given that even now many people still believe contemporaneous propaganda vis-à-vis WW1… well anyway, WP’s content is nominally governed by certain policies and guidelines and if enough editors believe due weight means that an opinion piece by the wife of the Polish foreign minister in The Atlantic is a dozen times more weighty than an editorial in a “peripheral” country’s newspaper of record, they’re going to carry the day using mass.

My own opinions on the specific issues frequently discussed here are well known. Unless there is a potentially productive RfC, I’m a busy man.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't include views of incredibly controversial people such as Mearsheimer into the first paragraph of the article. In fact, we don't need to include anyone's opinion in the first paragraph at all. You could potentially make a case to include his opinion somewhere in the article, but I believe that's still WP:UNDUE. BeŻet (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Fatuous argument - sub-launched nuclear missiles from off Murmansk are impossible to stop and would hit St. Petersburg and Moscow long before a cruise missle would, and Russia is very aware of that. Anyway, this is getting very WP:FORUM'sh ... 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:58AE:75C2:C2FE:EFC1 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you say about Mearsheimer's analogy between Cuban Missile Crisis and potential deployment of US nuclear missiles in Ukraine? Putin's propaganda?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 16:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Lets see, the Russians did deploy nuclear missiles to Cuba, but the USA had not deployed nuclear missiles to Ukraine. Also (as far as I know) they are yet to deploy them to the Baltic State or Poland. In fact the only places that have American nuclear missiles are the UK, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. So, no its not the same thing at all. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "potential deployment" does a lot of work here, because, guess what, they weren't deployed. So his analogy is incredibly silly. Meanwhile, Russia is believed to have nukes in Kaliningrad. BeŻet (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

To Slatersteven. 4 points:

1) I quote Mearsheimer: "it does not matter what you think. The only thing that matters is what Vladimir Putin thinks". 2) Do you know how much diarrhea (both verbal and literal) was produced in the Pentagon and the White House, when they discovered, that the Russkiys deployed nukes in Cuba? Kennedy agreed to pull out American nukes from Turkey just to get Khrushchev to withdraw his from Cuba. And, BTW, Americans violated that agreement- there are American nukes in Turkey today, but there are no Russian nukes in Cuba. This is another proof of Mearsheimer's statement: "Americans cannot be trusted". 3) I would like to know YOUR REASONING behind Putin's invasion of Ukraine. But please read/watch Mearsheimer and others first

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/causes-and-consequences-ukraine-crisis-203182
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00235-7  ,

and tell me which explanation they did not rebuke properly. 4) Poland is not as close to Moscow as Ukraine is. But if Americans try to install nukes in Latvia, Putin will nuke Latvia before it happens.Walter Tau (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Walter Tau To bring this somewhat back onto discussing NPOV and value of including Mearsheimer, it's worth noting that the fact someone predicted a war does not automatically make that person notable in the scope of that war. Thousands of people make wrong predictions every day, and it's undue weight to give relatively unknown people who happen to guess something correctly a spotlight. Even people who are extremely well-known don't get spotlights when it's not useful for the article— even Otto von Bismarck's prediction of the risk of European war coming from something in the Balkans is not mentioned in either the World War I article or the Causes of World War I article, though it's mentioned in his own article. It's definitely worth covering Mearsheimer's views on his own article, but probably not worth including here Placeholderer (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Placeholderer My suggestion is not about Mearsheimer's views specifically. I claim, that the article as written violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy= means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, ALL the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Please note, that I do not insist on adding anything about Douglas Macgregor's and Scott Ritter's views (although I support others, if they want to write about them), but I cannot disregard John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and other political scientists (e.g. in China). Also, can someone explain to stupide moi IN ONE SENTENCE, what is the reason for Putin's invasion, that is stated in the current version of the article, besides Putin's schizophrenia?

@Slatersteven Walter Tau (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no authoritative answer as to why, as no one can know what is in his mind, only what he has said his reasons are (and people's reactions to those claims). So we do not offer any real judgment in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We already give Putin's excuses, this is not about what he says, but what someone else says. But it does not alter two facts, A. The USA did not in fact invade Cuba over the missiles, and B there were no plans to place missiles in Ukraine. So the Cuba comparison is fundamentally flawed, they are not the same. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Walter Tau (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note, that I do not insist on expanding the section about Putin's speeches, au contraire I think it is too long now. And to answer your points:

1) US did invade Cuba and by the time Khruschev placed nukes in Cuba Uncle Sam learned his lesson, that another invasion may fail as well. US did not invade Cuba with regular troops, because Cuban missile crisis was resolved by diplomacy, but as you know, John F. Kennedy's generals seriously considered nuking Cuba. So, your statement "The USA did not in fact invade Cuba over the missiles" is an example of WP:STRAWMAN.

2) I shall quote Mearsheimer again: "it does not matter what you think. The only thing, that matters, is what Vladimir Putin thinks".

3) Your statement "So the Cuba comparison is fundamentally flawed, they are not the same" violates WP:APR. You need to provide reliable, independent references to support it.

Respectably, Walter Tau (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We say what Putin thinks. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

So as (literally) we already include what Putin's excuses are this really seems to be going nowhere, so will drop out with a firm NO. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You do not know, what Putin thinks. You only know, what he says. And what he says does not make any sense. I have not seen an answer to my request from above:

Can someone explain to stupide moi IN ONE SENTENCE, what is the reason for Putin's invasion, that is stated in the current version of the article, besides Putin's schizophrenia?

As I said, I would like to see the section about "Putin's excuses" significantly reduced in size, and have a section about Measheimer added. Walter Tau (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is my personal analysis of the situation based on what I know about Putin, Ukraine, and history.

Ukraine hates Russia's guts. It used to be a part of Russia for a long time, but Ukraine became independent in 1991 after the Soviet Union dissolved. A good chunk of the enmity between Ukraine and Russia can be attributed to the Holodomor, where Stalin engineered a man-made famine. While the actual goals of the Holodomor are still debated, most Ukrainians would be heavily on the side that believes "the famine was deliberately engineered by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement", to quote from the article.

As for Putin, he's basically got Soviet Union nostalgic. He sees Ukraine as land that rightfully belongs to Russia, but he also sees this as an opportunity to test the West's willingness to interfere with a hostile nuclear superpower. When you have complete control of national media, it's very easy for Putin to justify the invasion to his own people by saying "we're invading this country because there are neo-Nazis there and they are a threat to Russia."

If Putin didn't have nuclear weapons, I would say that the West is making the same mistake they did after WW2 by adopting a policy of appeasement. However, because of Putin's mental state and position of power, we cannot predict his tipping point. While the West is not willing to risk mutually assured destruction, Putin has nuclear weapons and the desire to show off Russia's strength. As it stands right now, that's why the West is mostly acting indirectly: economic sanctions on Russia, military supplies and relief aid for Ukraine, etc. Boots on the ground means officially declaring war with Russia, and war with Russia means risking the big red button. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What's this "schizophrenia" you're talking about? This is not discussed in the article, it's something you came up with, so please explain what you mean by that. BeŻet (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

To [[User:BeŻet|BeŻet]: My term schizophrenia is a synonym of what Sirocco745 calls "Putin's mental state".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talk • contribs) 13:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to tank Sirocco745 for joining the discussion. Let me try to rebuke their arguments:

Ukraine hates Russia's guts. 

>> This statement is not quite accurate. I am 25% Russian and 25% Ukrainian, I have relatives in both countries, and I can understand both languages. Plus, I have several Ukrainian and Russian friends/coworkers in Boston, MA where I live. My conclusion is that there are 2 Ukraines: West+Central- which was historically under a long Lithuanian -Austrian -Polish rule- is more bitter toward Russia, and East+South- which did not have many Ukrainians until it was annexed from the Ottoman Empire by Catherine the Great- is more friendly toward Russia. For this reason, it makes sense for Putin to annex Novorossiya and to [[|wreck|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4]] the rest. Also, more Ukrainian refugees go to Russia, than to any other country.[[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_refugee_crisis#:~:text=The%20countries%20receiving%20the%20largest,refugees%20from%20Ukraine%20%22phenomenal%22.]] This does not sound like a lot of hate, does it?

It used to be a part of Russia for a long time, but Ukraine became independent in 1991 after the Soviet Union dissolved. A good chunk of the enmity between Ukraine and Russia can be attributed to the Holodomor, where Stalin engineered a man-made famine. While the actual goals of the Holodomor are still debated, most Ukrainians would be heavily on the side that believes "the famine was deliberately engineered by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement", to quote from the article. 

>> I agree with you here.

As for Putin, he's basically got Soviet Union nostalgic. He sees Ukraine as land that rightfully belongs to Russia, but he also sees this as an opportunity to test the West's willingness to interfere with a hostile nuclear superpower. 

>>This is where we disagree: Mearsheimer rebuked every one of these arguments here: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/files/causes-and-consequences-of-the-ukraine-crisis.national-interest.pdf . Please let me know, if there are any arguments, that you presented, which have not been rebuked by Mearhsheimer in that article. The summary of his view is:

“Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West.” 

I also disagree with a phrase “incredibly controversial people such as Mearsheimer” by USER:BeŻet . According to Scopus on 2024-10-31 John Mearsheimer (Scopus ID=6603187263) has a Hirsch index of 21, which makes him #1 political scientist in the World. His 2014 article “Why the ukraine crisis is the west's fault” alone has received 622 citations, which places it into the top 1% of ALL (areas of science, engineering and humanities) publications in Scopus for that year.[[ https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84906821111&origin=AuthorEval&zone=hIndex-DocumentList]]

I want to spell out my position clearly:  Mearsheimer’s prediction-turned-into-reality is the only logical explanation for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that I have heard. Even if you disagree with it, he is not some marginal like Scott Ritter and Douglas Macgregor, and his views MUST BE DESCRIBED in the main body of article according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Also, I would be most grateful, if someone can explain to me the difference between US-lead 2003 invasion of Iraq and Russian Invasion of Ukraine, as well as between Putin’s lies about Neonazis in Ukraine and Collin Powell’s lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Walter Tau (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Some comments: This article about the invasion itself doesn't need to cover anyone's perspective on why the war started. It should, and I think currently does, focus on the war instead of political science. There's no section in the article about "reasons for the war" apart from where it's key to the subject, for example, the announcement of the "Special Military Operation". While analysts are mentioned, like "Analyst Vladimir Socor called Putin's 2014 speech following the annexation a 'manifesto of Greater-Russia irredentism'", it's within the context of specific topics.

However, the Russo-Ukrainian War article which you had edited is a different situation. There, there's much more talk about perspectives on stuff (though I'm not sure that I agree it should be that way), and I think it would be appropriate to consider including Mearsheimer's views there. As such I propose moving this discussion over to the Russo-Ukrainian War article. I think that article does have some problems worth addressing (there are some tags I'd put in myself but don't have clearance yet).

We should also heed IP's warning that this is heading into WP:FORUM, and if we do move over try to talk about specific proposed additions/removals. Placeholderer (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Placeholderer. This is the first good idea in this discussion chain. I will do, what you suggested. Also, I want to note that the current version of this article Russian invasion of Ukraine seems unnecessary long. It can benefit from a short 1-paragraph summary at the top, followed by a more extended (4-5 paragraphs) summary, and then the main body text.Walter Tau (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So for those who don't want to read this wall of text, Walter Tau does not like that Wikipedia has described Putin's actually stated reasons for invading Ukraine as covered in WP:RS, wants to reduce content that makes him look "schizophrenic", and replace it with "rational" reasons for the invasion outlined by John Mearsheimer. I think you have said your piece, and several people have disagreed with you, so there is no need to WP:BLUDGEON the page.

Wikipedia follows a neutrality policy of WP:DUE weight, you don't seem to take this into account in your arguments, you're going off on personal opinion and a single (controversial) source. So if there are any neutrality issues here, you should probably look in the mirror. TylerBurden (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the unexpected but greatly appreciated response, @Placeholderer! It's a quite interesting read. I myself am no expert on Ukraine and Russia and the history between the two countries, I'm Australian and only just finished school recently, so I'm pretty inexperienced but still very interested in world history. My original response was me synthesising the knowledge I had passively gained over the course of the conflict from the news here in Australia. The "two Ukraines" idea you mention in your response honestly makes sense, and I understand it. As for "more Ukrainian refugees go to Russia, than to any other country", that could be largely due to their physical closeness making it that much easier to get to Russia.

The part which you responded to by citing that article by Mearsheimer? I was reading through the article, and it's genuinely interesting to read the message that mainstream media hasn't been broadcasting. I myself am undecided as to which side is the most correct, but it is incredibly important to hear other opinions and theories that don't align with popular consensus. If mainstream thought was the be all and end all, then we'd still believe the Earth was at the center of the universe and that the four humours were the answer to why we got sick.

Mearsheimer makes some logically sound arguments, especially with the West's involvement and provocation. We should keep in mind that while it might feel like centuries ago, the Cold War actually ended only 33 years ago with the collapse of the USSR at the very end of 1991, and they were a legitimate threat to world safety. While I disagree with Putin's political methods, I understand his fear of the West and that things are not as black and white as we would like to think. I personally never stopped to consider the position Putin is in, and now that I'm remembering my Modern History course, I understand his motives more and more.

The main reason the USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Act in 1939 with Nazi Germany is because they didn't want to fight a war on two fronts. It gave them their only powerful "ally" during a time when the world was against them, and it kept Russia secure from a two front war. With Ukraine readying itself to join the EU or NATO, the West could then certainly use it as a platform to wreak havoc on Russia if they so chose to do so. I guess for Australia, the equivalent would be if China forged an alliance with Tasmania or New Zealand, which would be catastrophic for national security here.

With this in mind, I can certainly understand Putin's reasons for military action from a national security point of view. I definitely disagree with the methods he's used to stay in power and the ways he's used his power to control Russian media and freedom of speech, but I can't fully disagree with the national security train of thought presented here. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we please close this discussion? WP:FORUM 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:44A5:7676:9720:9047 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2024

Showing North Korea as a belligerent country along with Russian camp

The involvement of North Korean forces have been confirmed by both sides as a participant in the war and deployed alongside the Russian force, it should be added as a belligerent group in the info box, or at least a supporting role in the war similar to the Belarus.Sheherherhers (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Sheherherhers (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing North Korea above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't added North Korea as Co-Belligerent it has been confirmed by Nato also Ukraine section should have a "supported by" list of western countries that has given military aid to ukraine (i.e usa, uk, france, germany, poland etc) Amanahmad111000 (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We are still discussing North Korea in a thread above. and read the FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

(Edit Request) Iran is indirectly involved in supporting Russia

Iran supplies Russia with weapons and missiles but Iran denied that, so could you put Iran into alleged supporters on infobox?

Sources: (CNBC), (Kyiv Independent), (Al Jazeera) 178.81.55.110 (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, see FAQ Q4. We do not list arms suppliers in the infobox. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

But north Korea also denied sending troops 178.81.55.110 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And Russia denied for a long time that this was even a war, authoritarian state lies don't hold much WP:WEIGHT. TylerBurden (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but lots of nations are supplying weapons, that does not mean they should be included. Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Russia is not an authoritarian state. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 14:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It is even according to Wikipedia's own article on it, Russia, but I suppose that is also all made-up fake news like everything else you don't like. TylerBurden (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What North Korea states doesn't matter - what sources state does. Cortador (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

These are fake, made-up sources and you know that: Kursk is not even part of the Republic of Ukraine lol GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 14:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

with all the ANI warnings on your user page, why are you continuing to be non-prodcutive/disruptive? Either bring a Reliable Source for comment for the betterment of the article, or stop! 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:2850:5700:1526:2FCD (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

They are asking for a block at this point, if a sensible administrator could step in so that no one needs to waste time on them creating an WP:AN/I report that'd be great. TylerBurden (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

We are not discussing Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

In the first paragraph, change "largest conflict since World War II" to "largest armed conflict since World War II", as the height of the Cold War would be larger than the invasion, but no direct fighting took place. ArtemisDay (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have added "armed" as you proposed (but be mindful this edit is subject to reversion); however the pdf file has not been sourced. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect caption to map of Donbas

The map of Donbas in the "Fall of Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk" sub-subsection is described as "Military control around Donbas as of 24 March 2023", but the map shows the situation as of mid 2024. WikiEnjoyer123 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we add North Korea as ally of Russia

Yes I know an old request exists but now Ukrainian and North Korean troops are actually engaged in combat [21] Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Its still an unconfirmed claim. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They've confirmed NK combat troops are there and have captured some, some have defected, and many have been killed. The Pentagon estimates a max of about 12,000. If you know where to look on the web, you can find photos taken in the Kursk oblast of dead NK troops in Russian livery - there are certain features that Koreans have that east-Siberians do not, so they are Korean. Not a pretty sight. 2603:6080:21F0:AB60:7166:413E:158E:38D9 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are not sources that say it is confirmed only claimed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(Edit Request) Gennady Zhidko died over a year ago

Gennady Zhidko died over a year ago. It should be acknowledged with a cross or other mark symbolizing death next to his name in infobox. Yutyo77764 (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The cross is for people were KIA. Zhidko died in Moscow. While he is dead, there's other conflicts that list leaders that died before the war concluded, e.g. the WWII article lists FDR as a main leader.

I wouldn't be opposed to removing him if we want to keep it to leaders which are actually alive and/or active, but I'd like some input from other editors. Cortador (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador If so, then I opt for removing Zhidko's name from infobox altogether and have a name of someone acting in his place today Yutyo77764 (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Rename?

I've been thinking if the current "Russian invasion of Ukraine" remains adequate to describe the article since Ukraine occupied a few Russian territory since 2024. Maybe something like Russia-Ukraine War (2022-Present) or Second phase of Russia-Ukraine War would be more adequate? MaGioZal (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's already an article called Russo-Ukraine War which describes the broader conflict between the countries since 2014. While it is true that part of the war takes place on Russian territory now, the majority of the fighting has been on Ukrainian territory. Also, the name doesn't have to be fully descriptive e.g. large parts of the Battle of France took place in the Low Countries, but sources settled on "Battle of France" nevertheless. Cortador (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

Addition to the belligerents by moving North Korea from the 'Supported By' to an active combatant following the inclusion of North Korean troops into Ukraine.<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vkqwe9wwdo></https://apnews.com/article/south-korea-north-korea-troops-russia-ukraine-9ee96dc1d4f07ac0813c698e6873f96b><//https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/05/world/europe/north-korea-russia-ukraine-kursk.html) Augerthefurry (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Do any of these say they are in combat? Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TylerBurden (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To add this this, we would need the sources actually confirming their participation in combat, from what I can see, this is not the case with these sources. TylerBurden (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)