Talk:List of wars involving Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List format / content[edit]

Could editors please see and contribute to the discussion here:

Talk:List of wars involving Great Britain#List format / content

Thanks. David (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um[edit]

...the Cold War? can it at least be mentioned? 50.54.221.0 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current electronic wars against major nations--is this covered anywhere? There are no more "wars" in the traditional sense, but recent Russian interference and hacking are just as, if not more, serious. Avocats (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing wars?[edit]

Is the Russian military involvement in the baltic independence movements a war? January_Events_(Lithuania), The_Barricades

How about the Russian intelligence hacking efforts? They appear to be widespread and aggressive. Avocats (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list is missing continuation war, Russia attacked Finland in 25 jun 1941

Modifying modern Russia section[edit]

It's unnecessary to list all the people's republics within the Novorossiya confederation. It's also unnecessary to list 'Georgian government' when all other belligerents are referred to by their country. Also, the war in Ukraine is a war, not a conflict. Also, the North Ossetia paramilitary name should be abbreviated. Does anyone object to these changes? DylanLacey (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


World War II starting in 1941 ?[edit]

According to this article it seems that World War II started in 1941. According to the vast majority of historians, and also Wikipedia, World War II started in September 1939 with the nazi/communist attack on Poland. Since the Soviet Union changed side in the war in 1941, from then on fighting on the same side as the democratic nations, one practical way of presenting this, considering the unique position of the Soviet Union, might be to divide World War II into two sections, before and after June 1941 respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.224.158 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1941 refers to the period when the Soviet Union entered World War II as part of the Allied Powers. The Soviet Union was never on the side of Germany. They signed a non-aggression pact. DylanLacey (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why France as Ally and Thailand as Axis?[edit]

Thailand has been occupied by Japan in 1941, why it is as "Axix" in WWII section?--5.228.251.127 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the War in Afghanistan Considered a "stalemate"?[edit]

The USSR didn't achieve its military goals and the DRA fell after the Soviet withdrawal. That's pretty much the same situation as the US in Vietnam, and that's listed as a "defeat" on the list of US wars. There should be a consistent standard here throughout Wikipedia. JohnM.Kelly (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, these are both defeats for occupying forces and should be listed similarly. No Matter How Dark (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnM.Kelly: Consider reading WP:OR. It was not a defeat but withdrawal. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have RS for 'defeat'? If not, it's problematic and I'd have to qualify the use of that description as OR as I don't see how it meets with any of the criteria for WP:SYNTHNOT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: Keeping it withdrawal per WP:BRD. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd accept 'withdrawal'. I know that it's used as a parallel to the Vietnam War, but the circumstances were far more complex, and certainly there was no period of stability for any relevant period of time suggesting the marking of the end of war in that region, full stop. On those grounds, I don't see how Wikipedia can ascribe 'defeat' in the same sense that the Vietnam War was a US defeat. There are certainly situations where being consistent in the use of terminology is of value for the sake of parity, but this isn't one of them (again invoking WP:SYNTH). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When was there a stoppage in fighting? The article on the Afghan Civil War talks about fighting continuing in the spring of 1989 right after the Soviet withdrawal in February, and in 1990. The siege of Khost continued into 1991. The separation of the Afghan Civil War into separate articles seems wholly arbitrary (but that's beyond the scope of this one page). Again, why isn't there a separate article for the "American War in Vietnam" or for any other war where countries entered and exited the conflict? Looking through the old discussion on the Vietnam War on the US wars page, a point was made about "withdrawal" not being a "result" of a war. The lists of wars are a good collective resource, so it seems like there would be an effort to have the same standards across them. The Soviets didn't partially achieve some of their goals so the old describer of "stalemate" doesn't work either. Here's a Foreign Affairs article referring to it as a defeat on several occasions, although I'm sure you could find plenty of academic sources calling it both a stalemate/withdrawal and a defeat, respectively, so a lack of sources isn't the issue for either end of the discussion. JohnM.Kelly (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviets actually achieved their military goals in Afghanistan. Those goals were much more limited that most people realize. The Soviets were not trying to conquer Afghanistan militarily, and they certainly were not trying to militarily crush the mujahideen in battle. Basically, the Soviet army's goal was to protect the Afghan Communist government from being overthrown by the mujahideen, and nothing more. Moscow's expectation was that, after a few years of Soviet military protection, the Afghan government could pacify the rebels through a combination of political power sharing deals in addition to protecting itself by using the Afghan national army. The Soviets expected this process would take no longer than four years. What ultimately happened is that the Soviet army performed its limited role in a successful but clumsy way, while all the rest of Moscow's plans -- political and diplomatic especially -- backfired. After ten years, Gorbachev accepted that there would be no political solution in Afghanistan, and he wasn't willing to escalate the USSR's involvement in the war militarily. That's when Gorbachev brought his troops home. How should we think of this war's outcome? It was definitely a political and foreign policy defeat for the Soviet Union. But I don't think it qualifies as a military defeat. Kenmore (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian constitutional crisis[edit]

What about 1993 Russian constitutional crisis? Should be considered as conflict, because force was used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeMusil (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wars, not conflicts. As violent as the constitutional crisis was, it doesn't qualify as a war. - SantiLak (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Empire in World War 1[edit]

I think the Russian empire should be definitely listed among the winners of WW1, since it was with the side of the winning allies, militarily it won the battles, and it played a crucial role, in the overall victory. The fact that the Bolsheviks did a revolution, changed the system and continued with a civil war, while signing temporary treaties, that they changed later on, unfavorable to by then, ex-Russian empire, with the Central powers, in order to leave them be, to continue with their internal changes of the system and the civil war, doesn't change that.Ron1978 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make changes, start here and leave this article aline. I'm not going to waste any precious time on this. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like some clarification as to why the Simba Rebellion and the South Ossetian war of 92-93 have been removed from the table here. There's very little disagreement that both involved Soviet and later Russian advisors. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
South Ossetia 92-93 I removed because Russia's involvement is disputed, though I won't mind if it's reintroduced (though preferably with a footnote, and only if Russia actually participated in combat). I removed the Simba Rebellion because the USSR was not (as far as I'm aware of) involved with combat troops, which is the common definition of being at war (not having advisors behind the frontlines). I removed both in a larger clean-up where I deleted a bunch of so-called "supporters" that were not combatants, and might have gotten a bit carried away in the process. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrobølgeovn if you want to keep deleting what every other user is adding in the article, as you are doing for a very long time now, you can start editing from, here and hereRon1978 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to change either of those articles, because they depict the events accuratly. Just like this one. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if you don't want to change the articles that clearly show a Russian empire's victory, then you can add the Russian's empire's victory yourself, with the rest of the allies, since if someone else adds it, then you are going to delete it, as you are doing with this and the rest of the articles that you are editingRon1978 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia surrendered to the Axis before the allied victory. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A treaty for the reasons that I have previously explained, is not surrendering. You may want to check what is surrenderingRon1978 (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia ceded enormous territory to the German Empire. That being said, this discussion does not belong here. Go to the main article's talk page, and make whatever suggestions you have there. Until the main article is changed by consensus, this one remains as it is. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do that. You behave like Wikipedia is your own blog and you are its local dictator. It is not and you are not. You are not the owner of Wikipedia. Learn to cooperate with other users and not deleting whatever, every other user is adding, as you are constantly doing in the articles. In addition if I see again anything similar about shooting me, as I saw in your talk page, I will report you. That is the last warning. Now on the subject. Russia won the battles, the Bolsheviks sighed a treaty for the reasons explained, and the treaty was nullified later on.Ron1978 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So try to establish a consensus on the main article's talk page. "Shoot down" is a relatively common idiom (or so I thought; either way, no harm intended), the treaty was nullified after Russia's exit from the war, and the dictator blogger is done here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main page says allied victory. Russia was with the allies. My edits are less than my talk pages edits. I am the one that is discussing. If you want to change the main article, you can do it with consensus with other usersRon1978 (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia exited the war before that outcome applies. Read the damn article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the articles and all the information and although both of you still need to refrain from editing the article, it is apparent that Russia was defeated, it was forced into a treaty and ceded territory as well as surrendering any allegiance to the Allies. It's a defeat, the eventual victory of the Allies doesn't matter because Russia exited the war far before that and was defeated as well with it. - SantiLak (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Russia wasn't signatory to Versailles, & had already signed a treaty with Germany (Brest-Litovsk), so "victor" isn't accurate. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Trekphiler. In addition historians say that one of the most important reasons why communism spread in Russia was because it failed to win the war. It was the same thing as with Nazism in Germany.NobleFrog (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia was definitely defeated in World War One. The Bolsheviks took power in late 1917, and they withdrew Russia from the war. That means that Russia severed its ties with the Western allies. In March 1918, the Bolsheviks signed the highly unfavorable Treat of Brest Litovsk, in which Russia made massive concessions to the Central Powers. Nothing victorious for Russia in this war.
Kenmore (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Brest Peace was completely canceled and recognized as legally null and void by both parties who signed it on November 11,the text of the armistice of Compiegne provided for Germany's rejection of the Brest Treaty,which was already canceled by Soviet Russia on November 13.The text of the treaty of Versailles contains an article:Germany finally recognizes the cancellation of the treaty of Brest Litovsk and other treaties concluded by Soviet Russia. The allied powers stipulate the rights of Russia to receive any restitution and reparations from Germany.So the Brest Peace was twice recognized by Germany as legally null and void,and by granting the right to receive reparations Russia was included in the number of winners,Russia in the Treaty of Versailles refers to the winners and all the treaties that referred it to the defeated,Germany,completely destroyed.Russia is among the winners in this war Кахетия (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Central Asian wars[edit]

The wars in the second half of 19th century in the central asian region aren't listed. I mean the wars which resulted in the annexation of Khanate of Kokand and the Emirate of Bukhara as well as some other lands of Central Asia. Alexxzz123 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexxzz123: If you have reliable sources for additions, please feel free to expand the list. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Civil War 1917-18[edit]

Finnish Civil War ? Russian SFSR was not a belligerent party, the question was purely two -party confrontation . The situation was reversed when Russia sought to demobilize soldiers from the territory of Finland . However, individual soldiers fought and red party acquired the weapons , but large-scale interference was not. Finland became independent from Tsarist Russia is not the Soviet Union , even though Lenin and Stalin signed a Finnish detachment , but if they had a position in 1917 ? Jukka Wallin (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the Winter War[edit]

As the Winter War ended on 13 March 1940 with the signing of the Moscow Peace Treaty, shouldn't the result be labelled as a pyrrhic victory for the Soviet Union instead of total victory? The Red Army failed to conquer all of Finland as they've planned, but Soviet Union did gain more than they demanded from Finland before the war.

After all, the Red Army had lost more men in ratio than the Finnish Army, and its international reputation suffered meanwhile Finland retained its sovereignty and enhanced its international reputation. In addition, the Red Army was temporarily weakened compared to its pre-war strength. What do you think about this? HehaHoo (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Stalin was a primary need, but to conquer the areas, which was with the Finnish Government's contention, the Vyborg area of ​​the Karelian Isthmus.

Karelian Isthmus was negotiated from time to time throughout the 1930s. Finland offered to the rest of East-Karelian territory of the country, as compensation, but this was not granted.They were supposed to get for a future war Leningrad defense depth. This was one reason for the hijacking in the Baltic countries, in the summer of 1940. After all, Hitler was defeated on the west-european countries under its own power.Finnish occupation was therefore not the most important, although Otto Wille Kuusinen puppet government set up this possibility in mind. Finland had to agree to peace in Moscow in 1940, and handed over just the areas which had been negotiated. This is a completely unnecessary war paid for Finland 23 000 casualties.Soviet losses were not really any other meaning that it only revealed serious shortcomings in education. Also, over the years 1937 -1939 executions among the senior officers was also a bad mistake, but these were beheaded enlarge into criminals. Mikhail Tukhachevsky known to have used mustard gas peasant revolt overthrowing the late 1920s. Jukka Wallin (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Russia definitely won the Winter War of 1939-40. It was a costly, inefficient, and highly incomplete victory, true. But it was a victory nonetheless. The Finnish army was yielding ground and Mannerheim urged his government to negotiate peace sooner rather than later, while Finland still have some leverage at the diplomatic table. Finland then ended the war by making massive concessions to the USSR.
Kenmore (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Will User:Don Brunett be so kind and explain the reversion of my recent clean-up? I removed a bunch of double mentions (no need to mention the 1945 Soviet-Japanese War and the invasion of Manchuria separately, or instance) and a lot of dubious claims (War with Romania in 1924? Soviet troops in Indochina? Soviet "limited victory", "tactical defeat" and "limited strategic defeat" in the Continuation War? Really?). This article was screaming for an overhaul, and I'd like to restore that effort. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Don Brunett (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
Actually, Mikrobølgeovn, it would be appreciated if you could leave edit summaries when you remove content. Other editors can't read your mind, and it would make it easier to double-check the rationale against the actual changes to content in order to confirm that your content changes tally with the edit summary. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll try to remember in the future. Thanks.
Don Brunett, should I revert, or do you have some input first? I see you have a rather impressive editing history on military history. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV citations needed[edit]

Either all wars need citations or none. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French client state[edit]

French invasion of Russia 1812: French client states links Sister republic, which doesn't include e.g. the Duchy of Warsaw. Template:Client states of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars contains probably the full list. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was liberated in 1812, see Lithuanian Provisional Governing Commission. Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia's occupation[edit]

The occupation of Mongolia was similar to the occupation of Baltic Republics, so either both are included or both are excluded. Latvian partisans waged a guerilla war, which isn't mentioned here. Did other nations the same? Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front (World War II) (1941–1945)[edit]

The Polish People's Army was organized by the SU but it wasn't formally part of the Red Army.
Normandie-Niemen

on the other side the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was created after the war, but it's listed. Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Division was a German unit the same way Soviets is Spain were Spanish.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Poles surrender[edit]

The only one picture summarizing many wars is The Poles surrender. Isn't it biased? BTW - The war was led by the Commonwealth.Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Xx236. I've gone WP:BOLD and removed it as not meeting with WP:PERTINENCE. Firstly, this is a list and not an article. Pertinent images can be added to the articles themselves, but one image of the Polish–Muscovite War at the beginning of the 1600s where the Tsardom of Russia was victorious is hardly representative of victories and losses over hundreds of years, and over various incarnations of "Russia" itself. It may have been added in good faith, but it stuck out like a sore thumb wedged in the brief lead (hence looking like WP:POVPUSH).
If it is deemed that images are required, I would suggest that a gallery could be added in its own section just before the "See also" section, and that the gallery should include examples right across the full gamut of eras. Even then, given how broad a scope this list encompasses, I'd still interpret a gallery as being redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Barbarossa conflicts[edit]

Since we're including the Winter War as a separate conflict from World War II, I propose we also include the invasion of Poland, the Baltic States and Bessarabia as separate conflicts. Showing the USSR as part of World War II from 1939-1945 is problematic, as while they were a belligerent in the war from 1939-1941, they were not part of the Allies in those years and were even (in the case of Poland) a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany. Therefore, I propose we include the pre-June 1941 conflicts as separate, with the "World War II" section being limited to 1941-5 when they were in the Allied camp. 108.48.3.222 (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


They weren't part of which allies? England and France that gave the Czech Republic to Hitler. Poland already capitulated when the USSR got involved in the conflict. If anything, they liberated a part of Poland from the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.144.224 (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan state and Soviet Union.[edit]

Congratulations There are suggestions on two sections:

  • 1) By 862, Kievan state and Novgorod Rus were not connected; Therefore, the war to this period will be appropriate only in the article "List of wars involving Ukraine".
  • 2) The wars of the Soviet Union should be placed not only in the article on the subject of Russia, but also all other post-Soviet countries. In the civil war of 1917, Russian nationalists (monarchists) lost - the сommunists won. Ukrainian nationalists lost (First won.) - Ukrainian сommunists won (First lost.). This happened in all other regions of the former empire except Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia (the last three were annexed to the USSR in 1940). Therefore, the article "List of wars involving of Ukraine/Belarus" and other post-Soviet states have the same right to include the section "Soviet Union" as Russia (Because communists in this region did not participate in the creation of the USSR.).

What do you think of this? Thank you for attention. -- {{Shaolin Monk}}

To the best of my knowledge, you are incorrect regarding the relationship between Kiev and Novgorod as of 862. All the sources I have ever perused link the two cities, which were founded by members of the ruling Rurikid family. The Wikipedia article on Kievan Rus supports my claim. Here's the information, including references:
The three brothers—Rurik, Sineus, and Truvor—established themselves in Novgorod, Beloozero, and Izborsk, respectively.[35] Two of the brothers died, and Rurik became the sole ruler of the territory and progenitor of the Rurik Dynasty.[36] A short time later, two of Rurik’s men, Askold and Dir, asked him for permission to go to Tsargrad (Constantinople). On their way south, they discovered "a small city on a hill," Kiev, captured it and the surrounding country from the Khazars, populated the region with more Varangians, and "established their dominion over the country of the Polyanians."[37][38]
Kenmore (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing.[edit]

Several wars in the Novgorodian and Kievan Rus' section are erroneously listed as victories when nothing in historical texts supports this. Rus' raiders plundering outlying civilian suburbs of Constantinople and then being driven back by Byzantine naval forces cannot be considered a "victory". The Rus' losing their entire fleet, with their leader being killed in flight, and prisoners beheaded in Constantinople cannot be considered a "draw". These Wars/Battles cannot be listed as victories for the Rus' when the information in the article completely contradicts the list result. Should the historical accounts in the articles themselves then be bastardized to support this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that "biased editing" was actually yours when you ignored the "Result" section in related articles and claimed that the invasion of 860 ended in a "defeat", despite the fact that the Rus' gained immense wealth from sacking Constantinople, John the Deacon described the war as victorious for the Rus', and "the victory of Michael III over the Rus' was invented by the Byzantine historians in the mid-9th century", as has been stated here. The problem with some of the "results" in this article, it seems, is that related pages sometimes confuse different historic events, such as the Rus'–Byzantine War of 941, resulting in a defeat for the Rus', and the victorious Rus'–Byzantine War of 944/945 that forced Byzantium to pay the same tribute as it had paid to Prince Oleg. Hence the "Draw" on the Rus'–Byzantine War (941) page. 82.199.124.153 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, in the most recent edit, a war has been fabricated in order to list more victories for the Rus' against Byzantium. If that isn't biased editing I don't know what is. The "event" written down as a war victory for the Rus', was nothing more than the signing of the Rus'–Byzantine Treaty of 945. The Primary Chronicle listed as a source, is not a surviving work. It's based on what is thought to have been written by Nestor and can't be confirmed. Why should these writings be valued and considered historicity over Greek chronicles written during the time of happenings? Not only that but there is no information about the war of 941 or another war in 945 listed on that wikipage, and its completely void of any citations/references. Individually, the clashes weren't even wars, as they were slight invasions/attempts to pillage. Every single attempt in this age to plunder Constantinople was repelled, so the Rus' would take it out on peasants in outlying farming communities. Should we dig up every reference of Byzantine warships attacking Rus' interests along the black sea, conjuring them up as "wars" and listing them as victories for the Byzantines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have rules here and according to them you cannot remove sourced content and comments left by other users just because you don't agree with them. I have restored the above comment and signed yours. SlavonicStudies (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most WP articles (French, English, Italian, Russian) the campaigns of 941 and 944/945 are mentioned together or even put together as one war ([1]), as they were closely related to each other. Historians like Mauricio Borrero consider them as one and the same campaign ("941-944: Igor leads expedition on Constantinople"). Their outcome was the Treaty of 945, as was pointed out by Janet Martin in one of the sources. Hence it should be the same here. As the expedition of 944/945 is closely related to that of 941, there is no need to list it as a new war and it should be mentioned together with the campaign of 941. Next, there are many sources about the campaign of 944 and many of them have been cited in Rus'–Byzantine War (941). Professional historians like Janet Martin (Medieval Russia, 980-1584. Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 19), Walter G. Moss (A History of Russia, Volume 1: To 1917. Anthem Press, 2003, p. 592) and others do mention the campaign/war of 944/945 as a real historic event, though the invasion was stalled after Byzantium asked for peace and offered a valuable treaty without fighting (Alexandru Madgearu. Byzantine Military Organization on the Danube, 10th-12th Centuries. BRILL, 2013, p. 23), and it is their opinion that is considered as WP:RS in Wikipedia, not what WP editors believe is "imaginary" or not. Original research is prohibited: WP:NOR. VietLove (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC) (One of the former IP editors, now registered).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of wars involving Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removals[edit]

If you want to remove something from the list, please explain here - why. Perhaps something should be removed, but this should be discussed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World War I[edit]

Russian participation in World War I ended with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It was not a "ceasefire", it was a "defeat", and that has been backed by sources. Changing sourced text into opposite of what the source says is not allowed.--Staberinde (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I am formatting the article so it is easier to navigate through inconclusive battles, and Russian victories and defeats.--User:AaDIL123456789 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New War[edit]

Someone should add Russia's involvement in the civil war in the Central African Republic since December 2020. They've sent hundreds of troops/mercenaries, which are currently helping the government retake territory from rebels. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:812C:92E2:42B1:17BA (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Invasion of Ukraine[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine. Should this not be added? 2001:56A:F4D8:7700:DD08:8298:31A7:39A5 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already "Russo-Ukrainian War" listed. Mellk (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How Kyiv history starts the list of Moscow wars. Ukrainians and Russians are two different nations and histories[edit]

The history of Kyiv Rus is part of Ukrainian history, the people lived in Kyiv used Ukrainian language even during Middle Ages. Moscow with Russians appeared much more later, and fist associated theirselves with Rus during the Petr 1st times, for getting credits in Europe. Ukrainians and russians are different nations, even the languages are not related. While the author uses the narrative of “Kyiv history as part of Russia history” they support Russian aggression against Ukrainian nation right now 128.124.161.206 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is factually incorrect and bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Kievan Rus’ should be taken out of here. It is not Russia or Russia’s predecessor, but Ukraine’s predecessor. Logically, it’s like including wars fought by Moghul India in a list of Britain’s wars because India was later a British colony for a long time. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukraine's predecessor? Well, yes, if we were to follow Ukrainian propaganda. Mellk (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream historiography of Russia has begun it's annals with the Kievan Rus’ for decades. Whether or not that practice should be revised in light of recent events is an open question. However, the mission of an encyclopedia is not to challenge mainstream historiography but to summarize it. Given the usual pace of scholarly shifts any definitive change to mainstream practice is unlikely to occur for many years at the very least. As a secondary point, the language of the Kievan Rus’ was Old East Slavic from which both Russian and Ukrainian, along with a few other languages, evolved. As a fellow commenter noted, somewhat more crassly above, you would do well to avoid the inclusion of factually incorrect information in your suggestions. With respect, 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:EC01:D5D4:B26A:248D (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a list of “wars involving Russia”, not a list of wars involving Russia’s precursors. It’d be like including wars fought by the Kingdom of Scotland in a list of wars involving Britain. (See for comparison List of wars involving the United Kingdom.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These lists are for modern countries. And of course if you are going to mention other pages, it is the same story with List of wars involving Spain, List of wars involving France, List of wars involving Germany etc. Mellk (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Mellk.Those three precedents definitely support your argument here. I find it bizarre = the Salian Franks are in two of those lists as the predecessors of France and Germany, which seems to demonstrate why this anachronistic approach is wrong, but it looks like that's the approach Wikipedia takes. I see List of wars involving Canada follows a similar pattern, and List of wars involving Great Britain ditto (in contrast to the UK list). I'll withdraw my objection! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moscovy (which later became Russia) didn't even exist for most of the period - at best a backwoods river fort during the collapse of the Kyivan Rus. Arguing that Russia is a continuation of the Kyivan Rus is nonsensical. Either the page needs to be renamed to "List of wars involving the Rus people" or this section should be removed.
As for Melik's objection, while I disagree with the inclusion at all in his linked articles, one can at least point out that the historic wars listed from before the foundation of said modern nation-states still existed within the current borders of that country, and in most cases that the modern country directly evolved from the historic entity in question. Neither of those apply here. Muscovy rose to power under the patronage of the Golden Horde, not the Kyivan Rus. If there's anyone's history that should predate Muscovy's, it's the history of the Golden Horde. -- Rei (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is arguing that Russia is a continuation of Kievan Rus'? This is not the focus. Or did you see it as an opportunity to regurgitate the Ukrainian nationalist POV? Mellk (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberations over appropriate diplomatic succession, or whether Russia existed in some formal Westphalian sense, are both irrelevant to the present dispute and entirely anachronistic. The primary question of importance is how to best summarize contemporary mainstream historiography of the topic, which is united in beginning with the Kievan Rus' at present. See for just a few examples The Cambridge History of Russia, Longman History of Russia, or Ziegler's The History of Russia. Indeed you'd be hard-pressed to find any mainstream scholarly histories or textbooks that do not begin with the Kievan Rus'; hence this article and other related Russian history articles should logically do so as well. Respectfully, 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CE0:375:A980:38B2 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first section ought to be split off into List of wars involving Kievan Rus, because Russia is not Kyivan Rus and is not its continuator state. As long as the title implies these things, it will remain wrong and there will be complaints about it. Then it can be referred to from the three relevant lists, in the same way as List of wars involving Italy refers to List of Roman wars and battles:

An alternative, inferior measure would be to rename it List of wars involving Russia and its predecessors.

I’d like to ask editors to moderate their tone, as this article is covered by discretionary sanctions. User:Mellk, you are literally and objectively arguing a point of Russian nationalist POV, so there’s no reason to get sensitive about anyone’s nationality or denigrate positions from mainstream historiography as “propaganda.” —Michael Z. 20:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned, these lists cover modern countries so it is no surprise that for some other articles (examples given) they include predecessors. Of course these are not consistent. Also, can you please tell me how I am pushing a Russian nationalist POV here and where I am getting sensitive about someone's nationality? Please show me diffs of this. But no, Muscovy as successor to Golden Horde, Kievan Rus' is not Russia or Russia’s predecessor, but Ukraine’s predecessor, and people of Kievan Rus' used Ukrainian language even during Middle Ages is definitely not mainstream historiography and is definitely Ukrainian nationalist POV and outright propaganda. But OK, it is me who is pushing a nationalist POV. Mellk (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can all see what you called “propaganda” above: it seems disingenuous to defend the remark by presenting different revision. Please try to moderate your tone. Write about the facts and the article content, and don’t use language that disparages points of view or singles out groups. —Michael Z. 01:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So where is this Russian nationalist POV? For calling comments that Kievan Rus' has nothing to do with Russia as propaganda? Can you kindly retract this then? It does not help to say other editors should moderate their tone, then make such a comment and say to me there is no reason to get sensitive. Mellk (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this sidebar be continued, if it must, through DMs. Formally you are no longer discussing the original topic but are discussing the discussion itself and as a general rule once sub-colloquies progress past a single level of abstraction away from a topic they are unlikely to help resolve the original disagreement. Thanks for your consideration. Respectfully, 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CE0:375:A980:38B2 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk, you denigrated the idea of Kyivan Rus being Ukraine’s predecessor as “propaganda.” This is a nineteenth-century Russian colonial POV that equates Russia with “Kievan Russia” and denies Ukrainians real nationhood. It’s literally a part of Russian propaganda in the current war. I can’t imagine why you don’t examine what you said instead of arguing.
I see you are aware of WP:discretionary sanctions. Know that this page is subject to them. Please try to moderate your tone and don’t make disparaging remarks. —Michael Z. 23:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of course if you actually read what I was replying to: Kievan Rus’ should be taken out of here. It is not Russia or Russia’s predecessor, but Ukraine’s predecessor, this was what I was referring to as propaganda (but only those sort of comments are acceptable it seems). Do not put words in my mouth and make this about denial of Ukrainian nationhood. I do not appreciate your unfounded accusations and attempts at provocations, so kindly stop with this. Mellk (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - Kievan Rus is not direct predecessor of Russia. Different language, different origin, etc.

So... either the title of the article is wrong (List of wars involving Russia), or the listing is incorrect (very incomplete). if you want to keep Kievan Rus in it, then change te title of it to "Eastern(?) Slavic wars", and then expand it with the others'wars...

Or make the list shorter and start with the list of the Grand Duchy of Moscow (est. 1263)...

This "direct" connection is main part of the Kreml-propaganda. I recommend changing it.

Thx for your listening, B BalassaMakto (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second edit of this user Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion by Michael Z for a split and to follow the Italy precedent is sensible. I earlier withdrew my objection to the current format on the basis that the article follows the same format as other similar articles, despite the obvious lack of logic, but seeing the Italy precedent (which follows the same format as the UK list) I take back my withdrawal. It is simply not the case that Kievan Rus is Russia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, list of wars involving Ukraine should have everything deleted apart from 21st century and maybe war of independence (1917-21) sections. Or will you argue again that Kievan Rus is actually Ukraine? Mellk (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I've merged the list of wars involving Kievan Rus' up to 1240 per agreement at Talk:Armies of the Rus' principalities#List of wars involving Kievan Rus'?. I've used Template:Excerpts for the lists of Ukraine and Russia, so that the contents will still be featured on both lists, but they are identical for both lists. For Belarus I've only used Template:Main. If anyone has questions or suggestions for improvement, please visit Talk:Armies of the Rus' principalities#List of wars involving Kievan Rus'?. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of the Caucasus/Circassian war[edit]

Should the Russian conquest of the Caucasus and Russo-Circassian War be included? LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 23:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2022[edit]

2001:569:53F1:B000:D015:DD0A:2769:FCBA (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Kyivian Rus is not a part of history of russian federation. Kyivian Rus is History of Ukraine. Moscowian state is a beginning of russian federation. It is a violation of twisting historical facts, re-writing history  and “twitching” history.[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KRtau16 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

I propose that the section List of wars involving Russia #Soviet Union (1922–1991) be split into a separate page called List of wars involving the Soviet Union.

Currently, for the Soviet period, the List of wars involving Ukraine links to this article section, while the equivalent lists for twelve other former Soviet republics either have an inadequate section representing the Soviet period or none at all.

Splitting this off would give us a WP:neutral point of view (non-Russo-centric) version of the list that all fifteen could link to. (The Soviet Union has fifteen successor states. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but the renamed Russian SFSR.) —Michael Z. 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union has fifteen successor states I think is misleading (the Baltic states also consider themselves as having been illegally occupied and legal continuity from pre-WWII). Mellk (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’re absolutely right, and I don’t expect every one of those articles to necessarily utilize this split list.
I think, technically the Baltic states are successors to Soviet rule on their own territory, and they inherited custody of Soviet assets on their territory, but they are not continuator states of the USSR.
But uncontroversially there are more than a single successor states, and we should not privilege one. —Michael Z. 22:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I think the use of the term "successor state" is confusing though, as the RF is considered to be the successor state to the USSR (assuming its debt, international positions etc) but the post-Soviet states are also called successor states. Can the same be said about the Russian Empire (according to the 1897 census, less than half of the population were "Great Russians")? Some people view the USSR as simply a reincarnation of said empire. Mellk (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not what the word means in international law. Its misuse is what’s confusing. At least all 12 non-occupied states were successors in that they inherited states’ rights within their borders, all assets on their territories, and all treaty obligations and benefits according to the principle of uti possidetis juris. Exceptions, including international debt, custody of embassies, parts of the Black Sea Fleet, and UNSC seat, were the result of negotiations and agreements.
“Is considered” is a WP:weasel word. The RF claims it is the sole continuation state of the USSR. Ukraine disputes the claim. Not proven in court.
Ethnic composition and what “some people view” doesn’t carry water in international law regarding state continuation. The Russian empire had no continuator at the time, and many successors (e.g., Finland among them). The RF has many decades later settled some of its debts, so there’s some kind of continuity created, but the legal meaning is more complicated than I will bother trying to understand. —Michael Z. 15:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was referring to usage as confusing. For example the United States recognized Russia as the USSR's successor state.[2] I found this to be an interesting read[3] in regards to succession of states and treaty obligations, where RF has been considered as the continuator state of the USSR. Regards. Mellk (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t sound like very disciplined or up-to-date writing by the office of the Historian. For example, the State Department says the USA considered twelve states as INF treaty successors of the USSR.[4] —Michael Z. 22:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway that’s not a reliable secondary source on what we consider a successor or continuator state. See Vindman’s recent editorial for a good overview of the Orientalist thinking about Russia and Ukraine that lead to things like that statement. —Michael Z. 22:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think it is still useful in terms of recognition[5][6]. This article[7] looks at Russia as continuator state in terms of international law. Mellk (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UK reports are interesting, but I think biased on several counts. They do ignore Ukraine’s challenge to the RF’s claim of Soviet continuation, and do not reach any legal conclusion. I wonder if Scotland wrote anything on the subject, or if anyone published a rejoinder.
I don’t have access to the other. —Michael Z. 16:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my question is, if Soviet Union was to be split, would Russian Empire also need to be split? Why or why not? Mellk (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great question and probably more complicated. I think we can take these one at a time and start with the ones that uncontroversially were not “Russia,” and this one is most likely to benefit other lists. —Michael Z. 22:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk, I will perform the split as proposed, if you don’t object.  —Michael Z. 19:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(FYI, I will also propose splitting off List of wars involving Kievan Rus' – from here and from List of wars involving Ukraine – for similar reasons, as the integral statehood of Rus is not considered to have continued and it is traditionally considered to have three successor nations.)  —Michael Z. 19:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a moment to look into this again. Though I think it would be useful to hear any other opinions on the proposal. Mellk (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus was not Russian predecessors[edit]

The information given is incorrect based on the historical facts, the history of russian wars should start with Moscovia

Kievan Rus is a predecessor of modern Ukraine. Please, remove the first section from the observation. 91.129.98.230 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russia isn’t the only descendant of Kievan Rus’ so it doesn’t make sense to include Kievan Rus’ a country which doesn’t exist anymore, in a list of RUSSIAN wars. Russia was founded by the ruler of Moscow. The name Russia comes from Kievan Rus’ that is true, but that doesn’t mean Russia has a unique and stronger claim to Kievan Rus’ identity as opposed to Ukraine and Belarus. It comes off as somewhat biased to include ancient Kievan Rus’ under Russian wars since they’re not the same country and never were, and Russia doesn’t have a unique claim to that history unless you’re a Russian nationalist. Wikipedia should be unbiased but here it is pretty blatantly following the Russian nationalist narrative. 178.174.238.80 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is directly involved in Russo-Ukrainian War on Russia's side[edit]

Not only is Iran supplying weapons to Russia, there are reports of Iranian soldiers assisting Russia and getting killed on Ukrainian soil. Thus I recommend adding Iran as a Russia's ally to the Russo-Ukrainian War. There are reports available like this one: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202210211932 88.103.225.235 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATO countries are in a similar situation, but we do not add them as the side of the war. (And for a good reason). Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not. Neither NATO states nor other Western states opposed to the Russian invasion have sent military units to participate in the war on the soil of Russia, Ukraine, or Belarus. —Michael Z. 13:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus is not part of modern russian history. Stop helping russia's fascist propoganda steal Ukraine's history[edit]

Kievan Rus is not part of modern russian history. Stop helping russia's fascist propoganda steal Ukraine's history 31.44.97.141 (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable academic sources seems to disagree with this opinion. Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just saying that without backing it up doesn’t make it a fact. Kievan Rus is related to Russia in a sense, after all the name Russia was stolen from Kievan Rus’ but Russia isn’t the only descendant of Kievan Rus’ and it doesn’t make sense to include Kievan Rus’ in a list of RUSSIAN wars when Kievan Rus’ is not Russia and not the only descendant of Kievan Rus’. Both Ukraine and Belarus are also descendants of Kievan Rus’ so why should Russia claim their history? 178.174.238.80 (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 is missing here?[edit]

Just find that this war with the unofficial support of the Soviets is missing here. Is it ok to add it? --Dee (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list should include conflicts involving active participation. Unofficial support doesn't exactly qualify as such. Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every support, including this one, was active during the cold war, regardless of officiality. When the ruSSian navy including their nuclear submarine was involved, I do see the participation as very active. --Dee (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the supporters in Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 --Dee (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would need to open a RfC. Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all support during the Cold War was active. And the fact that the USSR had a nuclear submarine in the area does not imply active support.
None of the other supporters of the 1971 war have this war listed on their respective lists of wars for the same reason the USSR doesn't: because they weren't active participants. Betelgeuse X (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2023[edit]

MarcinTorun (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a malicious renaming of the 1979-1989 Afghan war, and the renaming of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cumulative Results to Legend[edit]

I think the legend should be annotated with the cumulative number of victories, defeats, and indecisions as is the case on other "List of Wars involving X" articles Saintsnoah (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2023[edit]

The second Chechen War is stated it is from 1999-2009 while it should be 1999-2000 Ravnemis (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It officially ended in April 2009 (and the military actions continued until 2002). Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Per Ymblanter. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2023[edit]

Because two different colors (   and   ) are used in the lists for "Another result", the legend on the line 25 should be changed to:

−
: {{legend2|#fefefe|Another result; for example, a treaty or peace without a clear result, ''status quo ante bellum'', indecisive, civil or internal conflict, or result unknown|border=1px solid #AAA}}
+
: {{legend2|#E6EAFF|or |border=1px solid #AAA}}{{legend2|#fefefe|Another result; for example, a treaty or peace without a clear result, ''status quo ante bellum'', indecisive, civil or internal conflict, or result unknown|border=1px solid #AAA}}

62.113.190.191 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  Spintendo  04:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split this page?[edit]

Should the internal rebellions in Russia and external wars be split to separate lists/pages? See Talk:List_of_wars_involving_the_Soviet_Union. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus' ≠ Russia[edit]

Kievan Rus' is not Russia and I’d propose that it should be removed from the list of wars Russia has fought. Modern Russia evolved from the principality of Moscow, and the core of modern Russia has always been the Moscow region. Kievan Rus’ is a different state than Russia and there isn’t a very strong connection to modern Russia in particular when compared to the other descending countries such as Belarus and Ukraine. 178.174.238.80 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Russia&oldid=1214216785"