Talk:List of pro-Russian political parties

The list is incomplete, and it includes parties that have not been active for 300 years (Greece and Poland). At the same time, the mass of parties and groups that sympathize with Russia in one way or another is completely ignored. Parties that support Russia because of their anti-American, anti-European, anti-globalization, Eurosceptic, anti-colonial, anti-hegemonic stance are ignored MATRIX0077 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the previous conversation, for new parties to be added will require sources that explicitly call them pro-Russian. — Czello ^(music) 12:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Currently, this list is a complete mess and a mockery. Hetman's Party which operated in Poland in the 18th century, or the Russian Party operating in Greece in the 19th century. At the same time, there is no consideration of such parties as Black Hammer Party f.2019, African People's Socialist Party f. 1972, United Romania Party f.2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MATRIX0077 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Turkey's AK Party is pro-Russian. Erdogan has a special relationship with Putin and most of the Erdogan's supporters are pro-Russian.

New Welfare Party is also pro-Russian. 81.215.233.216 (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we don't take your word for it. You need WP:RS to back up your claims. Archives908 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The characterization of the Georgian Dream party as "pro-Russian" is inaccurate. First of all, in the ideology section of the party's page's infobox does not mentions the party as pro-Russian because there is no consensus on that. Moreover, the party's page explicitly mentions in the foreign policy section that the party's characterization is disputed and "subject of debate" among the political analysts (as there is no consensus on the issue). Moreover, it is mentioned that the accusation of being "pro-Russian" is used by the opposition groups, while the government considers itself as "pro-Western and patriotic". Therefore, writing pro-Russian would strongly violate the neutrality rule. The "foreign agent bill" is not "pro-Russian" either, the language of the law is neutral and applies to both Russian, as well as Western foreign financing in Georgian NGOs. The 2023-2024 Georgian protests page mentions that the opponents of the law, including the Western states and EU, consider it as "Russian-inspired", while proponents of the law reject this characterization. Thereofore, here it is also a neutrality issue. Wikipedia should not be based on Western and American establishment opinions and ignore the rest of the world as "insignificant". Accordingly, the characterization needs to be removed. Nivzaq (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I oppose its removal. The infobox on that article does not justify the party's removal from this article. The party has undeniably shifted towards a Pro-Russian geopolitical orientation. This , this , this , and this confirms it. Archives908 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the infobox of the party does not includes "Russophilia" is very important because it was decided after a (recent) dicussion and edits. While there are sources like that, there are also many sources that reject that characterization that the party is "pro-Russian", and all was considered. I don't think any of those discussions and long edit summeries there need to be recreated here to illustrate the clear point, that this article should not describe the party as "pro-Russian" while even the party's own Wikipedia page does not describes it as such because it was decided so by discussion and there is no consensus among sources on such characterization. Nivzaq (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

For the second time, it is irrelevant what is or isn't included on the infobox. The infobox isn't reliable. For instance, the infobox states that the party is "soft-Eurosceptic", yet the party's official stance is "Pro-EU".

The vast majority of WP:RS confirms that the party has shifted towards a pro-Russian stance despite the party not formally acknowledging it. Based on the RS alone, the party's inclusion is warranted on this article. Let us allow other editors to chime in on this discussion. Archives908 (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the infobox is a reliable source, but reliable sources were used to decide what should or should not be included in the infobox. Basically this is right now debating the same thing which was already debated in talk pages and edit summeries in that article, it is the same thing, that's why the infobox of that article is relevant.

"Soft Eurosceptic" is not contradictory to being in favor of EU membership, that's why it was included and not Hard Euroscepticism for example. Soft Euroscepticism means supporting joining EU while also criticising some of EU policies, that's why it was included, it is in line with the official position of the party.

Consensus of neutral RS do not support the "pro-Russian" characterization, sufficient number of RS contradicting this opinion were already cited in edit summeries and talk page discussions. Nivzaq (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a substantial number of RS that confirm that the party is indeed pro-Russia. Whether they are Liberast in your eyes or biased does not matter in the grand scheme of things. I did not support the inclusion of Russophilia in the infobox section as there were a small number of sources that went against that term and that more substantial things could have been mentioned there like Populism and Euroscepticism. However, it is indeed true that what seems like the vast majority of the sources acknowledge the party's pro-Russian nature and therefore it should be included here. Zlad! (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm also getting quite sick of you saying "these liberal NGOs" are biased and not reliable sources. They are THE reliable sources. Zlad! (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your valued input on this matter, Zlad!. Archives908 (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Nivzaq- Regardless of the party's official position, numerous WP:RS confirms the party does have pro-Russian stances. Per WP:NPOV guidelines, the party's inclusion on this article is warranted. I would even go so far as to say that Russophilia should, in fact, be added to the party's own infobox. Over the past year, and certainly since the passing of the Foreign Agent Law, more and more (if not a majority) of sources are highlighting the party's growing Russophilia. Strange why this isn't already reflected in the infobox. Archives908 (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I did not use the term "Liberast" in any context, so I don't think it is relevant. Second, many sources don't describe the party as "pro-Russian", for example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230504232436/https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/89655

https://caucasuswatch.de/en/insights/pre-election-georgia-toward-perpetual-instability.html

https://www.mei.edu/publications/georgian-elections-2020-strong-mandate-democratization-and-westernization

https://jacobin.com/2024/05/georgia-ngos-eu-membership-democracy

These are just few examples Nivzaq (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin has been determined to not be a reliable source for Wikipedia btw. Zlad! (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page, Jacobin is not unreliable source. Nivzaq (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The consensus on that might have changed. I remember whenever I would source Jacobin for something it would be removed. Oh well. Zlad! (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Many of these were pre-Foreign Agent Law. They are outdated. Archives908 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There are sources too written during or after Foreign Agent law, as has been cited. Nivzaq (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the majority of them confirms Russophilia. Archives908 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Btw, one of your sources cited was published in November 2022, before the law, so is it also irrelevant?

None of sources cited by me "confirm" that, quite opposite. It has not been proven in any meaningful way that "majority of sources" support that position. Nivzaq (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument of one of the sources being published before 2022 would only confirm that there were suspisions of the party being pro-Russian before 2022, which were basically confirmed after 2022 and further strengthened after foreign agents law attempt 1 and 2. Zlad! (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly!! Archives908 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Suspicions" - more like accusations, which have been employed since the very foundation of party in 2011. And in the reverse, the party also employs the "pro-Russian" accusaion against its opponents (Saakashvili's party). It is common tactic in Georgia and employing various affiliated think tanks to write "good articles" about it is not not issue. But anyway, enough sources have been cited by me to show that there are also sources which disagree with characterization. Nivzaq (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is also another article, written during the foreign agent law passage. https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/comment/2024/05/23/the-west-has-no-business-meddling-in-georgias-internal-affairs/ Nivzaq (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The party's Russophilia is already mentioned in the lead and the 4 ideologies that are present in the infobox in my view are enough. Zlad! (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The only reason the party is being accused of "Russophilia" is because it did not bows down to American interests. As this article examines very well, there have not been actually any "pro-Russian" policies enacted by the party. Just criticism of US and EU and immediate label of "pro-Russian" or whatever. Nivzaq (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Does not matter. The majority of the sources as well as the majority of the latest sources disagree. It's better for something to be sourced than to be the truth. That's the principle Wikipedia goes by. Zlad! (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Did not bows down to American interests".... yikes, I'm sensing non-neutral WP:POV from you. Archives908 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not POV "bias" since it is written based on the sources which observed the pattern. Nivzaq (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This article explicitly states that the attempts to label the law as Russian are employed as a Western attempt to destabilize foreign country and preserve its soft power influence with NGOs (the source, Jacobin has not been declared as non-reliable source on Wikipedia), while this article also repeats the claim. Nivzaq (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin, while sometimes reliable, has still been flagged as a biased source per WP:RSP. The authors of that article literally have praised the Soviet Union. So of course they are going to write from a biased point of view. The second article you linked is an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are generally not reliable to determine facts per WP:NEWSOPED. And as a reminder, most of the other sources you listed above are out-of-date. Per WP:AGE MATTERS, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light. Therefore, you listing biased sources, opinion pieces, and out-of-date articles does not help prove your point at all. Archives908 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin is only "biased" as much as it writes from left-wing socialist perspective. If you did not notice, most of the sources you cited are written by Western-funded or Western liberal NGOs, think tanks and media from liberal perspective. The authors of these articles literally praise United States and European Union. Therefore, they are no less biased. Radio Freedom, which you cited, is literally funded by CIA and US government. Radio Freedom has been described by the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page as biased source and less reliable than Jacobin, with Jacobin being generally reliable, while Radio Freedom only marginally reliable.

Opinion pieces are not always unreliable. They might reflect authoritative point of view and therefore might be reliable. In this case, I don't see why the view written by author and reflected in the work is unauthoritative. The view is that the West has no right to intervene in the internal affairs of Georgia, which is a basic tenet of sovereignity. And moreover, many of sources you cited yourself are opinion pieces. Nivzaq (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The difference is, most sources, whether opinion pieces or not, support the notion that Georgian Dream is now orientated as "pro-Russian". The tide of WP:RS on this matter has shifted. As such, the article warrants inclusion on this list. Per WP:WEIGHT, "pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". The sources published over the past year labelling the party "pro-Russian" outweigh those that don't. Based on this policy alone, the party has every right to be listed here. You must understand that a fair WP:BALANCE should be maintained. Removing all links between the party and Russophilia is a violation of this policy. Please try and comprehend this. Archives908 (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the topic of this page, I believe the "Native name" column offers very limited additional value to readers. Removing this column will help streamline the layout and improve readability. And moreover, the native name is already included in the linked page for each party name in the first column. Dt1001 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

As of now, "See also" section cointains questionable pages not exactly related to the list. I doubt that Australia First Party has anything to do with Eurasianism, or Russian world etc. Not to mention that it looks like its implying certain narrative. I think it will be more appropriate and neutral to have something like List of Eurosceptic political parties for example, guiding readers towards other political parties lists like it's done in List of pro-European political parties, instead of vague nationalistic concepts. Gigman (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything questionable about it, it's a see also list, topics like Russian hybrid warfare are clearly related given that Russian political interference in other countries is a well established hybrid tactic. Other ones like Russosphere, Russophilia and Putinism should be self explanatory for an article with this title. Eurasianism is also relevant, the article lists numerous Asian parties where this movement is relevant. Your claim that these are "vague nationalistic concepts" really doesn't hold up.

You seem to have failed to WP:AGF here and labelled simply adding relevant articles to a see also section "clearly pov:push". There is nothing neutral about removing relevant articles from a see also section, if you feel like other ones are a good fit, you can simply add them in as well. TylerBurden (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I can understand the hybrid warfare bit, but everything else is totally out of place.

I think you might be misunderstanding how "See also" section works. You can't add "LBGTQ" to "see also" of 4 Non Blondes for examples. It will be kinda relevant but the article is clearly not about it, and it's not how it's done.

Not all pro-Russian parties stand for Russosphere or Russophilia, in fact a lot of them just want good relationship with current Russian government to benefit their own country. like german AfD for example. I don't think that lust for cheaper resources automatically means spreading Russian influence or being a part of Eurasianism movement, in fact I find such idea to be quite comical.

If we stick to your approach, then List of pro-European political parties should contain Globalism or Liberal, but I don't see any of that. BTW it's not my first experince debating you, so let's try to negotiate the mutual consensus one more time before starting the RfC. Gigman (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

What? I don't understand your comparison at all nor do I see how it's relevant, I guess you're trying to make some point but it seems more bizarre than anything.

Your personal opinions on political parties are also not relevant, nor appropriate, we are talking about a see also section, links in a see also section do not make any conclusions on their own, they simply offer readers a chance to read about similar topics. So including a see also link for Russosphere does not automatically label everything on the article being under the "Russosphere", it is nonetheless a relevant topic due to the subject of the article. Once again, if you feel like things are missing from this or other articles, you are free to make changes, whataboutism about other articles does not strengthen your argument.

If a neutral encyclopedia has compiled a list of "pro-Russian political parties", it should not be a problem for a neutral encyclopedia to link to concepts that are associated with such parties in WP:RS. This is in line with WP:DUE policy. Can you point to some specific policy justifying excluding these instead of labelling things "questionable" or "POV-pushing" (the latter being a completely baseless assertion)? TylerBurden (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Including every possible vaguely related theory to an article like this (which is also unprescendended in similiar lists) indeed may look like a point of view pusing from the side, even if it's not. You don't understand my point so you claim it as "bizzare". I refuse to continue this debate, I will host the RFC regarding this topic in nearest future. Gigman (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

No one is saying that, none of these are vaguely related, they are directly related. I am calling your point bizarre because you are bringing up LBGTQ and a movie out of nowhere, and once again failing to mention any kind of policy, but trying to enforce your personal opinion. You assuming bad faith about editors intentions shouldn't prevent readers from having relevant articles in the see also section. If you are unable to base your arguments on actual policy, there is indeed no point in continuing this discussion. If you think an RfC is needed to add relevant links to a see also section, then by all means create one if you can do so in a neutral manner. TylerBurden (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, what "movie" are you talking about? 4 Non Blondes is a lesbian music band. Did you even bother to click the link and actually try to understand my point, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? I brought it up as the first case that came to my mind to illustrate that not everything related is worth mentioning in see also section. Not every article related to gay community is supposed to have LGBTQ in see also, not every article related to Russian politics is supposed to have Putinism/Russosphere/Slavophilia in see also. If you refuse to compromise, save your reasoning for the future public discussion. Gigman (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh yea it was a band, not a movie, and it's still completely irrelevant and makes no point other than your repeated whataboutism about other articles. You have still yet to cite a single policy nor addressed the policies I have mentioned. It's starting to seem more and more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation. TylerBurden (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)