Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

RFC on Listing of Belarus

Should Belarus be listed in the infobox, and accordingly described in other parts of the article concerning the events since 24 January 2024: (a). no (as at present); (b) as supported by; (c) as a co-belligerent; (d) without qualification? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Note to closer: If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please either close with the least strong choice, or recommend a second RFC for resolution.

Survey

• Supported by or just there, with no qaulifation they are not a beligernant, but also did go beyond anything that can be said to be noninvolvement. Beyond even just supplying arms, they allowed their country to be used as a base, in effect part of the battle field. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• (c) (first choice; support an alteration proposed by Gödel2200 below). That is what RS (borrowed from discussions above) say:

1) "The Belarusian regime’s support for the Russian invasion has made Belarus a cobelligerent in the war in Ukraine" ([1] - per Institute for the Study of War;

2) "Belarus remains a co-belligerent in Russia’s war against Ukraine, nonetheless." ([2]) per Institute for the Study of War;

3) A scholarly source on international law [3] Belarus would be hard-pressed in those circumstances to argue that it was not a co-belligerent of Russia.... Accordingly, if Belarus’s conduct can be characterized as enabling Russian attacks on Ukraine via its territory, such conduct likely would fall within the definition of aggression.

4) "Belarus is clearly a co-belligerent country in Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine" (source from Euractiv).

5) "So far, Belarus has acted as a "co-belligerent" in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, providing Russia with territory, military bases and hospitals to support its invasion of Ukraine but without getting its own troops involved." (source from Newsweek.com);

6) Multiple Ukrainian sources also describe Belarus as "a co-belligerent in Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine" (see: source from The Voice of Ukraine, source from Kyiv Independent).

Sources 1,2, and 3 are scholarly RS by military or legal experts, not just news sources.

Some additional points:

1. Belarus committed war crimes together with Russia [4], in addition to continuously providing the Belorussian territory to Russian armed forces to attack Ukraine.
2. Russian tactical nukes were placed in Belarus, see Russian_military_presence_in_Belarus#Stationing_of_nuclear_weapons_in_Belarus.
3. We have big page, Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. See Belarusian_involvement_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Legal_complicity.
4. EU made sanctions [5] on 22 high ranked members of Belarusian military personnel in view of their role in the decision making and strategic planning processes that led to the Belarusian involvement in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Planning a war of aggression together qualify as a co-belligerence. In essence, Russia and Belarus started the invasion together.

• b or d (second choice). Such outcome would be consistent with another recent RfC about essentially the same here, on talk page of Russian invasion of Ukraine. This page is about essentially the same war, although this one covers it from the very beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There are additional scholarly sources saying that Belarus is a co-belligerent (e.g. [6], see Discussion below). My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Responding inline and not below for clarity:

1) Noting for the record that the Politico article cited to support Belarus committed war crimes together with Russia is describing an incident that, while concerning, occurred in territory occupied since 2014 by the LPR and it is unclear whether such conduct falls explicitly under the scope of the arrest warrants issued (text at [7]).

2) This falls under what Mzajac previously characterized as normal peacetime conduct in a previous discussion. Sources say it is not directly related to the invasion.

3) Wasn't that section largely written by yourself? I am personally not sure whether it represents WP:DUE but I have other things to do than research legal defenses for Europe's last dictator.

4) EU sanctions are self-evidently a political matter and to suggest otherwise is, frankly, the sort of hill I do consider worth dying on. And a Council press release is not RS, besides being terribly ambiguous about what sort of planning was going on.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• a, I don't think they are primarily involved in the war. If they are included, then so should the dozens of western countries that have as much involvement on the other side.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• (c) is my primary choice. The role of Belarus in this war should be described as a "co-belligerent" (in Russia's side) because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine and Russian jets have taken off from Belarus to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3, 4, 5); 3) see more information in dedicated article Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine, the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that. Moreover, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article), so Lukashenko's Belarus clearly tractate the current Ukraine as an enemy and sought for its military defeat (= the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy; just like it is described in article co-belligerence). Furthermore, this evaluation of Belarus' role in the scope of international law proves that Belarus is also an aggressor against Ukraine:

"...While participating in decision-making about attacks, supplying information sufficient to enable attacks, and allowing the use of military or air bases to enable attacks may all potentially amount to co-belligerency, financing, equipping, or training parties to an armed conflict are alone generally considered insufficient. To the extent that in addition to hosting thousands of Russian troops, Belarus takes steps to execute a joint attack across Ukraine’s northern border, as certain sources have warned, or to make good on its threat to send forces to fight alongside Russia, Belarus would be hard-pressed in those circumstances to argue that it was not a co-belligerent of Russia. The question of aggression is considerably more straightforward. The Definition of Aggression, adopted by the UN General Assembly, includes “the action of a State in allowing its territory … to be used by … [an]other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” Accordingly, if Belarus’s conduct can be characterized as enabling Russian attacks on Ukraine via its territory, such conduct likely would fall within the definition of aggression." (source)

My secondary choice is (b) because it is also a quite suitable choice if the community thinks that Belarus has not done enough to be described as a "co-belligerent" in this war, but I highly prioritize (c) because WP:RS sources (quoted by user My very best wishes above already describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war). Belarus is already too much involved in this war since 24 February 2022 and gave too much assistance to Russia to be left out as a non-involved country. I simply cannot imagine how can we not include a country as a "co-belligerent" or as "supported by" (= to vote for a/d choices) when it allowed to use its own territory (and even encouraged it) for such a massive invasion of one of the largest countries in Europe. -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support b or c, with alteration I'm mostly convinced by the above rationales that sufficient RS's exist to state that Belarus is a co-belligerent, at least for the initial invasion. However, I am still not fully sure whether that label would apply for the whole duration of the invasion, due to sources like this (written on 4 December 2023) saying Belarus had a "turnaround" in 2023 from its previous place of being "labelled a Putin lackey or co-belligerent." But sources like that don't bring doubt upon Belarus being a co-belligerent at least at the start of the invasion. I don't have that strong of an opinion either way for whether we should say "supported" or is a "co-belligerent", but I absolutely think that Belarus needs to somehow be mentioned. That being said, all of the given options fail to account for the fact that Belarus has not been a co-belligerent for the duration of the war (since 2014), but rather since the invasion (or at least the buildup of military forces in Belarus in October 2021). This needs to be made clear, so we should say (since 2022) or (from 2022). Gödel2200 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• a None of the sources cited above are themselves not funded in whole or in part by more-or-less equally co-belligerent states, and it is better for the effective moratorium on adding co-belligerents to persist until more clarity exists on their degree of co-belligerance. "Reliable source" or not, the WP article on ISW itself names Raytheon, Palantir and General Dynamics among its donors. The WP article on Euractiv names the EU among its donors. The Newsweek article cites its own article for the "co-belligerent" claim, but that article¹ cites the ISW as its source. The author of the "scholarly source" named above, Catherine Amirfar, who according to her biography on that site² formerly "liaised with senior officials of the Departments of Justice and Defense" according to her biography on the cited website, currently works for the Washington, D.C. headquartered Public International Law & Policy Group, whose list of donors³ is no longer readily accessible, but included the United States Institute of Peace. The final sources listed in support, The Kyiv Independent and The New Voice of Ukraine, are not only published within the territory of a belligerent state, but even the WP article on the former acknowledges Canada and the EU as sources of funding, while the Reception section on the latter describes it as "a reliable and factual source that disseminates propaganda, as opposed to misinformation" (emphasis mine). No opposition to it being listed as a co-belligerent in the future, but an encyclopedia traditionally has higher standards for source neutrality. The contributor of the above sources might enjoy contributing to Wikinews. Ivan (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  ISW is going to RSN as soon as I have the time to handle it in depth because I've personally had enough of a neocon think tank being considered not just RS, but the go-to source. Should be a straightforward discussion once it is in front of a non-local community audience. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• (c) : The consensus is not the vote. The results of this vote should not be used to put the infobox field into the concrete. Instead, the "Role of Belarus" section should be created, sources overview should be made there, and the infobox populated based on that. As of now, if we set the strict filter of "peer-reviewed academic papers or academic books published by academic publishers", no source opposes the "Belarus is the co-belligerent". If we set the less strict filter of articles by academic researchers in a field, not necessary peer-reviewed, the overwhelming majority gives us "Belarus is the co-belligerent", with few (or one?) exception(s) which may be described in the article body. Therefore (c). See sources below.
  Note: some editors provide the source and claim that it supports a non-belligerent view, while the source provided is not. One example is Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#c-Manyareasexpert-20240324232300-Иованъ-20240324223500 , there are others. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• C or B in that order This is a funny one, Belarus hasn't really involved itself militarily but it has made itself a staging ground for the Russian military, and is effectively an active border in the war. I'd argue the lack of military involvement here could best be described as a diplomatic issue between allies than an actual intent to stay out of the war. As argued better by others above, the phrase "Co-belligerent" is well-supported by sources, so I don't see many reasons to avoid it, but it's definitely not clear-cut. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• C, but if we cannot reach consensus I think B is an okay compromise. I think C is warranted by the fact Russia has military access there, and we have sources citing it as such, although their neutrality can be... questionable, I think the conclusion itself isn't. CVDX (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

A per my reasoning below and previously. The key points, for me, are:

1) Provision of territorial access, even basing, (especially by a weaker or client state) has, by longstanding MILHIST consensus, not been included in infoboxes. E.g., Luxembourg allowed Germany transit but they are not mentioned in the infobox Battle of the Frontiers, nor should they be (to give an example from long enough ago to be less politically tinged than say the invasion of Iraq).

2) There is no precedent or previous consensus anywhere that I am aware of that provision of territory is to be considered more significant than actual military involvement. According to the German leaks, Britain has direct involvement for targeting, and there is separately ample RS documentation of systematic NATO ISTAR operations over the Black Sea, which under IHL would make NATO (joint units), France, the UK, and the US co-belligerents (ignoring the in-theater basing members of NATO), and more indisputably so than Belarus. And if editors willfully continue to conflate IHL and jus ad bellum, as some have in the past (including above/below), that's textbook POV.

3) Most of the current and previous reasoning on Belarus rests excessively on political statements made by leaders, policymakers, and actors in countries that have taken a clear side. The near-universal opinion around here (both physically and virtually) that they are morally right is simply not relevant to encyclopedic coverage of military history, and this clearly follows from our policies and guidelines. Consensus (especially local) can't override a Pillar, as is well known.

In short, I am in favor of an "all or nothing" approach to labeling of support. I really don't care which, so long as discussions remain chill like they are now; the main thing is that consistent and detached standards must be applied. Co-belligerency listing is intellectually unsound and POV, and listing as a participant without additional stuff would be a Wikivoice endorsement of political decision-makers in the West, which is the thin end of the wedge. Since no one is advocating a comprehensive listing (in the infobox, that is) of all states and actors documented to be involved, I don't support its addition. Also, this RfC stems from an attempt at DRN to apply a local discussion closed as "no consensus so keep status quo" at the invasion article to its parent.

I will also say that in my opinion, a local c) result (funny how the local/global thing keeps coming up in several unrelated topic areas tonight) would absolutely merit a global review process. Yapperbot clearly isn't sufficient to get fresh input from uninvolved editors. Although I'm a little confused why this is a niche topic area while almost every experienced editor drops in at PIA or AmPol occasionally, such as when summoned.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(a) Belarus is not a combatant as might be implied by option (d). There are many issues with adding the qualifcation "co-belligerent". Anything stated in the infobox is said in a Wiki voice. Claiming that a party is a combatant is evidenced by a smoking gun. Claiming that a party is a co-belligerent but not a combatant is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. It needs to be based on a consensus in good quality secondary RSs (WP:HQRS), particularly if it is to be said in a Wiki voice. While editors here have claimed there to be many RSs supporting Belarus' co-belligerency, most are either WP:NEWSORG, primary sources, unreviewed discussion papers and/or think-tanks which are certainly not peer reviewed. Looking through the discussion below, one is flat out rubbing together two HQRSs let alone a consensus in such sources. Listing Belarus with the qualification of "co-belligerent" is also problematic because the section of the infobox where it appears is headed "belligerents". Every party listed within a column of this section is ipso facto a co-belligerent. Attempting to make a distinction in the infobox using this label is both ineffectual and confusing. For the invasion article, "supported by" is used but to do the same here would imply that the support has applied for the duration. To add qualification, notes etc within an infobox is an attempt to capture nuance, for which the infobox is intrinsically unsuited. While the lead mentions the Russian buildup within Belarus, it does not make explicit the Belarusian support. One can reasonably argue that if the Belarusian support wasn't so significant as to be made explicit in the lead, then we can reasonably omit this from the infobox. Afterall, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to try to write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support (a) per Cinderella157 and RadioactiveBoulevardier. Perhaps (b) if this is changed to include all substantial support to both sides. Mellk (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Moved the discussion to the discussion section; such a long back and forth makes it hard to navigate the actual survey. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All these sources qualify as RS, ISW including (this is a reputable, even a scholarly/expert source on several currently ongoing wars). What really matters per WP:V is the fact-checking and editorial independence, not the sources of funding. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC) List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War and Russian military suppliers are already linked to in the infobox, with Belarus in the latter. Some states have gone beyond supplying materiel, separating a state like North Korea from one like Belarus. Or a state like South Korea from one like Poland, or the United States, or the United Kingdom. Or any other state which has (like Belarus) afforded the use of their territory to a warring party, or (unlike Belarus) stationed troops within the borders of any states currently listed as belligerent in the article. See the inclusion of the USSR in Korean War, Vietnam War, et cetera for precedent. There are many similarities and differences between these states, and introducing more states will only compound them. The foremost issue with adding just Belarus supported only by the sources you have listed above is that there are co-belligerents on both sides, and adding sources with economic ties to the co-belligerents on one side to support adding only the co-belligerents of the side their donors and/or employers oppose, would break the WP:SPONSORED policy, regardless of how these sources are classified by WP:RSPSS and other community discussions. Finding two or more relatively neutral sources to support adding Belarus as a co-belligerent should not be difficult. The ISW is too involved in this case. Its current list of board members1 is: Jack Keane (retired US general), David Petraeus (retired US general), Kimberly Kagan (former member of US general Stanley McChrystal's strategic assessment team), William Roberti (former US colonel), Kelly Craft (former US ambassador to the UN and Canada), William Kristol (chief of staff to multiple US presidents), Joseph I. Lieberman (retired US senator), Kevin Mandia (former USAF officer), and the only names left are Jack D. McCarthy, Jr., Bruce Mosler, Warren Phillips, Hudson La Force and Jennifer London, who range from positions in companies that work with or employ US veterans to positions in US government organisations. Ivan (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) None of that was WP:SPONSORED content. "ISW is too involved in this case [the Russo-Ukrainian war]". How come? No, none of these people took part in this war. Yes, the board members are military experts. Same with this this and this sources calling Belarus a "co-belligerent". Both are written by scholars/experts. Moreover, sources being published in country X (Ukraine) are fine. Only a lack of editorial oversight or publishing misinformation would disqualify them. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Of all the sources listed so far, only one would appear to be peer reviewed. Consequently, pushing an academic sources line appears to be somewhat disingenuous. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC) If you are talking about ISW, yes, I understand that their publications undergo only an internal review process, as typical for all think tanks. However, as a reputable research organization, it would pass even the more strict requirements requested by Arbcom for certain subject areas (although not that one). Therefore, ISW is good for the purpose of this RfC. I never said "academic". My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia decided to allow current events, and the consequence was a lowering of source standards. But eventually, enough time passes for academic literature to accumulate. In this case rapidly, thanks to high media coverage. That coverage continues, and because the proposer opted for including Belarus but not NATO, the high article traffic will only result in further contention. Citing higher quality sources will at least point would-be expanders of the list of supporters in the right direction. Cite what you ought to have read, not what you prefer to read. Like this. Not like this. The most relevant scientific fields for discriminating between "supported by" and "co-belligerent" are the martial and the legal. ISW would be martial but for a think tank to pass as a source for this issue, clearly contentious even within academia, would require an externally facilitated peer review process. That is not what you found. So far, apart from the sources I have provided, the only "independent" source anyone has proposed within either is Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022, which uses "assisted by" rather than "co-belligerent" to describe Belarus in its abstract (option (b)). If we add the political science, the most acceptable source put forth so far is Lozka 2023, which describes Belarus as playing "an active role as a belligerent state" (option (c)). The sources are not in agreement. For further incongruity, refer to the three citations I provided in the Survey section. Hopefully the interested editors will now resort to a survey of academic sources to determine consensus. If not, enough has already been provided for me to shift to (b) should 2 of the 3 acceptable sources supporting (b) be agreed upon (Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022, Benedek et al. 2022, Wentker 2023). Ivan (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Russo-Ukrainian War is not a scientific subject. This is a current event. Therefore, publications by reputable think tanks are great. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) It is a scientific subject in multiple fields and a current event at the same time. In fact, if you were to write a bibliography article while limiting yourself to peer-reviewed publications only, it would be so long it would have to be split multiple times, and you might run into WP:NOTDATABASE. A genuine question just to make sure. What search engine do you typically use in biophysics? Simple Google searches won't give you the results you need. Are you aware of Google Scholar or OpenAlex? Even if you don't know which journals to search, their indexing and digitisation is still unrivalled in most fields. Ivan (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) To quote WP:RS, "try to cite current scholarly consensus when available". The role played by Belarus began over two years ago, during which time many papers have been written on the subject of its co-belligerency by researchers who would be considered qualified and independent on this project, without applying the relatively relaxed criteria of "current events" articles to such a prominent statement; especially when only co-belligerents of one side are being added, as in the article referenced in their second choice. So while this is on the right track, I would recommend citing sources that show some reasoning for their description. I will provide you with two, and if you accept them or can produce alternate sources that meet similar standards, then I will change my vote to (b): <ref>{{Cite report |first1=Wolfgang |last1=Benedek |first2=Veronika |last2=Bílková |first3=Marco |last=Sassòli |title=Report on Violations of International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity committed in Ukraine since 24 February 2022 |url=https://www.osce.org/odihr/515868 |date=2022-04-12 |location=Warsaw |publisher=Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe |quote=Although Belarus allows its territory to be used to launch Russian attacks on Ukraine, the Mission considers that as of 1 April it is not a party to the IAC, as long as it does not itself commit acts of violence or other acts that would constitute direct participation in the hostilities by persons attributable to Belarus.}}</ref> Considers Belarus a supporting party but does not consider it a co-belligerent. Advantages: observer organisation. Disadvantages: no peer-review. <ref>{{Cite journal |first=Alexander |last=Wentker |date=2003 |title=At war? Party status and the war in Ukraine |pages=643-656 |doi=10.1017/S0922156522000760 |journal=Leiden Journal of International Law |eissn=1478-9698 |quote=Russia has launched significant parts of its invasion from Belarusian territory. This could constitute a sufficiently direct connection to the harm caused by the Russian invasion. Accordingly, Belarus’ putting its territory at Russia’s disposal could conceivably make Belarus a party on Russia’s side, depending on how Belarus’ territorial contribution has been co-ordinated with Russia’s military operations, and Belarus’s awareness thereof.}} Considers Belarus a supporting party but qualifies further research is need before assigning co-belligerent status. Advantages: peer-reviewed. Disadvantages: individual opinion. Having conducted a quick survey of the literature, I will probably not be changing my vote to (c). But if anyone prefers cherry-picking and outvoting to determining consensus through comprehensive survey and reasoned evaluation, here is a start: <ref>{{Cite conference |first=Agata |last=Kleczkowska |title=The Limits of Collective Self-defence: The Case of Ukraine |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4549552 |date=2023-08-28 |conference=International Law and the Regulation of Resort to Force: Exhaustion, Destruction, Rebirth? |quote=The following actions are considered as creating the upper limit of co-belligerency, so conduct which would render a State a party to an armed conflict: ... making available its own military bases to allow foreign troops to enter the territory of the State in conflict (hypothesis of Belarus), or making available its air bases to allow planes to take off to bomb troops on that territory, or implementing a no-fly zone, for example.}}</ref> Considers Belarus as a co-belligerent. Advantages: dedicated to the topic. Disadvantages: individual opinion without peer-review. Before anyone tries to use this as justification for excluding certain NATO members from the list of supporters: While "to bomb" might exclude states participating in the SIGINT phase of the kill chain, "making available its own military bases to allow foreign troops to enter the territory of the State in conflict" is less exclusive. You may not have noticed, but this is the Survey section. I don't mean to pedantic, but could any further discussion be restricted to the Discussion section? If there is any interest here in scholarly consensus, I might be available to assist with accessing papers behind paywalls. If you require any assistance with citation, please let me know! Ivan (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If I had to choose I'd choose option b as there are many more sources which describe the Belarusian role as supporting, helping or aiding Russia ([8], [9], [10], [11], and that just the tip of an iceberg). However I think the real question we should be discussing here is what kind of support qualifies for inclusion into the infobox. We have many sources that say the NATO countries support Ukraine and recently we've learnt that there are actually NATO boots on the ground [12] - unlike Belarus which hasn't sent soldiers to Ukraine. So I think that both the Belarusian support and NATO support, which went beyond the military aid as written now, should be mentioned in the infobox. Alaexis_¿question? 23:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Very simple. If multiple RS say that "country X is a co-belligerent" (as we have for Belarus), then include. Based on the usage of the term in these sources, "co-belligerent" and "belligerent" are not the same. I would suggest avoiding uncertain terms like "supported" because it can mean anything. As about formal criteria, this source say that providing the territory to attack another country would qualify as the co-belligerency and even aggression, while just providing training and weapons would not. "Boots on grounds" would probably qualify as co-belligerency if they are regular military forces rather than spies or civilian instructors, but again, one should look at specific sources and decide on case to case basis. My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Which does take us back to what are they doing, 50 might well be embassy guards. The simple fact is we do not know if they are engaged in combat, or not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Moreover, we should not decide ourselves if their actions qualify as a co-belligerency or whatever. That would be WP:OR. This should be decided by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The ones mentioned in the leaks were, according to the Luftwaffe dude, partaking in operational-level ISTAR for asymmetric strikes. Depending on the precise circumstances, this could be IHL-defined co-belligerency, but since every state actor in the picture (including Russia, on a certain level) has a strong vested interest in keeping this plausibly deniable…

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not in favor of any of the given options right now. I think its clear that Belarus should be somehow mentioned in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I'm not sure if we have sources for involvement prior to that (our sources do say Belarus is a co-belligerent, but in the context of the invasion). The Russo-Ukrainian War article first mentions Belarus in the context of Russian military buildup in Belarus and Russia prior to the invasion, so many years after the conflict first began. Unless we find sources that make it clear Belarus was a co-belligerent for the whole of the war, I would be more inclined to say something like "since 2022" or "since October 2021" (when Russia built up forces in Belarus). Gödel2200 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be said, agree. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the time absolutely needs to be specified. I don’t believe the differential-scope thing relative to the invasion main article was ever discussed during the drafting process over at that DRN request.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to draw attention to the fact that the third source quoted by @My very best wishes in support of his assertions is being (apparently in a good-faith oversight) seriously mis-abridged. As the link makes clear, the original source is speaking at that point about a hypothetical situation which has not since occurred and is presumed not to going forward per WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I’d also strongly contest that ISW is in any way scholarly RS. In fact I think I’d better stop repeating myself and take it to RSN, despite my concerns about the suitability of the process there (as it can get awfully binary sometimes). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which of the sources cited could be considered as scholarly, in that they are peer reviewed? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Between the hammer and the anvil: Belarus, its people, and Russia’s war against Ukraine (ugent.be): Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale war in February 2022, Belarus has played an active role as a belligerent state, allowing its territory to be used for launching missile attacks on Ukraine and facilitating the advance of Russian soldiers into northern and central regions of Ukraine. This active involvement serves as a culmination of the Lukashenka regime’s long-standing dependence on Russia across various domains.

Combat Without Warfighting: Non-Belligerent Actors and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine by Richard Humphreys, Lauma Paegļkalna :: SSRN: discusses Belarus as contrasted to non-belligerent actors: The Russian Federation’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, assisted by Belarus, has provoked a range of responses from non-belligerent state and private actors that represent an evolved form of sub-warfighting combat. Going beyond traditional responses such as established types of sanctions, the responses to the invasion have illustrated a wide range of tools available to non-belligerent actors without reaching the threshold of warfighting.
Putin’s Strategic Failure (iiss.org) Except for Belarus, a co-belligerent, Russia enjoys no visible support even among post-Soviet autocracies. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I will assume that the response above was intended as a reply to my previous post. Addressing the three sources cited, the first is described as a "working paper" and as such, is not peer reviewed. The second is sourced through SSRN, which is a repository for pre-published papers. As cited, this is not a peer reviewed paper. The third is from the think-tank IISS. This is an internally produced paper and not peer reviewed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Putin's Strategic Failure: Survival: Vol 64, No 2 (tandfonline.com) was published in Survival (journal) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Between the hammer and the anvil: Belarus, its people, and Russia’s war against Ukraine (ugent.be) states a reviewer: Piotr Bajor, PhD Habil., Assistant Professor at Department of National Security of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

And there is more
Armed Conflict Survey 2023 - Google Books ... Belarus remains a co-belligerent but not a co-combatant, providing extensive assistance to Russia – including the use of its territory to base Russian forces and launch attacks – without directly intervening with its own military assets ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: Thank you very much for excellent sources and arguments. I think this is a perfect evaluation of the role of Belarus in this war based on your provided scolarly Google Books source: Belarus remains a co-belligerent but not a co-combatant. This is exactly to what I have pointed out at the beginning of this RFC. By the way, please do not forget to express your opinion in the voting of this RFC above as we need as broad as possible WP:CONS about this question. -- Pofka (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: I would like to add one more quote of Lukashenko which he said during a press conference with Putin in December 2022: "You know the two of us are co-aggressors, the most harmful and toxic people on this planet" (published in multiple sources: British Express.co.uk, American Washington Post, Russian TASS). -- Pofka (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  "he added jokingly" Ivan (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved from Survey section

• Below is the discussion in regards to Ivan's comment in the survey section, moved to the discussion section. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

All these sources qualify as RS, ISW including (this is a reputable, even a scholarly/expert source on several currently ongoing wars). What really matters per WP:V is the fact-checking and editorial independence, not the sources of funding. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War and Russian military suppliers are already linked to in the infobox, with Belarus in the latter. Some states have gone beyond supplying materiel, separating a state like North Korea from one like Belarus. Or a state like South Korea from one like Poland, or the United States, or the United Kingdom. Or any other state which has (like Belarus) afforded the use of their territory to a warring party, or (unlike Belarus) stationed troops within the borders of any states currently listed as belligerent in the article. See the inclusion of the USSR in Korean War, Vietnam War, et cetera for precedent. There are many similarities and differences between these states, and introducing more states will only compound them.

The foremost issue with adding just Belarus supported only by the sources you have listed above is that there are co-belligerents on both sides, and adding sources with economic ties to the co-belligerents on one side to support adding only the co-belligerents of the side their donors and/or employers oppose, would break the WP:SPONSORED policy, regardless of how these sources are classified by WP:RSPSS and other community discussions. Finding two or more relatively neutral sources to support adding Belarus as a co-belligerent should not be difficult.

The ISW is too involved in this case. Its current list of board members¹ is: Jack Keane (retired US general), David Petraeus (retired US general), Kimberly Kagan (former member of US general Stanley McChrystal's strategic assessment team), William Roberti (former US colonel), Kelly Craft (former US ambassador to the UN and Canada), William Kristol (chief of staff to multiple US presidents), Joseph I. Lieberman (retired US senator), Kevin Mandia (former USAF officer), and the only names left are Jack D. McCarthy, Jr., Bruce Mosler, Warren Phillips, Hudson La Force and Jennifer London, who range from positions in companies that work with or employ US veterans to positions in US government organisations.

Ivan (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

None of that was WP:SPONSORED content. "ISW is too involved in this case [the Russo-Ukrainian war]". How come? No, none of these people took part in this war. Yes, the board members are military experts. Same with this this and this sources calling Belarus a "co-belligerent". Both are written by scholars/experts. Moreover, sources being published in country X (Ukraine) are fine. Only a lack of editorial oversight or publishing misinformation would disqualify them. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Of all the sources listed so far, only one would appear to be peer reviewed. Consequently, pushing an academic sources line appears to be somewhat disingenuous. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about ISW, yes, I understand that their publications undergo only an internal review process, as typical for all think tanks. However, as a reputable research organization, it would pass even the more strict requirements requested by Arbcom for certain subject areas (although not that one). Therefore, ISW is good for the purpose of this RfC. I never said "academic". My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia decided to allow current events, and the consequence was a lowering of source standards. But eventually, enough time passes for academic literature to accumulate. In this case rapidly, thanks to high media coverage. That coverage continues, and because the proposer opted for including Belarus but not NATO, the high article traffic will only result in further contention. Citing higher quality sources will at least point would-be expanders of the list of supporters in the right direction. Cite what you ought to have read, not what you prefer to read. Like this. Not like this. The most relevant scientific fields for discriminating between "supported by" and "co-belligerent" are the martial and the legal. ISW would be martial but for a think tank to pass as a source for this issue, clearly contentious even within academia, would require an externally facilitated peer review process. That is not what you found. So far, apart from the sources I have provided, the only "independent" source anyone has proposed within either is Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022, which uses "assisted by" rather than "co-belligerent" to describe Belarus in its abstract (option (b)). If we add the political science, the most acceptable source put forth so far is Lozka 2023, which describes Belarus as playing "an active role as a belligerent state" (option (c)). The sources are not in agreement. For further incongruity, refer to the three citations I provided in the Survey section. Hopefully the interested editors will now resort to a survey of academic sources to determine consensus. If not, enough has already been provided for me to shift to (b) should 2 of the 3 acceptable sources supporting (b) be agreed upon (Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022, Benedek et al. 2022, Wentker 2023). Ivan (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War is not a scientific subject. This is a current event. Therefore, publications by reputable think tanks are great. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a scientific subject in multiple fields and a current event at the same time. In fact, if you were to write a bibliography article while limiting yourself to peer-reviewed publications only, it would be so long it would have to be split multiple times, and you might run into WP:NOTDATABASE. A genuine question just to make sure. What search engine do you typically use in biophysics? Simple Google searches won't give you the results you need. Are you aware of Google Scholar or OpenAlex? Even if you don't know which journals to search, their indexing and digitisation is still unrivalled in most fields. Ivan (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sure, everything can be studied, even the current events and the war. Hence the source I suggested to use above, Institute for the Study of War, and it says the Belarus is a co-belligerent. But for some reasons you guys do not like it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources like ISW are self-published expert opinion. As such, it is permissible to use such a source with attribution. They are a qualified reliable source, in that there is a rider to their use. An entry in an infobox is made in a Wiki voice. Who are holding the smoking guns is sufficient to assert that Russia and Ukraine are fighting each other. Asserting that Belarus is also a belligerent even though it is not holding a smoking gun is based on the nuance of the legalities of war. It is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which we need exceptional sources - a consensus in WP:HQRSs. In Wiki parlance, a scholarly source is peer reviewed, as opposed to works written by a scholar that are not peer reviewed. As such, ISW and other publications that are not peer reviewed simply don't cut the mustard. They are used with qualification but are not fit for this purpose. Furthermore, if we are to make an exception of Belarus from other countries standing in the periphery, the sources must tell us that Belarus is an exception from these other countries. As I read it, this last point is what Иованъ is driving at. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• The reviews were published by ISW, an organization. Hence they are not self-published. Belarus supporting Russia by providing its territory for the invasion (option b) is a matter of fact, no one disputes it. Option c is debatable, but nothing "extraordinary" because multiple RS, including ones by military and legal experts, say it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

What about ARBPIA (nearest analogue I can think of)? Is that the case there? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To quote WP:RS, "try to cite current scholarly consensus when available". The role played by Belarus began over two years ago, during which time many papers have been written on the subject of its co-belligerency by researchers who would be considered qualified and independent on this project, without applying the relatively relaxed criteria of "current events" articles to such a prominent statement; especially when only co-belligerents of one side are being added, as in the article referenced in their second choice. So while this is on the right track, I would recommend citing sources that show some reasoning for their description. I will provide you with two, and if you accept them or can produce alternate sources that meet similar standards, then I will change my vote to (b) {{small|(I wrote this before reading the new Infobox military conflict rule):

• <ref>{{Cite report |first1=Wolfgang |last1=Benedek |first2=Veronika |last2=Bílková |first3=Marco |last=Sassòli |title=Report on Violations of International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity committed in Ukraine since 24 February 2022 |url=https://www.osce.org/odihr/515868 |date=2022-04-12 |location=Warsaw |publisher=Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe |quote=Although Belarus allows its territory to be used to launch Russian attacks on Ukraine, the Mission considers that as of 1 April it is not a party to the IAC, as long as it does not itself commit acts of violence or other acts that would constitute direct participation in the hostilities by persons attributable to Belarus.}}</ref> Considers Belarus a supporting party but does not consider it a co-belligerent. Advantages: observer organisation. Disadvantages: no peer-review.
• <ref>{{Cite journal |first=Alexander |last=Wentker |date=2003 |title=At war? Party status and the war in Ukraine |pages=643-656 |doi=10.1017/S0922156522000760 |journal=Leiden Journal of International Law |eissn=1478-9698 |quote=Russia has launched significant parts of its invasion from Belarusian territory. This could constitute a sufficiently direct connection to the harm caused by the Russian invasion. Accordingly, Belarus’ putting its territory at Russia’s disposal could conceivably make Belarus a party on Russia’s side, depending on how Belarus’ territorial contribution has been co-ordinated with Russia’s military operations, and Belarus’s awareness thereof.}}</ref> Considers Belarus a supporting party but qualifies further research is need before assigning co-belligerent status. Advantages: peer-reviewed. Disadvantages: individual opinion.

Having conducted a quick survey of the literature, I will probably not be changing my vote to (c). But if anyone prefers cherry-picking and outvoting to determining consensus through comprehensive survey and reasoned evaluation, here is a start:

• <ref>{{Cite conference |first=Agata |last=Kleczkowska |title=The Limits of Collective Self-defence: The Case of Ukraine |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4549552 |date=2023-08-28 |conference=International Law and the Regulation of Resort to Force: Exhaustion, Destruction, Rebirth? |quote=The following actions are considered as creating the upper limit of co-belligerency, so conduct which would render a State a party to an armed conflict: ... making available its own military bases to allow foreign troops to enter the territory of the State in conflict (hypothesis of Belarus), or making available its air bases to allow planes to take off to bomb troops on that territory, or implementing a no-fly zone, for example.}}</ref> Considers Belarus as a co-belligerent. Advantages: dedicated to the topic. Disadvantages: individual opinion without peer-review. Before anyone tries to use this as justification for excluding certain NATO members from the list of supporters: While "to bomb" might exclude states participating in the SIGINT phase of the kill chain, "making available its own military bases to allow foreign troops to enter the territory of the State in conflict" is less exclusive.

You may not have noticed, but this is the Survey section. I don't mean to pedantic, but could any further discussion be restricted to the Discussion section? If there is any interest here in scholarly consensus, I might be available to assist with accessing papers behind paywalls. If you require any assistance with citation, please let me know! Ivan (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Nor European Union, nor United States are belligerents in this war and even if they funded some sources it does not mean that these sources are not WP:RS and they are not listed in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. The fact that authors are working for Western world institutions do not automatically make their sources doubtful. Almost all publications are funded/supported by various universities and funds and just because they encourage research it does not mean that information provided in these sources is not neutral or doubtful. Moreover, sources written by authors from countries which suffered from genocides do not automatically make their sources as not reliable and there were clear allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. -- Pofka (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  To quote @Cinderella157, Sources like ISW are self-published expert opinion. As such, it is permissible to use such a source with attribution (emphasis mine). Recently, the practice of adding "supported by" in the infobox was deprecated. There is no space in the infobox for that attribution. So you need to prove WP:EXCEPTIONAL circumstances apply. That means citing peer-reviewed journals unless such sources are unavailable. But if those sources disagree with one another, then the criteria have not been met. You can still cite any of those sources with attribution, but it must be done in the body of the article.

  Why is there so much disagreement, even in the legal field? To quote Ramya 2023, "no existing treaty or international law lays down a clear threshold for crossing from a neutral state to a co-belligerent state". For that matter, the same paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, argues that the United States is a co-belligerent. Here it is if you want to cite it, followed by several others arguing similar cases:

  • Ramya, Kritika (2023-10-13). "The Interplay between Neutrality, Qualified Neutrality and Co-belligerency in the Context of U.S. Intervention in the Russia-Ukraine War". International and Comparative Law Review. 23 (1): 72–94. doi:10.2478/iclr-2023-0004. eISSN 2464-6601. International laws in terms of co-belligerency are also governed by International Humanitarian Laws (IHL) under the Four Geneva Convention of 1949 which lays down rules where military assistance by a neutral state can result in co-belligerency. ... This article attempts to define the threshold in terms of severity, effectiveness, and inertia of the intervention. It further argues the U.S. has crossed its threshold and therefore the existing laws governing violation of neutrality and affixing of state responsibility are now applicable to the U.S.
  • Heller, Kevin Jon; Trabucco, Lena (2022-08-29). "The Legality of Weapons Transfers to Ukraine Under International Law". Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies. 13 (2): 251–274. doi:10.1163/18781527-bja10053. eISSN 1878-1527. weapons transfers likely violate the law of neutrality, entitling Russia to respond with countermeasures
  • Dimopoulou, Polyxeni (2022-02-16). Neutrality towards an 'aggressor': A case study of the Russia-Ukraine conflict (PDF) (Thesis). Athens: Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. the idea that States can unilaterally discriminate against the alleged "aggressor" runs counter to two fundamental concepts of the law of armed conflict. First, it is opposed to the principle of equality of belligerents, according to which international humanitarian law applies equally to both belligerents irrespective of the legality of the resort to force that initiated the conflict. This principle emanates from the separation between ius ad bellum and ius in bello and ensures that all parties to the conflict will have the same obligations and all protected persons will be equally protected. In United States v. List the Tribunal stated that the rules of neutrality apply between belligerents and neutral States irrespective of the cause of war and even if the war itself is illegal. ... the suggestion that there is an intermediary status between belligerent and neutral contradicts the oppositional binary classification system that permeates the law of armed conflict. ... Since Russia's invasion this year, nearly 40 States have provided Ukraine with billions of dollars in lethal military aid, including weapons and ammunition. This evidently violates the neutral duty of abstention and in response Russia warned the United States to stop arming Ukraine.

  Some argue neither the United States nor Belarus have violated existing standards of neutrality:

  • Ghag, Ashutosh; Govande, Mihir; Shukla, Shweta (2023-10-13). "Evaluating Arms Transfers in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict in the Light of the Arms Trade Treaty, State Responsibility, and the Law of Neutrality". International and Comparative Law Review. 23 (1): 139–181. doi:10.2478/iclr-2023-0007. eISSN 2464-6601. The Hague Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land and the Hague Convention (XIII) concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War are the primary conventions which lay down the rules of neutrality in international law. The authors, at this point, find it pertinent to note that while not ubiquitous, a large number of the States currently supplying weapons to Ukraine and Russia are parties to at least one, if not both, of the conventions. Article 2 of the Fifth Convention states that 'Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.' Article 6 of the Thirteenth Hague Convention states that 'The supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, of warships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatsoever, is forbidden.' The term 'war material' has not been defined in the conventions, and has multiple clashing interpretations. ... Whether the use of Belarus' territory by Russia is a violation of neutrality is also unclear. Article 1 of the Fifth Hague Convention states that the territory of neutral States is inviolable. Not only do belligerent States have a duty to not use the territory of neutral States, neutral States have the duty to repel any violation of this neutrality, even by force. ... with respect to, both, the transfer of weapons and the use of territory, conflicting viewpoints arise. However, the absence of any widespread state practice, and the lack of a consensus between the global community on the permissibility of such forms of assistance indicates that these forms of support are not valid under international law. Whether these actions are numerous enough to result in a forfeiture of the overall status of neutrality, however, is unclear. ... Russia and Ukraine's statements throughout the conflict make it clear that neither considers any State providing support to either to have forfeited their neutrality. Thus, it is clear to the authors that while the actions of the supporting States violate neutrality, they cannot be termed as belligerents to the conflict. As of now, the aforementioned category of States are likely to retain their status as Neutral States.

  There might be a media consensus outside of deprecated/to-be-deprecated sources for calling labelling Belarus but not the United States a co-belligerent, but once an issue is written about enough in the relevant scientific fields, it is the consensus in those fields that matters the most for leads and infoboxes. Look through 100 Category:Dwarf planets infoboxes. What sources are cited? Scientific databases, articles in peer-reviewed journals, and so on. Where are the newspapers? Newspapers are constantly misreporting scientific findings, despite citing reliable sources themselves. Where are the self-published papers? Even pre-prints are rarely cited in their infoboxes. The ISW receives funding from a government considered by some papers in peer-reviewed journals to be a belligerent. It does not necessarily impact their work. But it can, making it hardly more reliable for an unqualified statement in an "encyclopedia anyone can edit" than SVOP and RISI by default. Even the OCSE source I cited above does not consider either the United States or Belarus legally co-belligerent. My vote remains (a) because there is no consensus concerning the degree of belligerence of either the United States or Belarus. Ivan (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Let's not jump into different topic. If you want to raise that, please start a new discussion where we will provide pro and contra. Here we discuss Belarus. How many sources contest Belarus as a belligerent? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal is to add just Belarus. The objection is that adding any co-belligerent now that "supported by" has been deprecated requires exceptional evidence (scholarly consensus). There is no scholarly consensus. Neither is there for the very similar role of Kuwait in the Iraq War, thus its absence from the infobox there, or even the list of belligerents in the infobox for the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. There is too much disagreement between scholarly sources to allow for the inclusion of either Belarus or the United States in the list of belligerents. Among sources I that have been mentioned so far, those that oppose a "co-belligerent" designation include Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022, Benedek et al. 2022, Ashutosh et al. 2023 and Wentker 2023. You will find many more. Ivan (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  too much disagreement between scholarly sources
  — User:Иованъ 22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  That was the question. How many sources contest Belarus as a belligerent? It is not an exceptional claim to characterize a country providing a territory as a belligerent. Many sources say Belarus is. It is an exceptional claim to say the contrary. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022
  — User:Иованъ 22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  This source does not oppose Belarus as a "co-belligerent". Quite the contrary, it discusses Belarus as contrasted to non-belligerent actors: The Russian Federation’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, assisted by Belarus, has provoked a range of responses from non-belligerent state and private actors that represent an evolved form of sub-warfighting combat. Going beyond traditional responses such as established types of sanctions, the responses to the invasion have illustrated a wide range of tools available to non-belligerent actors without reaching the threshold of warfighting. No false claims please. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  The source says "The Russian Federation’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, assisted by Belarus, has provoked a range of responses from non-belligerent state and private actors that represent an evolved form of sub-warfighting combat. Going beyond traditional responses such as established types of sanctions, the responses to the invasion have illustrated a wide range of tools available to non-belligerent actors without reaching the threshold of warfighting." (emphasis mine) You could cite it for "supported by", but that has been deprecated for this infobox. That leaves (a) nothing, and (c) co-belligerent, with nothing in between (for the infobox). So unless a source argues it was a co-belligerent, it cannot be used to support its inclusion. Ivan (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Иованъ, as a point of fact, The close of the RfC that deprecated "supported by" does not totally forbid its use in exceptional cases where there is a strong affirmative consensus for its use (ie an RfC such as this). In writing this, I am not advocating this option. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't addressed the argument above. It remains. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The whole grant thing is way more important, in general, than people realize. Here in California, at a famous public research university, the best-paid professor in Eastern European studies is paid three times (over 300k vs. slightly above 100k USD) that of an important honcho in the Slavics department who writes language textbooks. Why? Because he gets a lot more grants. Largely from actors with an interest in EE politics (the humanitarian orgs don't have the money to throw around).

  This is public information (albeit I won't link it lest I retroactively out myself in the future when I'm in grad school should I continue getting pulled deeper and deeper into EE studies academically) and you can trivially find many analogous cases looking up the pay of any public employee in most US states.

  I mostly wrote all of the above at such length in the hope that someday soon a true automated assistant is able to intelligently direct querying editors to old archives. But I hope it furthers the current discussion as well.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll give you a courtesy ping when I finally get around to writing a comprehensive post at RSN :) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. This and previous discussions show there are multiple RS explicitly saying that Belarus should be described as a "co-belligerent" after the 2022 invasion, and none is arguing that it should not be described as such. Other states are not so much relevant to this discussion, but there is generally a consensus in sources that Belarus is very different from the US and other countries supporting main belligerents of this war, for example [13], [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The first one doesn't address the whole intelligence thing and is also another think tank and the second, as Cinderella157 pointed out, is not peer-reviewed and hardly meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL (and as an American prospective law student I take a dim view of the objectivity or even expert authority of a single member of the Supreme Court of Latvia). Sorry for all the annotations but I felt they were necessary disclaimers.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Legality of invasion

• I removed this [15]. Sure, one can argue that certain wars by the USA were unjust and were not approved by UN. But this is not on the subject of this page. This an example of Whataboutism that does not affect the already stated conclusion that the invasion by Russia was illegal. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the claim by Putin that he decided to attack Ukraine to prevent the expansion of NATO was false. In fact, NATO has expanded. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• • Please provide reliable secondary references to support your unsubstantiated statement "it is generally accepted that the claim by Putin that he decided to attack Ukraine to prevent the expansion of NATO was false".

Please see RS in Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Allegations_of_NATO_aggression. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And just for starters, no one, including the Russians and Ukrainians, expected Ukraine to become a NATO member for at least 20 years before the war, as noted in many sources (e.g. [16] by Alexander J. Motyl). My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/one-more-time-its-not-about-nato/

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/weakness-lethal-why-putin-invaded-ukraine-and-how-war-must-end

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/did-putin-invade-ukraine-because-of-natos-broken-promise

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-ukraine-war-speech-today-blames-us-nato-after-one-year-invasion/

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/putins-biggest-lie-blaming-nato-for-his-war/

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-02-21-expert-comment-no-proxy-war-russia-really-invaded-ukraine

Double standards applied to Russo-Ukrainian war and prior US-lead wars.

Several political analysts commented on the use of double standards in comparing Russo-Ukrainian wars and prior US-lead wars. In 2014 and earlier John 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 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." Others draw parallels between 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2011 military intervention in Libya by the USA and its allies on one side and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on the other side. In all 4 cases the military activities were initiated without prior approval of the UN Security Council required by the United Nations charter and the international law. Walter Tau (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

John Mearsheimer views are widely criticised but that information was recently removed [17] from the article - see Talk:John Mearsheimer#Insertion of disputed material . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument for removing them. If multiple sources engage with his arguments and mention them then by definition it satisfies the coverage requirements in WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 21:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This does not show his views are DUE on this page. This shows his views are controversial and should be presented as such. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I added 2 more journal articles critically discussing Mearshheimer views to "Links" but those were removed as well [18] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Btw with respect, the edit summary there was kinda non-neutral. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The Mearsheimer removal was because of tone and BLP concerns, not so much the content but how it was presented and that the nature and formatting of the inline wikivoice rebuttal was inappropriate for that article. I respectfully urge you to work toward a better comprehension of what editors who may differ at times from you are saying and what their thinking is.

As for the previous question, I’ll get back to you after supper.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Why should we include anything about "US-led wars" to this page? My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• OK one difference, Ukraine did not join NATO, it is just a fear they might, Russia did deploy Nules in Cuba. So they are not the same. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment: The NATO members did not deployed nuclear weapons in Ukraine and had absolutely no plans to do that. This is just part of the propaganda in Russia to justify expansionism policy at a cost of a country and nation they quite recently called "brotherly". So the situation of Ukraine is absolutely not comparable to Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia should not act like it did not signed the Budapest Memorandum (together with the United States and United Kingdom) where it agreed to uphold the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine. Despite that, Russia is currently destroying Ukraine and acts like it seeks to create a 21th century Anschluss. On 2 March 2022, the United Nations General Assembly voted to deplore "in the strongest possible terms" Russia's aggression against Ukraine by a vote of 141 to 5, with 35 abstentions (supporting source). The resolution also called for the Russian Federation to "immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine" and "immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces" (the same supporting source). Only Russia, Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea voted against the resolution (supporting source). By the way, none of United States-led wars sought to annex foreign countries territories and to integrate them into the United States' territory, so United States' wars do not belong in article Russo-Ukrainian War and are absolutely non-comparable with Russia's invasion of democratic Ukraine. So double standards are not applied to Russo-Ukrainian war and prior US-led wars. -- Pofka (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Council on Foreign Relations article mentions Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait. That is a better parallel. The US did not invade Iraq in 2003 solely by themselves, since this also involved other countries, like the UK, Australia and Poland, and it did not annex Iraq nor violently change its borders. Mearsheimer doesn't have a point here. After all, Cuba became a communist state and stayed one until this day. The US did not annex Cuba, nor did it force Cubans to become Americans or kidnap their children for forced assimilation. Russia is acting alone in this war against Ukraine. Regarding UN Security Council approval, over 95% of all modern wars were not approved, but still happened, from Bosnia, Myanmar, Sudan up to Chechnya.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Great comments! Yes, this is all true except only one thing. Russia did not start the latest part of the war alone. Russia started the 2022 invasion together with Belarus. This is because the plans for the invasion have been agreed upon with Lukashenko before the invasion, as he said himself. Accordingly, Belarus provided their territory, resources and people to start the invasion. In addition, Putin visited China just before the invasion to discuss this matter with Chinese leadership and apparently received a "go ahead", or at least many sources suggest it. And Russia certainly does not conduct this war alone, being supported by Belarus, Iran, North Korea and most importantly, China. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2024

Wrong date: change "which began in February 2014" to "which began in February 2024" 95.24.174.8 (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The Russo-Ukrainian War started in 2014. The invasion, a subsection of that war, started in 2022. I'm not sure where 2024 comes from. — Czello ^(music) 15:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Ecocide

Since water is polluted, forests destroyed, CO2 emitted and chemicals and explosives get into the environment in largest amounts we have to mention the topic. Introduction: https://rubryka.com/en/article/ekotsyd-v-ukrayini/ WikiYeti (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we?source, I would like more (and better) sources for this being "ecocide". 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)