Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Belligerents: supported by Belarus

This article should follow the recent consensus at the child article ‘s talk, in Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on Belarus in the infobox, and add Belarus to the infobox as a significant participant from 2022. Its role and agency as a sovereign state actor in this international conflict is certainly more significant than that of the Russian proxies DLNR (which should be removed, but that’s a separate discussion).  —Michael Z. 14:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure that an RFC on one page should be enforceable on another, no matter how closely related. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

So I am asking for agreement in this page.  —Michael Z. 14:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As the close was "no consensus for change " (in effect) I am going to suggest the same result will occur here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Since there was a clear consensus to have Belarus in the infobox, I will not presume to predict what editors think should be here. Since there is consensus to list Belarus as a significant actor in a major phase of this war, I would urge them to include it in this parent article, for consistency and common sense.  —Michael Z. 16:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Use Co-belligerence: instead of Supported by:. See https://www.understandingwar.org/search/google/Belarus%20is%20a%20co-belligerent Parham wiki (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki, I suggest that you read the relevant subthreads in the RfC about that. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier, OK, thanks Parham wiki (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The Institute for the Study of War clearly describe Belarus as co-belligerent in the war in Ukraine (see: 1, 2), Chatham House mention that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko was labelled a co-belligerent (see: 3) and in June 2023 Lukashenko himself publicly claimed that "The only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: 4), so Ukraine is a "common enemy" of Russia and Belarus (see: the meaning of co-belligerence). Moreover, keep in mind that Belarus allowed to use its territory for the Russian Army and is a military supplier of Russia. So devaluation of Belarus as purely "Russian military supplier" is incorrect because none of military suppliers of Russia (e.g. Iran, North Korea) and Ukraine (e.g. United States, Germany, France) allowed to use their countries territory for Russian/Ukrainian troops for combative military actions against opponents (not training/treatment). At the time Template:Infobox military conflict does not have a separate section for "co-belligerence", however this fact about Belarus as co-belligerent (which is supported by WP:RS) should not be omitted just because of technical limitations of Wikipedia and the template should definitely be improved by including such section. -- Pofka (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: The revert you made should be discussed. You claim that "The status of belligerence is not supported by the body of the article", however there already are explanations that "Russian attacks were initially launched on a northern front from Belarus towards Kyiv" and that "After expending large amounts of heavy weapons and munitions over months, the Russian Federation received (...) deliveries of tanks and other armoured vehicles from Belarus". Do you think more content from article Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine should be inserted to this article to include in the infobox information that Belarus is/was a co-belligerent of Russia in this war? As user Michael already pointed out, Belarus is included in the side of Russia as "supported by" in another very closely related article Russian invasion of Ukraine. The important role of Belarus in this war, especially since early 2022, should not be hidden. -- Pofka (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Do RS call it a beligerant? Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is what follows a revert in WP:BRD. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox must be supported by article content. Why we think Belarus should be considered a co-belligerent would be WP:OR. It is up to the sources and there is a WP:BURDEN to provide them. I also said it was a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires particularly good quality sources. There is also a WP:ONUS to gain consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pofka, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the discussions which had taken place at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it would hardly be NPOV or DUE to push the role of Belarus in a single phase into the spotlight, while similarly ignoring the fact that Western support has been pretty much universally documented by all sides as being vital to the Ukrainian war effort. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Not wishing to rake over old coals, but providing basing, and even allowing attacks from your soil is not the same as supplying arms. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's not go down that particular rabbit-hole again. The pertinent question is a consensus in good quality reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL and that the body of the article supports what is said in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: What I inserted is not my personal WP:OR. Please read these quotes (some are already mentioned in my earlier statement above):

1) "The Belarusian regime’s support for the Russian invasion has made Belarus a cobelligerent in the war in Ukraine" (first source from ISW);

2) "Belarus remains a co-belligerent in Russia’s war against Ukraine, nonetheless." (second source from ISW);

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

4) "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);

5) 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).

@Cinderella157 and @Slatersteven: These sources (and there are more) clearly describe Belarus as co-belligerent and we can use them as references in this article. I fully agree with you @Slatersteven that providing military aid (e.g. United States to Ukraine and North Korea to Russia) is not equal to the permission to use its own territory for the war (not only for ground attacks but also many, many missiles from Belarusian soil towards Ukraine, etc.). Without Belarus as co-belligerent in this war the Battle of Kyiv (2022) would have been impossible and this is the responsibility of Belarus, Lukashenko and Belarusian Government that they allowed and even supported this type of invasion from their own soil. None of missiles/aircrafts were launched from Ukraine's allies territories directly towards Russian Army and that's what clearly makes Belarus very different from Ukraine's allies. The NATO members would consider launching missiles/aircrafts from the NATO territory towards Russian Army as direct involvement in the war and they do not want to be belligerents/co-belligerents and they act purely as military suppliers to Ukraine, but Belarus has clearly acted in this war differently and lethal missiles were launched from Belarusian territory towards Ukrainian cities, including capital Kyiv. -- Pofka (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As I stated, calling it a co-belligerent (ie a belligerent on the side of Russia) falls to WP:EXCEPTIONAL. As such, WP:NEWSORG sources would not meet the threshold of reliability for their opinion. The standard to be applied would be academic peer reviewed sources. However, the initial question posed above would be: inclusion of Belarus under "supported by" as done at Russian invasion of Ukraine. The close of the RfC that deprecated "supported by" (here) would state: inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article [emphasis added]. Clearly, a proposal to so add Belarus here would require an RfC here. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I go back to what I have said about other issues, lets wait until this is over, and wait for historians to decide. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: I started a new Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion about the role of Belarus in this war and how it should be presented in this article (see: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Russo-Ukrainian War). I think that a WP:RFC will be necessary to solve this serious dispute (as it was already suggested above by user Cinderella157), but I believe that it should be organized by a qualified dispute solver via the Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Pofka (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• This is a unique situation. First of all, Russia and Belarus are officially united in a single quasi-state known as Union State. This is a supranational union, but not anything like EU. Some say that Belarus is already occupied and subjugated by Russia. Then, Belarus is indeed deeply involved in the war including even war crimes committed by the both states together [1], continuously providing the Belorussian territory to Russian armed forces to attack Ukraine, etc. (noted by Pofka above). Putin placed Russian tactical nukes in Belarus. We have big page, Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. EU made sanctions [2] 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.. All of that, and particularly the planning the war of aggression together, support the suggestion by Pofka to include Belarus as a co-belligerent (please check this page). Moreover, the Institute for the Study of War says this directly [3]. I think this is actually a clear-cut case. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A commentary on international law says:

"...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.

My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If RS say it so can we. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. As of note, Belarus is already included to the infobox of page Russian invasion of Ukraine. Same should be done here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It appears that we recently had an RfC about 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. So, why the same consensus should not be applied here? I can see only one difference, the controversial Minsk agreements. However, Belarus was not a side in these agreements, hence not very much relevant. Other than that, the role of Belarus was the same. Hence I think we might just mention Belarus in the infobox in neutral fashion [4], i.e. not necessarily as a "co-belligerent" and be done with it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on the "co-belligerent" status, here is the question. We do have a number of scholarly sources right now (cited above) explicitly saying that Belarus was a co-belligerent. Do we have any other strong RS explicitly saying that it was not? Whatever sources say about other countries is not relevant here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because Pofka is about to initiate an RfC with several options. There is no WP:DEADLINE, particularly when the RfC is imminent and may decide differently. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone presumably going to start an RfC (who knows if and when?) is not a valid reason to not improve the page right now. Based on your comment, you do not have and substantial objections to my compromise edit. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Pofka has notified this discussion that they have taken the matter to DR to formulate an RfC but they have not been active since 12 March. Your comment about who and when is somewhat disingenuous in the face of WP:NODEADLINE. Your "compromise" edit would be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since Belarus's involvement is not a key fact evidenced by the article. It would also be contrary to MOS:FORCELINK. Adding Belarus this way, as an end-around the specific deprecation of 'supported by' in the infobox can be seen as being contrary to the spirit and intent of the RfC that deprecated that usage and could thereby be seen as WP:PETTIFOGGING. So yes, there are good reasons and there have been no comments expressing support for your edit (WP:ONUS and WP:SILENCE apply). While you have referred to the RfC at Russian invasion of Ukraine, your edit is not what that RfC determined should happen, nor does it ipso facto override the consensus regarding 'supported by' and under what circumstances it can be applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it would follow from the closing of the previous RfC on page Russian invasion of Ukraine: "At issue in this discussion is how best to cover Belarus' involvement in the ongoing war in Ukraine in the relevant article's infobox ... Q: Should we list Belarus in the infobox? A: Yes. There's a clear consensus to keep it there." This is the same war, same question and suppose to be the same answer. But whatever. In my view, this issue is minor, and it could be easily resolved by providing sources on talk, as Pofka and me did. Making yet another RfC about the same would be a waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You say: "your edit is not what that RfC determined should happen". OK. If you can include Belarus to the infobox (as the closing of the RfC says) in any other way than I did, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This thread started out with the premise of adding Belarus under "supported by". There was no clear consensus that the RfC at Russian invasion of Ukraine applied here. Instead, it digressed into adding Belarus under a heading of "co-belligerent", which is problematic since states/entities listed together in one or the other of the belligerent columns of the infobox are ipso fact co-belligerents. Hence, adding a special heading "co-belligerent" for Belarus is unclear, confusing and even nonsense. However, Pofka does seem intent on an RfC that would include this as an option, though they have not yet confirmed this after my previous ping. At this point, there is agreement that Belarus's involvement is something special but there is no consensus on how this should be represented in the infobox (if at all) and it is certainly not supported by the article. As to the sources, there is a difference between attributed expert opinion and peer reviewed WP:HQRS. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement to keep infobox "Military conflict" on the page. This can be any template specifically modified for this page, just as for "Invasion" page. If Pofka submits an RfC, he should clarify that the question is about including certain info to the template that would be modified accordingly. Then, one could modify the template for the page, while any RfC about template "Military conflict" would not be applicable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I think there is a difference between belligerent (an individual, group, country, or other entity that acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat) and co-belligerent (the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a military alliance). Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War do not directly engage in combat, however it definitely cooperate (with Russia) to fight against a common enemy (Ukraine) by allowing to use its territory for waging a war. -- Pofka (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Other supporters in light of recent revelations

I think it's pretty obvious that Belarus has supported Russia, and I didn't participate in the RfC in the other article since I didn't consider that infobox particularly important.

However now we have RS reporting on the presence of troops from NATO countries in Ukraine and on the CIA helping the Ukrainians fight Russia for 8 years. Also, there are probably dozens of articles that say that the West supports Ukraine militarily (example).

Considering that Belarus did not send its army to Ukraine, I believe that adding just Belarus as a supporter would be counter to WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 21:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including other countries, but each of them represents a specific case and therefore should be discussed separately. For example, the involvements of Belarus and USA are very different. But again, if there are multiple scholarly/expert-written RS, such as the Institute for the Study of War, saying that "USA is a co-belligerent", then let's include it. We have such multiple RS for Belarus. Quickly looking, it seems that USA is certainly involved in the war, but I do not see any strong RS explicitly saying "USA is a co-belligerent" or a "co-aggressor" as we have for Belarus. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We absolutely have to rely on expert sources and fortunately there is a huge number of sources which describe the military assistance offered by the NATO countries (sharing intelligence, supplying hardware and as we've recently learned boots on the ground). There is no policy that says that we cannot mention this support in the infobox, and it gets 10 times more coverage than the Belarusian involvement, whether the word "co-belligerent" is used or not. Alaexis_¿question? 22:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest to include? My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we make page for "Battle of Ivanivske"?

This is just my opinion, but I think we should create a "Battle of Ivanivske" page for the ongoing battle in Ivanivske.

I know that Soledar is bigger than Ivanivske, but Ivanivske is one of the main gateways for the RFC to enter Chasiv Yar city, just as Soledar is the gateway for the RFC to enter Bakhmut.

In addition, some news media reported that the RFC is trying to capture the village/small town[1][2][3], and the ISW reported that there is intense fighting (in my opinion) in Ivanivske[4][5][6] Bukansatya (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Unlikely unless RS refers to the "Battle of Ivanivske", do they? Most likely this will be part of the battle of Chasiv Yar. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Legality of invasion

• I removed this [5]. 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. [6] 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