Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/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, 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)
 * 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. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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. -- Po  fk  a  (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)
 * 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 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. --  Po  fk  a  (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)


 * 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: Dispute resolution noticeboard). 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. -- Po  fk  a  (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, 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 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 . 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:
 * 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, 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)


 * 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, 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)
 * 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. -- Po  fk  a  (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 . 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. 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. 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

En dash
It should be an en dash (i.e., "Russo–Ukrainian War") instead of a hyphen (i.e., "Russo-Ukrainian War"). Roedagardet (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No, it is a combining form so a hypen should be used. See explicit example at MOS:DASH. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Financing and economy
Information about European companies, such as fluxy, importing Russian gas into EU and thereby financing the war has to be in the article. ( https://montelnews.com/news/be0ac904-df57-4bfd-bd37-1fac4c197739/russian-lng-transhipments-may-persist-beyond-import-ban#:~:text=Fluxys%2C%20which%20operates%20the%20Zeebrugge,terminal%2C%20which%20began%20in%202019.)

Information about European companies selling goods used to build weapons need to be part of the article( https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2024-04/handel-russland-eu-export-sanktionen-ukraine) WikiYeti (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, it can be added. I would opt for the form which adds this as secondary info to the sanctions that have been applied. Bilseric (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2024
185.12.14.2 (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) I'm going to make the text in this article clearer and more presentable to read.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is protected. Even I can't edit it. Unfortunately, you are suggesting a very broad edit which would be too hard to explain, but I assure you this will get sorted out over time. Bilseric (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)
 * It's a typo. He probably meant 2022. But it's correct, it has indeed started in 2014. I'm sorry you don't feel that way, but we have to go by what secondary sources say or other reliable sources. Try to have understanding and envision what the future history books would say. Bilseric (talk) 22:33, 6 May 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)


 * more sources:

1. https://www.euam-ukraine.eu/news/ecocide-in-ukraine-won-t-go-unpunished-united-for-justice-united-for-nature/ 4. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000788_EN.html WikiYeti (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2. https://www.stopecocide.earth/2024/unprecedented-report-on-environmental-impact-of-ukraine-conflict-recommends-ecocide-investigation-units
 * 3. https://www.razomforukraine.org/environmental-damage-and-ecocide-of-ukraine/


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

I tend agree, it can be mentioned although this isn't usually mentioned in war articles. Times change and this becomes more of a topic. I believe future books will mention this. I note that my opinion my be a minority one. But, don't feel it's not a relevant area even if decided not to be included right now. Maybe the future will bring changes. Bilseric (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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 from the article - see Talk:John Mearsheimer . 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 . 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)
 * 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. -- Po  fk  a  (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)
 * They claim something similar for other countries that support Ukraine. In your opinion, what's the difference between Belarus supporting Russia and other countries supporting Ukraine? Bilseric (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which other countries, so far, have allowed Ukraine to launch attacks from inside their borders? Or sent their own troops to attack Russian soldiers? King keudo (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting topic, but I feel I would sound too much apologetic. Bilseric (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The 2011 military intervention in Libya was in fact authorized by the UNSC. The very first sentence of the article you linked explicitly states this. 216.181.221.63 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this discussion. This is not a forum. Is it suggested that there are double standards on Wikipedia? What I'm reading here is for forum sites not Wikipeida talk page. Bilseric (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2024
Russo-Ukrainian War

The first and third paragraphs of this subsection do not properly communicate that they are referring to the same document (Mandate of the XXV World Russian People's Council "The Present and Future of the Russian World" / Official documents / Patriarchate.ru (patriarchia.ru)) The first sentence of the second paragraph is an exact quote of a conclusion/sentence from the source, as a result it does not read as direct and factual information (this may also relate to NEWSBLOG, but I am not certain)

Overall the paragraphs lack cohesion, so it would be useful to have it rewritten to be more concise and easy to understand. VoidedTribute (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Here is my attempt at rewriting the subsection, feel free to take/edit pieces:
 * (it is also worth noting that in the third paragraph, "protodeacon Andrei Kurayev" did not compare the document to german christians, rather it was the article author "Sergiy Shumylo")
 * Some relevant links (other citations are already in the subsection):
 * Document/"Nakaz" - http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6116189.html
 * RadioLiberty article comparing the document ^ to the german christians - https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/zvychaynyy-fashyzm-rozbir-tez-pro-svyashchennuyu-voynu-rosiyi/32890534.html VoidedTribute (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your proposed text removes important conclusions from secondary sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to me so quickly.
 * I do think I was too reckless in my removal of information, here is an updated proposal that should include important details/conclusions:
 * If there are any areas specifically that need removal/improvement/reverting, let me know.
 * I tried to keep all relevant information; I have edited an incorrect attribution, compiled multiple references to the russian world document into one paragraph, shifted text about the 400 bishops and the prayer for victory to the top to support the initial paragraph, shifted the conclusions/analysis from secondary sources to the bottom, and I have added more detail about 1) what the document is, and 2) what the document says.
 * If no issues are raised, I hope this is formatted well enough for someone to eventually edit and/or insert into the article. VoidedTribute (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re-reading my proposed edit, someone feel free to remove "apparent" from "apparent endorsement" in my final paragraph, it is unnecessary and plays down evidence that the ROC endorses/supports the war VoidedTribute (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If no issues are raised, I hope this is formatted well enough for someone to eventually edit and/or insert into the article. VoidedTribute (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re-reading my proposed edit, someone feel free to remove "apparent" from "apparent endorsement" in my final paragraph, it is unnecessary and plays down evidence that the ROC endorses/supports the war VoidedTribute (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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" ( - per Institute for the Study of War;
 * 2) "Belarus remains a co-belligerent in Russia’s war against Ukraine, nonetheless."  per Institute for the Study of War;
 * 3) A scholarly source on international law 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:
 * Belarus committed war crimes together with Russia, in addition to continuously providing the Belorussian territory to Russian armed forces to attack Ukraine.
 * Russian tactical nukes were placed in Belarus, see Russian_military_presence_in_Belarus.
 * We have big page, Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. See Belarusian_involvement_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.
 * EU made sanctions 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., 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 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 ).
 * 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 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:
 * 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. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Po  fk  a  (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, 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

 * 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 Belarus supported  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) 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 :
 * Considers Belarus a supporting party but does not consider it a co-belligerent. Advantages: observer organisation. Disadvantages: no peer-review.
 * 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:
 * 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 (,, , , 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 - 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 . 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)
 * 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: . 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. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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, the most harmful and toxic people on this planet" (published in multiple sources: British Express.co.uk, American Washington Post, Russian TASS). -- Po  fk  a  (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 Belarus supported  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) 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  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 {{small|(I wrote this before reading the new Infobox military conflict rule):
 * Considers Belarus a supporting party but does not consider it a co-belligerent. Advantages: observer organisation. Disadvantages: no peer-review.
 * 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:
 * Considers Belarus as a co-belligerent. Advantages: dedicated to the topic. Disadvantages: individual opinion without peer-review. {{small|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 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. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To quote @Cinderella157, {{talk quote inline|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 {{em|those}} sources disagree with one another, then the criteria have not been met. You can still cite any of those sources {{em|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:
 * {{cite journal |date=2023-10-13 |first=Kritika |last=Ramya |title=The Interplay between Neutrality, Qualified Neutrality and Co-belligerency in the Context of U.S. Intervention in the Russia-Ukraine War |pages=72-94 |doi=10.2478/iclr-2023-0004 |journal=International and Comparative Law Review |eissn=2464-6601 |volume=23 |issue=1 |quote=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.}}
 * {{cite journal |date=2022-08-29 |first1=Kevin Jon |last1=Heller |first2=Lena |last2=Trabucco |title=The Legality of Weapons Transfers to Ukraine Under International Law |pages=251-274 |doi=10.1163/18781527-bja10053 |journal=Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies |eissn=1878-1527 |volume=13 |issue=2 |quote=weapons transfers likely violate the law of neutrality, entitling Russia to respond with countermeasures}}
 * {{cite dissertation |date=2022-02-16 |first=Polyxeni |last=Dimopoulou |publisher=Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens |title=Neutrality towards an 'aggressor': A case study of the Russia-Ukraine conflict |url=https://pergamos.lib.uoa.gr/uoa/dl/object/3268491/file.pdf |location=Athens |quote=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 {{em|nor Belarus}} have violated existing standards of neutrality:
 * {{cite journal |date=2023-10-13 |first1=Ashutosh |last1=Ghag |first2=Mihir |last2=Govande |first3=Shweta |last3=Shukla |title=Evaluating Arms Transfers in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict in the Light of the Arms Trade Treaty, State Responsibility, and the Law of Neutrality |pages=139-181 |doi=10.2478/iclr-2023-0007 |journal=International and Comparative Law Review |eissn=2464-6601 |volume=23 |issue=1 |quote=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 {{em|some}} papers in peer-reviewed journals to be a belligerent. It does not necessarily impact their work. But it {{em|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 {{strong|(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 Belarus. The objection is that adding {{em|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 {{em|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)
 * {{tqb|text=too much disagreement between scholarly sources|by=Иованъ|ts=22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)|id=c-Иованъ-20240324223500-Manyareasexpert-20240324214700}}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)
 * {{tqb|text=Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022|by=Иованъ|ts=22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)|id=c-Иованъ-20240324223500-Manyareasexpert-20240324214700}}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 {{strong|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 {{strong|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 {{em|co-belligerent}}, it cannot be used to support its inclusion. Ivan (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , 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)

{{Closed rfc bottom}}
 * 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, . 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)

{{Clear}}

Anti Russian bias.
This whole wiki is only talking from the Western pro Ukrainian view, accusing only Russia of disinformation. And blaming the whole conflict on Russia. Everybody in international politics lies. As they always say that the first casualty of war is truth.

I'd like to see a Russian apologist give an alternate version of this history so that I can not believe it just as much as I disbelieve this one. I could learn something by reading between the lines (lies). Rlslemmer (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * MAybe, but we go by what RS say (had you need to be far more specific in what you want us to say). We can't discuss generalities. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Russia is not an aggressor in the war
Russian President Vladimir Putin explained in detail in an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson that Moscow is not going to attack NATO countries, there is no point in this. The Russian leader noted that Western politicians regularly intimidate their population with an imaginary Russian threat in order to distract attention from internal problems. 89.204.90.122 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Err, Russia was the one who attacked Ukraine, Ukraine did not attack Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As to there being no point to this war, that is a forum topic, and we are not a forum. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither Putin nor Carlson are reliable sources of information, especially about politics and this war. They both lie. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Should France be added as a belligerent or as at least supporting Ukraine ?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-commander-french-military-instructors-visit-ukrainian-training-centres-2024-05-27/

Clearly sending french soldiers into Ukraine to train Ukrainian units would make them active participants and targets for the russian military.

https:theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/04/british-soldiers-on-ground-ukraine-german-military-leak

It is also surprising that the British haven't been already added to the belligerents section given the leaked German military phone call that detailed British troops are on the ground helping with missile targeting. 188.247.64.30 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * When sources say France is at war with Russia, then we can add them. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic warning?
Can someone please advise me re: WP:Contentious topics. There's a warning template there, but it requires a magic code and I can't see one listed for the scope of this page. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It falls under Eastern Europe. WP:GSRUSUKR are specific sanctions for this war but don't have a specific CT aware. The link to the GS might also be added to the DS alert. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, so just e-e is good, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)