This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russo-Ukrainian War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Russo-Ukrainian War, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Ukrainian War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Ukrainian War at the Reference desk. |
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
Deletion Discussions, Moves, Merges, Press, etc. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Belarus committed war crimes together with Russiais describing an incident that, while concerning, occurred in territory occupied since 2014 by the LPR and it is unclear whether such conduct falls explicitly under the scope of the arrest warrants issued (text at [7]).
planningwas going on.
the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article), so Lukashenko's Belarus clearly tractate the current Ukraine as an enemy and sought for its military defeat (= the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy; just like it is described in article co-belligerence). Furthermore, this evaluation of Belarus' role in the scope of international law proves that Belarus is also an aggressor against Ukraine:
"...While participating in decision-making about attacks, supplying information sufficient to enable attacks, and allowing the use of military or air bases to enable attacks may all potentially amount to co-belligerency, financing, equipping, or training parties to an armed conflict are alone generally considered insufficient. To the extent that in addition to hosting thousands of Russian troops, Belarus takes steps to execute a joint attack across Ukraine’s northern border, as certain sources have warned, or to make good on its threat to send forces to fight alongside Russia, Belarus would be hard-pressed in those circumstances to argue that it was not a co-belligerent of Russia. The question of aggression is considerably more straightforward. The Definition of Aggression, adopted by the UN General Assembly, includes “the action of a State in allowing its territory … to be used by … [an]other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” Accordingly, if Belarus’s conduct can be characterized as enabling Russian attacks on Ukraine via its territory, such conduct likely would fall within the definition of aggression." ( source)
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). [a]
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 [b] 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)
Moved the discussion to the discussion section; such a long back and forth makes it hard to navigate the actual survey. Gödel2200 ( talk) 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
If I had to choose I'd choose option b as there are many more sources which describe the Belarusian role as supporting, helping or aiding Russia ( [8], [9], [10], [11], and that just the tip of an iceberg). However I think the real question we should be discussing here is what kind of support qualifies for inclusion into the infobox. We have many sources that say the NATO countries support Ukraine and recently we've learnt that there are actually NATO boots on the ground [12] - unlike Belarus which hasn't sent soldiers to Ukraine. So I think that both the Belarusian support and NATO support, which went beyond the military aid as written now, should be mentioned in the infobox. Alaexis ¿question? 23:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
scholarly RS. In fact I think I’d better stop repeating myself and take it to RSN, despite my concerns about the suitability of the process there (as it can get awfully binary sometimes). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Belarus remains a co-belligerent but not a co-combatant. This is exactly to what I have pointed out at the beginning of this RFC. By the way, please do not forget to express your opinion in the voting of this RFC above as we need as broad as possible WP:CONS about this question. -- Pofka ( talk) 21:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
co-aggressors, the most harmful and toxic people on this planet" (published in multiple sources: British Express.co.uk, American Washington Post, Russian TASS). -- Pofka ( talk) 19:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources like ISW are self-published expert opinion. As such, it is permissible to use such a source with attribution(emphasis mine). Recently, the practice of adding "supported by" in the infobox was deprecated. There is no space in the infobox for that attribution. So you need to prove WP:EXCEPTIONAL circumstances apply. That means citing peer-reviewed journals unless such sources are unavailable. But if those sources disagree with one another, then the criteria have not been met. You can still cite any of those sources with attribution, but it must be done in the body of the article.
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.
weapons transfers likely violate the law of neutrality, entitling Russia to respond with countermeasures
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.
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.
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)too much disagreement between scholarly sources
— User:Иованъ 22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This source does not oppose Belarus as a "co-belligerent". Quite the contrary, it discusses Belarus as contrasted to non-belligerent actors: The Russian Federation’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, assisted by Belarus, has provoked a range of responses from non-belligerent state and private actors that represent an evolved form of sub-warfighting combat. Going beyond traditional responses such as established types of sanctions, the responses to the invasion have illustrated a wide range of tools available to non-belligerent actors without reaching the threshold of warfighting. No false claims please. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 23:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022
— User:Иованъ 22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/one-more-time-its-not-about-nato/
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
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." [1] 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. [2] Walter Tau ( talk) 20:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russo-Ukrainian War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Russo-Ukrainian War, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Russo-Ukrainian War. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Russo-Ukrainian War at the Reference desk. |
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
Deletion Discussions, Moves, Merges, Press, etc. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Belarus committed war crimes together with Russiais describing an incident that, while concerning, occurred in territory occupied since 2014 by the LPR and it is unclear whether such conduct falls explicitly under the scope of the arrest warrants issued (text at [7]).
planningwas going on.
the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article), so Lukashenko's Belarus clearly tractate the current Ukraine as an enemy and sought for its military defeat (= the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy; just like it is described in article co-belligerence). Furthermore, this evaluation of Belarus' role in the scope of international law proves that Belarus is also an aggressor against Ukraine:
"...While participating in decision-making about attacks, supplying information sufficient to enable attacks, and allowing the use of military or air bases to enable attacks may all potentially amount to co-belligerency, financing, equipping, or training parties to an armed conflict are alone generally considered insufficient. To the extent that in addition to hosting thousands of Russian troops, Belarus takes steps to execute a joint attack across Ukraine’s northern border, as certain sources have warned, or to make good on its threat to send forces to fight alongside Russia, Belarus would be hard-pressed in those circumstances to argue that it was not a co-belligerent of Russia. The question of aggression is considerably more straightforward. The Definition of Aggression, adopted by the UN General Assembly, includes “the action of a State in allowing its territory … to be used by … [an]other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” Accordingly, if Belarus’s conduct can be characterized as enabling Russian attacks on Ukraine via its territory, such conduct likely would fall within the definition of aggression." ( source)
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). [a]
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 [b] 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)
Moved the discussion to the discussion section; such a long back and forth makes it hard to navigate the actual survey. Gödel2200 ( talk) 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
If I had to choose I'd choose option b as there are many more sources which describe the Belarusian role as supporting, helping or aiding Russia ( [8], [9], [10], [11], and that just the tip of an iceberg). However I think the real question we should be discussing here is what kind of support qualifies for inclusion into the infobox. We have many sources that say the NATO countries support Ukraine and recently we've learnt that there are actually NATO boots on the ground [12] - unlike Belarus which hasn't sent soldiers to Ukraine. So I think that both the Belarusian support and NATO support, which went beyond the military aid as written now, should be mentioned in the infobox. Alaexis ¿question? 23:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
scholarly RS. In fact I think I’d better stop repeating myself and take it to RSN, despite my concerns about the suitability of the process there (as it can get awfully binary sometimes). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Belarus remains a co-belligerent but not a co-combatant. This is exactly to what I have pointed out at the beginning of this RFC. By the way, please do not forget to express your opinion in the voting of this RFC above as we need as broad as possible WP:CONS about this question. -- Pofka ( talk) 21:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
co-aggressors, the most harmful and toxic people on this planet" (published in multiple sources: British Express.co.uk, American Washington Post, Russian TASS). -- Pofka ( talk) 19:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Sources like ISW are self-published expert opinion. As such, it is permissible to use such a source with attribution(emphasis mine). Recently, the practice of adding "supported by" in the infobox was deprecated. There is no space in the infobox for that attribution. So you need to prove WP:EXCEPTIONAL circumstances apply. That means citing peer-reviewed journals unless such sources are unavailable. But if those sources disagree with one another, then the criteria have not been met. You can still cite any of those sources with attribution, but it must be done in the body of the article.
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.
weapons transfers likely violate the law of neutrality, entitling Russia to respond with countermeasures
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.
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.
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)too much disagreement between scholarly sources
— User:Иованъ 22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This source does not oppose Belarus as a "co-belligerent". Quite the contrary, it discusses Belarus as contrasted to non-belligerent actors: The Russian Federation’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, assisted by Belarus, has provoked a range of responses from non-belligerent state and private actors that represent an evolved form of sub-warfighting combat. Going beyond traditional responses such as established types of sanctions, the responses to the invasion have illustrated a wide range of tools available to non-belligerent actors without reaching the threshold of warfighting. No false claims please. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 23:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Humphreys and Paegļkalna 2022
— User:Иованъ 22:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/one-more-time-its-not-about-nato/
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
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." [1] 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. [2] Walter Tau ( talk) 20:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).