@clgry90 How were your predictions compared to other people? I scored +101 points on this one and for most of the time I was at a lower % of NO than the community.

@mooball I had started in the slight "no" but by the time the question resolved I was at 1% yes, 99% no

@clgry90 hi, I checked and the scoring is correct. You get points for being right (and more right than the community median) during all the question lifetime, not just at the end. More details can be found in our FAQ.

@Sylvain ok, the graphic I was shown when I changed my prediction said otherwise (it was listed as "+87")

@Sylvain in any event, thank you for clarifying

Resolved negatively.

@hyperflareI'm with you on this

@hyperflare UK MoD 15h ago (emphasis mine) https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1522082810718302210

(1/3) Belarusian land forces have been observed deploying from garrison to the field, for exercises. This is in line with seasonal norms as Belarus enters the culmination of its Winter Training cycle in the month of May.

(2/3) Russia will likely seek to inflate the threat posed to Ukraine by these exercises in order to fix Ukrainian forces in the North, preventing them from being committed to the battle for the Donbas.

(3/3) Deviation from normal exercise activity that could pose a threat to allies and partners is not currently anticipated.

@Jgalt

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/belarus-carried-special-operation-return-113302527.html

April 7 (Reuters) - Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Thursday that Minsk had been forced to carry out what he called a special operation to return truck drivers from Ukraine, the country's state-run news agency Belta reported.

"It got to the point that these scoundrels began to capture our people there, primarily drivers ... that happened to be there at the time," Belta cited Lukashenko as saying.

"I warned the Ukrainians that we would be forced to carry out an operation to free these people. We carried out such a special operation and freed all our people." (Reporting by Reuters)

Lukashenko announcement + military incursion into Ukrainian teritory + "referring at least in part to events which occurred between February 1, 2022 to June 1, 2022" (specifically: alleged capture of Belarusian truck drivers). Assuming this is true, is that a positive resolution?

@Prodicus Looks like it depends on whether that amounts to a statement that Belarus "invaded" Ukraine.

To invade: to "enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it."

Lukashenko doesn't seem to admit an intention to occupy. However, if two permanent UNSC members call it an invasion, that would mean it resolved positively.

@Jgalt That's certainly one definition, though another is: "An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army," where "invading" is in turn defined as: "To enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invasion

That definition seems possibly met?

@Prodicus it doesn’t seem like an invasion. If the US had dropped in to rescue truck drivers, nobody would say the US invaded. However, I agree, if the appropriate officials use the word invasion, I would go with that. Also, like Russia, they have gone out their way to not use the words war or invasion.

@Jgalt

Lukashenko doesn't seem to admit an intention to occupy. However, if two permanent UNSC members call it an invasion, that would mean it resolved positively.

Fully agree. Lukashenko did not "officially state that Belarusian armed forces have invaded Ukraine", so it cannot resolve positively based on this incident (unless Belarus or UNSC members later make statements to that effect).

@TeeJayKay

Back when Putin put a lot of soldiers in Belarus pre-invasion, I read an article about quirks in the Ukraine-Belarus interaction over time.

Turns out that, as is the case with Western Yukon & Eastern Alaska, there's plenty of routine commerce across borders. Specifically, trucks move goods between transfer points in the 2 countries.

Just a guess: Ukrainians who entered Belarus were only doing pickups/deliveries; Belarusian border-crossing into Ukraine had a similar purpose; and Ukraine detained some drivers/vehicles because that's what sometimes happens to cross-border trucks.

Also: if I recall the article correctly, Russia, Belarus & Ukraine didn't stop doing business when the invasion happened. I doubt that anyone crosses borders; but pipelines & payments were crossing it even after Russia started shelling civilians. There are contracts to fulfill, including contracts to move gas from Russia to Germany. By now, money has probably stopped moving between Ukraine & Russia, but I really don't know.

@Jgalt @Rexracer63 @Prodicus

@Prodicus I wouldn't call this an invasion. Did we invade Pakistan to kill bin Laden?

@(ugandamaximum) I think that's a good question. One perspective might be to frame it in terms of "conquest" like Jgalt's definition suggests, in which case:

1. The USA did not invade Pakistan.
2. Belarus did not invade Ukraine.
3. Russia did invade Ukraine (they strongly assert that they desire to neither conquer nor occupy, but they're still taking territory).

Alternatively, if we frame it in terms of "enter[ing] forcefully as an enemy," then I would feel:

1. The USA still arguably did not invade Pakistan (their primary enmity was not directed at the Pakistani military or people per se, but at a foreigner).
2. Belarus did invade Ukraine (they explicitly attacked Ukrainians, and went with the stared intention of doing so to achieve their goals).
3. Russia did invade Ukraine (they explicitly attacked Ukrainians, and went with the stared intention of doing so to achieve their goals).

To be clear, I'm not heated about this at all; on some level, I like discussing definitions, and I also think it's relevant. It looks like the people who have spoken up so far see invasion as primarily linked to conquest per se?

— edited by Prodicus

@TeeJayKay I guess it depends on if they mean invading the country (probably not) or invading the territorial space (probably yes). The way the question is phrased it appears to be about the territorial space.

@TeeJayKay I know resolution doesn't rely on media sources, but I do think it's worth noting that none of them are characterizing this as an invasion.

@casens, would you mind weighing in?

@TeeJayKay this does look like a difficult edge case, and i could see both sides of the argument. i think an important consideration is whether there was any violence or casualties from the operation, and additionally if the ukrainian government officially called it an act of agression or a violation of their sovereignty. i could see this event as simply providing security for some belarussian people and goods with ukraine officially/unofficially allowing them through, or as a pretext for offensive operations (similar to how russia's initial invasions were "a peacekeeping operation").