While this is Protasevich's photo. Age in the article does not line up he was 19 at the moment of article publication, Protasevich joined Pahonya division at a later date, not when the division was just formed.

The article does not say he's 22; it quotes "Kim" reporting his age as 22. While Protasevich was 20 at the publication time, he could have concealed his age, e.g. to prevent identification.

They could have used other soldiers photo to conceal identity. Again, Protasevich joined Pahonya at a later date, not at the very start.

I don't seem to get what you're saying. Do you suggest svaboda.org used a photo from the future when it published that article on September 18, 2015? If you're not saying that, I think we can agree he was there on that date or before.

Nope, i am saying just like they gave away fake age for the reporter, they could've used just some random photo from backlog of a nondescript soldier with azov patch to put into article. I am not arguing that was not there. I am just arguing that the article is not really a proof of him being a combatant.

Let's leave "Kim" aside. Is the picture of a person with Protasevich's face carrying a weapon and magazines a sufficient proof of Protasevich being a combatant, in your opinion?

This proves that he took part in training. Posing with a weapon on a shooting range, does not define him as a combatant.

Combat medics, for example, that are by Geneva convention are non-combatants are still trained to use rifles and carry at least a pistol, in most militaries, for personal protection during active service.

This argument is threading thin on the edge of "plausible deniability" but the problem is that no one (as of yet) is claiming he was there as a "medic". The claim being raised is that he's been there as a "journalist". Surely journalists don't have to take part in the military training of the combatants they are covering as a part of their job?

The issue with this is, in the court of public opinion, once it's proven that your "alibi" doesn't hold water, you aren't allowed to come with an alternative "alibi", but rather perceived as a liar; otherwise you would tell the truth from the beginning.

Medics were just an example. No need to call me a liar. Journalists do train.

West. Basic training. https://www.todaysmilitary.com/careers-benefits/careers/publ...

East. The "Тактика" и "Военная подготовка" part. This is an example of russian uni that trains military journalists specifically, still during my time in my military dept (not military uni, just a dept) in uni "Военная подготовка" went above and beyond shooting on a range and ruck marches. https://voronezh.postupi.online/vuz/vgu/programma/10008/

European countries mostly pick fresh recruits after basic, and do additional training, then they assigned a role.

I most certainly wasn't calling you a liar, sorry if it came out this way. It wasn't my intention at all.