Jump to content

Talk:2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 12 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. UtherSRG (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive → 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive – How about renaming the article "2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive", as judging by the battles in Lyman and the reports of the Ukrainian army advancing towards Lysychansk and Severodonetsk, the actions did not limited to the Kharkiv region. Mawer10 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ukrainian troops have entered the outskirts of Lysychansk, and a second battle for Lyman is underway. 68.80.24.8 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support it, but let's wait until the Ukrainian troops return at least Lyman or Svatove or Starobilsk, that is, any large population human settlement in the Luhansk Oblast. Because it is not even known yet whether the Ukrainian troops have crossed the Oskil River, that is, one part of the city of Kupiansk across the river, the villages of Borova, Kivsharivka, and Kupiansk-Vuzlovyi have not yet been returned. So far, I cannot say that the counteroffensive has gained significance for the entire eastern theater of operation, except for Kharkiv Oblast. Uliana245 (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Svatove has reportedly been recaptured, so that's at least one. The Kip (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is Svatove may have been abandoned and a flag put up by partisans. ISW’s map[1] shows it as “reported partisan warfare” but not in territory controlled by Ukrainian forces. (not saying this may not be changing as we speak.) —Michael Z. 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree partially, but this isn't really all that east (even if lysychansk falls) I feel like north or north east offensive would be more apt as this whole are is the northern most part of the battle front. AnAustralianHistoryBuff (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment. This discussion, despite looking like one, was not a formal WP:RM and thus not getting picked up by the bot. I've converted it into a normal RM so it displays on the list of current requested moves. SnowFire (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Some activity outside of Kharkiv doesn't make the title misleading as a whole; it was still vastly focused on Kharkiv oblast and the media has referred to it as such. If there's further battles, they might well be better covered in a new article anyway. Would be happy with 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive though since this is only sketchily a counteroffensive per above (normally a counteroffensive implies something a little more tactical on the scale of hours or days; months is pushing it). SnowFire (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Create a separate article for the Ukrainian counteroffensive for each oblast? I don't know, I personally would not agree with this idea. It is better to focus on articles about the theater of operations. It is obvious that the Kharkiv Oblast belongs to the eastern theater, for the most part. And this title of the article seems to be associated with the city, not the oblast. Uliana245 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be fine with "2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast offensive" if clarity is a concern. To my knowledge, there aren't any such major offensives in other oblasts, just the usual amount of fighting which seems not necessarily best covered with this attack. If "Kharkiv oblast" is a little over-specific, "Eastern" is far over-vague. SnowFire (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This operation has been going on for 6 days, not months. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Eastern" is quite misleading, as there are plenty of regions ever more eastern than the ones having been liberated.
On the other hand, Kharkiv is 70km away from where the main offensive took place in Balakliya; wouldn't it be more precise to call it the Sloboda Offensive in honor of the region where this took place, or the Oskil Offensive in honor of the river that was reached all along the new eastern front-line?
More suggestions: Balakliia Offensive, Offensive of Kharkivshchyna (= Kharkiv Region)... Densemk (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kupyansk-Izium counteroffensive could also work, as those were the two key towns ZSU aimed for during the counteroffensive. Jebiguess (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Eastern Ukraine! Mawer10 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was referred to as the Kharkiv offensive due to it being in Kharkiv Oblast, not necessarily near the city of Kharkiv itself. The Kip (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Eastern Ukraine. Zero mislead. Super Ψ Dro 09:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sky News says "this will probably go down as the battle of the Oskil river".
I concur, "Battle of the Oskil River" or "Oskil River Offensive" would be the best name in my honest opinion. Densemk (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The offensive was going on not only in the Kharkiv region, including in parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions (the battles for Liman and Lysichansk were resumed) PLATEL (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — A 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive already exists, and, given their connection, it would perhaps be best for their titles to resemble each other. — 86.127.85.178 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be Northeast, no? After all the east also extends to Donetsk etc. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kharkiv Oblast is the east of Ukraine! Not the north of Ukraine! Uliana245 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, let's wait until they enter at least Lyman, Lysychansk, or even Rubizhne. Sarrail (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Sviatohirsk has already been returned. And at the suggestion of the head of the Luhansk oblast military administration, Serhii Haidai, there are liberated settlements in the Luhansk Oblast. Probably near Lysychansk. Uliana245 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eastern offensive is too broad an area. keep as Kharkiv. Great Mercian (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support some sort of renaming. At the very least, the title should have the Kharkiv Oblast in its name. Renaming it the eastern offensive or counteroffensive may be appropriate. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the offensive is beginning to make advances into Luhansk Oblast. The Kip (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this offensive is in Kharkiv and was situated in a very central part of northern Ukraine, if anything I would say this bridge heads on the siversky Donets should ride here until significant and then become the second battle of siversky Donets, right now this article should be northern counter offensive or Kharkiv counter offensive. AnAustralianHistoryBuff (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR. Kharkiv Oblast is in Eastern Ukraine and so are Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. This is what Northern Ukraine looks like. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split - ISW says "Ukrainian forces won the battle of Kharkiv Oblast on September 11th".[1] It makes sense to me to have a separate page for the battle in Kharkiv, and the wider counteroffensive. ∰Bellezzilla Solo✡ Discuss 08:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It took place almost entirely in Kharkiv, which in articles is seen as part of the northern axis. Let the article focus on Kharkiv, its where 99% of action occurred and where all sources will talk about. Also, most english sources refer to it as the 'Kharkiv offensive' --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 13:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose  The offensive was mostly in Kharkiv oblast, the main result was liberating most of occupied Kharkiv oblast, and the efforts in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts were supporting and peripheral. At least so far, and I’m glad to revisit if and when it’s warranted. The Institute for the Study of War called it “The Russian defeat in the Battle of Kharkiv Oblast.”[2] —Michael Z. 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE — the counteroffensive was focused on, begin in, and ended on ~11 Sep in Kharkiv Oblast. War scholars have already used the description Kharkiv breakthrough and exploitation in public articles. While other events will no doubt happen in this war, and of course, things may spring from this Kharkiv counteroffensive to other places, it would be incorrect to name them after the Kharkiv events that happened ~6 to 11 September. Naming it the "... eastern counteroffensive" would be particular incorrect. Cause even in the context of the southern one (Kherson, Mykolaev), this is the northern one; or perhaps the north eastern one. The other battles in the east, through the first half of Sept, were largely what they were in August, and thus not any particular counteroffensive. N2e (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If and when a significant counteroffensive occurs in Donbas (as opposed to current local counterattacks), it should get its own article. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with reservations. We already have a 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. The article titles need to match.
I feel that "2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive" and "2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive" are kinda clunky titles however, because they're pretty vague. Unburnable (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^ They do, but they're just pro russian propogandists. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually in the Donbass there are counterattacks, Kharkiv obviously, so technically it's not wrong. Also those are pretty notable in the fact that well one's in the Luhansk oblast, and another is on the other side of a river. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. By renaming the article to eastern counteroffensive, we could easily fit in the liberation of Sviatohirsk, Ozerne, Bilohorivka, and the other various places bordering Kharkiv oblast. Jebiguess (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the comment below: Great Raid of 2014. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this comment of yours constitutes a legitimate argument. All mainstream media refer to this offensive as Kharkiv offensive. Wikipedia is not about inventing names for stuff because editors find those names more suitable.
If the scope is 6-11 September, then weak oppose, because this is more about specific events in Kharkiv oblast, the areas from which Russians withdrew (though it can be part of the wider offensive). If the scope will be expanded and include other areas (such as Donetsk oblast/DPR-controlled territory), then I would support.Oloddin (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As of now there's no advances made by Ukraine towards Luhansk Oblast just yet, primarily due to overstretched logistics I believe. If Ukraine started a new offensive later this month or next month I am willing to support a merge, which can result in a new title. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "ISW Daily Assessment". p. Notes of assessed control around Kharkiv image.
  • Oppose — This counteroffensive has mainly been directed at the northeastern portion of the country in or nearby Kharkiv, so far, and Ukraine seems to be focused on securing their new gains rather than continuing into Luhansk. However, this is based solely on the existing situation; preemptively moving it to a more broad "eastern counteroffensive" title only will work when it becomes more broad, and time will tell when, or if, that happens. If it does later within the same counteroffensive as what we saw this week, I would, however, be in support of the move. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 00:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The counteroffensive continues. “Ukrainian forces are continuing counteroffensive operations in eastern Ukraine, increasingly pressuring Russian positions and logistics lines in eastern Kharkiv, northern Luhansk, and eastern Donetsk oblasts”, says ISW. Mawer10 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian losses

[edit]

ZxcvU (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these all do fit for claims. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be marked as finished with an Ukrainian victory on 11 September

[edit]

This article should be marked as finished with an Ukrainian victory on 11 September, the day when Russia officially declared and executed the withdrawal of all its remaining forces west of the Oskil river. While later fighting in other theaters by other units is of course impacted by the successful Kharkiv offensive, they are distinct operations. This is also the apparent view of the entire media landscape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:2F0C:858D:83C:571B:1656:657C (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree after September 11, the ukrainian haven't made any more gains in the region, every other supposed gain has been either in the sizer sky Donets area or a rumour. the nature of the fighting on the front has clearly revered to pre September 6 conditions and at the very least the Ukrainians have paused to reconstitute and prepare. additionally it is the view of the mainstream media and the popular consensus that the battle is now won. AnAustralianHistoryBuff (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the rename discussion succeeds, then it can't be considered that until all is liberated. Dawsongfg (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is already common knowledge in mainstream media that while a big "Southern Offensive" was one option considered by Ukraine during the summer, this was then discarded for one (West) Kherson Offensive and one Kharkiv Offensive. I do not know how long it will take until Wikipedia adheres to its own rules on this and goes with reality and public consensus here, but it will eventually happen. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/us/politics/ukraine-russia-pentagon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:2F0C:858D:2495:6B36:90EF:C7E8 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine crosses the Oskil/Offensive still Ongoing?

[edit]

Multiple news sources, including the ISW, have stated that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have crossed the Oskil River and taken the eastern part of Kupiansk as well as some other surrounding areas. Should we change the article to say that the offensive is still ongoing or should this be considered a new offensive? Physeters✉ 00:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the continuation of the same offensive, the ISW itself said that the "counter-offensive continues". Other versions of this article, the Russian one for example, also agree that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is not over. Mawer10 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's not over. I'd base that on the fact that part of Kharkiv Oblast is still under occupation. There are also Ukrainian advances from the south to take Lyman many sources report - question is really where this article stops. Four Russian command post icons on Deepstate map in Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk have disappeared from 16th Sept - Ukraine advancing in Bilohorivka. All Donetsk/Luhansk Oblast - so maybe a new heading if that front to be included here. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phases have to be added to the counteroffensive

[edit]

As we speak, not only Ukrainian forces already crossed Oskil River as early as Sep 13, but also as ISW and others said, the counteroffensive continues, because 6% of Kharkiv Oblast was technically not liberated from Russian occupation as of 9/11, but Ukrainian forces definitely won't let Russian troops to stabilize the front line and menace the whole railway lines on the western side of Oskil River either.

The most important thing I'd recommend is we can revamp the counteroffensive into different phases, so the first phase is very obvious---Lightning phase or Blitzkrieg, and it's from Sep 6 to Sep 11/12, when Russia announced its withdrawal from territories of Kharkiv Oblast west to Oskil River.

Then, the second phase starts from Sep 13, and we can name it consolidation phase, because besides reclaiming the remaining 6% of Kharkiv Oblast, Ukrainian forces can deter Russian forces from getting too close to Oskil River and establish the foundation to advance eastward into Luhansk Oblast. If Ukrainian forces manage to reclaim the entirety of Kharkiv Oblast, and enter Luhansk Oblast and reclaim territories there, then of course we may establish a new page as some suggested, "2022 Ukrainian northeast campaign" or the like, and this "2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv Counteroffensive" can be incorporated as a link within the page as a section itself, similar to what we do to those World War II battles and campaigns, especially those on Eastern Front, like Battles of Rzhev Salient or the 4 Battles of Kharkov. Bf0325 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bf0325: I think if Ukraine continues the offensive it's primary goal is not going to be Kharkiv (since its almost entirely captured), but Luhansk. If that happens another article called Ukrainian Luhansk counteroffensive could be created. Viewsridge (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and actually there're some reports today stating that Russian troops are trying to beef up Svatove in Luhansk Oblast and some other towns in order to deter further Ukrainian advance from neighboring Kharkiv Oblast. Given that Russian president Putin recently stated his current aim now is just to seize the entirety of Donbas, therefore safe to say Ukrainian forces very likely will liberate Kharkiv Oblast to the east of Oskil River and reach the administration border between Kharkiv and Luhansk or even encroach into Luhansk. We'll see. Bf0325 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Sep 17 UK Telegraph article already touching upon the advance toward Luhansk--- [3]https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-delivers-another-blow-russia-135713404.html Bf0325 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just commented in section above - should it be a new article or a new heading or phase? I think of it as the southern movement (towards Lyman and Bilohorivka) of the same offensive. Covers part of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. I'd suggest keeping it all together, it's distinct from the Kherson offensive. This map https://deepstatemap.live/en#10/48.7865/38.4858 prob not RS -do we use it? Russian command gone 16th Sept. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Kharkiv Offensive" is an established term in the mainstream media and overall media landscape. This is what counts. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for original research. So there is no issue in including neighbouring theaters like Lyman without renaming the article, if mainstream media do so. And the issue of including future action into this article, too, entirely depends on whether the mainstream media portray it as a continuation of the "Kharkiv offensive" campaign or a new campaign (my best guess is that it will be called a separate "Luhansk Offensive"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:2F0C:858D:59CB:61E2:C7C:D01E (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible case of flagcruft

[edit]

Per MOS:FLAG and MOS:FLAGCRUFT, flags and logos should be kept to a useful minimum in Wikipedia articles. To me, the mass usage of individual unit logos in the order of battle section appears to be a clear violation of MOS:FLAGCRUFT, as these logos do not inform readers about anything aside of the fact that the units have their own logos. User RaphaelQS disagrees with this view, though the logic of their argument escapes me. However, I do not want to start an edit war. Thus, I would request other editors to voice their view of the matter.
Is this a case of MOS:FLAGCRUFT or not? Applodion (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, flags should only be used in the belligerent section of an article like this Yavneh (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain - it's a messy part of the page for sure. But the MOS:FLAG says 'military units' as exception. I find it informative - the list should stay in any case.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they're not particularly informative but they don't diminish the quality of the article in any way either. Having specific insignia next to names of military units is different from, say, simply putting their national flags next to every unit, which is the main thing that's discouraged. Lightspecs (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drobysheve

[edit]

A report here says that Ukrainian forces have liberated the locality of Drobysheve north-west of Lyman. Is it a reliable source? Ec.Domnowall (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - but Drobysheve is contested according to most sources at todays date. Thelisteninghand (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use this source?

[edit]

https://www.24talker.com/news/feature-news/ukraine-update-counteroffensive-continues-all-roads-to-lyman-now-under-ukrainian-control/

It seems balanced and up to date. It's proving difficult to find reliable current updates in a fast moving situation. I'd like to include information here but I'm uncertain. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End date of 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive

[edit]

Some sources already indicated 3 October is the date not only Russian forces withdrew from Kharkiv Oblast east of Oskil River, but also Ukrainian forces have liberated Borova and other settlements. At this moment, of course UAF is doing mop-up operations and liberating other settlements, but they're on the verge of liberating the last part of Kharkiv Oblast not under Ukrainian control. Once it is done, and UAF enters Luhansk Oblast from Kharkiv Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast is safe from any Russian counterattacks, then we can put an end date to this counteroffensive, for it is accomplished, and a possible 2022 Ukrainian Luhansk counteroffensive(or campaign) Wiki entry can be started. Bf0325 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Ukrainian forces directly continue their push into the Luhansk area after mopping up Kharkiv Oblast, it would make more sense to just rename the offensive to "Kharkiv-Luhansk counteroffensive". Creating a new article would indicate that it would be a new operation which would be an incorrect assessment (at least as of now). Applodion (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article is being handled in tactical terms. The Ukrainian offensive in this area effectively ended on or shortly after 1 October when Lyman was retaken. Both "phases", the initial encirclement and recapture of Izium, and the crossing of the Oskil and subsequent recapture of Lyman were part of the same continuous series of tactical maneuver, and thus part of the same overall offensive operation. Now that the front lines have again stabilized, it's clear that this was all the momentum the Ukrainian army could carry given the logistical preparations they made for the offensive. If Ukrainian forces are able to create another breakthrough in this sector, it will have been a result of subsequent logistical preparation and tactical planning. Conversely, if the Russians manage to strike back, that will also be a result of long-term preparations and lessons learned from this defeat. This particular battle is over, and the Ukrainians are the clear victors of it. It is not "ongoing", even the consolidation phase of the battle has ended. 2600:8805:B409:7400:C035:62A9:F051:18A2 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 04 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive → 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive – I come to ask once again to rename this article to 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive, even Russian Wikipedia has already made such a renaming. It is very obvious that the counter-offensive has already crossed the borders of Kharkiv Oblast, with currently the Ukrainians already dominating Bilohorivka (Luhansk Oblast) and Lyman (Oblast Donetsk), probably the Ukrainians already control the entire Kharkiv oblast. Ukrainian actions are already recorded in Kreminna, Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, and the Ukrainians have already crossed the Oskil River to advance towards Svatove, all in Luhansk Oblast. The Luhansk, Kharkiv and Donetsk oblasts, where the counter-offensive takes place, are part of the Eastern Ukraine. The Institute for the Study of War also described the Ukrainian operations as an eastern counteroffensive, see here. Some of you would like the counter-offensive to be separated into articles by oblast, but this is ridiculous: How to determine the end of the counter-offensive in Kharkiv and the beginning of the counter-offensive in Luhansk, the Ukrainian actions in the region are obviously part of a same continuous counter-offensive with the actions in each Oblast overlapping each other. Russian offensives are also determined by region and not by oblasts, see Eastern Ukraine offensive and Southern Ukraine campaign. Mawer10 (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For each oblasts we have three sections pertaining to each oblast, and mention how it's important to the part in another oblast. Dawsongfg (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which means somebody edited it without a consensus. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was wrong for me to do that. I changed the bold text and infobox back to “2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv Oblast counteroffensive”. 68.80.24.8 (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the eastern counteroffensive and the Ukranian advance continue. --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Again! So I will say, again, that the huge number of articles on this war need a central index. Searching them is not easy as they mostly start '2022' so entering 'Russian' or 'Ukrainian' doesn't work. Do we name articles with reader searches in mind? But yes 'Eastern' for this page - the other is 'Southern' so precedent set. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to the extended nature of the campaign in recent days. Kakurokuna (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Super Ψ Dro 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This title makes more sense. The article describes advances in Donetsk and Luhansk, not just in Kharkiv. Physeters✉ 05:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More than a logical proposal, having in mind the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive article. —Sundostund (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its not just about the counteroffensive in Kharkiv, its also about the advance Donetsk, Lugansk, among others. MMJ TheIndianWikiFreak (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—running counter to strong support above, I'd oppose simply 'cause long-term, Wikipedia is gonna have a very good article on the rather remarkable events and significant theatre battle that was the massive/quick retaking of most of Kharkiv Oblast (currently named, 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive)—including north of Kharkiv city to the border with Russia—in just a week or so of early September. Wikipedia will also have an article on the much broader, and longer, northern counteroffensive that will include explication of the events in Kharkiv Oblast and then move as the military engagements have due east to northern Lugansk Oblast, and has already bled into northern Donetsk Oblast; that is the 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive. I see no reason that the latter article can not just be created right now, to cover the larger 6+ weeks to several months of events, and in that article, the more Kharkiv-specific bits of early September will be summarized more briefly, with a main pointer to the Kharkiv counteroffensive article for the deeper treatment and details. There is simply no need to artificially shoehorn the material and keep the two together now, with a name-change controversy, when both articles will exist long term. There are simply too many events and too much notable coverage to be otherwise. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
N2e, I guess we could split it in a new requested move (RM) in the future, either when the war is over, or when a ceasefire is held, whichever comes first. For now, since the offensive is still ongoing, a lot of information on the offensive outside of Kharkiv would likely be added. Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are right, in the future the articles about this war will be reformulated based on academic sources and more other information released after the end of the conflict. But we cannot just sit back and passively wait for the future to arrive. The change in the title of the article is necessary at this point, mainly because the article itself already contains information beyond the Kharkiv Oblast. The new title may not last forever, a change may be necessary in the future, but until that future arrives... Mawer10 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • support situation changed.
    Panam2014 (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ukrainian troops now entering Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, heading near Lysychansk. Sarrail (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Fredericus 2.0" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fredericus 2.0 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Fredericus 2.0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

recapture or liberate?

[edit]

As far as Wikipedia tells me, Lyman had only changed hands twice since the beginning of the war: (1) being taken by Russia on May 27, and (2) being taken back by Ukraine on October 1. Saying in the infobox that "Ukraine recaptures Lyman" implies that they had captured it from Russia previously. If this is the first Ukrainian liberation of the city, then I think "Ukraine liberates Lyman" would make more sense 675930s (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally my opinion is always top use 'liberate' because you don't 'capture' what is already yours. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what recapture means. Check a dictionary. That said, I think liberate is good. —Michael Z. 03:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recapture should be used as synonym in case Russians occupy the city again. If we need a synonym for liberated or (liberated again) we can use retake (retook, retaken). --Nicola Romani (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, this is Ukraine's first time capturing the city, so it can't be a recapture. 675930s (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liberation is an appropriate term to use when a country regains control of it's sovereign territory form a foreign power, see the following examples - Liberation of France, Liberation of Paris, Liberation of the German-occupied Channel Islands, Liberation of Arnhem, Liberation of Belgium, Liberation of Kuwait, Liberation of Bangladesh etc. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I take it to be the proper term - the press can be lazy about this and Ukrainian twitter accounts get quite snarky in response. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's 'ongoing' how can it have an 'aftermath'

[edit]

Not being pedantic, I am uncertain whether I should be updating this article - the offensive in that direction is ongoing (yes beyond Kharkiv..) there is news. This seems to be the right place but the article has a concluded tone with the aftermath heading. I've proposed this question before - where/when do we stop? Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, around 12-15 September we were already arguing to name this page 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive following precedent from 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive, but a bunch of editors argued this article should only refer to the Kharkiv 6-12 Sept counteroffensive. They managed to form a consensus that the offensive was over because no major news was coming out of Ukraine at the levels it was the week before, so they classified the current event as done and over. Instead of making a new article for the next phase of the counter, editors sensibly started adding the post Sept. 13 gains to this one following precedent for the southern counteroffensive, causing the current move discussion. So the "aftermath" is probably a result of the first consensus that never was amended or removed. Unburnable (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - yep I'm across all that - voted eastern. I've changed the heading as it relates only to the first phase. Perhaps a different word? Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed there's 'Russian Torture Chambers' heading - belongs in 'Aftermath' section - I'll move at some point. Seems better sourced than the other. Any objections?Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could rename the aftermath section to "Impact and analysis"? Applodion (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's three things in the section - mass graves/torture, decorated soldiers, effect on annexation. I'm happy with the clumsy title for now - I'll make subheadings.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Further advance east today - no sources yet. This from general staff. https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/10/24/ukraine-liberates-four-villages-in-luhansk-and-donetsk-oblasts-general-staff/?swcfpc=1 Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be worth it to revive this topic and find secondary sources that/when the offensive ended. Last info is some 3 weeks old. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian claims of Russian losses for the first phase

[edit]

According to Ukrainian sources, between 6-11 of September, the Russians had lost a confirmed minimum of 2850 soldiers destroyed (i.e. killed), 590 pieces of equipment destroyed (worth over $670 mln), and 129 pieces of equipment captured (worth $104 mln). Since the page is protected, I’ll need permission to add this information to the casualty section. Source: https://wartranslated.com/day-202-september-13-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ Tomissonneil (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece on the report, if it helps: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/12/7367169/index.amp Tomissonneil (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Edit Request

[edit]

Hey this page is protected but we need to change “was a counteroffensive” to “is a counteroffensive” in the opening of the article. 96.242.227.52 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at this page, and so far the editors think the counteroffensive is over. Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It didnt end, Theres still ongoing battles in Kreminna and Svatove Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim needs two types of secondary sources: 1) that there is fighting in/at/over Kreminna and Svatove (the respective wikiarticles end by the beginning of November) and, 2) that the fighting is regarded as a continuation of the counteroffensive. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
click on the Svatove and Kreminna links, they lead directly to the battles of the cities Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Kremmina article was updated on 1 Dec, more than a month without any new sources, long after my response here. Svatove was updated today. Fell free to update this artcile accordingly. Before that, there were only unsourced claims, including that of yours above. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but please set the text at the start to ongoing if u can Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 January 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive → 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive – The chosen title for this article used "eastern" as shortly after the successful counteroffensive, there were reports of Ukrainian advances towards Kreminna, Lysychansk and Donetsk Airport. All of these turned out to be false, I imagine they were a Ukrainian demoralization strategy. Since this counteroffensive turned out not to be throughout all of eastern Ukraine as we initially thought, we should stick to the territory it covered. I am also pretty sure most sources refer to this as the "Kharkiv counteroffensive".

This article however includes territory not in Kharkiv Oblast. 2022 Kherson counteroffensive does the same anyway, so this shouldn't be an issue. And still, we could chose to exclude Second Battle of Lyman and Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line from this one. All of these three operations, particularly the Svatove–Kreminna one, are quite different and are separated in space and time. We are not obliged to cover all Ukrainian counteroffensive operations as part of a single article. Super Ψ Dro 11:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody, ever, tried to figure out what the WP:COMMONNAME is in this case? Ideally COMMONNAME in non-affiliated sources? I know that as soon as one speaks of Russia-Ukrainian war all kinds of consideration tend to be perceived as more important (well, an article about a city was recently moved with the justification "justice must be restored"), but COMMONNAME is still a Wikipedia policy. Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly aren't books or scientific articles about such a recent event so I will use Google results. Results depend on several factors for each person but I get way more results with the search "kharkiv counteroffensive" ukraine -wikipedia (7.380 results) [4] than with "eastern counteroffensive" ukraine -wikipedia (2.550 results) [5]. So I guess Kharkiv counteroffensive is indeed more common. Super Ψ Dro 10:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I would say that at all times in this topic area WP:COMMONNAME has been respected. Maybe the reasons for keeping the former status quo were less based on Wikipedia policy. Super Ψ Dro 10:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to reproduce your numbers (we deal with google search results since a long time, and the results depend on the location and probably on many other issues. I get about 6900 hits for "kharkiv counteroffensive" ukraine -wikipedia and negligible amount of hits for "eastern counteroffensive" ukraine -wikipedia (less than a hundred), but I get 72K hits for "eastern offensive" ukraine -wikipedia. I did not look closely at the hits, and superficially most of them refer to something else, but still many refer to what we are discussing - one always needs to be careful when there is no academic literature on the subject. Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Eastern offensive" could mean Battle of Donbas (2022–present) or Eastern Ukraine campaign. It's too ambiguous. Super Ψ Dro 13:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

End date

[edit]

Currently, we list the Battle of the Svatove-Kreminna Line as the operation that came after this one. I have no objection to this, but the Eastern Counteroffensive and Battle of the Svatove Kreminna line are not exactly one after the other. I think it best to change the end date from the 2nd of October to the 13th of October, as that’s when the counteroffensive culminated with Ukraine seizing most ground on the eastern bank of the Oskil River. 96.242.227.52 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits 2 Aug 23

[edit]

Volunteer Marek, you made this revert with the edit summary Where are you getting this from in MOS? And data on commanders appears to be well sourced. In regard to my removing multiple dot points under the rusult parameter (here), I made the summary: per MOS:MIL - dot points not supported. More specifically, see WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, which is not surprisingly a link to the section about templates. Therein, voice is specifically given to the template documentation (Template:Infobox military conflict) in respect to the result parameter, which specifically limits the options to be used in filling this parameter and consequently, precludes the use of multiple dot-points. In this case, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is particularly relevant too. It would tell us not to try to write the article in the infobox. There are an extensive number of dot-points in this case and it is clearly contrary to that guidance.

This edit with the summary: ce case changed Southern Ukraine to southern Ukraine. This reflects capitalisation of the term in the body (running prose) of the parent article. The edit is in accordance with MOS:CAPS.

This edit removed the Russian commanders listed in the infobox with the edit summary: per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - entry not supported by body of article. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). Unless the body of the article evidences how or why a commander in the infobox should be considered key or significant in the context of the battle (see also the template documentation), such entries are contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS would also apply. Simply being verifiable (sourced) does not guarantee inclusion in the article, let alone the infobox. An Unidentified high-ranking officer has no place in the infobox. Artem Helemendik, Aleksandr Lapin, and Roman Berdnikov are only mentioned in the infobox. Syrskyi, however, is at least mentioned in the body and arguably in a way that establishes he is a key and significant commander - even though this is only a brief mention (ie it could be better).

I trust that this explains the prevailing WP:P&G in support of the edits I made? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"First phase", "second phase", end date

[edit]

I'm struggling to find sources for such things as "phases of counteroffensive". Where did this terminology come from? I don't see sources for exact date of counteroffensive ending too. Ukrainians continued advancing at least for several days (example), but article is just abrupted on 2 October with, as I can see, no source for that. Am I just overlooked those? Siradan (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "phases" was introduced by the user @Bf0325 into the infobox on 17 September 2022 in this edit and into the article's body on 18 September 2022 in this edit, initially as "First Phase: The Lightning Advance" and "Second Phase: Consolidation Phase". The dramatic subtitles have since been removed but the rest remains. I do not believe the division into numbered phases is supported by sources, so the "first" and "second" "phase" designations should probably removed, though I find that this part of the article is logically structured, so the sections do not necessarily need to be changed. See relevant talk page discussion Talk:2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive#Phases have to be added to the counteroffensive, where the user argues we can revamp the counteroffensive into different phases and we can name it consolidation phase, indicating that this is very likely original research.
The counteroffensive was declared to have ended on 1 October by the user @EkoGraf in this 27 December 2022 edit, without adding any references to support this – the section "after the liberation of Lyman" was renamed "aftermath of the second phase". The user subsequently changed the end date to 2 October here for unclear reasons, a date which was quickly challenged by the user @WikiHannibal here. A month later, EkoGraf removed the citation needed tag here on the grounds that sources indicated the counteroffensive had ended, but failed to produce a source to support the 2 October date. I recently changed the date back to 1 October here just so that the infobox corresponds with the body, but I'm beginning to become of the mind that the fighting mentioned in the "aftermath of the second phase" section should be incorporated back into the main part of the article, and thus the date range should be extended. Hopefully the mentioned editors can share their opinions on this matter.
TL DR:
1. The scopes of the first and second "phases" do not appear to be supported by sources – I believe the "phase" terminology should be dropped but the structure of the article should remain as is.
2. The counteroffensive's "end date" of 1-2 October with the capture of Lyman also doesn't seem to be supported in sources, and should be extended to account for all the subsequent combat mentioned in the "aftermath" section, which should be restored to the main part of the body.
SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the concept of "phases" implies "official terminology" while this is not the case. I recall previous discussions (probably at Russian invasion of Ukraine) with an outcome (as I recall) that these were ultimately changed to date ranges for these very reasons. We should avoid such usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv Offensive"

[edit]

The "counteroffensive" is more accurately described as an "offensive" operation. There was no large scale Russian offensive going on within Kharkiv, nor was it an immediate response to a large scale Russian offensive.

Merely suggesting that a more accurate term be used, regardless of potential negative connotations with the term "Offensive". This would also involve changing the use of the word "counteroffensive" throughout the article to "offensive", when outside of quotes and where appropriate. Vilo2023 (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it described by sources? Siradan (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been referred to as both an "offensive" and a "counter-offensive" interchangeable throughout multiple sources (https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/10/europe/ukraine-kharkiv-advances-intl-hnk/index.html , https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/12/ukraine-continues-kharkiv-offensive-despite-apparent-russian-retaliation , https://www.npr.org/2022/09/29/1125278321/ukraine-offensive-russia-borshchova-kharkiv-oblast , https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-forces-advance-north-after-fall-russian-stronghold-2022-09-11/ ).
Categorically, it was an Offensive Operation, not a Counteroffensive Operation. That's the reason for the suggested name and wording changes, and this likely could go for all past and future Ukrainian offensives, such as the Kherson and the Zaporizhia offensives of 2022 and 2023 respectively. Vilo2023 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, sources describe offensive operation as counterattack. I don't see how this could be ignored. Siradan (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources refer to the offensive operation as an offensive operation. As I have conceded, it is used interchangeably with phrases such as "counteroffensive" and "counterattack".
But it is an offensive operation. It is both categorized as an offensive and referred to as an offensive. I do not see a reason that, with both the information presented and the definitions for each word, the article should not be altered to more accurately describe the operation. Vilo2023 (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the lingering 'Post-Offensive' or 'Tapering Offensive'

[edit]

While the bulk of the campaign and it's successes ended by mid October, smaller advances and attacks would continue as Ukraine attempted to press onto Svatove and Kreminna despite worsening weather and Russian mobilization.

The offensive would only fully be halted around the New Year, as Russian mobilized arrived in bulk to secure the lines and the Battle of Soledar would draw away attention. Russia would also launch small counterattacks to push back some of the Ukrainian forward positions. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this wasn't a counteroffensive, counteroffensives are smaller operations that occur after an offensive, such as in salients and bulges and often are a result of overextension(such as the Russian counteroffensives around Moscow in December 41 and January 42 after Typhoon failed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBrodsterBoy (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Kharkiv_counteroffensive&oldid=1251947825"