Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Ukrainian claims about Russian casualties in the infobox

What's going on with these sources? There's multiple sources, including two random Twitter users. Do we really need all of them? Do they contain all Russian losses since 4 June, or 8 June? The reader will have no idea what the answers to these questions are unless they go to all the links themselves and try to figure out what math was done to get those numbers.

I think this could be made a lot more transparent and understandable if we transferred the citations down to support prose about casualties in the "Casualties" section of the article body. HappyWith (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've performed this edit myself. Feel free to add back some of the numbers into the infobox, I just got rid of them because there was such an imbalance in size of the two parameters and it looked very strange and cluttered. HappyWith (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Creation of a order of battle page

I think we should create an order of battle page for the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in order to list all units in more detail similar to other offensive operations where an order of battle page is available Salfanto (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We should make a section on this page first, then split it off if it gets too big. HappyWith (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Drone attacks in Russia

As an aside do we have an article on the recent drone attacks (Pskov, Orel, Moscow etc)? I know there’s one for earlier ones in May but didn’t see anything about this one. Volunteer Marek 17:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I originally wanted to put them in "Strikes Behind Front line and Actions in Crimea" but decided against it, most of the infromation is scattered around, namely in the Wikipedia pages for the aircraft destroyed in the raids. Scu ba (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

We should have a general Ukrainian drone strikes against Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn’t that basically just be Western Russia attacks with a tweaked scope? I feel like it would be easier to just rename that page and expand its scope, since if I remember correctly, some of the stuff in that page isn’t even in western Russia. HappyWith (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I forgot about that page. Yeah we should do something with it. To me it's title is clearly unproper. Russian Wikipedia uses "Military incidents in Russian territory during the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Ru-wiki model would work, yeah. A lot of analysts I follow have been talking generally about "increasing movement of the war onto Russian territory" for a long time. I think we could convert that article into something just covering all violent spillover into Russia, then split off the different types/locations of attacks as necessary if it gets too large. HappyWith (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Problems with the Dnipro section

Honestly, the Dnipro part of the article is so archaic and poorly cited mostly relying on a splattering of information from Milbloggers with very little of their reports following up on the situations reported on. Seeing as how nothing has really come of this, I'd also support cutting it out of the article. Scu ba (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there’s still some stuff worth keeping. The crazy stuff happening near Kozachi Laheri for instance seems to be getting a lot of interest and coverage. We just need to make it clearer what the significance of that stuff is - which is to draw crucial Russian resources away from Zaporizhzhia. HappyWith (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oddly, most of the actual interesting stuff about Kozachi Laheri isn't in the article body. From a quick google news search I found some stuff that could be added to overhaul that section. A brief overview before I add some stuff is:

A Russian Major surrendered his unit to Ukrainian forces near Kozachi Laheri

A series of reports that these are a series of raids and not an actual offensive across the river, as well as an attempt to grapple how many men Ukraine has sent to the settlement:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Scu ba (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

ISW's lack of confidence on Robotyne

The following discussion 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.

---

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Without advocating for reverts, don't you think it's valid/fair to explain how the ISW is being careful not to "jump the gun"/confirm too much on Robotyne? For example, try to rewrite my citation that said that Russian sources still dispute the Ukrainian statement by simply saying that the ISW has not independently confirmed Hanna Malyar's announcement with geolocated evidence. I think it would only be fair because the purpose of that WSJ/Meduza citation is only to give support to Ukraine's claim. It should also be relevant, in my opinion, to show that the ISW does not give the same kind of support. Perhaps the rewrite could also explain how the ISW is still reporting Russian claims, without dismissing them, which shows restraint/caution on their assessment. Their "on the fence" stance shows that they acknowledge a fog a war around that area. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Physeters and Volunteer Marek: What do you think of:

It wouldn't be until 28 August when the Ukrainian ministry of defense claimed that the armed forces had liberated the whole of Robotyne, and until 31 August when The Wall Street Journal and Meduza also supported this statement.^[82][83][84] Nevertheless, the ISW has shown caution to not pick a side due to fog of war. It hasn't independently confirmed Hanna Malyar's statement and continues to report Russian claims of battles in the southern outskirts without dismissing them.^[85][86]

Or something similar? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, hold on until the next ISW report. There might have been a development. I had already said this guy is relevant and that listening to milbloggers is important. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Yeah, I'm going to wait until tonight's report as well, and leave the article's Robotyne coverage as is until then. Seems like all our arguing might be about to become a moot point. HappyWith (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That edit war could have been avoided if we were more careful with our assumptions and didn't dismiss the others' reasonings and sources. Let's not repeat this mess again. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I've summarized the reception of others in a separate sentence. What do you think? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, I don't think we should be talking about the media sources themselves. There's so much fog of war right now that I think it makes the most sense to say just something like "Robotyne was liberated in late August", without giving a specific date, since that's what the sources say. I think better confirmed details of the battle will come out later to populate the article with. HappyWith (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I'll leave it up to you, or others, if you have better ideas on how to rephrase the conclusion of this saga. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That does seem significant. Let's wait until tonight. Physeters^✉ 17:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really care what a blogger says, here is a

new york times and a reuters article confirming the capture.

Scu ba (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Did I ping you?! Alexiscoutinho (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The joy of talk pages is anyone can contribute ;) Scu ba (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't act clueless, you know that was a provocation. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

How? Scu ba (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, wow, that Reuters article is really clear-cut. I'd now recommend removing all the hedging in the article body and just saying "Robotyne was liberated sometime in this timespan" and putting these articles as citations next to it. HappyWith (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Levadne

I just realized that the article doesn't actually cite any independent confirmation of that village's liberation. It's pretty obvious that it was true by this point, but is there any news article or report that cites geolocated footage or something we can put in for reader verification? HappyWith (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

All the articles I can see are just reiterating the UKMOD's statement that the village was liberated:

Reuters

France24

Barrons

Al Jazeera

I don't think any media company has bothered to independently verify the claim, especially since the village's population in the 2001 census was... one singular individual...

Scu ba (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Spinning off important battles

Although this article is nice, it does feel a bit cluttered. Shouldn't we try to spin off some important engagements into individual pages? Like have Battle of Urozhaine or Battle of Robotyne and then just reference the battle very glancingly in this article. Scu ba (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been considering this for a while too. I think we'll need to carefully choose what we want to split off so it makes the most sense in both the source article and the new split-off page. HappyWith (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The two examples I gave are the ones off the top of my head that an almost comical amount of media coverage so I was thinking of starting with them. Scu ba (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the ideal first step is just to add all the coverage and info to this page and see how it looks, then split it off if it really is too big. We don’t want to split something off only to have to re-merge it later when there isn’t enough coverage. HappyWith (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it, especially since that is what is happening with Battle of Neskuchne, an article spun off about a battle for a rather obscure and unimportant village. Scu ba (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2023

In paragraph 2 line 4, in the paragraph on russian casualties, a comma needs to be inserted after "on top of that", seriverly must be replaced with severely, and the sentence must end in a full stop. Iamabanana 9 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done! Physeters^✉ 05:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Andriivka

The following discussion 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.

---

The announcement of Andriivka's capture was denied and later walked back. Even the Euromaidan Press article cited for its "capture" was updated to refute it. [12] [13] 47.54.109.218 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, will revert it for now. Scu ba, I know it was an accident, but we shouldn't be so hasty in updating the infobox, especially when it's from one source. ;) Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

oh no she was off by a single day! [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Scu ba (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t it still not independently confirmed? We still shouldn’t add it to the infobox, I think. HappyWith (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The Associated Press' headline of "Ukrainian forces reclaim a village in the east as part of counteroffensive" is pretty cut and dry. Scu ba (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

And then the article itself immediately says in the first line " Ukraine’s forces have recaptured a village in the country’s east after intense battles with Russian troops, the military said Friday as the invaded nation pursues a multi-pronged counteroffensive." It says there hasn’t been confirmation yet. Let’s wait a couple hours for better info to come out before adding it to the infobox. HappyWith (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Once again it should be reminded that the article, especially the infobox, shouldn't contain claims. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian forces liberated Andriivka - ISW. There is your independent source. Scu ba (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the DeepStateMap, the village has been liberated, though it would be best to wait another day or so for the confirmation. The DeepStateMap is usually delayed by a few days, but it seems from the map that the forces that were defending the village (72nd Seperated Motorized Rifle Brigade) had been operating just outside the village for over a month. AKExusiai (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah Russian forces aren't contesting this, in fact Russian bloggers have even stated that Russian forces had vacated the village like a week ago. But if the Russians said they abandoned it, and the Ukrainians said they took it, that just isn't enough apparently. Scu ba (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to wade into the merits or anything but just a note on methodology: don't use the precise location of a unit marker as evidence. Especially when it's a brigade or higher since even a very understrength brigade will cover a fair amount of frontage and depth.

Furthermore, in general, without sourcing a mere unit marker might not be reliable in general.

Also, in general, sarcasm tends to be futile on WP in general.

Happy editing (and discussing), RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

Orikhovo-Vasylivka

The following discussion 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.

---

Similar to the discussion above, Orikhovo-Vasylivka, the village next to Zaliznianske was also reported to have been liberated. However, it is unclear if Russian forces where actually in the village, or if they exerted control via artillery. Regardless, this time there are actually sources that talk about the situation in and around the village. So it should(?) probably be added to the infobox.

References

Scu ba (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That village was never captured by Russia/Wagner. It's not even showed as orange in ISW's map. There might have been claims in the past, but they surely were proven false by now. So we can't say Ukraine recaptured something that wasn't even really captured by Russia. Furthermore, this situation feels a little bit like the reoccupation of those 2 villages in the north of Ukraine, on the other side of the Oskil river. They apparently were in the gray zone for many months until the Ukrainian flag was put there. I just don't see a point in counting these kinds of 'gains' in the infobox. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Besides, the title of the sources say that positions near the village were retaken, not the village itself. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

Zaliznianske

The following discussion 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.

---

Zaliznianske, a tiny village which, according to the 2001 census, had 2 people living in it, was reported to have been captured by the Wagner group in March of 2023 according to this TVP World report, and liberated back in July with the following statement in the article:

"On 16 July, it was reported by Russian sources that Ukrainian forces had liberated the village of Zaliznianske 13 km north of Bakhmut."

(The citation was an ISW report which cites Russian milbloggers)

Ukraine themselves have not commented on the village's status, but have used it to define an axis, the "Pryvillia – Zaliznianske front". I did a quick search of the news and couldn't find anyone else reporting on the villages liberation. GardaWorld stated that Ukrainian forces had made an artillery post near the village, but didn't comment on the village's status itself. And this blog from the Daily Kos stated fighting was past the village to it's north and west.

So if someone can find an actual source that references this more clearly shouldn't we also include the village in the list of liberated settlements in the infobox? Scu ba (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought you said that Russian sources don't matter, especially milbloggers. However, only a single milblogger claimed that according to ISW's source [47] (the 2 wargonzo links talked about other things). In fact, the ISW still assesses Zaliznianske as Russian 'control' in their maps. The legend is "Assessed Russian Advance in Ukraine: areas where ISW assesses Russian forces have operated in or launched attacks against but do not control". It's strange though when they phrase it that way because that same color/pattern is extensively used in settlements where Russia uncontestedly has more influence/control.

Though going back to your question, yes, if there's a consensus among reliable sources then we can safely update the infobox. Because right now we're in "claims" territory. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, only bloggers talked about it, that's why I'm bringing it up. We can either remove it or find an actual source. Scu ba (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've amended that part of the text. If you want, you can remove it entirely. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Ive also made an edit making the uncertainty around the settlement clearer. Scu ba (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

Reliability

Is Ukrainian numbers reliable and trustworthy. 202.88.249.39 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In my personal analysis, they are somewhat reliable. Of course, they inflate the numbers, but they are usually somewhat near an actual reasonable estimate - as opposed to the Russian numbers, which are usually completely disconnected from reality. We will probably not know the actual numbers for at least a decade, so both belligerent’s claims are provided in the article. HappyWith (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm, yes, "somewhat reliable". Just like that time where they claimed 30k russians casualties (10-11k KIA, 20k wounded) in severodonetsk, and only 161 AFU losses?

Lmfao, really? "Usually somewhat near an actual reasonable estimate"? 266k KIA russians? (By UKR MOD). Barely 30k AFU casualties? Are you sure this is an "reasonable estimate"? TheOtter9005 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the time, they use the word "liquidated" to refer to Russian losses, which Western media misinterprets as "killed", when they mean to include killed, wounded, and sometimes even captured. I haven't seen those specific stats you're referring to. HappyWith (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Liquidated" can be used in the context of "kill", "murder", "eliminate", et cetera. But not in "casualties/losses/captured", like you claimed.

So yeah, there's a good reason to believe why those numbers UKR mod claims are "Russian KIAs". TheOtter9005 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In Ukrainian, I think they do use it that way. But either way this is straying into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. HappyWith (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My dude, you're one of the main editors covering the war.

How is your work here gonna be taken seriously, if you defend your points with:

"Well, i haven't seen this one, so?"

and

"In ukrainian, i think they use like this (no source to confirm this)".

Like, really? Is this how wikipedia editors act? TheOtter9005 (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Bruh. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve here? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

..... Trying to understand why one of the main editors covering this war, thinks AFU numbers are reliable? TheOtter9005 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe either side has reliable numbers, but as can be noticed, this discussion won't lead anywhere. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Every editor has their own personal biases, but as long as wikipedia guidelines are not broken, it's ok since everyone can democratically input and contribute in the articles. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Bruh indeed. This article is about the 2023 counteroffensive, not the battle for Severodonetsk. I don’t think I’ve ever tried to edit pages to say that the AFU stats are totally trustworthy - it’s just my personal informed guess. Is there anything you would like to change in actual wiki articles? If not, this discussion should be closed for WP:NOTAFORUM reasons. HappyWith (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alexiscoutinho@TheOtter9005 If you have concerns that require a back-and-forth, the appropriate place would be HappyWith’s own talk page.

Defense ministry claims of combatants are clearly attributed, per standard practices. This whole discussion was moot.

The original question was raised by an IP, so just to briefly answer that, probably not entirely reliable but it’s irrelevant because it’s clearly marked as a claim and attributed.

Third-party estimates are preferred wherever available, but I assume HappyWith already knows that.

Whether such estimates have been published yet is another question. It wouldn’t be too hard to find if there were but my headspace is dominated by college deadlines right now.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Novoselivske

So I did a search, and there has been no independent media confirmation that Russian forces captured Novoselivske. The only mention of it I could find in the media from WP:RSs was from JP and Barrons which state "Russia's defense ministry said" the village was captured and that the report could not be verified. We should remove it from the infobox until it is not a controversial claim to make. Scu ba (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

[19] "Geolocated footage published on August 5 shows that Russian forces captured Novoselivske." HappyWith (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If you actually open up the source, they all either deleted twitter posts, or a post from the late wargonzo which shows Russian forces in the outskirts of the village. Scu ba (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Scu ba Check https://geoconfirmed.azurewebsites.net/ukraine (aggregator of footage) as it might be helpful.

I don’t know of blue-chip news sources that reported much of anything at all from Luhansk Oblast during that time, but besides for ISW, Ukrainian Telegram channels reported the stage-by-stage fall of the village. In my view, there’s no verifiability issue.

Also, for what it’s worth, the Frunzenskaya generally doesn’t make easily falsifiable claims about the capture of territory (unlike say their ludicrously inflated claims of casualties, or intentionally delaying admissions of territorial losses). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Great tool, thanks for showing it to me, looking at Novoselivske there, Russian forces haven't crossed the road running through the middle of the settlement, and the western half appears contested. The most recent footage (August 21) shows Ukrainian forces in the western portion of the village. Scu ba (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find what you are talking about. Do you have a specific link? Just note though that this is WP:OR turf. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you using their marked line of contact (which isn’t always up to date or reliable and sometimes has contradicted their own pins) or the individual pins?

The only pin I see from August 21 is a Russian squad at the southeastern edge getting a grenade dropped on them by a drone.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I only saw that too. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"1:04 Russian shelling of Ukrainian BMP GW5Q+QH3 Novoselivs'ke, Luhansk Oblast, Ukraine" Scu ba (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That pin is over a klick southwest of the village. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, just found it too. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Still within the administrative borders. If Russian bloggers can claim having a presence in the administrative borders of Robotyne means the settlement isn't under Ukrainian control why shouldn't it apply the other way around? Scu ba (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You're the first one to bring this argument about administrative borders. We've been using the 'urban perimeter' of the settlements (gray shaded area in ISW maps) since the beginning afaik. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That has never been the case. Not with the battle of Soledar or the battle of Bakhmut, the battle is only ever over when the whole of the administrative jurisdiction of a settlement is fully controlled by one side. Scu ba (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

This is also the exact opposite of the argument that you made with the "southwest outskirts" of Robotyne just last week. Scu ba (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I always meant the urban outskirts (gray shaded area). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

the southwestern outskirts of Robotyne that the Russian bloggers have been arguing is still under Russian control are not in the Urban outskirts of the settlement, so that is a moot point. Scu ba (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

How can you say that? How would you know that the Russians were talking about the rural outskirts? Since they were denying what the Ukranians said, it only makes sense that they were claiming control of the urban outskirts, otherwise there would be no contestation. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Because Robotyne is a real physical place, and we can compare the maps that these bloggers post, and the real physical location. Doing so would reveal that these southwestern outskirts have no buildings in them. Scu ba (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, their frontline shows Serhiivka as Russian control. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

additionally on September 12 the ISW listed Novoselivske as part of the Ukrainian defensive line.

On September 10 they reported a skirmish around Novoselivske

On September 6 September 2 and September 1 the Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces conducted unsuccessful offensive actions near Novoselivske

On August 21 a blogger claimed Ukraine made gains in Novoselivske.

Scu ba (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In all cases (including the last one you mentioned) terms such as near (I believe the usual Ukrainian Defense Ministry boilerplate term is у районі) were used, which doesn’t contradict Russian control of the village itself. The blogger reports all place the gray zone to the immediate west of the village (unsurprising since the edge of a settlement is typically a natural place for forwardmost positions). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

However, according to the website you just showed me, Russian forces are not present in the western portion of the village. In fact, footage from August 5, shows Ukrainian forces in the western portion of the village which I feel would contradict Russian control of the village. Scu ba (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s a deleted tweet by whoever is now running Igor Girkin’s account, which is described as shelling of Ukrainian troops with “graphic” dead bodies shown, and pinned at the northwest corner. Also in the description is a caveat that the burned-out BTR-3/4 is probably an “old loss” which may mean that recovery by the usual system wasn’t tactically feasible. On the same day footage also appeared of a damaged Russian tank taking a catastrophic kill from a well-placed drone grenade through the hatch in the south-center of the village. Please don’t cherry-pick.

All of these may have been a day or three old by the time of posting, as sometimes happens. Different footage of the same tank kill I mentioned was posted again on the 6th from a different vantage point.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The argument that Novoselivske is occupied is wholly based off cherry picked footage. Scu ba (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the ISW is cherry picking? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Im saying the ISW is saying bloggers are cherry picking. Scu ba (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the 7 August report said. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

And the August 21 report, and geolocated footage, has Ukrainian troops back within village limits. Scu ba (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Quote? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"Ukrainian forces made tactical gains near Novoselivske", I already linked this report. The interactive geoconfirmed map confirmed that on August 21 Ukrainian troops where within village limits. Scu ba (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"near Novoselivske" doesn't mean "in Novoselivske". Besides, RadioactiveBoulevardier already said that the Aug 21 pin was a far way off from the village center.

Or do you mean "administrative border limits" when talking about "village limits"? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually it looks like the ISW doesn't believe that Russian forces control Novoselivske. As per their new report

"Ukrainian forces continued limited offensive operations on the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line on September 19. Geolocated footage published on September 18 shows Ukrainian forces retreating from southwestern Novoselivske (15km north of Svatove), indicating that Ukrainian forces may retain the ability to reach the outskirts of the settlement.[34]"

Scu ba (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

They say the Russians have less control over it, but it's still safe to mark the settlement in general as Russian. If you want, you could mention this control detail in the article.

This situation is similar to Piatykhatky's where the Russians were pushed out but the Ukrainians hardly have a strong presence there. It's slowly going back to the grayzone. I think it would only be adequate to remove it from Russia once the control reaches 50-50 in a grayzone regime (note that warzone regime should still have a threshold of say 98-2). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

except, that's not the situation in Piatykhatky at all, even according to Russian sources, which have stated that the village is under total uncontested Ukrainian control.

If the Russians don't have total control over Novoselivske, why are we listing it as totally 100% captured by the Russians? Scu ba (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

At that moment (back in June), Ukraine had a more more confident control over Piatykhatky. I'm not saying Ukraine never actually captured it and I know the Russians acknowledged that. What I meant by grayzone settlement is that Ukraine's control is much more indirect, via power projection and fire control. Because the village is in a very unfavorable position to actually actively hold with boots on the frontline. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t yet reviewed the footage, but from what ISW said (“retreating”) it’s unclear whether or not it was a sabotage/recon group.

If so, then it’s not really relevant; that sort of thing is much more practicable in Luhansk Oblast than anywhere else on the line. For instance, recently Ukrainian sources claimed that two Russian vehicles raided Krokhmalne, Kharkiv Oblast, which apparently is under full Ukrainian control. Similarly, the Kreminna—Lyman area often has reports of such stuff. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alexiscoutinho @RadioactiveBoulevardier ISW september 22 says that

"Another Russian milblogger retracted his September 21 claim that Ukrainian forces regained previously lost positions in Novoselivske and claimed that Ukrainian forces actually conducted counterattacks in Novoyehorivka (16km southwest of Svatove).[36"]

Again, having the village under "total 100% Russian control" and saying so in the infobox is silly and not reflective of the real, on the ground situation in the village. Scu ba (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again, raids don't count towards losing power. Do Ukrainians have a permanent presence there? No. Also, why do you think the ISW keeps Novoselivske red despite saying all that? Please also take a look at my comment on "power projection" in the Marinka section. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure what to make of this comment, but anyway…

• I think an examination of sourcing methodology might be helpful. ISW is useful, but it has clear limitations as a source (in multiple ways) and I’m leery of any overreliance on it. For instance, their coverage of Telegram milbloggers is, among other things, opaquely selective.
• It’s really helpful, when quoting ISW in its capacity as a secondary source (i.e. anything but its own analysis) to instead link to its partner the Critical Threats Project, because their version properly hyperlinks the inline citations. Just easier to work with, lol.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Nurg because he adjusted the territorial control map, presumably without being aware of this whole discussion. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I was indeed unaware of this discussion. Here's my 2c. I wasn't following Novoselivske at all closely in August. I saw the "Ukr retreating" report of 18 Sep and checked the Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War list & saw it had Ru control. The "retreating" report seemed sketchy so I just added Ukr "pressure" to the map, and started to keep an eye on ISW reports. I saw the 21 Sep ISW report that "a Russian milblogger claimed that Ukrainian forces regained previously lost positions in Novoselivske". I thought that was still rather sketchy but checked 3 mappers. I can't remember exactly what they all showed but they either supported or at least did not contradict Ukr being inside the western edge of the village. (Just a side note on ISW at this point. I kinda like to cite ISW because (a) it's better than social media (b) plenty of other people cite it (c) I haven't seen its reliability being challenged (d) ISW cites their sources. However, when I used to follow them every day, occasionally when I checked their sources I found they had made a mistake through misinterpreting the source, which was disappointing.) Anyway, their 21 Sep report was still sketchy with just a Ru blogger source, but with the "retreating" report as well, and some support from mappers, I was bold enough to change the list and map to "contested". Next day ISW said "Russian milblogger retracted his September 21 claim that Ukrainian forces regained previously lost positions in Novoselivske". So I have reverted from "contested" to the status quo ante of Ukr "pressure".

As to the debate you three are having: The mappers I look at all have the Ru frontline running through the village, but all in different places, with the rest of the village in grey. All currently have the Ukr frontline at a treeline south-west of the settlement. So, depending on one's definition of "contested", it may be contested rather than full Ru control. (I am not suggesting using maps as sources.) I am going to try to stay out of this debate. Nurg (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nurg: Do you think that a good definition for marking as "contested" would be if both parties maintain a physical presence inside the village for at least 24-48hrs? Otherwise we would have to update the status to contested every time a raid/infiltration attempt is made. Because as I said in other comments, it's common practice to withdraw from the more exposed and ruined part of villages after setting up a flag and fire control over it, like power projection. It happens in many other places in Ukraine. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

When I think "contested", I think "contested control". In my layperson's mind, when the troops finish their 12-hour (or whatever) shift in combat, do they sleep in the village or do they go back to a bed somewhere else. (I don't actually know how they sleep on the frontline, so my idea may not match reality.) A raid does not make it contested. If troops come into the village and fight all day, but then withdraw to sleep, leaving the other side sleeping in the other end of the village, then the attacking side has had no control. They have been "contesting" in some sense (i.e. attacking) but they have not had control beyond a temporary basis. That's my informal view, anyway – I might modify it in the face of counterarguments. Nurg (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Source for Budanov?

In the "Donetsk Oblast" subsection, Budanov is quoted as having said that the goal of the Ukrainian forces is to pin the Russians in a defense effort (...). Is there any RS for it? 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:18C:DB42:2CFE:1416 (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed, the reference was originally removed seemingly by accident by an editor that was removing another part of the same passage. Thanks for bringing this up! HappyWith (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Selective removal of Luhansk oblast information

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Tomissonneil, and RadioactiveBoulevardier: What do you think of this by Scu ba: [20], [21] and [22]? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been a month, nothing happens, it is regular pruning, I've done this before in other sections and you haven't complained then. Scu ba (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but not everyone reviews their watchlist every few waking hours, and most experienced editors, including myself, are watching at least a thousand pages. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I just reverted two other edits you made, and partially commented out something else pending discussion.

I’m not sure if Die Welt, quoted slightly rigidly, would be the preferred source but it’s perfectly reliable. If you think it’s a WP:DUE issue that’s something else.

Speaking of… the thing that I commented out was basically a near-verbatim repetition of ISW’s view that the operations around Bakhmut are sound because they tie down VDV forces. This is a WP:DUE issue since the widely documented opinions to the contrary by US, UK, and other military staffs aren’t mentioned. (Personally I think that the reality is most likely somewhere in the middle, but that ISW’s reasoning is amateurish and lacks nuance, and not really the main reason(s) for ZSU decision-making implied by open sources. But that’s neither here nor there.)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m more concerned about the edit summaries. The issue is that their editing pattern doesn’t seem to be directly serving the process of weaving the incremental updates editors keep sticking on into finished, smooth prose.

(By the way, I’m surprised no one is offering bounties for turning RUSUKR articles into GAs.)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Guess I'm forced to start the move as it's the only constructive way out of this. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Mostly done. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead problems

The lead spends most of its time talking about the planning for the counteroffensive rather than the counteroffensive itself. We should fix this, and add more material summarizing the actual events of the counteroffensive. Going over the different sectors of the campaign and comparing them in terms of combat conditions and success, etc. HappyWith (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, if I remember correctly, the lead was made when the counteroffensive was still hypothetical, back in the spring. Scu ba (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

C/e needed?

"Between the layers of fortifications consists of minefields and dragon's teeth, although much thinner" ... . 2001:2020:319:D25C:956D:2A0A:B2B7:A559 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Keeping general deaths in one section

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Sorry to be a nudge, but you recently reverted me moving the report that Sergey Goryachev was killed on June 11 to the section "issues" in "Russian command" which, to my knowledge, is were we have been keeping reports of Russian command deaths. Maybe we could mention it in the section about the battle but also move it to "issues"? I just feel weird having the issues section and making an exception about this sole general. Scu ba (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I didnt intend to have the "issues" section cover command deaths when I created it. That was supposed to cover infighting and tensions between the Russian command internally. HappyWith (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that would do it. So what do you recommend as a course of action? a mass moving of the generals deaths in Issues? or a rebranding of issues? Scu ba (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd move the general deaths in Issues to the most relevant sections possible, like “strikes behind the lines” or the relevant front. HappyWith (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Shoigu's claims

Given that the article itself says Shoigu’s claims have been dismissed by experts as nonsensical, it spends way too long giving his different claims. I would fix this myself, but I’ve never gotten around to it, since I haven’t thought of a way to order the different statements from different time periods in a way that makes sense and also cuts out the obsolete old claims. HappyWith (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that there’s a case to be made for removing it entirely. Aside from it being verifiably false, Putin himself has inadvertently contradicted it, and the language he used refers to total alleged Ukrainian losses since June, rather than just from the counteroffensive. Similarly, Ukrainian claims of Russian losses refer to the whole area of fighting as well, but in that case I’ve found sources that show Russian losses just inflicted in the counteroffensive alone, but I’m still compiling them and as such I’ve not added them in yet. Tomissonneil (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't think we should erase everything from Shoigu since those claims are still official and relevant. Until proven false, we should at least mention Russia's estimates. This war has been full of inflated estimates. I'm pretty sure many Ukrainian estimates would also be considered 'nonsensical' to Russian analysts. We mustn't scrutinize only one side. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is that both sides’ reports of casualties refer to all areas of fighting, as opposed to just the Ukrainian counteroffensive. In addition, Shoigu’s claims have been proven false, by none other than Putin himself, who gave a much figure for Ukrainian vehicle losses than Shoigu’s already improbable figure, which seriously undermines both of their credibility as reliable sources.

Link: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-contradicts-defense-ministry-boost-russian-military-1826477 Tomissonneil (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

More like Putin proved himself wrong. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Cool. The Russian government is lying.

No one is saying they aren’t. The point that people keep trying to make to you is that the casualty numbers that Ukraine gives are as laughable as the numbers Russia gives out.

You can either have both the Ukrainian government’s claims AND the Russian government’s claims or you can have neither. Make your choice. 74.109.240.116 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we trust the Russian announcements? Many times in the past there have been claims of having destroyed "thousands" of tanks or a hundred HIMARS launchers et cetera, absolutely bizarre figures where Ukraine do not even have that many of those weapons.

Can we trust the Ukrainian figures? They are more accessible and subject to more scrutiny, but most press has agreed that they are probably inflated.

Ukraine nowadays is closely monitored by "the West", as for Russia... we don't really know what's going on there since they dislike and have even kicked out at least some "western" press (Deutsche Welle comes to mind).

Russian or Ukrainian reports, are either of these reliable? Should the tone be that these numbers should be taken as truthful?

Where are the outside estimates? Wikipedia should rely on Reliable Sources, right?

ShouldIHide (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Dachi, Kherson oblast

The infobox of this article does not include the liberated village of Dachi, which is next to Kherson, on the Dnieper front. Ukrainian forces established themselves in that village and raised the flag around August 29, 2023, during the summer offensive campaign.Here is the source: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/08/29/7417577/ Nuriel Katsuhiro (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason that Dachi is not listed might be that it is not an incorporated settlement. I personally believe it should be included in the list, but some may disagree. Physeters^✉ 00:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't even appear in ISW's map and it's represented differently from the others in Google's map. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Though it might be more informative to include it anyways. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Dachi even still liberated? I thought that was just a temporary raid. HappyWith (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainians are stubborn, they wouldn't give up that bridgehead until the last man. It also has been painted blue in ISW's map since 11 July. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice one reiterating Russian talking points, haven't seen a Russian attack on Dachi since they withdrew from the island back in July, fighting on the Dnipro has moved both south the islands in the mouth of the river, and north to Ukrainian positions on the right side of the river near Kozachi Laheri. Scu ba (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I was waiting for this discussion to be started. I don't think Dachi should be included in the list. It doesn't look like a formal settlement by Ukrainian law. We treat villages that have been effectively depopulated as still villages because Ukrainian law still says they are. I am not sure we have an example in frontline areas but I've seen there are villages that were depopulated even before the invasion and I am pretty sure we'd have not minded and included them as villages anyway if they saw themselves in the frontline for this reason. Likewise I think we shouldn't include a settlement that does not exist in Ukrainian law. It is easier to have Ukrainian law as standard than to include X village for X reason and to exclude Y village for Y reason.

Also. I thought that area was liberated many months ago. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is easier to have Ukrainian law as standard than to include X village for X reason and to exclude Y village for Y reason. That's a good point. Will comment out the Dachi entry if no one else has anything to say. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

if we are talking about national law, then according to it this urbanized territory is state property within the boundaries of the "Nizhnyodniprovskyi" national park created in 2015 https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/6572015-19582 Nuriel Katsuhiro (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nuriel Katsuhiro Sorry for the ping, but where does it say that in the law? I can't find the specific part. I want to fix the article for Dachi itself to clarify its exact status. HappyWith (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

As you could see in the document, it refers to the size of the plots in the Dnipro delta, which are transferred by the state to the newly created national park. This park has an official website where you can see a link to the map http://nppn.org.ua/news/interaktivna-mapa-nacionalnogo-parku . If you follow the link to the map, you will see a map where the administrative boundaries of this institution are marked in yellow, according to which the urbanized territory of "Dachi" is within the boundaries of the national park https://www.arcgis.com/apps/PublicInformation/index.html?appid=b208688fbad3446bbb8f6aacb8a39b11 . Nuriel Katsuhiro (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

After researching this a little bit, I've come to the conclusion that Dachi is probably not a legally recognized settlement because it is more comparable to a large housing development than a proper village. Dachi (Дачі in Cyrillic) literally means "dachas" or "country homes", and most of the buildings in the town serve as summer homes, though according to Google Maps there is also a coffee shop and a couple hotels near the bridge. The settlement probably had year round residents, and definitely wasn't abandoned before the war. Physeters^✉ 06:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

definitely wasn't abandoned before the war. I think what Super Dromaeosaurus meant was that since it's abandoned now and there's no law maintaining it as a village, it's nothing more than a group of houses and shops (more like ruins now though). Therefore it shouldn't count as a village and consequently not increment the "recaptured settlements total". Alexiscoutinho (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I originally only focused on the legal aspect, but that's a pretty good point. I also didn't mean Dachi was not populated before the war, but that we'd have included Ukrainian villages already without people before the war, all of which have at least Ukrainian Wikipedia pages, if they were involved in the frontline. It was some kind of opposite example. But it's literally just an assumption. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

18th CAA

@RadioactiveBoulevardier It has been over a month since the 18th CAA was mentioned, and there has been no further development, even if there is further development, it doesn't belong in that section about military operations in the Dnipro, and would belong in the Russian command section. Scu ba (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean, since it’s a reorganization of the grouping into a more cohesive organization, it does seem relevant to that section.

As for updates, well, how sure are you? Have you fully reviewed the major milbloggers on both sides, and the body of analytical sources?

While the UK MoD has been criticized in sources for sometimes posting just slick sound bites, they don’t just make stuff like that up, and it’s hard to see what benefit would be gained by any side from reporting it if it was just hearsay or an info op. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't cite bloggers actually. So no, I stick to published sources. I'm not saying that the UK MoD made it up, I'm just saying it's no longer really relevant if the unit hasn't been seen on the frontline since it's formation. Scu ba (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting you cite bloggers directly. But they can be helpful if you’re trying to corroborate stuff.

Did you miss the part about “consolidation of existing units in sector such as 22nd AC”?

It’s also plausible that 40th AC was incorporated. E.g. [23]

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm going to continue to refrain from using bloggers, no offense. And no I didn't miss that about the 22nd, because I wrote it. I put this segment in here, like a month ago and now I'm taking it out as nothing relevant has come from it. Scu ba (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t really understand your thought process. The formation is definitely on the frontline, as it took over 22 AC and also the new 40th AC (whose deployment is already well sourced, either here or elsewhere).

See this Russian-language source which is far more detailed than the MoD slide: [24]

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)