Talk:2024 Kharkiv offensive

Splitting

Because Bortak42 has repeatedly reverted the merge of Battle of Vovchansk I am opening a splitting discussion for them. They ought to express their rationale between this first message of mine and the second one below. Super Ψ Dro 14:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this article has not met the criteria for splitting. WP:SPLITTING: Below 8,000 words, an article may not need splitting based on size alone, and at 6,000 words and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues. This article has 3,318 words. It does not seem likely that it will increase in the future and if it does the appropriate time to argue for a split would be then and not now. Note that the "content issues" part refers to two or more distinct topics sharing similar titles (e.g. Coffea and coffee). It is not the case here.

Beyond what Wikipedia rules say it also does not make much sense. Fighting in Vovchansk is the main and most notable engagement in this offensive. It is the only populated place other than Lyptsi that reliable sources say have great importance, with the rest being small rural villages, and Lyptsi hasn't even seen any fighting. Giving fighting in Vovchansk its own article would make this one lose quite a lot of its point of existing. Super Ψ Dro 14:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Split — The overall (parent) article is related to the entire offensive. Through my watchlist, I discovered the article was recently merged amid a edit war between Bortak42 (supporting creation) and Super Dromaeosaurus (opposing creation) (see edit history of “Battle of Vovchansk” here). I am not here to talk about the editors, but one small comment to note from the edit history is that this was merged without any formal merge process, as even stated by Super Dromaeosaurus.

Back to my Support comment reasoning. Before the most recent merge of the article, the article size was nearly 14,000 bytes. However, it also had 18 references and a detailed timeline. Several RS sources seem to focus on Vovchansk, including Forbes, Politico, Reuters, and The Guardian. To me at least, splitting this into its own battle article seems ok to do, given sources do specifically mention it. Having a section specifically for the battle does give undue weight to it, but that undue weight is also supported by direct RS sources about it. Basically, battle has enough RS sources to clearly be split (I believe), similar to how Battle of Kherson or Battle of Melitopol (Battle of Melitopol being a good example) was split from Southern Ukraine campaign. Campaign/offensive articles are the overview “parent” articles and battle articles focus on the specific engagements/towns. The only valid arguments for not splitting, in my opinion, are ones focusing on content (i.e., not enough content for a split article). Battle articles do not have to be super big, so split size is not super relevant here. Battle of Re'im is a perfect example of a 6,200 byte sized battle article, where the community consensus at an AFD was to “Keep” rather than Delete/“Merge” back into the “parent” offensive article.

TL;DR — Support split. Bytesize articles are not easily valid for offensive/battle/campaign articles given recent community consensuses. Edit war needs to stop. Article had 18 references pre-bold/edit war merge, which is more than some community consensus “keep” battle articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Support split: I think this section of the article is great to be its own article. I would be glad to help in the process of its creation. Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Vai Curintia. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait. While I am normally in support of splitting in cases like this, I don't think enough time has passed to officially separate sources about the Battle of Vovchansk and the overarching Kharkiv offensive without being bare-bones pages on either end. I think waiting a few months would be good in deciding how sources go. Jebiguess (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Split The connection was illegal and took place without discussion, there was no consent to it, so it must be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs) 15:35 31 May 2024 (UTC)(Struckthrough — Per WP:RUSUKR The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC))

Bortak42 was not an extended-confirmed user. Per WP:RUSUKR I think this means their comment should be striken out. I am not doing it myself because I might be wrong. Super Ψ Dro 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I have struckthrough it. Since this is a formal discussion, non-EC editors are not allowed to participate. Had this been just an average discussion, non-EC editors are allowed to discuss/participate. Hopefully that clears up the guidelines for WP:RUSUKR. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support split even if it means turning both into drafts. Let's not forget that Vovchansk is officially a city and not a tiny one. There is plenty of coverage in RS to make a great article about it. We just need to stop neglecting it. Take for example the battle of Krasnohorivka, almost nobody in MSM talks about it, yet it still has enough worthy content to build a decent article. It relies quite a lot on ISW which is fine imo. This proposed battle of Vovchansk article, could have a lot of meaningful content if the ISW reports, for example, were not neglected. I'm personally giving priority to building the Krasnohorivka article and map templates, which explains why I encourage others to absorb more responsibility here.

The offensive article would still have enough content, there's literally 12 other settlements that we can talk about besides a one sentence mention. And as a parent article, it could also summarize the info from the battle of Vovchansk article. Thus maintaining it's importance. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just saw now the commendable contributions by Scu ba in the timeline (though arguably a lot of those citations will eventually need to be trimmed down due to lack of notability). That is what I was talking about with not neglecting ISW free content. And a lot of that wasn't even about Vovchansk. Therefore this page doesn't need all the Vovchansk details to be useful. The Vovchansk summary subsection needs to be separated from the timeline section though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, even I felt like it was repetitive as I was adding it, but as per other articles about offensives during the war I feel it's better to give too much information, and then we can go back and trim it down when the fighting is done. the ISW doesn't treat the fighting in Vovchansk as anything special when compared to the rest of the front. Scu ba (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Wait: As it stands, right now, there is nothing too notable about the fighting in Vovchansk versus fighting in, for example, Lyptsi. However, I feel that, as a policy, we should strive to break up big campaign articles like this into individual battle articles. So I say wait until the fighting is over, and then we can reassess if the fighting in Vovchansk is notable enough to have it's own page (and maybe a page on Lyptsi?). Scu ba (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Wait This is premature. The present content does not indicate this is individually notable to warrant its own article. We need to consider WP:NOTNEWS v what is encyclopedic content and whether this will survive the WP:10YEARTEST. There is no clear benefit or P&G based reason to split it off yet. Being noteworthy (its a big ciy) is not the same as WP:NOTABLE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to get rid of some biased edits

Can we get rid of @Tomissonneil's biased changes? This person made claims without providing a single source of reliable information (the sources this person refers to are from state funded propaganda medias). Alternatively, if you want to keep Zelensky's statement, do so, but also include Belousov's statement about 35,000 Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers killed in one month (which is related to the Kharkiv Offensive) if you don't want it to be biased. Zlosa267 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course they’re biased, that’s why they’re not in the infobox, and why they’re called "Ukrainian claims". Russian claims are also in the casualties section, which you’re not complaining about because you’re biased. Go troll someplace else. Tomissonneil (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Go troll someplace else. Yes, please. Zlosa267, all casualty figures in this war are biased as that is the juice of information warfare, along with allegations of war crimes and attack on civilians. That's why we include both sides. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Belousov's statement about 35,000 link? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Here: https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News%20Area/News/2024-05/31/0016-ukrainian-forces-lost-over-35,000-soldiers-during-may,-russian-defense-minister-confirms#:~:text=31%20May%202024-,Ukrainian%20Forces%20lost%20Over%2035%2C000%20Soldiers%20During%20May%2C%20Russian%20Defense,Russian%20Defense%20Minister%20Andrei%20Belousov.

And here:

https://www.ttownmedia.com/news/national/putins-force-decimate-35-000-ukrainian-soldiers-290-tanks-4-abrams-tanks-7-leopards-12/video_540c39cc-4e19-56af-8f8e-2c4d610357c7.html

Not putting in RT's link cause that media is state funded and shouldn't be considered as reliable. Zlosa267 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The first source seems fine, however the 35k figure is of the whole month and in all of Ukraine. Therefore, it would fall outside the scope of this article. Maybe it could be useful for the Casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian War article, but that article would probably still prefer totals since the start of the war. The casualty claims section here already covers the MoD figures, it just needs to be updated.

Let me also point out, Tomissonneil, that the Ukrainian claims may become 'bloated' soon because the sources and figures may be too disjoint. Talking too much about isolated claims may give the Ukrainian claims undue weight. Summarizing would help. Though I won't enforce this for now. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

mmkay Zlosa267 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I've updated it. The official figure in that direction in three weeks is 4,755 losses. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm okay. You might also well put Ukrainian claims of russian losses as of 31 May. Better to keep it balanced. Zlosa267 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ideally, but I don't know of a consistent source. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainska Pravda keeps a ticker on their front page. Scu ba (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool, but it's for the whole war. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sumy episode

Is it too soon to expand the scope of the article? From what we know, this is just an unconfirmed raid. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it is confirmed (https://t.me/creamy_caprice/5777), but might be isolated. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

that is a telegram post, hardly anything confirmed. Scu ba (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The geolocation was very confirmed. The issue was that it was only a temporary raid. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

great, just don't cite telegram, or any social media. Scu ba (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not exactly how it goes (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS)... But anyways, I didn't even think about citing it directly in the article (the ISW already covers it). In fact, we should explain the raid better in the article based on the 12 June report. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved. Thanks Super Dromaeosaurus. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Offense is Over According to Guardian

It has stalled out, though it did achieve its objective of drawing Ukranian reinforcements from the East, where Russia advances.

Some quotes:

"Russian soldier says army suffering heavy losses in Kharkiv offensive Anton Andreev says only 12 out of 100 soldiers remained alive after unit came under Ukrainian fire and drones in Vovchansk Anton Andreev, a Russian soldier from the fifth company of the 1009th regiment, painted a bleak picture of Russia’s offensive in the Ukrainian northern region of Kharkiv. His unit had been decimated, he said, with only 12 out of 100 soldiers still alive as they came under constant Ukrainian fire and drones in Vovchansk, a prime target of Russia’s advances."

"“They just chop us up. We are sent under machine guns, under drones in daylight, like meat. And commanders just shout ‘forward and forward’,” Andreev said in a video message."

"“You walk through the street, and everything seems to be fine,” he continued. “But then you get caught up in a massacre. During the first night, half the company immediately died.”

Russian state media and senior officials continue to say its troops are on the advance in the direction of Kharkiv. Putin has claimed that Russian losses were “of course several times less than on the Ukrainian side” and the Kremlin has also gone to great lengths to ensure that accounts such as Andreev’s are kept from the public."

“I haven’t heard from my brother since the 12 May when they were sent to Volchanks,” wrote Yevgeni, in one post on the social media platform VK. “I am concerned that the training was only a week. Is that even legal?” Yevgeni added."

"The independent Russian news outlet, Verstka published a report that alleged Russia’s military abducted hundreds of mobilised soldiers unwilling to fight and sent them into the trenches at gunpoint."

So I guess change it to Russian victory - drew reinforcements from the East - but with an aftermath section showing appalling casualties for Russia, Ukraine also suffered high casualties.

source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/16/russian-soldier-says-army-suffering-heavy-losses-in-kharkiv-offensive

Worth keeping the source in mind, but we should not jump the gun here. We already kinda did by expanding the scope of the article with just a single limited raid in Sumy Oblast. It would be silly to change this offensive to over only to restart it in a week or two. There are still very heavy clashes in Vovchansk and near Hlyboke. I've already stated too soon before, and I'm considering taking blunter measures to discourage this insistent creation of threads asking to end the offensive. We waited 6 months to call the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive over and there were still some people who disagreeed with it, even by the turn of the year! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. With the recent loss of Tykhe, I'm more inclined to accept it's over... Though I'm still very curious to know what will happen next. Regardless, we should have RS clearly stating it's "over" to make such a radical change. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

FAB-3000 M-54

This offensive saw the introduction of the FAB-3000 M-54 bomb https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-20-2024. It would be good to talk about this in the article. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Update 6.26.2024

"The newly received Ukrainian firepower seems to have put an end to the Russian offensive in the Kharkiv sector, Russian “military correspondent” Aleksandr Kots said in a June 25 video posted on his Telegram channel.

“We are not going to advance there, there is no chance. The situation is that we are defending. Given all the firepower the enemy has brought there, to Vovchansk, the idea that we [Russian forces] should go forward, it is just a way to destroy our people,” Kots said.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34907 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:B929:3826:D72:E839 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We need more sources though, preferably not from pro-Ukrainian media, to start thinking about establishing a consensus. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Imho, the mass deployment of new ATACEM/HIMARS + Drones + Reinforcements has killed the offensive based on the deep state war map (barely budged in a month). But okay, I will keep an eye out for non-uke consensus articles to that fact. 2605:A601:5553:B000:ADC6:C2CB:5806:4FFE (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ideally a list in a single thread should be created, not multiple threads that get archived one after the other. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Same source, but now from Newsweek and with some more details

https://www.newsweek.com/alexander-kots-putin-kharkiv-offensive-update-1918072

Putin Ally Rues Kharkiv Offensive Failures: 'Meat Grinder'

"Zelensky said on June 8 that Russia had failed in its Kharkiv region offensive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:A8C4:8EE5:6F3A:3293 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• https://t.me/boris_rozhin/128414 (Russian soldiers storm the Vovchansk citadel). Yet another evidence that this battle and the offensive are still far from over though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  • eyeballs deepstate war map* *presses the deep state war map history calender button*

  2605:A601:5553:B000:7877:8EC3:AED4:C684 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• For Ukraine and Russia, a Deadly Summer Lies Ahead With Little Hope of Big Gains"

"Ukraine’s army, which recently blunted a dangerous Russian offensive that ran short on troops, is counterattacking in villages on its northeastern border."

"The war here is settling in for a brutal season during which thousands will likely die on both sides but neither appears poised to muster a decisive breakthrough."

"Russia appears likely to continue its grinding approach, sacrificing large numbers of troops for small gains, said a senior Ukrainian security official."

"“They don’t have enough troops” for a major advance in Kharkiv, the official said. “Moving troops there would make other parts of the front weaker.”"

"Ukraine rushed in reinforcements and soon halted the Russians’ progress. Russia said it was seeking to create a buffer zone. After the Biden administration allowed Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied weapons to target enemy positions inside Russia that Moscow was using to launch attacks, the buffer zone’s value to Russia declined, said a senior Western intelligence official.

Ukrainian officials and military analysts say Russia also wanted to pull Ukrainian units from elsewhere on its defensive line and to bring Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second city, into range of Russia’s artillery guns. Now, after Ukrainian defenders halted the Russian advances, they are struggling to field enough troops to advance further."

That's the best source for "it's over" I've seen so far

https://archive.ph/7fzSg#selection-3281.0-3289.332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:7979:98D4:75C0:86BD (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• What's Next After Russia’s Failed Kharkiv Offensive?

"https://cepa.org/article/what-next-after-russias-failed-kharkiv-offensive/"

"Following the initial shock, Ukrainian forces quickly regrouped and mounted a successful counteroffensive, stabilizing the frontlines and reclaiming key territories by mid-June." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:C9C7:E061:875D:20A6 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Territorial changes in infobox

From what I can see, the initial territorial changes reported in the infobox are largely, if not totally based on "claims" made by Russia which have not been independently confirmed. While it may be reasonable to report "claims" in the body of the article, where prose can reflect that these are "claims", it is not appropriate to report "claims" in the infobox where they are being represented as "fact". Furthermore, the infobox is for "key facts". It is unsuited to nuance, such as trying to identify that these are only "claims". Just because a parameter exist does not mean we must or should populate a parameter in the infobox. I have removed this from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think they are only "claims" by the Russian MoD and milbloggers? I'm pretty sure if they were only claims they wouldn't acually be there, and so far we have been only including settlements there which have been confirmed to be captured by Deepstate, ISW, or other non-Russian sources. There's certainly quite a few villages confirmed to be captured according to the territorial claims article, and it's not very hard to distinguish between the settlements confirmed to be captured on that article and unfounded claims by the Russian MoD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Per article:

Russian bloggers claimed that Pletenivka, Hatyshche, Ohirtseve and Zelene [uk] had come under Russian control, according to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which was unable to verify the claims.

Russian military bloggers claimed that Russian forces had also captured the villages of Hoptivka, Kudiivka [uk] and Tykhe ...

The Russian defence ministry claimed in a briefing that its forces had taken five villages: Strilecha, Pylna, Borysivka, Ohirtseve and Pletenivka.

The Russian Ministry of Defence claimed that its forces had captured the villages of Hatyshche, Krasne, Morokhovets and Oliinykove.

Russian sources claimed that Russian forces have seized the entirety of Lukiantsi, however, this was not independently confirmed.

Russian milbloggers claimed Russian forces captured Starytsia, Hlyboke and Lukiantsi ...

Russia claimed to have taken control of the village of Starytsia.

Russian milbloggers gave conflicting reports, either claiming that Russian forces seized Starytsia and Buhruvatka, or that there where ongoing assaults there ...

There are an awful lot of claims but not much actually verified. WP:NOTNEWS comes to mind. There is a lot of padding but not much that is encyclopedic. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

All captures but Tykhe were confirmed by geolocated footage according to the ISW. This reflects the Territorial control article/table as Flemmish Nietzsche said. The problem seems to be with the article body that doesn't connect the Russian claims with the later confirmations and assessments by RS. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You are largely correct as to the issue but geolocated footage is not of itself a sufficient source since this requires WP:ANALYSIS of what it shows to reach a conclusion. We need a source like ISW to do the analysis and report its conclusions. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

But he just said that ISW does the analysis? ...All captures but Tykhe were confirmed by geolocated footage according to the ISW — We're just writing down what ISW is reporting based on their analysis, not interpreting any geolocated footage ourselves here, I don't see what the problem is. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Where in the article are these capture verified? The problem seems to be with the article body that doesn't connect the Russian claims with the later confirmations and assessments by RS. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)