Talk:Casualties during the 2013–2014 Ukraine crisis

Expansion

I'd like to help expanding this article, if it can be done. I wonder as to what type of prose we should include. UN reports about civilian deaths? Analysis of casualty numbers? Concerns about dead Russian soldiers? RGloucester — ☎ 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the above. It could also comfortably incorporate summaries of main articles such as humanitarian concerns. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Eko, excellent work on expanding the article. I've got some stuff saved in the pipeline that I'm working on for this article. RGloucester — ☎ 05:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and excellent. Like Iryna said, the article should be expanded on the issue of humanitarian concerns as well as the issue of possible Russian soldiers being killed among the ranks of rebel forces. EkoGraf (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• At 06:48, 10 February 2015 EkoGraf moved page Casualties of the war in Donbass to Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis (After discussion going to expand the article to include casualties from the whole of Ukraine since the start of the crisis)

I'm a bit confused by the above discussion. UN reports about civilian deaths in the war in Donbass? Analysis of casualty numbers in the war in Donbass? Concerns about dead Russian soldiers in the war in Donbass? Or in the "Ukrainian crisis", aka Euromaidan and the 2014 Ukrainian revolution? – wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass the "expansion" of coverage of civilian humanitarian concerns y'all were looking for here? wbm1058 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing people

What about the people gone missing during Euromaidan? Some reports stated more than 1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.80.138 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Collapse: WP:SOAPBOX

Extended content

Now using the UN numbers, Kiev's missing numbers and German intelligence, we can give a rough understanding of the vast numbers of humans killed in this war. It falls at about 30,000 dead for Kiev of it's troops,about another 5000 dead or missing including the US Special Forces,CIA, FBI and DEA guys CIA Director Brennan came over to try and get back. Plus about 20,000 other deaths of civilians from both sides. No 100% accurate accounting of war deaths is ever possible. But the takeaway today is the Western media continues to black out and outright lie about the vast numbers killed in the Donbass war. As Stalin said, " One death is a tragedy, a million just a number." Reviewing the losses here in Donbass we must conclude the price paid for America's greed includes a body count known to God, and lied about by man. https://dninews.com/article/intelligence-briefing-body-count-donbass SaintAviator lets talk 01:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Not a reliable source, but you already know that. You can get off your soapbox too, it's not helping your case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC) You should know by now that only the US government's and Kiev regime's party line is accepted around here. Славянский патриот (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Lol, true but deception does them no good in the long term. But Western MSM does slip up at times and RS becomes available SaintAviator lets talk 23:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC) RS. See thru the lies honourable editors. Ukraine hides devastating losses http://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/ukraine-hides-devastating-losses-as-russia-backed-rebels-surge-forwards-378321.html Quote. “Don’t believe what they tell you,” he says, checking the door is closed before continuing. “There are many, many more. At least 280 were injured in just one day last week and 30 or 40 killed. There were many more killed this week, Debaltseve and Konstantinovka are the worst cities now. I take 18 wounded to Kharkiv myself every day.” “Usually our hospital can provide services for 23,000 people, but now it has to provide services for about 100,000 people,” Olga Vladimirovna, the surgical director of Kurakhove hospital, told the Kyiv Post. “We only provide first aid, stabilize the critically wounded and treat shock, then they are transported to Dnipropetrovsk hospital or the military hospital in Zaporozhye. Kiev Lying. http://orientalreview.org/2014/10/08/is-kiev-wildly-understating-combat-deaths/ Quotes. Ukraine has already lost more soldiers fighting the Donbas rebellion since April than the Soviet Union lost during nine years of occupying Afghanistan. In the video veterans of the 30th brigade and their furious relatives confront a Ukrainian officer about the whereabouts of the unit and its pathetic supply situation. The officer admits near the end that only 83 out of 4,700 soldiers who deployed with the brigade have returned unhurt. Which begs the question — what happened to the rest? Are they dead, or wounded? Last month on his Facebook page Lyashko directly accused President Petro Poroshenko of hiding over 8,000 Ukrainian combat deaths — a number nearly eight times the ‘official’ KIA figures reported by the English-language Kyiv Post, which as of Friday was still stubbornly reporting ‘only’ 974 confirmed Ukrainian combat deaths – a highly dubious figure that has barely budged since the disastrous battle for Ilovaisk in early September. Ukrainian Military: ‘Official Figures Not Credible,’ REAL Death Toll of 50,000 casualties in Ukraine, German Intel Says http://investmentwatchblog.com/ukrainian-military-official-figures-not-credible-real-death-toll-of-50000-casualties-in-ukraine-german-intel-says/ Germany accuses Ukraine of lying about Civil War death toll http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/02/germany-accuses-ukraine-of-lying-about-civil-war-death-toll/ http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/ukraine-sicherheitskreise-bis-zu-50-000-tote-13416132.html SaintAviator lets talk 00:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Enough WP:SOAP and bringing really shocking sources to the table. As regards the use of Sputnik, RT, or any other WP:BIASED sources, check with the RSN and the NPOVN: all of these sources are reliable for quoting positions taken by figures pertinent to the article's content. If RIA Novosti publishes what a prominent separatist has to say about the separatist position (numbers killed, numbers in their fighting forces), these are taken as good coin with attribution. Two sources you're posting here are from an unnamed intel officer and their opinion on what is going on (oooh! s/he is, apparently, in German intel... really? Or is the intel person the result of a vivid propagandist imagination). That info is does not meet with sourced, that's RT's padding to make something sound legitimate when because the source is so secret that they dare not name him/her/Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Plus FAZ as a reliable source? C'mon, now, those sources are are the motherload of WP:FRINGE! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC) In practice many editors, say on the Putin article, defy your logic on using WP:BIASED. Imagine if I put in Ukraine Military KIA at a range up to 30,000 using those sources. Would you accept that? No? Then you should check with the RSN and the NPOVN since you want this one in, otherwise its out. Did you run it by RSN when you put it in? No? SaintAviator lets talk 04:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC) No, Wait, hang on, you keep your Sputnik and I do my Sputnik (using your logic - which is charming BTW, way better than most). My Sput says 50,000 Ukrainian dead civ + Military Kia. OK? http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150208/1017963580.html. Backtracking in a hurry? SaintAviator lets talk 05:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC) What are you talking about? I don't have to refer these references to the boards. You've removed FT (which is an RS), plus have removed long-standing content (such as figures attributed to Nuland) without having a clue as to how WP:CALC has been applied. These are reliably sourced to reflect what can be confirmed... not speculation as to what more realistic figures might reveal. My edit summary was a heads up to you that the use of the reliability of the sources used has been established time and time again at the RSN. In other words, if you wish to challenge to sources (just the one figure of 2,000 per your entry has nothing to do with 2,000+ from virtually the opening sentence of the article you've continued to use as an RS), I am telling you to take your queries to the RSN in order to demonstrate that they are not RS. It's your problem, not mine, nor that of the editors who have developed this article. I have already explained the Sputnik (although it was originally it TASS) article is reliable for quoting Nuland, "'It is pretty difficult to have a completely accurate assessment given Russia' efforts to mask its dead, but we estimate it in hundreds and hundreds… I cannot speak to more than 400-500 [soldiers] at the moment,' Nuland said." This does not make Sputnik an RS, it is reliable only in as much as that it accurately quotes her. That does not make any other other information carried by Sputnik, RT, etc., etc., etc. reliable in any shape or form. If any of these sources quote Putin or any other officials, the sources are reliable for the quotes. Do you comprehend the difference between reliable for quotes and being reliable sources? In the meantime, please stop edit warring and self-revert. You've already overstepped 3RR on a silly point of principle, and you know that I don't want to report you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC) You do what you have to do Iryna. Im not self reverting. But I wont revert you again. You have done three straight forward reverts. Im not reporting you though. Its silly to. I understand what you said. Its a good way to look at it. Its what I believed some time back. Theres a gang who dont accept it. They kept reverting ALL Rt Sputnik etc. Im glad none of them turned up, that alone makes you look good. SaintAviator lets talk 06:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Who killed the (alleged) 50 000 people? Good people don't kill 50 000.Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Xx236 Combat killed them. The Ukies got hammered doing bad things, like shelling civilians. SaintAviator lets talk 22:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

it is doubtful that the separatists losses dead for two years almost remained the same. Neferer (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian foreign fighters died number

I'd like to clarify the number of 170 foreign fighters that are currently stated as foreigners who died on the Ukrainian side.

As I understand, this number is just the count of all the people listed here: http://memorybook.org.ua/regions/other.htm which is extremely inaccurate. Because this is the summary page for all those people who were born not on Ukrainian (or, to be even more specific, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) territory.

The real number of foreigners can be taken here: http://memorybook.org.ua/indexfile/statbirth.htm - it's 12 foreigners - 4 from Russia, 4 from Georgia, and 1 for each USA, Sweden, Belarus and Ichkeria. All other were Ukrainian citizens who happened to be born outside of Ukraine (UkrSSR). For example, General Kulchitskiy was born in Weimar, Germany, and he is stated among those 170. But he's Ukrainian and had a Ukrainian citizenship, just like 158 others. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Rectified. EkoGraf (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As for Ukrainian casualties total, not all volunteer battalions are part of Armed Forces or National Guard even to the date. It seems better to state it as Ukrainian forces and explain details about UAF, NGU and volunteers in a note. --VoidWanderer (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I checked and the sources I found say that the jurisdiction of the volunteer battalions has been divided between the Ministry of the Interior (specifically the NGU) and the Ministry of Defense (the Armed Forces). I haven't found a source stating that there are still battalions that aren't part of ether. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian forces is a too general/broad term. The DPR and LPR could be called Ukrainian as well. So far I have not seen any sources confirming that there are still volunteers outside government jurisdiction. Thus, there is no reason not to link to the Armed Forces (as it has been up until now), and also to link to the NGU (as I attempted to compromise) since they are separate from the Armed Forces. If you find sources that say there are still volunteers outside government jurisdiction we can discuss further. EkoGraf (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous units like Volunteer Ukrainian Corps, which was partly transformed to Ukrainian Volunteer Army; units like OUN battalion or "Aerorozvidka" (air reconnaissance). They never were fully integrated to government-controlled formations. They are listed here: http://memorybook.org.ua/units/other.htm , together with some government bodies.

As for DPR/LPR as Ukrainian forces.. well. A major part of their soldiers has Ukrainian citizenship indeed. But is it enough to call them Ukrainian? They're fighting against anything that is pro-Ukrainian. --VoidWanderer (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

They may be fighting against pro-Kiev government forces, but they are still Ukrainian. Just like in Syria where we have government and rebel forces, but they are both still Syrian forces. As for the Volunteer Ukrainian Corps, I checked at your suggestion, their incorporation into ether the Armed Forces or the National Guard was announced two years ago. EkoGraf (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The incorporation of Volunteer Ukrainian Corps was never completed. That is the reason it is placed in special section. --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Than please provide a source that it was not completed and I will try and make an appropriate edit in the table. EkoGraf (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Here, it's in Ukrainian: Більшість з них досі реально не інтегровані в офіційні державні структури - ДУК "Правий сектор" (дивіться попередню довідку), батальйон ОУН та інші. Загальна чисельність їх може досягати 50 тис. підготовлених членів (бойові частини до 5 тис.). Translation: Most of them (volunteer nationalist battalions) still weren't integrated to official government structures - Volunteer Ukrainian Corps "Right Sector" (see block above), OUN battalion and others. Their total number may reach 50,000 trained members (up to 5,000 in combat units). --VoidWanderer (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Made a compromise edit. EkoGraf (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow up

Why are even foreign-born Ukrainian citizens mentioned in Foreign fighters section? What is foreign about them? It would be appropriate to mention foreign mercenaries that received Ukrainian citizenship and died, for example. There's not a single evidence this is the case. --VoidWanderer (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf, can you answer this question please? --VoidWanderer (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the message before. I could say notability, the Ukrainians think they are notable enough to be distinguished from all of the other ethnic Ukrainians. Also, we are already mentioning the 1,168 Russian citizens according to Cargo 200, but again, a lot of those Russians could be Ukrainian Russians as well who make up 17 percent of Ukraine's population, with most of them concentrated in that region, and a lot of them have dual citizenship between Ukraine and Russia. Despite Ukrainian law prohibiting it since they started enforcing it only in the last few years. So if we removed the foreign-born Ukrainians killed on Kiev's side, we would have to remove the figure claimed by Cargo 2000 due to the (very high) possibility it includes Russians who are also Ukrainian citizens (Ukrainian-born). If you want, we could change the wording of the text in a way so we could find a compromise? Although after our last discussion I think the wording is as it should be now. EkoGraf (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

the Ukrainians think they are notable enough to be distinguished from all of the other ethnic Ukrainians.

No, it's not the case. This MemoryBook page literally shows the place of birth of all of those soldiers of Ukrainian army (and police, etc) who died in conflict. So it shows per-region info (24 oblasts + Crimea), and, obviously, other countries if it happened someone was born there. You can't distinguish someone if you're just providing data for place of birth.

Also, we are already mentioning the 1,168 Russian citizens according to Cargo 200, but again, a lot of those Russians could be Ukrainian Russians

It's not ethnic Russians. AFAIK, it was Russian citizens, i.e. the citizens of Russian Federation. I haven't seen any ethnicity-based statistics in this conflict, it seems it's literally impossible to provide one.

and a lot of them have dual citizenship between Ukraine and Russia

We need to check that, but again: Cargo 200 stats are based on the city person lived in, not born. They accumulate data from the relatives and families of those who died.

Cargo 2000 due to the (very high) possibility it includes Russians who are also Ukrainian citizens

Once again - no one is counting Ukrainian citizens as Russians. Or we should check that carefully.

--VoidWanderer (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20150203033243/http://info-news.eu/isa-munayev-died-in-the-battle-for-debaltseve/ to http://info-news.eu/isa-munayev-died-in-the-battle-for-debaltseve/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Separatist casulties

The total number of killed Donbass separatists is inaccurate because of lack of official information, confirmed numbers is the minimum and it's more outdated than Ukranian casulties, the separatist losses indicated by your method are most likely not complete. Number of killed Russian sitizens, fighting on the separatist side, is obviously about 2000 now (2081 killed and missing, as of March 1, 2016), which is the confirmed by "cargo 200". In addition, the separatists secretly bury their dead, which complicates the calculation, for example: http://placdarm.net/wato/569-zahoronenie-boevikov-batalona-prizrak-v-s-spornoe-bahmutovskogo-rayona.html So, rebel deaths is estimates, not the exact number, it's necessary to indicate this. I previously add "missing separatists" section from "gruz200" latest list, but it was removed, what is wrong? 2.95.241.151 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No source provided. EkoGraf (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2020

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 section.

---

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War → Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis – As per the original concept established by editors, the scope and subject of this article are the casualties from both the Russo-Ukrainian War and the Euromaidan events that preceded it (collectively known as the Ukrainian crisis). The title of the article was Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis for more than five years, until an editor made the bold step today to re-title it (to its current title) and remove the text on the Euromaidan events (after the Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) was renamed to Russo-Ukrainian War). The significant changing of the subject of the article (and its title) would need a talk page consensus. So until a consensus is reached the old name of the article should be re-established. EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure that this is a good idea to cover here both the Russo-Ukrainian War and the Euromaidan. Euromaidan preceded Russo-Ukrainian War but was not the main cause of it. There is already the List of people killed during Euromaidan, so this article can be focused on the casualties from the Russo-Ukrainian War, this topic is already wide enough, unfortunately. --Chichiguy (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – I think that, given that the casualties Euromaidan events have their own article, and that their coverage here was always trivial, it makes sense to approve this rescoping. While Euromaidan and the subsequent conflict are part of a continuum of events, they were fundamentally different, in that the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass war were military conflicts, rather than mere civil unrest. Leave this article as a 'casualties' article, i.e. one dealing with military conflict, and let Euromaidan be treated at its own article. Given the new organisational scheme that is being implemented for these articles, I think it makes sense. RGloucester — ☎ 13:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – I, as the nominator of this article to be redirected back to Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis, am withdrawing my move request. My main reason for making the move request was because I thought that editor Vorov should have went through a talk page discussion first before making the radical restructuring of the article. However, since two editors expressed their support for the restructuring, including RGloucester who originaly worked with me on the long-running concept of the article when it was created five years ago, then I see no reason to oppose the subject of this article being only the casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Thus, I will proceed in removing the Euromaidan and Odessa/Kharkov casualties sections which are part of the general Ukrainian crisis, and not the Russo-Ukrainian War. However, I would request help in expanding the article with more detail regarding the humanitarian fallout of the war for example. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2020 (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.

• I think its time with reinstated the move, given the consensus that emerged at Russo-Ukrainian War. RGloucester — ☎ 17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Its a matter of this article's subject and until the edits made by the indefinitely banned sock-puppeteer the subject of the article has been for the past 5 and a half years the casualties resulting from all of the events that are considered part of the general Ukrainian crisis (not just the Russo-Ukrainian War which is just one part of the crisis). And I am still of the opinion that an article should exist that presents casualties from all major events of the crisis. EkoGraf (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone is a sockpuppeteer doesn't mean that every edit they made is invalid. I really think it is questionable to combine events related to the military conflict with completely different events like Euromaidan. It makes sense for the scope of a 'casualties' article to be limited to the military conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Both Euromaidan and the Russo-Ukrainian War are considered part of the Ukrainian crisis. In any case, that's my opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but there is a difference between a military conflict and protests/riots/civil unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• EkoGraf, you are not correct. Euromaidan is considered part of the Ukrainian crisis, but the Russo-Ukrainian War is not considered part of the Ukrainian crisis. There fore this acticle should be split on two as proposed by User:RGloucester. One is about the casualties of the Ukrainian_crisis (i. e. protests/riots/civil unrest) and the other about the casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. --Andronof (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)