Talk:Northern Ukraine campaign/Archive 1

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

I'd check the spelling and make minor edits to a few references. STAIDCONTEXT (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request, Spelling Error

Under the 6 March section, the sentence "In Irpin, Russian shelling hitting an evacuation checkpoint" should read "In Irpin, Russian shelling hit an evacuation checkpoint" instead

 Done 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

TC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

I'm a senior editor member, I would like permission to edit this page to proofread the reflist and application as a reference for development of a similar page in another language Wikipedia, please. STAIDCONTEXT (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Curbon7 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2022 (U-->

Irpin retaken

Ref [1]. Volunteer Marek 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Minor error

Please change the first sentence. Since it has been proven to be a decisive Ukrainian victory, it is not ongoing anymore. 182.239.87.226 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2022 (U

Title

I just thought of something. Would it be better to characterize this particular article as the Kyiv Offensive (this would be in line with the Kherson offensive, describing a similar military advancement operation in another oblast)? And then when the battle for the city occurs that would be the Battle of Kyiv, since this is about the operation about the whole (ex. Battle of Chernobyl). Just trying to see if we could alleviate some of the potential confusion that might arise as a result of the title not really matching the current content very well. Curbon7 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I've started Draft:Battle of Kyiv (2022) so we can build out a background section before the battle gets hot and so we can avoid any lingering WP:CRYSTAL issues. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Lede image

@Mhawk10: The lede image is a zoomed-in version of the map used in this article. The original map shows what each relevant symbol and detail means, but this one doesn't. It has to be fixed, as in its current state, it can be confusing. Wretchskull (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to do maps, but I'm going to ping LLs (talk · contribs · count), who created the image. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ghost of Kyiv

Should this article say that the Ghost of Kyiv is a commander of the Ukrainian forces, even “allegedly”? Timothy Schrock2001 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No, because a commander of leader is usually a soldier who is designated with a rank to lead soldiers in a battle. The Ghost of Kiev is a plane, not a person, so it is impossible for a plane to be a commander. Also, it is unlikely that the pilot is the lead commander or leader of the battle. Adamwikisz (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Small spelling error

From 27 February section: "destroyed a Kadyrovtsy convoy of 56 tanks in Hostome.[53][54] Chechen leader" It is missing an 'l'. Ridanbp (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@‎Pietadè, thank you for fixing it. Ridanbp (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Change description 🦧🦧🦧🦧

The current «short description» repeats the title, which is redundancy. A solution to this is to reword it into «Russian military attack in Ukraine». ToniTurunen (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2022 (UT

Blatant grammar error

"At some point during the day, a Russian military column was destroyed by Ukrainian forces on a bridge in the city of Irpin, destroying at least one vehicle and leaving it's crew dead." It's. Can somebody please, please turn this into "its"? And shame on whoever typed it, unless it was a quick thing and they reviewed it not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2d90:d110:55e2:6ece:5efa:4c2b (talk) 25 February 2022 (UTC)

President of Belarus

Lukashenko: Belarusian troops are not participating in the operation in Ukraine. "Here I read: "At about 5 a.m., the state border of Ukraine in the area of Russia and Belarus was attacked by Russian troops supported by Belarus." The scoundrels are extreme! Our troops do not take any part in this operation," BelTA quotes Lukashenko.

Recall that Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he had decided to conduct a special military operation to protect people from bullying and genocide by the Kiev regime, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, bringing to justice those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including Russian citizens.

On Thursday morning, Ukraine's military facilities were subjected to massive strikes. The DPR reported fighting along the entire contact line. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed that the Russian Armed Forces do not strike at the cities of Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Precision weapons only hit military targets. Later, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the suppression of Ukraine's air defense systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.19.176.100 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any independent, reliable sources that support these claims? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ProtectUkraine.org

@ThePaganUK: in this edit you inserted material sourced to "ProtectUkraine.org". Are you sure that's a reliable source for events on 25 February? I'm not able to find much more on the destruction of a column on that day; the only source I can find that mentions something like this is WaPo and it describes the destruction of a tank column in an article published on 24 February. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Paratroopers landing in the city of Vasylkiv

The source cited for the claim that "Russian paratroopers began landing in the city of Vasylkiv" in the early hours of Feb 26 only claims that the Ukraine's air force command "said (it) was under attack from Russian paratroopers." I am not so sure the two are equivalent. Stephanos100 (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Kyiv Offensive" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kyiv Offensive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26#Kyiv Offensive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties

Any updates of Ukrainian casualities?? Kunal Mystry (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Health Minister Viktor Lyashko said on Saturday that 198 Ukrainians, including three children, have been killed during the Russian invasion. A further 1,115 people have been wounded, including 33 children, he wrote."

• • Would this be regarded as casualties??**

Source : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/26/russia-ukraine-battle-for-kyiv Kunal Mystry (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally can't find any independent sources that are giving estimates of casualties that have occurred specifically in Kiev or in the surrounding oblast. We'd need numbers specific to the front (rather than general numbers for the entire 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) in order to place estimates of casualties for the Kiev front in the infobox. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

For casualties, it's probably best to wait until the fog of war clears to get some accurate reports. The UN put out a report earlier I believe, so this would be a good non-biased report to draw conclusions from if there are numbers specifically for Kyiv. Curbon7 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Kadyrovtsy convoy

The article mentions «destroyed a Kadyrovtsy convoy of 56 tanks in Hostomel», but it seems that this is about tankers (trucks), not tanks. Tuvalkin (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

1. For March 3rd add that Ukrainian special forces destroyed 10 BMDs in Hostomel 2. In march 3rd add that fighting occured in Bucha and Vorzel Torpschez (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That is not a reliable source, it just points to a telegram post. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 26 February 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is part of a three-way close of

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 26 § Kyiv Offensive (permalink pre-close)
• Talk:Kyiv offensive (2022) § Requested move 26 February 2022 (permalink pre-close)
• and Talk:Kiev Offensive § Requested move 27 February 2022 (permalink pre-close)

I will be copy-pasting the same close rationale to all three.

The key question here is whether "Kyiv" vs. "Kiev" is sufficient disambiguation on its own under WP:SMALLDETAILS. At the Kiev Offensive RM, Mhawk10 and Mlb96 make the case that they are, but at the Kyiv offensive RM, no one seems to contest CentreLeftRight and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith's argument that the distinction is obscure to most users and that the transliteration "Kiev" remains in widespread use; Walrasiad and Eduardog3000 make similar points at the Kiev Offensive RM. Thus I find consensus that Kiev/Kyiv is insufficient disambigation on its own.

The outcomes of these three discussions follow easily enough from this:

• BilledMammal's DAB page at Kyiv offensive is restored and Kyiv Offensive is retargeted to it.
• Kyiv offensive (2022) is not moved.
• Kiev Offensive is moved to Kiev Offensive (1920).
• There was no discussion of what to do with the resulting redirect at Kiev Offensive, but since the consensus to move was based on the premise that the term is ambiguous, I will retarget it to the DAB at Kyiv offensive, without prejudice against an RfD to review that decision.

There may appear to be an inconsistency in capitalization here, but it represents the consensuses at both RMs, and to me appears justified based on the fact that one is a descriptive title and one a proper name. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Kyiv offensive (2022) → Kyiv Offensive – The current article seems to be the primary topic for the phrase "Kyiv Offensive". The article Kiev Offensive refers to an early 1900s-era offensive. It seems like the spelling of the city at the time of the offensive, combined with a hatnote, would be a more efficient way of disambiguating the two than the current way of doing so. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose — "2022" helps make the topic of the article explicitly clear. "Kiev" is not an old transliteration; the difference between "Kiev" and "Kyiv" is that the former is the transliteration of the Russian name and the latter the Ukrainian. Kiev is still widely used in English to refer to the city. Also "Offensive" should not be capitalised per WP:TITLEFORMAT; the reason why it is for Kiev Offensive is because the proper noun with the capitalisation is commonly used to refer to it in sources. CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per CentreLeftRight. Differentiating the two articles solely based on spelling differences which are largely arbitrary in English seems like it could be confusing to readers. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, per above. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I would suggest Kyiv Oblast Offensive (with or without 2022, no preference) is better than the current title to disambiguate from the Battle of Kyiv (2022) in Kyiv city only. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to push back, I think that the offensive is generally described as having the purpose of taking the city of Kyiv, which is not in the Oblast itself. The offensive has several battles in it, one of which is Kyiv, but I don't see a need to make that change. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Half-support I support removing the disambiguator and renaming the page simply to "Kyiv offensive"; the above argument about the spelling difference not mattering is directly contrary to the policy located at WP:SMALLDETAILS, which specifies that spelling differences do matter. The Kiev Offensive is the primary topic for the spelling Kiev, and this article is the primary topic for the spelling Kyiv; the disambiguator is unnecessary and should be removed per the nomination. However, I oppose capitalizing the word "offensive" because reliable sources do not refer to it in such a manner. Mlb96 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Support but with a restricton: It should be Kyiv offensive, without a capital O CR-1-AB (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppopse - There is already the Kiev Offensive article relating to another war.XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The year is needed to distinguish the older offensive article and the spelling is not enough to distinguish the two. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion

At Talk:Kiev Offensive#Requested move 27 February 2022 BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2022 (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.

Deaths of individuals

Editors should treat carefully their edits regarding the death of 'notable' individuals. Some days ago there was a discussion regarding the alleged death of Chechen Commander Magodev, the same happened in his own bio article. However since there was no evidence of its death, no photo, report form RS and to make matter worse, there was a counterclaim that he was alive and is currently in this article too. The article was later erased, because it lacked notability. I have seen someone left his alleged death on the infobox, regarding claims of death by individuals editors should be more careful. This types of errors undermine Wikipedia image.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged death was a Fake, read discussion.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring

We currently structure the article to give a day-by-day breakdown of events. I think it might be a better structure if we can write this more like typical articles on historical offensives (such as Operation Overlord), where the timeline of events is given in prose rather than in a pseudo-list. Does anybody object before I re-structure the article? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think let's wait until this is complete or at least further developed. This will let us holistically edit later down the line. The article isn't gruelingly long at the moment so it's ok to wait a bit. However, I 100% support the idea, just not now I think. Curbon7 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

C)

Oleksiy Arestovych is an unreliable source

Several articles on Wikipedia are quoting Arestovych, whos announcements either say that Ukrainian forces have killed 50 Russians / that they have taken out 200 Russian 'units' in a single engagement, or that the Russian military is killing and injuring many children. In one case at least, he claims there have been more children than adults as casualties. The problem is, he is himself the propagandist of Zelensky's government. As a propagandist, he is invalid as a primary source. So who keeps posting what he is saying to these pages, and should action be taken?

On his own Wikipedia page, it says that Oleksiy Arestovych is "an organizer of psychological seminars and trainings" for the military, "Adviser on Information Policy", an advisor for "Strategic Communications in the Field of National Security and Defense", and in other places is regularly reported as Zelenskyy's own advisor. What this means is, he is a main propagandist for the Ukrainian side of the story, and as such, what he says is invalid. However, it is not for me to delete what is said, but rather to recommend that his name be suffixed with "a Ukrainian government propagandist".

In war the first casualty is Truth. But I think, along with a complete lack of any Russian sources for the current events in Ukraine, Wikipedia can do a better job of resisting that than it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.160.246.12 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The article notes that this is a Ukrainian government claim, not an independent claim. Curbon7 (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In general, we need to be careful about using unconfirmed claims from government officials on either side. Where they are widely reported, it is always be worth including attribution to the individual who stated them if we choose to incorporate them to the article. Independent estimates should probably preferred and should carry the most WP:WEIGHT. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested merge of Kyiv offensive (2022) and Battle of Kyiv (2022)

These two pages are very similar and should be considered as a possible merged page. I believe the two talk about mostly the same things, and the Battle of Kyiv (2022) could be placed as a section of the Kyiv offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainnq (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No. It's very obvious what the difference between both articles is. Curbon7 (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose  The two are related but separate, and both are growing articles. We have a series of articles on the major Russian offensives or theatres of war on an operational level (see Category:Theatres of operation of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), and others about specific battles on a tactical level (for example, in Category:Kyiv offensive (2022)).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Российские десантники в бою с украинскими националистами захватили вооружение, поставленное западными странами.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggest casualties to admin...........

In another page created off. Battle of Kyiv the Wikipedia page but this is Kyiv offensive page created on you need to do casualties put on this page like this: Ukraine: Unknown 4 aircraft destroyed[citation needed] Russians: 235 soldiers killed,[8] 748 wounded[9] Okay, SO LET DO IT and edit the page. NguyenLuuDatHuynh2008 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Spaceworker2 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Magomed Tushayev is a Chechen officer of Kadyrov's army, so Tushayev's flag should be that of Chechnya

Chechnia’s not a sovereign state, despite acting like it in many ways. —Michael Z. 15:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Citations to Twitter

Is there any reason we're currently citing a bunch of tweets? I'm not convinced that Twitter is a reliable publisher in the context of an ongoing conflict where the fog of war is evident. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO depends on who is tweeting, are they blue checked, are they considered authorities, do they link or show evidence?Wikidgood (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ivankiv liberated?

I'm seeing many posts on social media that Russian forces have left Ivankiv, and that Ukraine has now liberated it. There's nothing yet from the Ukrainian government or any news source so I don't believe it. It's a big development if true, so I'll keep looking until something reliable comes up. If anyone sees a reliable source or government report on it, make sure to update the article and/or map. PixelatedGalaxy (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

From [2]: "Later, local officials said the northern Kyiv region towns of Bucha and Ivankiv had been retaken by Ukrainian forces and Ukraine's armed forces said the nearby town of Borodyanka had also been liberated, sharing a photo of Ukrainian troops they said was taken in the town." --Mindaur (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox caption

The caption for the map in the infobox reads "Russian advance in the Kyiv region, near the border with Belarus", but the map now shows the Ukrainian counteradvance to the Belarussian frontier and the borders of Chernihiv Oblast. The caption could be corrected, but I think it would be better to change the map from a representation of the current position to a representation of the history of the campaign, with the caption then adjusted. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Northeastern Ukraine offensive into Kyiv offensive (2022)

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.

---

Appears to be treated by RS as a part of the Kyiv axis of attack. For example, see Reuters and ISW. Jr8825 • Talk 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted the sources. Some of the action here, such as Battle of Konotop in northern Sumy Oblast are def part of the Kyiv offensive and should probably be moved as such, but action regarding in southern Sumy oblast and Kharkiv oblast are considered by both sources you provided to be separate from action in Kyiv; action in Chernihiv oblast also falls under the Kyiv article. In my opinion, it's fine for now; there's a lot we don't yet know, so a proposal like this is probably WP:TOOSOON. Curbon7 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The troops from Konotop came from the east I thought, not from Belarus or the North. So Konotop is also part of the Northeastern theatre in my view Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The interpretation is that the troops from northern Sumy oblast (i.e. Konotop) that pushed west are seen as making action towards Kyiv by making a westward trek. Right now, I don't have a definitive opinion, as everything is hazy with the fog of war, so I think the status quo is preferred for now. Curbon7 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merger -- News media seem to treat Kharkiv and Kyiv as separate objectives, so that they are probably best kept separate. This may change as the war develops. Recent action in Makariv (if we do not get a dedicated article) is perhaps best dealt with in one on Kyiv. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose In future these may well be considered the same thing, but for now they seem to be treated differently. If at a point in the future they are put together, then we should merge them. There’s no rush, let’s keep them for now. Xx78900 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm seeing earlier maps that identify two separate offensives. If the two eventually merged in their operational effort, the reason is that the Kyiv Oblast offensive has stalled, so the operational axis is not active at this point. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Curbon7. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Oppose**. The two different pages are fine for now. PixelatedGalaxy (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, although some of the Russian actions were in support of the siege of Kyiv (viz., securing a supply line to attack the city from the northeast), the primary effort was against Sumy & Kharkiv. Only after those 2 cities refused to fall was this repurposed to support an advance on Brovary.
  Further, it currently appears that now the Northwestern campaign is focused on the capture of Izium in support of the Eastern front. In short, the article on the Northwestern front really can't be merged into another article -- at least until after hostilities have ended. -- llywrch (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:TOOSOON and there is much we still don't know about both offensives. Once the conflict is over and details are more clear, we can start condensing articles, if still deemed necessary. Buttons0603 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2022 (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.

Infobox Territorial changes

It says "Ukrainian forces regain control of the entire Kyiv Oblast" but wouldn't it be more accurate to say "none", as Ukraine controlled the entire Kyiv Oblast before the offensive, so regaining control is not a territorial change due to the offensive. Phiarc (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Phiarc, I'd be a fan of just removing that parameter entirely, as it doesn't make much sense to have on this article anyways. Curbon7 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

March 23-24

What happened from March 23-24? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:8CF8:847D:3C8:A456 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

I want to make some changes to the Infobox, such as adding Oleksandr Syrsky and Valeriy Zaluzhniy to the Ukrainian Commanders, and fixing the messed up spacing between the Commanders' names. I will also add a reference each for the two Commanders that I want to add. PixelatedGalaxy (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Curbon7 (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge parts of Northeastern offensive into this?

I raised on Northeastern offensive talk page a question whether parts of it should be merged with this article: Talk:Northeastern Ukraine offensive#Merge Northeastern offensive into Kyiv and Eastern offensives?.--Staberinde (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring required

I'll be taking some pretty bold changes in the article since most of the article consists of nothing more but a massive chronology. If you want to help, feel free to get in. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

"Ukrainian forces subsequently retook control over Russian-occupied areas in the oblast on April 2022" should be either changed to "Ukrainian forces subsequently retook control over Russian-occupied areas in the oblast in April 2022" or, if the "ON" is to remain, the date should be specified e.g. "on XXth April 2022". 148.88.245.3 (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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.

---

Hello dear wikipedians

As we draw that what seems to be the closing of the Kyiv theater we are left with two pages: Kyiv offensive (2022) and Battle of Kyiv (2022). The problem that I have with them is that the fight never reached Kyiv proper, but stayed contained around the suburban/metropolitan area of Kyiv in Hostomel, Bucha (Battle of Bucha) and Irpin (Battle of Irpin), in the east in Brovary (Battle of Brovary). This reaches the reason for this merger: The two pages have almost the exact same content, they describe fighting around the Kyiv area, but not fighting in Kyiv itself (except for shelling and missile bombing). I think maybe the objective was the have the Battle of Kyiv (2022) page for when the fight reached the city proper but that's a moot point now since we just saw a Russian withdraw.

Thus, I suggest we merge Kyiv offensive (2022) and Battle of Kyiv (2022) LordLoko (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: See previous discussion. The battle, in fact, reached the city itself + there's enough content in there which merits its existence. KajMetz (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - The battle reached several suburbs of Kyiv and at its closest point, just 10km from the parliament building. I don't see the need for a merger right now. PenangLion (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - There was fighting in Kyiv city proper, Obolon district specifically was occupied by Russian Armored Divisions during the first few days of the invasion. Viewsridge (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: the fight did reach the city proper. Even if it hadn't, the distinction between "Kyiv" and the suburbs is trivial. It's much easier and more understandable to just say "Kyiv" Darkwolf218 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Change the date for the battle of kyiv to when russia was kicked out of the city proper. That’s all Wikiman92783 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons given above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 23:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - the russian army was, genuinely, in force at the outskirts of Kyiv, so it would be incorrect to say, that the fighting never reached kyiv proper. Kyiv offensive (2022) is supposed to cover the russian offensive that was idrected at Kyiv, with Battle of Kyiv (2022) covering the fighting about that city itself, even if it was just the suburbs. --1234567891011a (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support I'm all for it Great Mercian (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose — Two very different things. One was an offensive (Which encompassed multiple battles) and one was the fight over/attacks on the city of Kyiv. That is the same thing as saying D-Day was ‘Operation Overload’, which it was not. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest close - Consensus heavily opposes the merger with a 7 oppose-1 support decision after 9 days. (PenangLion (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2022 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (3to4).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Russian military weapons destroyed and seized by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (3to4).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Российские десантники захватили вооружение, поставленное западными странами.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle of Hostomel, 04.03.2022, Skirmish Aftermath.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Victory

From news reports seems like this battle is over and that the Ukrainians won. Is there any disagreement with this assessment? Nogburt (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Whether the offensive is over depends partly on how you consider the axes of advance via Konotop and (bypassing) Chernihiv, both of which were apparently aimed at Kiev. There's also the question of what cleaning up operations are needed northwest of Kiev. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Russians first began withdrawing from around the city of Kiev, but now have indeed withdrawn from the entire Kiev Oblast, back into Belarus. Chernobyl is under Ukrainian control, so I'm guessing it can be called a Ukrainian victory as this stage of the campaign is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.23.35 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we are getting near to making that call, Some ukrainian governments officials are claiming victory, and pretty much all of west kyiv has been recaptured it seems. Probably just wait for major media to report it IndianapolisWikipedian (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems more like a Russian retreat than a military victory 82.14.247.116 (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It was a withdrawal, and apparently, the operation was carried out with with very little loss. The Ukrainian forces only retook the regions occupied by the Russian forces as they withdrew. 152.207.201.201 (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawal vs defeat

The Russians were not defeated, they just removed their army with negotiations. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:24DA:6303:B686:4E73 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. They also made a fairly quick and orderly retreat with very few losses. the Ukrainian FA only advanced to where the Russian forces withdrew. Several analysts also conclude that taking the city was not an option due to the number of forces involved and the kind of target, but rather that the two real objectives were to create a threat as pressure for a rapid negotiated solution, and attract as many forces as possible away from the south and east. the first objetive was the one that failed. 152.207.201.201 (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, it was a Russian failure.. ergo defeat. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Was the withdrawal orderly and the entire operation with low losses? Which analysts concluded that about Russian objectives? There was no solution, so if the Russians lost thousands of troops and vehicles for that purpose, they failed to achieve it too. Please cite these facts, because they don’t reflect the sources I’ve read. The Russian advances from Belarus and Briansk oblast failed to achieve the objectives that most sources attribute to them, and withdrew after heavy losses. Defeat. —Michael Z. 16:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This ones is an example: [3] this one is a little older [4] there are some others similar and more updated (early april) around (need to find them again).

the losses I refer to are the ones they may have had during the withdrawal. the withdrawal as such apparently was carried out without many problems and very quickly (two, three days). the Ukrainian units only advanced to the places that the Russian troops had already abandoned days before. in the city the political objective failed, the rapid negotiated solution due to the threat to the capital and the rapid advances in the rest of the territory. but attracting and fixing many Ukrainian units there (as well as in other cities they surrounded) to facilitate the preparation of the battlefield for the larger operation that they are currently carrying out in the east (one of the objectives set at the beginning), while they cut communication, supply lines and means of transport, making it difficult for subsequent reinforcements in this area. in this they were successful, many ukrainian where keep far from the east and then they are having difficulties reinforcing some parts of the east (they hardly have means of transport available, or fuel) and even more so carrying supplies and equipment. in the operation in kyiv Russia involved very few troops against a similar amount within a large city, just compare it with the battle in Mariupol, fewer troops involved and a much smaller city.

Also, about the alleged two downed Il-76, it seems obvious no Il-76 was shot down, not one nor two. Specialists consider that they were two decoy drones to lure and reveal the Ukrainian air defenses. The Ukrainians would not have taken long to show the remains of two 50-meter 200-ton planes and the alleged hundreds of troops or equipment they were transporting, even less so in a relatively populated area. more than two months have passed and not a single image or report has been seen to show what would be a great victory for the Ukrainian AA defense, in any official or OSINT media as a proven fact. 152.206.184.131 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know what those sources are supposed to support, but both are written by fr:Jacques Baud who French Wikipedia says is referred to as a conspiracy theorist and whitewashes Russia. Not convincing. —Michael Z. 00:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

In the infobox at the top of the page, the picture labels are in the wrong order. They are stated to be ordered "Clockwise from top left:", but the labels for "Russian tank unit advances into the Kyiv Oblast" and "Petroleum depot on fire during the Battle of Vasylkiv" need to be swapped around. 85.210.144.69 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Already done SpinningCeres 14:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2022

Magomed Tushayev was/is a Chechen warlord fighting for Russia in the Kyiv Offensive. For the Commanders and Leaders section, for Tushayev, there should be the flag of Russia and Chechnya. This is because the Chechen Republic has its own private shock troops of the Kadyrovtsy. Spaceworker2 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 04 June 2022

Typo in second sentence, begunning -> beginning. Phillycj 13:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The Use of Russian Propaganda Video

The file Российские десантники захватили вооружение, поставленное западными странами.ogv has somewhat manipulative description which may mislead some not well-informed readers about what is going on on the footage. The video states that russian forces captured Javelins but what is really shown are only missile tubes, possibly empty (not shown). The most important part of Javelin, a Command Launch Unit is not shown. During the war Russians have often used empty (discharged/used) tubes from various western AT weapons for propaganda purposes. So, I suggest either rewriting the description to "Russian soldiers showcase captured tubes from Ukrainian Javelin ATGMs in the village of Guta-Mezhyhirska" or deleting the video at all— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.179.2.50 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Request title change for video "Russian Ka-52 helicopter recovered from the Kyiv Reservoir, May 2022"

Video depicts wreckage of a helicopter, namely the tail section and most of the main fuselage.

The helicopter is unlikely to be a Ka-52 as a smaller three bladed rotor is visible, likely the tail rotor. The main rotor is a singular rotor, and is not a set of contra-rotating propellers which are used on the Ka-52.

The curvature of the section between the tail and the main fuselage suggests that this helicopter is of the Mi-24/Mi-35 class. TheBigBattleship (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

Please change "PMC Redoubt" in the Infobox (Russian combatants) to "PMC Redut", which is the correct name, and link to page Redut (PMC) instead of Order of Battle. Zerbrxsler (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Applodion (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

Change 'Russian forces were held at Ivankiv, a northern suburb of Kyiv' to 'Russian forces were held at Ivankiv, a key town between the border and Kyiv' as 42 miles is a long distance for a suburb. Hopeaxolotl (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Ivankiv’s actually about 90 km from Kyiv.  —Michael Z. 20:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties according to Russians

Since in the battle of antonov airport which is part of the kyiv offensive the russians have claimed 200 ukranian soldiers killed, I think we should mark down at least 200 ukranian soldiers killed in the casualties section under "per russia". Here's the link for that source. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60517447?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6218d0950ce87e491a0ecfb1%26Russia%20says%20200%20Ukrainians%20%27eliminated%27%20in%20airbase%20siege%262022-02-25T12%3A55%3A10.449Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:149645fb-2fdb-4f80-9cc5-545be403b403&pinned_post_asset_id=6218d0950ce87e491a0ecfb1&pinned_post_type=share

PROONTExchange (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Zhytomyr Oblast

I've included all Russian military operations in Zhytomyr Oblast here because they wouldn't fit in any other campaign and we cannot leave them out. There's few info about what did the Russians do in Zhytomyr Oblast and analyses on why did they do anything at all there are even less if not none, but it's not a huge guess that they must have had something to do with Kyiv, considering they left Zhytomyr Oblast shortly after they left Kyiv Oblast. Super Ψ Dro 09:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made a discussion below to change the article's name to "Northern Ukraine Offensive" to better include Zhytomyr (its a different oblast, so it would make more sense for the article's name to be changed) SnoopyBird (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Possibly change name to "Northern Ukraine Offensive"

Apparently, Zhytomyr is included in the article, which doesnt make sense, as the name of the article is "Kyiv offensive", so i suggest changing the name of the article to "Northern Ukraine Offensive" to better fit Zhytomyr in. SnoopyBird (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This article refers to the campaign for the city of Kyiv, not the oblast. Curbon7 (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Then why are other cities included here? (capture of chernobyl, antonov, hostomel, bucha, irpin, ivankiv, vasylkyiv, etc), also, fighting in zythomyr are indeed included here,

about the battle for the city, theres another article (Battle of Kyiv (2022)) for that. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The campaign for Kyiv city, not the battle for it. All of the battles listed above were part of the Russian campaign to capture Kyiv. This is like how the Saratoga campaign wasn't just about the Battle of Saratoga. Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I know, the problem is that actions in Zhytomyr oblast are included here, and i think naming it Northern Ukraine Offensive or something similar would fit better, obviously i will follow consensus, if the majority opposes this, then so be it. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

An offensive is a series of battles. Kyiv was the main objective. So the current name is good, no matter what oblasts were crossed to get there.  —Michael Z. 00:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

if that's the case, we can keep it that way then. SnoopyBird (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

The "Saboteurs" (on photo) are Thieves as per article on Facebook (official page of the Ukrainian police), and see the TITLE of the Photo. Historien2208 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TimSmit (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Russian occupation of Kyiv Oblast into Kyiv offensive (2022)

WP:NOPAGE notes that There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This seems to be one of those times, as there exists other information that provides needed context. Most notably, this information (i.e. the military movement and the order in which the Kyiv offensive occupied cities) can be found in the general article on the Kyiv offensive (2022). I don't see much of a rational reason to present these as separate topics, given that the topics heavily overlap — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment And this is why I did not create the Kyiv Oblast occupation page right away like the other pages. I wanted and was figuring out how to word a perfect RfC to request to do it similar to all the other occupation articles (ie Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast & Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast) as I knew it would be complicated with how many articles and larger articles would be involved. I would prefer to not merge the Russian occupation of Kyiv Oblast, but rather draftify it until all the fine details can be worked out through discussions and such. It for sure is notable enough, just as it stands now, 0 chance of standing alone without a painful discussion to figure out what should be in what article. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Different enough. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Each region (Oblasts, Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol) of Ukraine, which was or is currently under occupation, has an article specifically about this Russian occupation. Uliana245 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC) striking sock — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per User:Uliana245's reasoning, there is a similar article about each oblast of Ukraine that has been occupied by Russia. The only exception to this is Odesa Oblast, in which only Snake Island has been occupied. It seems logical that the article about the Russian occupation of Kyiv Oblast should be kept as it is. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  “It seems logical” is not a policy argument. HappyWith (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per norm (wikt:norm) --- Tbf69 P • T 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Support - the occupation article doesn’t have any unique content, it’s just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Kyiv offensive article, and so should be merged. The oppose votes here do not argue based on any policy, instead essentially appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, ignoring the fact that many of the other occupation articles have much more content and therefore an actual reason to be kept. HappyWith (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)