Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive/Archive 2

How is this a counteroffensive?
Counteroffensive is a military response done by defending force "before the enemy has had the opportunity to assume new defensive positions". But the positions when it started (4. June 2023.) have been very stable for prolonged period of time and defensive positions have been established by the attackers. So shouldn't the the title of this page be "2023 Ukrainian offensive"? --Bottle for Bread (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The media and governments from both sides basically universally refer to it as a "counteroffensive". I think people are analyzing it on a much larger scale and timeframe, where the terminology makes more sense. HappyWith (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a counteroffensive and neither were the other two major 'counteroffensives', but for some reason everyone calls them counteroffensive and the names of these articles reflect the commonly used names of these 'counteroffensives'. GramCanMineAway (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Western media calls it this to reinforce that it's a defensive war for Ukraine, and that thus any offensive operations they conduct are counteroffensives. This is indeed not militarily correct. 24.132.155.180 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Loses in infobox
I ask that the infobox be updated. The article itself says "1,500 soldiers killed (as of 14 June)"... the source says 'in the early par to the counter offensive' which is very vague. Early part could be the first day for example. Such vague stuff is not useful or good to write as it is too vague. If people do not update this faulty information with more accurate information, then I will do so. Cheers. (Lilic (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC))
 * Russian sources claim that 26 000 Ukrainians casualties are present as of July 11th. Source: https://www.plenglish.com/news/2023/07/11/ukraine-lost-over-26k-troops-in-so-called-counteroffensive/
 * Russian sources claim (back on 21st June) that over 1000 soldiers on the Ukrainian side were being killed per day - which means at least 10 000 killed on that side. Source: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/06/22/bvvz-j22.html


 * The article has been updated, however, the state news agency of Communist Cuba, and World Socialist Web Site, are not reliable sources, instead using the ISW report. Scu ba (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * About 25000 lost is much more accurate than the false misleading information of 1500 lost. Hence I did my contribution to raise awareness to deception and I do not care how it was fixed as long as it was fixed. I do not see ISW as reliable, as there are no reliable sources - there is only pro Russian and pro Ukrainian, and ISW happens to be pro Ukrainian. Even map websites such as deepstatemap are pro Ukrainian. Hence if one is presenting different sources it is important to do so accurately, and the Russian claims were disinformation until I raised the issue. It is nice that the disinformation is fixed. (Lilic (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC))
 * Why is the WSWS not "reliable", but the ISW is? 24.132.155.180 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian advance in Kupyansk for two consecutive days
Ukraine's deputy defense minister said so. https://t.me/annamaliar/938 Andreax2014 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source besides her telegram? I haven't seen this advance in the ISW reports.Scu ba (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's from her own profile. Andreax2014 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we can’t really use it. It’s annoying, but it’s policy. Like, to cartoonishly play devils advocate, what if she was hacked, or if this was a cleverly disguised fake account? The policy exists for those kinds of cases. HappyWith (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Silly. Wouldnt she have deleted it by now. Andreax2014 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * regardless, can't use social media per WP:SPS Scu ba (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2023
Please add these sources and information from them: 1) - we have claims of Russian loses, so to be fair there should be RuUssian claims. The one Russian claim in the infobox is not useful as it is too vague. 2)  In addition to the previous link, this link provides information for after two weeks of the offensive, with Russian claims. This would give a more balanced article. Cheers. Lilic (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done:

1. You need to write out exactly what it is you wish to change/add.

2. Your sources are dubious at best. Prensa Latina is the official state news agency of Cuba, that has claimed Ukraine started the war--a view that is roundly rejected by the vast majority of reliable sources. The World Socialist Web Site is an advocacy group listed in perennial sources, with the note Most editors consider it to be reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting. If used, it must be evaluated for due weight as it is an opinionated source. On a controversial topic such as this, no consensus for factual reporting should probably be taken as, "find a better source".

In any case, an edit request really isn't the route you should be taking to change the article; you should engage with other editors on the talk page to argue for inclusion of the material.

Xan747 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, I saw information which was misleading, and downright wrong. I raised the issue. It got fixed because I raised it and I am glad that the disinformation is removed. (Lilic (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC))
 * Good for you, but you are still missing the point that the edit request feature is for making specific changes, supported by reliable sources, that are either not likely to be controversial or for which you've previously obtained consensus to make. You unarguably did not meet two of those three requirements, which is an abuse of the function. Please do not do it again. Xan747 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The casualties section is incredibly poorly construed by the way. The infobox is better. But the casualties part could mention how claims of both sides have changed as the weeks have gone by. I guess what it is well known that claims of both sides are dubious but given that one goes out of one's way to point out doubts on Russian claims, and then does not mention Ukrainian dubious claims in that section, well, it makes one wonder why the information is so limited. I guess when people cannot edit they cannot add more info, but at least the info that is to be added could be better presented and there could be more of it. Like, eventually a table, if this goes on long enough, that shows weekly claims by both sides - I dunno if there is such level of detail being reported alas, but just saying in theory what might be good to strive towards, that is more data rather than less data. (Lilic (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

How is this a counteroffensive?
Counteroffensive is a military response done by defending force "before the enemy has had the opportunity to assume new defensive positions". But the positions when it started (4. June 2023.) have been very stable for prolonged period of time and defensive positions have been established by the attackers. So shouldn't the the title of this page be "2023 Ukrainian offensive"? --Bottle for Bread (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The media and governments from both sides basically universally refer to it as a "counteroffensive". I think people are analyzing it on a much larger scale and timeframe, where the terminology makes more sense. HappyWith (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a counteroffensive and neither were the other two major 'counteroffensives', but for some reason everyone calls them counteroffensive and the names of these articles reflect the commonly used names of these 'counteroffensives'. GramCanMineAway (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Western media calls it this to reinforce that it's a defensive war for Ukraine, and that thus any offensive operations they conduct are counteroffensives. This is indeed not militarily correct. 24.132.155.180 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Loses in infobox
I ask that the infobox be updated. The article itself says "1,500 soldiers killed (as of 14 June)"... the source says 'in the early par to the counter offensive' which is very vague. Early part could be the first day for example. Such vague stuff is not useful or good to write as it is too vague. If people do not update this faulty information with more accurate information, then I will do so. Cheers. (Lilic (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC))
 * Russian sources claim that 26 000 Ukrainians casualties are present as of July 11th. Source: https://www.plenglish.com/news/2023/07/11/ukraine-lost-over-26k-troops-in-so-called-counteroffensive/
 * Russian sources claim (back on 21st June) that over 1000 soldiers on the Ukrainian side were being killed per day - which means at least 10 000 killed on that side. Source: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/06/22/bvvz-j22.html


 * The article has been updated, however, the state news agency of Communist Cuba, and World Socialist Web Site, are not reliable sources, instead using the ISW report. Scu ba (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * About 25000 lost is much more accurate than the false misleading information of 1500 lost. Hence I did my contribution to raise awareness to deception and I do not care how it was fixed as long as it was fixed. I do not see ISW as reliable, as there are no reliable sources - there is only pro Russian and pro Ukrainian, and ISW happens to be pro Ukrainian. Even map websites such as deepstatemap are pro Ukrainian. Hence if one is presenting different sources it is important to do so accurately, and the Russian claims were disinformation until I raised the issue. It is nice that the disinformation is fixed. (Lilic (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC))
 * Why is the WSWS not "reliable", but the ISW is? 24.132.155.180 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian advance in Kupyansk for two consecutive days
Ukraine's deputy defense minister said so. https://t.me/annamaliar/938 Andreax2014 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source besides her telegram? I haven't seen this advance in the ISW reports.Scu ba (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's from her own profile. Andreax2014 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we can’t really use it. It’s annoying, but it’s policy. Like, to cartoonishly play devils advocate, what if she was hacked, or if this was a cleverly disguised fake account? The policy exists for those kinds of cases. HappyWith (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Silly. Wouldnt she have deleted it by now. Andreax2014 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * regardless, can't use social media per WP:SPS Scu ba (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Spelling?
"Kupiansk-Stavove line"? Svatove?? If this post was helpful, then fine. 46.15.118.224 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Map of Bakhmut Front
We have a photo of the Zaporizhzhia front in the infobox but Ukraine is also making gains around Bakhmut and that's mentioned in the infobox. Shouldn't we also include of map of Ukranian gains near Bakhmut next to the map of the Zaporizhzhia front? 1992HondaCivic (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * map is its own page, go there to talk about this (click on it and go to where it lives on wikicommons). Scu ba (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

New analysis
Among the analysts should be quoted Markus reisner, colonel of the Austrian Armed Forces, who says "The counteroffensive in its first Phase has Failed" but "Ukraine has adapted" and changed tactics. https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1677037353657827330?t=K097mPgwqz3ao53TEfrMBQ&s=19 Andreax2014 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a video from a random Twitter account. Are there actual media sources that cover this? HappyWith (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Like, this might be true what he's saying, but this guy is just a random colonel, right? From just a twitter video with unknown-quality translation, we don't know how much of an expert he is, or if he has bias, or even if the video is real. We can tell if he's a perspective worth adding based on how other sources cover him, which is a big part of why the WP:PRIMARY policy exists. HappyWith (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/videos/politik/Oberst-Reisner-Die-Ukrainer-aendern-jetzt-die-Taktik-article24234827.html, here you go. I guess colonels don't know much about war...I would like to redirect yuou to Markus Reisner's wikipedia article where he is described as a military expert, leader of the most important military unit in the Austrian armed forces, the gardebataillon. Andreax2014 (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How would he know about the situation in Ukraine though? He is in Austria and an officer in the Austrian military. 24.132.155.180 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ...no answer yet? Andreax2014 (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, please chill out a bit. I have other hobbies besides Wikipedia, so I don’t check this talk page all the time.
 * Thank you for linking the article. I’ll see if I can get to adding it in sometime today, with the proper context and explanations of why he thinks it’s failed. HappyWith (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * will it be added? Andreax2014 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The video is not available in the source provided. @Andreax2014 do you have another alternate source that contains Reisner commentary? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No other source shows the full video outside of twitter reposts and youtube. The entire commentary is synthesized in the article i sent however. Andreax2014 (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article246205084/Ukraine-News-Reisner-Erste-Phase-der-ukrainischen-Offensive-ist-gescheitert.html
 * here is another source. Andreax2014 (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andreax2014 Seems to be a cool source. I'll add it when I can. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Inform me once its added. Andreax2014 (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ @Andreax2014 I inserted the Die Welt source under the Concerns section in Analysis: Meanwhile, Austrian historian and military analyst Markus Reisner had deemed the first phase of the counteroffensive to be a failure as they had tried to emulate tactics of the US military by advancing in huge numbers. However, he had later noted that Ukraine had changed its tactics by slowing down its pacing and instead attacking in slower groups, which he felt was a better tactic for success. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Claims
Can we try to stick to actual confirmed facts? A lot of the bloat in this article is a result of constant "on [date], Hanna Maliar claimed X, Russian milbloggers claimed Y, etc etc" for every single day since June 8th. I think it would make things much more readable if we cut out the speculation for every granular shift of positions and stuck to a somewhat larger-picture view of things that have been confirmed. HappyWith (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Specifically, I think the "on [date], X forces made limited gains in Y area" stuff is really useless. It would be much better if we managed to condense all the similar reports down to one sentence that said "throughout early July, X forces advanced in Y area", or something along those lines. HappyWith (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've taken some action to alleviate this problem, as well as sub-subsectioning for readability. I think it already reads much better like this, I'll do some more later. HappyWith (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that as the situation develops, there are no hard facts other than those reported by the respected sides spokesmen and women, as such there are weeks and months between these announcements and when they can be confirmed by independent third party sources. But yeah, the article is a bit bloated with the day to day events and could probably be trimmed down. Scu ba (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Unfortunately a lot of the issue will be intractable until this phase of the war is over and the fog of war lifts over what went down. Still a lot we can do now, I think. HappyWith (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a similar situation happened with the Battle of Soledar, which got trimmed down considerably once it was over and what exactly happened at 3:42 am on the 17th day wasn't important anymore. Scu ba (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yea I also think that the format of "On [date], [MoD/Maliar/other person] claimed X gains" is getting very repetitive. However, we do need to wait. I think perhaps a good paragraph would suffice for maybe every weak or so, but we have to wait obviously. I'll also try to help you out here @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, but for now, I'll mainly work on the Analysis sections I think and other peripheral things before committing to the meat of the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am by far the worst offender of this as I try to disseminate the ISW reports for each day which are just X figure said A, while Y figure said B. I will sit down and trim bloat and fat once things get a little more concise and less recent, but as for now I will continue to add relevant updates from the ISW. Scu ba (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As a temporary report while a given situation is current (yes, Wikipedia has pretty much thrown WP:NOTNEWS out the window) that’s fine. The main problem I see with lots of related articles that are written in that way is that once things settle down, no one comes back to rewrite it in proper encyclopedic prose style.  Volunteer Marek   08:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scu ba That's all good as of course we all operate under WP:GF. I also agree with @Volunteer Marek's sentiments and definitely think that their advice should about the rewrites should be heeded. Again we are currently still facing the fog of war right now, so it's understandable that it's not entirely encyclopedic yet. However, my only recommendation would be to at least diversify your sources wherever possible. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with the recommendation. By nature of the ISW’s daily reporting style, it’s going to cause day-by-day, unencyclopedic style in articles where it is mass-cited. I think mainstream media articles that focus on one part of the front over the span of a few weeks or a month can be more useful for us in the long run. For an example of what I’m thinking of: this WSJ article which covers the whole of the battle of Vuhledar in retrospect. HappyWith (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The infobox icons
yes I am guilty of during the early stages of the article adding an icon for each unit listed in an ISW report to the point where it got ungodly for the Russian side. It was changed to just include the Russian army and navy and the specific military districts involved, collapsing the list down to maybe a half dozen icons that was much more bearable.

for some reason, presumably under the justification of being bold, this was reverted and now the list is there, but without the icons. I say we go back to just listing the military districts instead of each Russian division mentioned in the counteroffesnive, because that would be most of the Russian army in ukraine at this point. Scu ba (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's time to do what we eventually do for most of these articles and remove the specifics units from the infobox. If they're mentioned in the body anyway, we don't even need to create a separate order of battle section. HappyWith (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to mass-remove the ones that are already mentioned in-body so that no info is lost. We can decide what to do with the other ones later. HappyWith (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
This article almost exclusively cites pro-Ukraine sources or interviews with pro-Ukraine people, and largely reads like a propaganda piece arguing that everything is going in Ukraine's favor (and a rather thin and unconvincing one at that). Many or most of the article's own statements actually express optimism for Ukraine's success and/or praise of Ukraine's forces. I read this whole article and got zero information about what Ukraine-critical or even pessimistic pro-Ukraine sources are saying about the matter. This is not NPOV. Several other people have also brought up related issues on this talk page. Sorry for the drive-by tag, but this is way too big for me to try to fix right now, and the problem nearly speaks for itself. GeoEvan (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the point I was trying to make with all my other requests...it's simply unacceptable how biased and one-sided this article comes through. Andreax2014 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * then add the pro-Russian points that you feel are needed to balance it out, with references. However, given the Russian MOD's demonstrated propensity to lie, please do not cite it as proof of anything.  At least the points in this article have references which you view. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me wikipedia article writers aren't supposed to be unbiased and instead can filter out information until someone with an opposing view comes by and says "what is this bs?"? this is absurd. Andreax2014 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that if you feel that the Russian viewpoint is not sufficiently represented then provide it, while using credible sources. You are showing your POV by claiming that this article is bs.  I find that it makes valid points while including Russian info, even if it seems nonsensical.  The presentation of the facts about Ukraine's advance is not POV.  The description in the article presents what is happening to the degree that we can know it.  If you feel that Russia is carrying out countermoves that should be included, then do so.  Claiming that an article is POV because you do not like the facts that it presents is actually POV. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact is the article does not present facts, but figments of facts, only partial truths. It does not present valid points made by highly decorated experts, and i suspect it is deliberately done (by the way, you did not answer my comment about markus reisner...) Andreax2014 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you can see what is presented how you want. That does not mean that you are correct!  I never look at Twitter so I cannot comment on your Markus reisner's opinion.  You have not responded to my point about adding facts about the Russian forces that you consider relevant.  If you believe that reisner's post is pertinent include it in the disussion instead of complaining about other posts. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andreax2014 Like I said before, WP:BOLD Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot, unfortunately, do it by myself. Andreax2014 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah. Actually almost all articles regarding this war, including this one, have huge problem with the reality, facts and truth. Bakhmut has fallen to Russians long time ago, yet that fact is still negated, because is contrary to NAFO agenda. Same goes with this failure of counteroffensive. BobNesh (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You mix fact with baseless opinion. Bakhmut fell.  Will it be recaptured?  Final success of counteroffensive is unclear yet. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that perhaps under Analysis there can be a new section addressing the challenges faced in the Ukraine counteroffensive, maybe titled "Challenges" or even "Criticisms", or perhaps some section that may address potential Ukraine fatigue. I've already read articles about how Ka-52 Alligator helicopters are interfering with the counteroffensive so that can also work. There are a lot of stuff in the article I'm not really satisfied with and I've been planning on reworking. I think the Casualties sections needs to be extensively reworked as it's just parroting claims from MoDs rather than presenting actual facts. While I agree facts have been presented, I also think this article needs to be more holistic. And @BobNesh it's way too early to claim the CO is a failure, and I can get into that more in-depth if you like, but I digress. Regarding @Andreax2014 I think the article is pretty decently sourced, but again, since you are claiming that the article is biased and isn't to your satisfaction, that automatically makes it your burden of proof to establish what you deem to be satisfactory to your standards. Do you have any other indie sources or analysts you'd like to see? Also, I think it's fair to say to both of you folks (Andreax2014 and BobNesh) are forgetting WP:BOLD here. I don't see an issue with including comments from Markus Reisner's opinion, however be careful though bc the stuff about him assessing the initial phase came from TASS aka Russian state-media so best to be prudent there. More holistic analysis is warranted or a better quality source is prolly needed in that case. I'd also like to state that he made this assessment on June 3, which the CO hasn't even begun yet. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Bluenose Gunner (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bluenose Gunner No problem. I'll perhaps try and create a Sandbox for this so if you're maybe interested in helping out, you are absolutely welcome to do so. In the meantime, I think an important aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet was the 2023 US Document leaks and how it has impacted the CO. Under planning, someone could insert this source and perhaps under Analysis someone definitely should insert this  Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for the invitation. I look forward to seeing the sandbox.  Please note that serious health problems prevent me from committing to any major effort at this time. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this, @[User talk:Dcdiehardfan|talk]. All that sounds like a great path forwards. I understand the concern that some of the POV claims are be coming from people who want to give undue weight to less-reliable counter-claims. For the record, that's not the direction I'm coming from. I'm not a Russia supporter, and I don't want think the article should be parroting Russian government talking points any more than any of you do. But it shouldn't be taking pro-Ukraine governments and think tanks at their word either, particularly when it comes to analysis. Though the article does need to cite more of the less-rosy analysis (even more cautious pro-Ukraine sources might do), the bigger issues IMO are that it (1) repeats the assertions of pro-Ukraine analysts too uncritically (there's a difference between saying someone claims something vs. saying the thing yourself), and (2) it spends too much time citing opinions in general (opinions and analysis on what direction a current event is going in barely qualify as encyclopedic). It would probably benefit from being stripped down to focus more on the facts of what's already happened, without trying so hard to answer the question of "who's winning" - the results and significance of the counteroffensive will be clear enough in a few months. I don't want to sound too demanding here, since I'm not able to jump in and help right now, but I do think the NPOV dispute tag needs to stay (at least as of last night - I haven't read back through it since I first started this section).GeoEvan (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You make some excellent points. The way ahead proposed by Dcdiehardfan should make this a much better article Bluenose Gunner (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of the FIRST battle of Kiev (1941) won by the Germans and the SECOND battle of Kiev(1943) won by the Soviets? If the editors of the English Wikipedia want to be honest and professional, why not say that the FIRST battle of Bakhmut has been conclusively won by the Russians and add a new article regarding the SECOND battle of Bakhmut? I personally don't think a SECOND battle of Bakhmut is in progress at the moment, but fine, if you want to pretend that it is, why not do it as I explained above? 45.72.220.89 (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, wait - I'd like to apologize for having misrepresented the overall content of the article. I see now that the "Background" and "Counteroffensive" sections, which make up the bulk of the article's text, are made up mostly of plain factual citations. I must have been too tired last night and not realized that I had skipped straight to the "Analysis" section, which is actually where most of the changes need to be made. The last sentence of the lead also is odd - we shouldn't be giving such prominence to how the Ukrainian government wants us to look at the counteroffensive, unless we're contrasting it with something other statement. That's probably why I felt like the issue was with the article as a whole, rather than mainly the Analysis section.GeoEvan (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honesty and the clarification of where you feel improvements are required. This will help focus future efforts. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @GeoEvan Yea I absolutely understand your rationale, as of course we as Wikipedia editors should obviously all operate as per WP:GF. I also plan on revamping the lead section as I think there should be more stuff about its planning and also how it's going as of now. In regards to Analysis, a lot of stuff is missing but again I'll work on it. @Bluenose Gunner that's absolutely alright, you can work on it at your own pace. Here is a link to it btw in case anyone is interested Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your comment,link, and hard work. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * His comment doesn't actually come from TASS but from Austrian TV. I have sent the source and no one has added it yet. I have no idea how I could intervene in anyway other than giving admins sources to add. Andreax2014 (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you been authorized as a contributor? If yes, you can make the changes you think relevant as per WP:BOLD Bluenose Gunner (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't. Until recently I've been using wikipedia only as a "customer", let's say Andreax2014 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the effort to become a contributor is well worthwhile. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to become a more active contributor instead of simply suggesting changes to be done, but I haven't looked into it much. I still would like someone to include my suggested analysis, as I believe there is no reason to not do so, and I believe it would be a valid addition that would give further insight on the effectiveness of this past month's assaults on the front. Andreax2014 (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that Bakhmut has been captured by the Russians is still negated here on Enlish language Wikipedia. Ukrainian Ministry of truth didn't admit it, and NAFO blindly follows their directives. BobNesh (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reference to Bakhmut not being captured by the Russians. The discussion here is about Ukrainian efforts to outflank the city and take the Russians in a cauldron.  It seems that your prejudices are causing you to read something into the text that is not there.  Additionally, if you think that the text needs to be changed, make the changes as per WP:BOLD Bluenose Gunner (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What cauldron? Have you seen the current map? The article on Bakhmut battle is a shameful example of distorting facts and wishful thinking. BobNesh (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I said the Ukrainian efforts to outflank, not that they had outflanked. Again, if you dislike the article, contribute rather than simply complain Bluenose Gunner (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tried to contribute to NLAW and Javelin articles by adding Russia and Iran as operators. I cited Western mainstream media as sources (SkyNews, etc.). Russians have captured them, used them and send some to Iran for reverse engineering. NAFO fanboys deleted the entry, claiming that the Russians are not "legal" operators, because "they didn't buy the equipment and they don't have the guarantee". At the same time, Ukrainians are listed as a BMD-4 operator, although they also just captured a few or just one and they also don't have the guarantee. The Taliban are listed as a Black Hawk operator, as well as operators of various American military gear, although they also didn't purchase it. Double standards. BobNesh (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Problems contributing to one or two articles do not exempt you from contributing to other ones. Tip: while your frustration may be valid, insulting other contributors with whom you disagree does not add anything to the article improvement process.  By the way, what do you mean by NAFO? Bluenose Gunner (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * NAFO is a pro-Ukraine meme group active mostly on twitter. I assume BobNesh is using the word as a catch-all to refer to “pro-Ukraine trolls”. HappyWith (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I will go to bed smarter than I woke up!! Thank you for educating me. I had various other possibilities in mind. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @BobNesh In regards to Bakhmut, I'm pretty sure Ukraine is experiencing a string of successes near Bakhmut as of late as they're trying to flank it. Also Sky News is a No Consensus source and should be used with caution as per WP:RS. And again, as Bluenose points out, you have WP:BOLD to make the edits you deem necessary. @Andreax2014 I can perhaps add in your contributions. Give me a good source or so and drop it by here by pinging me or leave it in my talk page and I'll try to add it in. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already given one under the topic "New analysis" Andreax2014 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does this imply that Ukraine does not employ wartime propaganda? They do, this has been proven many times. 24.132.155.180 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. The issue is that the article doesn't provide a holistic analysis of the counteroffensive and warrants more content from different perspectives. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The minor problem is that Pro-Russian sources regularly and indiscriminatily publish falsehoods and propaganda with most of them either being blacklisted or deprecated on WP:RSP.Scu ba (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Western sources and the Ukrainian ones do so as consistently. Andreax2014 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * examples? Bluenose Gunner (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, again, please cite specific cases, articles, and publications that support the entire western world lying. Scu ba (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember Ukraine waiting (over) a whole week after the fall of Soledar to recognize it? Remember western sources calling the surrender of azovites in the azovstal a "Evacuation"? Remember western media reporting about Vladimir Putin supposedly having cancer despite no evidence of this ever being provided? Remember the Russians being out of missiles, ammo, tanks...for months now? These are a few examples. Andreax2014 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andreax2014 can you actually cite specific articles? In regards to Soledar, I've seen a good amount of Western sources, like the BBC, NYT, and Times report on it. And yes, ofc Ukraine will contest it until the last second bc they're literally going to make Russia bleed for every inch. That should also be documented. I'm confused ab the Azovstal thing bc yes there are credible journalism coverage ab it . Also the media is pretty clear in acknowledging stuff ab rumors regarding Putin's health, there's a Wikipedia article ab it actually and those have been debunked anyways by fact checkers. Also no Western sources say that Russia is out of supplies, but yes, there are credible sources of shortages in supplies. Western media is also equal as they also extensively cover Ukrainian shortages too, particular in regards to the aerospace which Russia controls and how mines are slowing down the CO. All in all, you haven't satisfied your burden of proof and again, I think it's time to stop complaining and start editing. You said that it might not be your intention to contribute wholeheartedly sure, but you have better things to do than waste ppl's time. You could be using this time to perhaps do research and actually make constructive suggestions. Oh and also you never suggested a viable solution anyways so that still moots your intentions. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1- instances of the disingeneous use of the word "evacuation" regarding the surrender of the azovstal garrison:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/16/hundreds-of-ukrainian-troops-evacuated-from-azovstal-steelworks-after-82-day-assault
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61472025
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/russia-ukraine-war-live-updates-fighters-evacuate-azovstal-mariupol-rcna29151
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-counter-attacks-russian-forces-east-2022-05-16/
 * 2- I do not understand your point about Putin's health. So you admit western media lied costantly about it? some instances:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/us/politics/leaked-documents-putin-health.html
 * https://www.jpost.com/international/article-739311
 * https://nypost.com/2022/11/02/putin-battling-pancreatic-cancer-parkinsons-disease-report/
 * https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=3_cc-session_9aca77cc-6267-4223-93cf-cd379ae1fc68
 * 3- I know it isn't technically in chronological order but whatever, Soledar is reliably known to have fallen around the 13-16 of january, still Ukrainian sources denied it for about 10 days more. Ukrainian sources are also under discussion here.
 * https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/01/25/ukraine-admits-pullout-from-soledar-captured-by-russia-a80040
 * 4-Russia, according to western media, has been in shortage for about a year (infinite shortage?) here is evidence, throughout a wide period of time:
 * https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-running-short-of-long-range-missiles-ukraine-war/
 * https://www.jpost.com/international/article-719795
 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/01/vladimir-putin-running-missiles-parts-made-ukraine/
 * https://www.eurasiantimes.com/russia-running-out-of-tanks-missiles-will-china-step-in-to-help-putin/
 * https://news.sky.com/story/russia-running-out-of-weapons-as-it-faces-staggering-numbers-of-casualties-spy-chief-says-12717702
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-15/russia-is-running-out-of-missiles-ukraine-security-chief-says
 * https://www.ft.com/content/f81234cc-cd05-45e8-9dc0-3219b8886490
 * https://www.newsweek.com/russia-running-out-decades-old-weapons-stockpile-ukraine-official-1787105
 * https://www.jpost.com/international/article-701534
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/04/07/the-russians-arent-just-running-out-of-tanks-theyre-running-out-of-tank-crews-too-and-its-going-to-get-worse/
 * https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-putin-tanks-mod-update-aluminum-1756516
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ukraine-war-lost-half-its-tanks-senior-us-official-2023-2?r=US&IR=T
 * https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2023/03/02/war-top-ukraine-spy-says-russia-out-of-military-tools/11310628002/
 * These are just a few I could copy and paste until I got bored. Andreax2014 (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * NAFO fanboys have no shame. They will disruptively push their agenda and false claims until the very end. BobNesh (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @BobNesh Also I'm not a NAFO fanboy, I haven't even heard of it until now actually. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andreax2014 I apologize if I came of as condescending and I'll try to engage more in line with WP:GF. I'll admit some of my responses were quite knee-jerky and that I should've been more courteous. Now, onto responding to the points.
 * 1 - I'm confused about the Azovstal thing. I'm not sure how it's disingenuous. There was an evacuation, there are a lot of sources documenting it. I think you might need to explain a bit more. Are you claiming that the word "evacuation" was used instead of "surrender"? If so, perhaps these sources may help.
 * 2 - Your first NYT source acknowledges that it's "unfounded speculation" and "unsubstantiated intelligence". The Jerusalem Post also acknowledges that the intel "claims" issues with Putin's health but I'd also like to note that it may not necessarily be a high-quality source considering it's a right-leaning newspaper. NY Post is not reliable as per WP:RSP. I think it's inaccurate to say the Western media lied about Putin's health, they mainly reported it as hearsay and rumors based on supposedly leaked intel or whatever. Even so, future Western media reports and Kremlin press records would also dispel such misinformation. Here are Western sources also debunking rumors about Putin's health: Hopefully these also help answer your issues.
 * 3 - In regards to Soledar, Ukraine seems to have understood the situation by the 19th of January . And also, again, Ukraine was still holding out. . But yes, Ukraine ultimately fully accepted the win on Jan 25, again makes sense because it takes time for them to surrender and leave and fog of war. This isn't a problem with Western media though because they did report that Soledar fell by the 13th.
 * 4 - For the record, Putin also acknowledged weapons shortage even though he's going to downplay it but that still sheds light on the situation. And yes it's a very fair  and well documented that Russia does have weapon shortages. Also, that's pretty evident considering they're using Cold War stockpiles.  And for the record, although the ammo shortage thing is kind of all over the place, hopefully this source perhaps helps elucidate some facts, which states that Russia has lost 40% of its tanks so far. And also, consider that Russia has an incredibly big military and they have lots of resources. It's very clear that they have been squandering a lot and they have the opportunity to, their military dwarves that of Ukraine . The sanctions are also disrupting their ability to create new weapons. You can also consider difficulties in reporting on these things due to the fog of war. I know this will come off as semantics, but remember I said that no Western sources said that Russia was out of supplies. To elaborate here, I meant that no Western sources claimed that Russia did not have any resources, rather that they are facing many difficulties as their quality and quantity is both denigrating over time. And to balance it out, Western sources also acknowledged that Ukraine has supply shortages: . It's not like the sources are lying or anything, one of your Insider sources cites Oryx as more of less corroborating the claim of there being somewhat of a 50% shortage. So yes, you can't expect extremely high-quality, refined, precise data but we'll be able to get ballparks. The military intel is extremely secretive and the information space is crucial for the war efforts, so ofc it'll be hard to penetrate and understand, that's kinda the whole point. So again, it basically counterbalances considering that there's also issues on Ukraine's side. And frankly, I'm not sure if EurAsian Times can be considered a Western source, as it's in the name.
 * So yes, I concede Western media coverage isn't ALWAYS great but that's when we can err to other media sources. I think Reuters and AP are pretty good sources, for the record. And also, again Andreax2014, WP:BOLD. You can implement the suggestions yourself, I don't see the issue. If you for some reason can't, whether it be due to time or something, maybe you can ask an editor to do so. And just to make sure, was your suggestions to add commentary from Markus Resiner? I'm not sure. Also I'm confused since you already said you added content under the "Analysis" section so...? Idk. Anyways, I hope I've displayed a bit more decorum here and that these at least somewhat answers some concerns you might have. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would've edited if myself a long time ago if only it wasn't locked to me, i cannot edit it myself and I do not know how to change this. I didnt make any changes under "Analysis", I meant I suggested changes under the topic called "new analysis" in the talk page, and an editor has answered me he will indeed add my suggestion, but I am not sure how long it will take or how the edit will look like. Also yes, my suggestion was to add Markus Reisner's comment. Don't take this as an insult, but i do not think continuing this conversation regarding the validity of sources is any worthwhile, as certainly there's valid sources both in the west and in russia, and I believe saying that russian sources shouldn't be trusted only because they supposedly lie more (a claim which would need a large amount of empirical evidence). In conclusion I think russian sources should be trusted, like western sources, depending on the case. I'll remind you that, if we believed blindly western sources, Iraq should've been full of WMDs back in 2003. Again, all sides lie, the question isn't to try and ignore every source that lies, but instead filter out what is false from what is true. I'll give you one final example, I can guarantee that on national italian TV there were reports that claimed Putin was consulting shamans to heal his cancer, and that he bathed in deer blood to cure it. Of course this is all obvious falsehood. Andreax2014 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andreax2014 You need to be an extended confirmed user to edit, meaning that you need to be an editor for at least 30 days and have 500 edits. And I also agree that I think the sources discussion has come to a natural conclusion, as I also think it'll just be a back-and-forth about X saying Y and A saying B and whatnot. I think that it's a bit harder to find Russian sources that aren't under any political influence but I suppose a similar argument could also be levied against Western media considering that it's also controlled by big corporations, so it does goes both ways. You're absolutely right in that we need to determine the validity of the sources on a case-by-case basis. With that being said, I'll try to find some way and incorporate Reisner's commentary. I have an idea of adding it under "Challenges and criticisms" right after the WaPo article that talks about the US leaks projecting the counteroffensive to be a modest success, I think that's an appropriate placement. And also, btw, I left a message on your talk page which also contained a link to my sandbox, so again, if you have any further edits you would like to make, feel free to go there and add it in. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I read your message, I appreciate this invitation and I will take this opportunity. Thank you. Andreax2014 (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hopefully you can get some productive work done. Speaking of which, I'll have to sync up my sandbox. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if only you kept an eye out for suggestions instead of trying to be smug and attempting to get a "gotcha" moment, you would've seen I have made valid and well sourced suggestions which are YET to be implemented. Andreax2014 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * A month after you were blocked for edit warring at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut, here you are pushing a POV with unhelpful comments: "Ukrainian Ministry of truth didn't admit it, and NAFO blindly follows their directives.", "Bakhmut as fallen to Russians long time ago, yet that fact is still negated, because is contrary to NAFO agenda", "shameful example of distorting facts and wishful thinking". You're also casting aspersions on editors who reverted your edits to a certain article: "NAFO fanboys deleted the entry, claiming that the Russians are not 'legal' operators". Per this discussion at ANI, you've tried canvassing editors in the past to !vote in support of declaring the battle of Bakhmut a Russian victory, and you're disruptively pushing this idea here again. If you continue to post unconstructive comments, I'll have to report you to ANI again. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 22:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Russian victory in Bakhmut is not an idea, it is a fact, no matter how much you hate the reality and the truth. BobNesh (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse me of hating "the reality and the truth." This is your final warning. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 01:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The POV tag is spurious. After reading all the above it’s hard to see any merit in it that is actually policy based. Just remove it.  Volunteer Marek  06:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Reading this discussion, I'm also of the opinion of removing the tag. @Volunteer Marek
 * Any views on that ? @Nythar @Scu ba AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He did raise a valid point that we aren't including Russian views, but then again that might be a good thing. No strong opinion on the tags inclusion or exclusion. Scu ba (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what “Russian views” would mean here. The article mostly consists of factual information backed by reliable sources. Is “Russian views” here suppose to mean “opinions about the counter offensive from pro-Kremlin outlets”? Then no, we don’t need to include such.  Volunteer Marek   18:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * yes that is what he is suggesting we include, and yes I stand by my earlier statement that doing so would be a bad idea. Scu ba (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It seems OP is more interested in false balance than an actual neutral article. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally believe that while the tag may have been a bit WP:DRIVEBY, there still are some valid criticisms expressed here and there can absolutely be improvement in regards to more holistic analysis in certain areas. All in all, I'd say I'm for removing it. I think the big issue right now that really is bugging me is the lead section though, but I have a plan on fixing that up. I am thinking of something like this or along these lines, minus the citations and stuff:
 * "By early June 2023, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine launched a substantial counteroffensive against Russian forces occupying its territory with a long-term goal of breaching the frontlines. Efforts were made in many directions, primarily in the Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, among others. Planning for a major Ukrainian counteroffensive had begun as early as February 2023, with the original intention being to launch it in the spring. However, various factors, including weather and late weapon deliveries to Ukraine, had delayed it to summer. During that time, Ukraine had begun amassing their military resources while also integrating crucial Western resources, including Bradley, Leopard 1, and M1 Abrams tanks, to prepare for the counteroffensive.
 * Russia had begun preparing for the counteroffensive since November 2022 and had created extensive defensive infrastructure, including ditches, trenches, artillery positions, and landmines intended to slow down the counteroffensive. Ukraine had met well-established Russian defenses in the early days of the counteroffensive and have since then deliberately slowed down their pacing in order to assess the extent of Russian defenses, demine territory, save troops, and exhaust Russia's military resources. Since the beginning, they have made incremental gains by capturing over 282 km2 of territory, more than Russia had since 2023, including a streak of villages and by gaining more ground in the Battle of Bakhmut.
 * The counteroffensive is widely regarded as a crucial moment in the war. Many officials have warned that the counteroffensive will take time and that casualties will be high despite concerns and criticisms for the slow pacing of the counteroffensive and concerns it would not gain substantial results. Analysts also agree that future Western military aid could be contingent on the results of a successful counteroffensive and also voice additional concerns that moderate gains could result in a stalemate. Despite potential concerns, analysts also note that current operations had only been a part of the first phase and that the main part of the counteroffensive had not begun, in which Ukraine would deploy their Western-trained brigades and Dcdiehardfan (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the last part of the last paragraph, roughly starting with “Analysts also agree…” is a bit speculative and ORish. Which analysts? That right there is just asking for a “who?” tag. From what I’ve read different analysts say different things vis a vis western aid.  Volunteer Marek   08:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek Thanks for raising the concerns. I did basically create a skeleton but can of course provide citations for the analysts stuff. Here is evidence regarding future aid being contingent on results: . And also the final sentence should read Despite potential concerns, analysts also noted that current operations had been part of the first phase and that the main push had not yet begun. And here are some citations for that also: . I think however, it would be best to ensure that all components of the lead section are well cited though just in general, but those of course should be easier considering they are already covered better in the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.  Volunteer Marek   23:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering the discussion above, I volunteer to remove the tag. Great Mercian (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good for it Mercian.  Volunteer Marek   23:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"have used ... the use"
"Ukrainian forces have used confirmed the use of US supplied cluster munitions". 2001:2020:303:56F5:C40F:6358:7D2:D9A3 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Overly specific units
@Salfanto I saw you re-added a ton of the specific units to the infobox, including a bunch of the logos next to them. Editors already had consensus to remove the logos in, because it's overly bulky and makes the infobox huge. There was also rough consensus to remove the long list of specific units, because per policy, we don't write the article in the infobox. HappyWith (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ok Salfanto (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you okay with me re-removing the specific units? We won't lose information for most of them, since they're already mentioned in the article itself, which is more useful since it actually says what they did. HappyWith (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

is [50] pravda.com.ua- ukrainska pravda considered a reliable source by wikipedia?
i looked in the reliable sources webpage but i couldn't find. my common sense says that we need a non-ukrainian reliable source for the ukrainian casualties figure Bogomoletsilizarov (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty good source, as far as I understand. It's especially useful for sourcing claims by Ukrainian government officials, as long as we always make sure to attribute the claim to that official, i.e.: "On [date], Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukrainian forces had retaken Oleksandrivka" rather than "Ukrainian forces retook Oleksandrivka on [date]". HappyWith (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

150k ukrainian soldiers on strength section (pentagon claim)
I think we should update Ukraine's strength for the counteroffensive to be 150k soldiers based on this new politico article which includes a claim by anonymous DoD officials. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/08/01/no-breakthrough-yet-in-ukraines-counteroffensive-00109205 Ukraine now has 150,000 troops committed to the operation across three axes of attack, including multiple Western-trained brigades, said one of the DOD officials, who like others interviewed for this newsletter was granted anonymity to discuss operational details. It can still be specified that only 50-60 thousand of the troops are western trained. PROONTExchange (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * done. (jabz)  09:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Background > Planning: Wording for "the start of start of the"
Edit for clarity: "Delivery of Western weapons held up the start of start of the counteroffensive, providing Russia with enough time in order to build robust defenses, as Zelenskyy had desired to start the counteroffensive "much earlier"." Scotty1141 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

As well as making an "Edit for clarity", what about producing a statement that is more fact-based and avoids the danger of pushing a pro-Ukrainian opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.24 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfolding events
I think the recent alleged Belarusian provocations on the Polish-Belarusian border need to be mentioned in a sentence or two in this article as directly connected with the lemma. Knižnik (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Not in this article, as it doesn't directly pertain to the Ukraine counteroffensive. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s a notable incident, but not really related to the counteroffensive. Maybe in the timeline for this period of the war and/or the page for Belarus-Poland relations? HappyWith (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll add it in the article HappyWith mentioned.Knižnik (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Title should be more descriptive
There are already multiple counteroffensives, like in Kharkiv and Kherson. I think the name should indicate which counteroffensive this is about. 65.92.110.142 (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This really isn't a valid complaint considering you can simply just read the article and also the lead section should suffice. And also, the Kharkiv and Kherson COs have separate articles. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What about the 'Slow-Motion' or 'Stop-Start' offensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.231 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)