Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive/Archive 7

Stalemate as a result
The infobot says, "Stalemate develops at the frontline" with a note saying "Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi said in November 2023 that a stalemate had developed." but I think it should more appropiate to say "Ukraine claims a stalemate" afterall we shoudn't go after anything the the ukrainians state official says, as they are in war they have to do some propaganda and aren't that reliable, so we should at least specify this was a claim of theirs. Thanks! 82.48.78.110 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say a "stalemate" reflects well the reality of the southern front. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Stalemate sounds good for all fronts. Ukraine had some gains, but these were barely any significant or strategically important in any way, when Russia has at least claimed so far Promka (Avdiivka southeast part), the key location for Russian further movement away from Donetsk and declared securing control over Khromove (recently) and Serhiivka (July), the latter confirmed, the first looks correct even according to pro-Ukrainian OSINT teams such as DeepState. Today, the Russian flag was raised over the southwesternmost part of Marinka town, hinting that the Ukraine is likely going to lose almost all of it or the entirety of it completely. Besides, there were barely any even tactical gains for Ukraine since the end of August. "Stalemate" sounds most true for 1 November or 1 December as the end day of this phase. --Aennfred (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Either 1 November or 1 December would be WP:Original research. I doubt there's any sources exactly saying the counteroffensive ended in any of those two days. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there at least something with a month? We can even use "the fall" if it comes to it. Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These pro-Russian trolls just do not get it. Yes, the 'counteroffensive' didn't quite achieve any of the objectives. Yes, 125k Ukrainians are dead in the ground, but at least Ukraine got 10km into its own territory (and the largest minefield on Earth). Yes, Zelensky has admitted in multiple sources that the war has entered a new phase (i.e., the old phase has ended) and admitted to the press that this is a FACT. Yes, the Russians are now pushing further in a few weeks than Ukraine managed since June in said offensive. But we CANNOT let the Russians think, nor our public believe the Russians have the win. We MUST double down on our rejection of reality so as not to give them the time of day, nor the propaganda victory. Even when the brave Ukrainian soldiers are marching backwards towards Kyiv, meter by meter, We must prevail in our narrative that Ukraine is, in fact, winning in its 'counter-offensive', on the defence, and giving up land is simply defence in depth! The lie must be maintained at all costs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:EF40:1210:7901:DDFB:20E8:CCCE:EA93 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an online encyclopedia, not a propaganda site. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, it seems to be a very good pro ukrainian propaganda site. Andreax2014 (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if there was any battlefield event within that timeframe? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean a source of when the offensive ended, if one exists. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Afaik, there have never been sources explicitly saying (spoon feeding) end dates of stuff in an encyclopedic/historic style. There have only been indications, and we've lived with this since the war began. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, but this can be said not only about dates, but about most facts of the war in general. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian offensive have failed in every possible way. It's time to either call the status a "Russian Victory" or "Ukrainian Failure" because that's the reality. Ukraine is no longer pushing, and Russia is making limited counterattacks, the front here has largely died down. You need to get your priorities straight because it seems that you are being influenced by Ukrainian propaganda. Elias Ziad (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't even participate in this talk page after comments like these . This is the second trolling comment in this thread, I will remove unhelpful comments from now on. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See MOS:CLAIM and MOS:WEASEL Parham wiki (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not a statement. The attacking side failed to advance and defensive side succeeded in stopping them. Wikipedia has become a laughing stock. Nobody can ever use it for reference. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the reporting/sources from the past few weeks it is evident the counteroffensive is over and the article should be closed. However, since there is no one source stating an end-date I would suggest either when the failure/stalemate of the offensive this fall was first reported (I would suggest date when Zaluzhny admitted it was a stalemate) or when the last Ukrainian gains were reported. Or, just write generally a month as Smeagol suggested. As for the result, I think what is already written in the status section is good enough already as a compromise solution, although generally this is seen as a Ukrainian failure (which RS also confirm). EkoGraf (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So you basically saying we need to wait until Ukraine admits their counteroffensive failed? Good luck with that, they could literally lose the minimal gains made and they will still say it's progressing well. I would rather use when they made their last advancement or wait until they lose most of their gains. We could also use the Battle of Kursk as an example, the moment the Germans stop attacking the battle was considered over so the same should apply for the Ukrainian counter-offensive. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But using your ideas would mean employing logic and intelligence, which the self-professed admins of this talk page and wiki page will not allow. They are blinded by petty minor details, grounded in bias, which they try to hide behind the façade of 'but there isn't a true source stating it yet,' even though Ukraine's general who organized the entire 'counteroffensive' says it has, and even their own president has now all but admitted it. The war could be over, and 30 years may pass, and they still won't accept reality. 2A0A:EF40:1210:7901:DDFB:20E8:CCCE:EA93 (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * LegendaryChristopher we already have Zaluzhny (representing Ukraine) admitting the situation had reached a stalemate as of November 1st (Zelensky seems to have de-facto confirmed it now himself, although a month late). Alternatively the end date can be when the last confirmed advance was made. I didn't say to wait for Ukraine to admit it failed, because realistically that will never happen. EkoGraf (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I second this, the status section seems like a decent indicator at the moment. The biggest thing is that fighting is still fiercely ongoing on both sides, just few territorial changes. That's why I'm in favor of keeping the status still over a result. Jebiguess (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is, (depending on your definition of fierce, of course...). But this was true before the counteroffensive, too. So it is not exactly an argument that it belongs to this article. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. There is a wide consensus that the result of this counteroffensive was stalemate, see for example . My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a big issue with that source though: it describes the state of the war as stalemate, not the counteroffensive. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there is not. It says: "Over the past 11 months, during which both Russia and Ukraine launched major offensives, little more than 500 square miles of territory has changed hands..." and interprets this as a stalemate. It says about this Ukrainian counteroffensive. There were no any others. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The counteroffensive is not 11 months in duration. The article (the quote) clearly compares the offensives from this year with those of last year and reasonably concluded the overall war is at stalemate. However, that does not mean it automatically considers the result of the Ukrainian counteroffensive "stalemate" instead of failure (it's even questionable if that word fits as a single word infobox result). Those 11 months also include the Bakhmut offensive which was neither a stalemate nor failure, it was a success. Even so, with local successes/failures the war can still be at stalemate. You're putting words in the authors' mouths. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Way to stop discussion on end date
To prevent discussion on the end date, which differs across sources, we should follow the example of the german wiki, which says it lasted from (June to fall 2023). An offensive doesn't just stop in an exact day, it petters out. So I propose we follow their lead and introduce this change. DuckTheDucker (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no specific end date in sources. Moreover, we do not even know if it ended. At least, there was no official statement by Ukrainian military about it, if I am not mistaken. Obviously, it either ends by default in 2023 December (simply based on the title of this page), or we need to rename this page if it continues during winter and claimed to be a part of the same counteroffensive. But we do not know it yet. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's an OK solution. It seems that way more than 50% of sources consider the counteroffensive over already. If so, fall 2023 would be less controvertial than present as end date. I'll change the text to "uncertain" for now which is less controvertial and reflects better the current situation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best to look at when assessments started appearing of the results of the Offensive, most notably would be Zaluzhnyi's Interview with the Economist (Nov. 1.) wherein the the failure to achieve the Offensives goals had been admitted. Autumn would fit as an end there as a placeholder. Getting an actual date will likely take years after this war and be left to specialiststo decipher. Also no the offensive ended, several times it was said Ukraine moved to the defensive across the front (the polar opposite of offensive). Alex.Wajoe (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "no the offensive ended" - yes, excluding the continuing operation by Ukrainian forces at the left bank of Dnipro. They are still keeping the bridgehead, which does not make any sense unless they will use it for an offensive. If not, that was a suicide mission, which is though entirely possible. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually the Ukrainian Marines maintaining that bridghead are calling it exactly that, "suicide mission", see The New York Times article here . In any case, as Alexiscoutinho pointed out, most RS agree the offensive has ended (in failure I might add), so I agree with DuckTheDucker, Alexiscoutinho and Alex.Wajoe. If no exact date can be agreed upon/established at the moment, then putting "fall 2023" is a good alternative solution. EkoGraf (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a typical recent source (NPR) . The title: "With an inconclusive counteroffensive, Ukraine looks toward an anxious winter". It says "inconclusive", this is the result of the offensive. What it tells in the first phrase? "Six months into Ukraine's counteroffensive this year, the battle to retake Russian-occupied land seems as frozen as the snowy winter setting in.". "Six months" [from the beginning of the offensive], but it is now (in December) "frozen". Saying it ended in December would be fair. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Zelensky officially announced on 30 November that Ukraine was building defensive forifications, which means that counter-offensive ended by that time since defensive is opposite of offensive, this means that counter-offensive was officially abandoded and a shift occured towards defence (according to Wall Street Journal):
 * Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ordered the construction of an extensive network of fortifications aimed at holding back Russian forces, signaling a switch to the defensive posture after a monthslong Ukrainian counteroffensive yielded only small gains.
 * Zelensky’s message in a video address late Thursday is the clearest official acknowledgment that Ukraine faces a hard winter defending the territory it holds, with little immediate prospect of major advances against the nearly 20% of its land occupied by Russia. Instead, as the war approaches a third year, Ukraine is digging in just as winter starts to bite, with Russia pursuing grinding military offensives in the east and northeast.
 * Therefore, 30 November can used as an date, because that's when abandonment of counter-offensive was officially acknowledged, based on statement of Zelensky. -- Fodrid (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, he ordered this, i.e. to improve the Ukrainian defenses in certain areas, while ordering his forces to attack and keep a bridgehead in another place, i.e. at the left bank of Dnipro. Therefore, no, that does not mean he ordered to stop the offensive, and that November 30 is not the date. I do not agree that the offensive just died out. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Result of of the counter offensive
The result of this counter offensive is widely acknowledge in both western and Russian media to be failure. Why isn’t that mentioned? It’s been now confirmed by the most pro Ukrainian and anti Russian western outlets like New York Times and Washington Post and even General Zaluzhny himself. Is Zelensky editing this Wikipedia article?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-war-strategy.html#:~:text=The%20push%20for%20a%20fresh,officials%20and%20their%20Ukrainian%20counterparts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/why-ukraines-counteroffensive-failed-to-deliver/ Yasarhossain07 (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * One of the editor is a denialist. acknowledge by ukrainian media wouldn't cut it. It needs direct confirmation from ukrainian MoD/general staff. And since that is virtually impossible we're stuck here 125.165.98.252 (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. There's between 4-5 rabidly pro-Ukrainian editors which have an outsized impact on any invasion-related articles. Hard to find objectivity on Wikipedia when it comes to the invasion sadly. 2601:85:C100:46C0:D5A4:E925:2E5:8796 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion above. This is because the instruction for Template:Infobox_military_conflict used on this page says the following for the field "Result": - optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". ... Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. . It does not include such option as "failure" and explicitly recommends not to use any non-standard options. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Change counteroffensive back to failure
It said on this article for the past few days that the counteroffensive was a failure. I get we picked an end date for the counteroffensive but it dosn't make much sense why it dosn't say failure. It now says see result. I'm not sure what the motive was behind this change but it seems to me that were trying to hide from casual viewers that the counteroffensive was a failure. We cited multiple sources that explicitly say failure. I understand that we all want Ukraine to win but one of the most explicit rules on Wikipedia is that articles are free from bias. I hope we can correct this soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia free from bias? lol
 * They literally removed "status:failure" because of their bias. 2A09:6383:0:5:45:147:98:110 (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Have any of you even read my explanation? This is not a bias issue, it's a template usage issue, thus more like "technical issue". If you think we should use a non standard term in the result parameter, then feel free to make an RfC (check the Battle of Bakhmut one, for example), I may vote with you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally bias issue 41.254.64.205 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you had read my previous comments, you would have known that I was an advocate for writing Failure in the infobox. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Offensives have only two results: Success or failure.
 * Did you take the ground? Did you achieve the objectives? Yes or no?
 * In this case, the answer is a resounding no.
 * "Stalemate" doesn't apply when one combatant is (generally) on the defensive, and the other, a stated offensive campaign.
 * Stalemate would apply if both sides were launching (unsuccessful) offensive operations over a mutually contested ground... 2600:1700:21F8:6080:9010:5E64:70D9:6BA (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that we all want Ukraine to win You didn't need to say this. In fact wanting one or the other to win has nothing to do with one's editing credibility, as long as common sense and Wikipedia guidelines are followed. This is an encyclopedia for all afterall. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They didn't imply that. They were calling for reservation from editors holding the standard, majoritary and correct moral position, which is supporting Ukraine. OP has expressed more than one position coinciding with the ones you've expressed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * majoritary and correct moral position, which is supporting Ukraine You know this is WP:POV... And it's also a big bait for engaging in WP:FORUM. Though I get your overall point and you surely get mine, so I'll leave this thread at this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Its really sad seeing how biased wikipedia has been on the conflict as a whole. Its always some technicalities being cited as obstacles to declaring something as Ukrainian failure or Russian success.
 * On one hand, you have articles about quite literally 1 day clashes as battles. Take Battle of Vasylkiv as an example. Article based on "allegedly and reportedly" shooting down a plane with Russian paratroopers, plane whos wreckage has never been found. And even though in the very article you have "According to The Guardian, "no convincing public evidence has surfaced about the two downed planes, or about a drop of paratroopers in Vasylkiv", it still stands as a battle, with a clear Ukrainian victory status, listed on the list of engagements as well.
 * And its one example out of many.
 * Not sure what more than the statements from Zelenski and Zaluzhnyi anyone wants, they will never say it outright, but those statements are clear as day. The counter offensive was a failure, and its over. 37.0.71.202 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They may think that by not acknowledging the failure of the offensive they are doing some type of lip service to Ukraine and Ukrainians. And as UKRAINIAN citizen my concerns comes from the fact that this type of service is nothing more then disservice to my people. By outright lying about the status of counteroffensive it creates false hopes for my people and can be a dissuading factor into questioning our government tactics and accountability. I am hoping long after i am gone and when my people read this page they will hold those in charge responsible so that things like this wont be repeated, and lessons learned. Multiple people have already linked both Ukrainian and Western sources showing and explaining how and why the offensive failed by not reaching the minimal goal. Although i do believe that Russian sources should be included also so that when my people read they get all the sides of the story (and we do read English Wikipedia.)
 * All of us show bias when it comes to what information we take in. We typically focus on anything that agrees with the outcome we want. But this bias simply does not belong here. Papagulag (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no better word but bias to describe the situation. Prior discussions is trying very hard so that the result would not be 'failure' citing some technicalities. But previous articles shows that 'failure' as a result IS possible as shown in the wikipedia article of german case blue offensive
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue 125.165.98.252 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Indeed this seems to be a clear case of double standards. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think readers might want more of a concrete answer. Maxsmart50 (talk)

Russian victory?
I reverted this per WP:BRD. RS do not say it was "Russian victory". This is WP:OR, plain and simple. But anyone is welcome to start an RfC about it. But prior to starting any RfC, please just list here some RS which tell it was "Russian victory". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What do the sources actually say? They say that Ukrainian forces have achieved some modest successes (captured 370 km² of territory, the attacks in Crimea and against Russian Black Sea fleet), but did not fulfill expectations. How on the Earth this can be interpreted as "Russian victory"? My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Modest successes" is an overstatement. It's more like "minimal successes" or "insignificant territorial successes". Many sources confidently use the word "failure" therefore we shouldn't sugar coat the reception. In fact, calling it "Russian victory" could be viewed by many as less dissapointing for Ukraine because it doesn't attach the negative and strong word "failure" to the Ukrainian operation. Furthermore, how is logic and common sense WP:OR? You seem to be the only one disputing this idea. There's clearly something wrong if a successful offensive can be labelled as an attacker's victory, but a failed (Ukrainian) offensive cannot be labelled as a defender's victory. Look at Northern Ukraine campaign, sources overwhelmingly say it's a Russian failure and Russian defeat, yet no one seemed to have an issue labelling it as a defender's victory. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, do the majority of RS (or at least some RS) say assertively it was "Russian victory"? If not, this is WP:OR, plain and simple. "insignificant territorial successes" by Ukrainian forces is fine, but this is not "Russian victory". "Failure" is not included to the template parameter for a good reason. This is something uncertain. Failure to achieve what? As I cited above, some commenters say that the actual objective was to simply hold Russian forces and to probe their defenses. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking on the Northern Ukraine campaign, yes, this is generally regarded in RS as Ukrainian victory because Russian forces have retreated from the huge Ukrainian territory they occupied. If the Ukrainian forces would make such significant retreat, that would be a Russian victory. But it did not happen. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Northern Ukraine campaign was a huge Russian breakthrough and huge withdrawal, so net 0 change. This offensive is nearly a net 0 change considereing the general understanding of the offensive's objectives. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You still did not provide any multiple RS assertively saying it was "Russian victory". Northern Ukraine campaign is a different page. Please use talk page of Northern Ukraine campaign if you disagree with something on that page. However, you are wrong about it. Several references in [5] on page Northern Ukraine campaign say it was a defeat of Russian forces and win by Ukrainian forces, and of course it was such. Now, speaking about the Ukrainian "failure" on this page, yes it was a failure to win significantly. That is defining it as a "Ukrainian victory" would be problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I did check the sources and found nothing about "Russian victory", except something like that, i.e. Putin believes that he will ultimately make a victory in the war. Yes, he probably believes it, and he might be even right, but this is an entirely different issue/subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't actually part of this Discussion but where on Earth does the number 370 km² actually come from I could not find a source for that one but could find one for "slightly" less two weeks prior might want to change that. So coming to the actual discussion here, a failure of Russia would be a Victory for Ukraine in this war on the other hand a Ukrainian failure would be a Russian Victory they are interchangable. Coming to your whole argument about how Ukraine did not completely fail, yeah thats cool but the goals weren't achieved you dont go tell your parents on a test you failed that you did one of the tasks on the test correctly, similarly Operation Market garden which has a debateable result is considered a German Victory here. Yeah almost everything worked in that Operation but the Goal was just not achieved leading to that conclusion and it should be the same here. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "a failure of Russia would be a Victory for Ukraine". Said who? No, this is WP:OR. A failure to achieve certain military objectives (if the objectives were clearly stated) may or may not be a defeat. For example, if the Ukrainian forces were be able to reach Crimea, but then surrounded and completely destroyed by Russian forces, that would be a defeat. And in any case, the RS must explicitly say that something was a "defeat" or a "victory", or this should be plainly obvious so that everyone agree. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

status: failed
Of course UA govt won't admit defeat as this would lead to another Maidan, however, it's pretty clear they failed to achieve anything (except maybe turning some rubble into more rubble). Pretending otherwise is painting grass green.

Why Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed to deliver 85.193.228.106 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. but they won't change this due to how good the US Government's money is BarakHussan (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, many people expected a lot more from the offensive. But one must rely on sourced statements by people who where in charge of the offensive to define the status. According to Zaluzny, “Just like in the first world war we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate,”. Hence, the official status must be "Stalemate". My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How so? Any offensive that does not achieve it's goals would be a "stalemate" then? Not achieveing the goals that were defined before the offensive and during it's early stages (also included in this article) is the definition of a "failure". This page is not supposed to be a mouthpiece for any of the warring parties Alex.Wajoe (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But one must rely on sourced statements by people who where in charge of the offensive to define the status. Would you hear Putin's, or the MoD's, or the Russian generals' statements? If not, then you don't stand by your own statement. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Putin or Russian MoD were not in charge of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Therefore, I did not suggest them. However, if they were commenting something about the success or failure of Russian offensive, that might be worth including to proper page in proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * proper context key, especially since they're all primary sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, one would need some secondary RS, and they typically say something like this. Including "failure" (as you did) is not unreasonable. But as the same article says, "It's not over yet" (on December 7) and says that it was not all failure, for example, " Hits in the occupied Crimean peninsula and against the Black Sea Fleet, as Zelenskyy celebrated a few weeks ago, have been huge successes, furthering a goal of making the area untenable for Russian forces.", etc. Actually, all activities described in the large section 2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive of this page "have been huge successes", as the linked article and many others say. Therefore, defining the entire operation as one big "failure" is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to show though that all military/territorial goals haven't been achieved (i.e. minimum goal of Tokmak). The way you wrote now, only mentioning Crimea (the maximalist goal), seems like sugar coating the situation and is also way too vague. It doesn't give any indication of degree of success. Just reading that infobox description would allow an understanding of "partial success" or even that Melitopol was recaptured, but not Crimea. I suggest something like tactical or operational failure (excluding logistical which is where Crimea attacks would fit in I think). I'll tweak the multiline result a bit. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I added word "Crimea"  because that is what the in-line reference says (see the diff): Valerii Zaluzhnyi stated in an interview from November 2023, five months into the counteroffensive, that four months should have been enough for Ukrainian forces to reach Crimea. Simply saying "objectives" is not clear. What objectives? That was main objective according to Zaluzhnyi, Zelensky, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I added word "Crimea" because that is what the in-line reference says yeah, I figured. Simply saying "objectives" is not clear. What objectives? all objectives, main objectives... I think that understanding is implied, but would you prefer to add one of these words? But I thought the main objective was to split the Russian grouping in two. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As of note, the instruction Template:Infobox_military_conflict says for field "result": - optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". ...Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. What this is going to be? No one won. Based on the instruction, this parameter should be probably just omitted. My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to assume that the equivalent of "X victory" for an operation/offensive is "success"/"failure". The template seems to be targeted towards battles. I don't think though that the result here is controversial enough to warrant a complete omission. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Per template instruction, we have only 4 choices for this parameter: (a) Russian victory, (b) Ukrainian victory, (c) inconclusive, and (d) do not use this optional parameters. If we can't agree about it, you would have to start an RfC with such 4 choices. But I think this is clearly (c) or (d); there is no need in an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (c)?! Seriously?! That would be disregarding the sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You forgot option (e): link to an article section. If we radically follow template guidelines, this would be the closest match. I also thought about using the Infobox military operation template instead, but it seems to have more limitations than freedoms. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the template instruction, "inconclusive" means we can not say this is a "victory by side X". Another suggested option (d) in such case is not to use this optional parameters. BTW, I saw recent Ukrainian sources claiming this to be (b), i.e. they have stopped a much stronger (in terms of the number of personnel, ammunition, aviation, artillery, etc.) opponent and successfully hit targets in Crimea. But I do not insist on (b). My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As about linking to article sections, that would be great, no problem. Changing to "Infobox military operation" would also be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think option (e) is a reasonable compromise unless an RfC is created. That section would need to be expanded more though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

✅

After reading several comments from various topics and checking other articles, it became apparent that using the "technical limitation" argument is setting double standards. The Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensive articles use the "X victory" standard term despite being operations where the ideal term would be "success". Furthermore, other articles do use non-standard terms like "operational failure" when it's more adequate and improves the article's quality. Template guidelines are not hard rules. If they were, checks could easily be implemented to only allow certain formats. Therefore, I regret making that decision to omit the result term in the infobox and only link to a section. Given that Russia achieved its objective and successfully thwarted Ukraine's counteroffensive, the result could naturally be interpreted as Russian victory. The link to the section could be kept there as a "for more details..." link. 17:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexis Coutinho. Yes, there should be no double standards. We should follow same consensus template instructions everywhere, i.e. on this and other pages. You may see it "technical", but such instructions, guidelines, etc. reflect WP:Consensus. Speaking about "Russian victory", this is contrary to RS and logic, but you are welcome to start an RfC if you feel strongly about it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Russian victory", this is contrary to RS and logic How is this contrary to logic? If you view an offensive as a battle for a 'wide front city', successfully defending from the attacking forces would be obviously interpreted as the defenders victory. I thought it was more complicated, but it's actually quite simple: if the attacker succeeds in an offensive (achieves breakthrough), the attacker gets victory, if the defender successfully thwarts the attack and defends the territory, then the defender gets victory. If the defender suffers high casualties and has logistical difficulties in the rear areas, it doesn't take away the victory, it's just extra information about the result. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll make a proposition in the infobox and try to be as neutral as possible. Hope it's acceptable to everyone. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. One of independent Ukrainian military analysts recently said that the top Ukrainian commanders knew from the very beginning that the counteroffensive can not succeed (they knew it because only a part of the promised military equipment was delivered by the West, and Russian forces had a significant advantage in aviation, artillery etc.). Whatever they were saying about the huge plans for the offensive back then was intentional disinformation, according to him, to prevent Russian forces from gaining initiative during the summer (even though they had a significant technical advantage). In particular, he said, that a number of statements by Kyrylo Budanov were intentional disinformation. And of course a lot of people, me including, did believe some of this disinformation. I do not know if this is true, but that is what this analyst said, and it is entirely plausible. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For me that's just another claim to justify an overall failure. Remember when Russian sources claimed that they withdrew from northern Ukraine as a gesture of goodwill following the Istanbul peace talks? While it's entirely plausible that it was true, the most natural assumption (that it was an overall failure) was followed and this counteroffensive should be no exception. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree you can't just change the goals of an Operation after it has been concluded when there have already been set goals before. Further I think listening to Analysts here is the best choice. In the German speaking Area where I'm from there would be Markus Reisner from the Austrian Bundesheer and Gustav Gressel prominently featured on News Networks. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The interpretation it was "Russian victory" was made by you, not by RS. This is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So when can we change the article to reflect that counteroffensive had failed? Even our own media in Ukraine does not even try to hide that fact anymore. Papagulag (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Russian sources to "Casualties and losses"
While Ukrainian sources are cited in Russian losses, I don't see the same happening in Ukrainian losses, is there a reason for that? Desaibsiaidepikiw (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * because the bias on Wikipedia is so ridiculous it's almost parody at this stage. Calebman127 (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah.
 * I saw editors openly saying that they support Ukraine.
 * This bias should be unacceptable in a serious website. Desaibsiaidepikiw (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're free to make an edit request. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2024
I request that status of the 2023 Ukrainian Counteroffensive be changed from See results to Ukrainian Failure/Russian Strategic Victory. Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-war-strategy.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/why-ukraines-counteroffensive-failed-to-deliver/ LegendaryChristopher (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This won't work because editors could easily counter your sources with other cherry-picked sources that give a more optimistic result. As I said before, we would need a thorough analysis of randomly sampled sources to correctly judge the most adequate overall result. I'll try to bump the RfC until then. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Instead of changing the status to a Russian Strategic Victory, we can instead change it to a Ukrainian Strategic Failure as they made minimal gains but failed to reach any of their strategic objectives such Tokmak which was a minimal objective and reaching the Sea of Azov which was the main and maximum objective. But my sources are literally the same sources these other editors use to counter anyone who claims Ukraine is losing a battle. I wouldn't be surprise if they soon say we have to wait until the Ukrainian media or military command to report anything before confirming something because even the Western media are start to write negative articles about the Ukraine military strategy and tactics. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌. This is already under discussion in two or three separate threads above. The proposed results are not acceptable per the docs for template:Infobox military conflict. —Michael Z. 16:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page protection
I am completely off the rails. There are countless discussion threads above on the same topic that have sprouted up in the last month. All initiated and dominated by non-EC users who are not permitted to edit or participate in project discussions in this subject area. There is currently a project discussion (RFC) on the same subject above, and all of the superfluous requests and gripe forums should be closed.

Who knows how to protect the page from edits while still allowing non-EC users to make formal edit requests? —Michael Z. 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * To remind you, Though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments. So why are you blocking concensus that Counteroffensive failed? Kanikosen (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Error in length
On the "quick facts" it says the counteroffensive went from June 2023 to late 2023. It then says length 1 year, 6 months. obviously just a simple fix but thought I'd mention it anyways. Maxsmart50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone had already fixed that. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I know, I tried to delete it but I dont know what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 👍 Better to just let the bot archive it. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The counteroffensive is a failure, even if ukrainians achieved some success
one of main points other editors point out why the result cannot be 'ukrainian failure' is that because ukraine DID achieve some success. the other reason is that 'failure' isn't possible as a result

I'd like to point out the wikipedia article of operation barbarossa. Where the german army shattered the red army, encircled millions of soldiers, take larges cities and at the gate of moscow it self. The kinds you could count as some success. Yet the article(rightfully) still have the result as 'axis strategic failure'. Other article having failure is german case blue offensive. This ruckus is only caused by personal bias, drop it 2001:448A:1082:77C1:9215:F679:81DC:D913 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Some articles having failure as result. Yes it is possible 2001:448A:1082:77C1:9215:F679:81DC:D913 (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
 * ￼ 2001:448A:1082:77C1:9215:F679:81DC:D913 (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the examples. Either non standard terms are allowed without BS or they should be completely deprecated. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Operation Barbarossa is considered a good article . Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation
 * Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, so why do they try to push for it when every western newspaper now is reporting offensive failed? Kanikosen (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI, NYT are already reporting that Robotyne, one of the few 'successes' of the Counteroffensive, is already on its way of being recaptured by the Russians. Making the entire effort by the UAF. Absolutely pointless. If that is not a failure, I don't know what is. Link to the archive and original article for your perusals: and  42Grunt (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Same for Telegraph. Offensive failed. Only thing we need to sort is date of it's end. Kanikosen (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * +1
 * It's a miserable failure and I've mentioned it before.
 * The 370 km² captured? Sounds huge, right? Too bad it equals to a square of 19x19 km, while the very shortest path (in straight line) from Nowa Kachowka to Armiansk (which could be considered a gateway to Crimea) is 66 km. A bee's dick compared to what the plans were for counteroffensive and the overall size of occupied territory. Ukraine is huge!
 * For the amount of men and equipment they burned through, calling it anything but disaster or failure is being heavily in denial. It surely is a reminiscence of late WW II Hitler's strategic blunders and his belief in various wunderwaffe (V-rockets, heavy Tiger tanks etc.) that were meant to turn the tide... in just one more week. 85.193.228.106 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * calling it anything but disaster or failure is being heavily in denial to effectively prove this we would need to make a thorough analysis of randomly sampled sources like Cinderella did in the battle of Bakhmut RfC. This is to contextualize potentially cherry-picked counter sources and show the real % of consensus. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Judgments must be based on analyses of representative arrays of sources. Otherwise, one runs the risk of SYNTH just like the optimist editors. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ❤️ May I quote your reply as a comment in the RfC vote section? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree everything you said but unfortunately we have 3 editors especially two who are administrators who decide what can and can't be edit. Any attempt to question their decisions always ends with your messages being deleted and being sanction. The days of Wikipedia reliability is dead and it has become nothing more than Reddit 2.0 with editors pushing their opinions and agenda on others LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree everything you said but unfortunately we have 3 editors especially two who are administrators who decide what can and can't be edit. Any attempt to question their decisions always ends with your messages being deleted and being sanction. The days of Wikipedia reliability is dead and it has become nothing more than Reddit 2.0 with editors pushing their opinions and agenda on others LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The counteroffensive definitively failed.
There are a literal mountain of credible sources that refer to the “failed counteroffensive”, “counteroffensive failing”, or broadly “failure”. The only thing preventing the counteroffensive from being labeled as such are spurious arguments from openly biased editors who can’t bear to acknowledge the truth: that Ukraine failed.

Spurious argument #1: Guidelines say the result can only be X and Y!

Response: They are guidelines, not rules set in stone or requirements. Good articles like “Operation Barbarossa” have failure listed as a result.

Spurious argument #2: We can only say it failed when the Ukrainian government officially announces it failed!

Response: Patently ridiculous and not in line with any other conflict or war. Of course they’ll never admit it failed. You go off of assessments by Reliable Sources, which unanimously describe it as a failure.

Spurious argument #3 (and possibly the funniest to date): Actually, the counteroffensive was a psyop to fool the Russians/It didn’t actually intend to penetrate to the Black Sea/Only the Ukrainians know what the goals of the counteroffensive intended… so we can’t declare it a failure!

Response: Meds. Now.

When Politico, the NYT, WaPo, etc. all state that the counteroffensive was a failure, but you refuse to allow that truth to be reflected in the wiki article, you’re not changing public opinion - you just look like a clown. Food for thought! 2601:584:4500:9500:45C9:517F:6CA2:8308 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Bro, don't bother. We been having this discussion since November and even as early October but unfortunately some editors won't budge unless Russia regain the minimal gains Ukraine made and even than they will still deny it. It's unfortunate but it's the current state of Wikipedia right now. Me, @Alexiscoutinho, and some other have been trying to talk sense to these editors but they always rebuke us so this discussion will continue until they come to their senses or Ukraine admits it. Also your topic will probably be removed as they have started to resort to censoring other editors. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up the talk page
I want to purposes possibly having some of the added topics removed as most are similar and have made the talk page very disorganized. I believe we should have at least 1 discussion per topic. For example there are many added topic that are about deciding the results and end date of the counteroffensive. I believe by removing these replicates it will make the talk page more organized and navigable for other editors and visitors to the page. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

List of relevant recent sources

 * 1)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 2)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 3)  sent by Super Dromaeosaurus
 * 4)  sent by Aennfred
 * 5)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 6)  sent by Super Dromaeosaurus
 * 7)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 8)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 9)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 10)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 11)  sent by Super Dromaeosaurus
 * 12)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 13)  sent by Alexis Coutinho
 * 14)  sent by Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
To me, it seems like the significance of the term "Ukrainian counteroffensive" has greatly diminished. The ISW tries to alleviate the implications of Zelenskyy's statements by hinting that offensive actions may continue in the southern front specifically. This sounds good for Ukraine and the proponents of keeping this article as ongoing, but it also highlights a big matter: so what? So what if the Ukrainians will still try to drag on battles around Robotyne? By following their logic, the counteroffensive could extend well into the winter and 2024, which would completely lose the focus/aim/defeat the purpose of what the "counteroffensive" really meant when planned. The term "counteroffensive" is insignificant right now. It's mostly a PR crutch. We are seing a revival of the original term "summer conteroffensive" and the results we're discussing so much about are related to it, not whatever is happening/is called right now.

Therefore, I suggest that we revert the scope of the article and name to the original one (that had "summer"). The article would cover events until the stalemate began. As soon as it became clear that the counteroffensive would fail/had failed, we indicate the end. However, we make a note in the article that fighting would continue in some areas albeit in a much smaller scale. If desired, we could even create a new article like "counteroffensive aftermath", or "southern ukraine campaign" or whatever, to include these minor fights that are happening during the "stalemate". This seems like the best fit interpretation of the situation and of the understanding of RS. What do you think? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All of this will require an extensive analysis of what reliable sources say, both for changing the article's title (reminder that WP:COMMONNAME is the leading policy for deciding article titles, although it's less strict for descriptive titles) and for giving an end date to the counteroffensive. A title change should definitively be made through the WP:RM format and not through an informal discussion. I again insist for patience, I am sure more useful sources will appear in the next weeks and months. By the way, Southern Ukraine campaign exists. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Though I expect articles and analyses about the counteroffensive to start decreasing/falling under the radar from now on. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be mentioned offhandedly in other future articles. Smeagol 17 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * , as I had implied, sources are already appearing discussing whether the counteroffensive has ended, precisely after Zelenskyy's 1 December interview. Just like sources discussing whether the counteroffensive had failed appeared after Zaluzhnyi's interview. See this article, it is from nine hours ago . More will appear as time passes. I would recommend waiting until the second half of December for the RfC. Though I suspect in January of the next year sources will very clearly treat the counteroffensive as over, as a result of the psychological effect of the change of year. I'd assume your case will be the strongest by then. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Thanks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

How can we "freeze" the svg map cutouts for this page?
I froze the infobox caption, but the map still reflects the 2024 version (which has the Khromove update). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I can upload the version of the map you want as a separate file on Commons. It would not be updated, and would be "frozen" on whatever date you select.  Physeters ✉ 21:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be quite helpful. Even if they don't get used in this article, it might be good in general to keep a snapshot of the frontline configuration at the end of 2023. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, could you include the Khromove update (current version) in the frozen "end of 2023" version? Because it was in fact captured in 2023. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine;_31_December_2023.svg
 * Here's the image. All you have to do is change the image url of the old map to this one, and the cropping should still work.  Physeters ✉ 22:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding source?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/13/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war.html ''Ukraine’s military prospects are looking bleak. Western military aid is no longer assured at the same levels as years past. Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive in the south, where Jaeger was wounded days after it began, is over, having failed to meet any of its objectives.''

For first time I think we have total conformation that Ukraine failed to meet any of its objectives. Kanikosen (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Does any January source give a more positive take on the offensive? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2024
Semyon K. Timoshenko (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC) In Casualties and losses -> Russia -> Second paragraph the cited source is misquoted (citation 280 https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-9-september-2023-short ).

The misquoted part of the paragraph states the following: ″The four BARS regiments operating near the Robotyne area, each one with an established strength of 1,000 men, have been reduced to a total combined strength of just 300 men. This is equivalent to just two companies, or to a “weak” battalion.″

Meanwhile the source states the following: ″ For example: nominally, each BARS regiment should have three battalions with about 1,000 troops in total. However, all four BARS regiments involved in the Robotyne area are down to about 300 troops each″

I believe this is a significant discrepancy and would like to request the sentence to be edited so that it matches the source. It should say: ″The four BARS regiments operating near the Robotyne area, each one with an established strength of 1,000 men, have been reduced to a total strength of just 300 men each.″ Semyon K. Timoshenko (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The best is ahead?
In like a year or when the wars over, will this article have more a definitive answer on casualties, result etc.? I find the lack of clarity on pretty straightforward subjects frustrating. I understand there is (understandable) controversy and disagreements about this kind of thing but I think it is important we find a consensus on this.