Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive/Archive 8

Edit request to add Russian sources to "Casualties and losses"
I request to add Russian sources on Ukrainian losses. Source: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/12/01/shoigu-says-125k-ukrainian-troops-killed-in-counteroffensive-a83283 Desaibsiaidepikiw (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So ?
 * Ukraninian sources which have around the same estimates of casualties are quoted in the article.
 * Good bias tho. Desaibsiaidepikiw (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree this should be included. I would note though that The Moscow Times isn't even a Russian source, but an anti-Kremlin media outlet, now based in the Netherlands.

But yes, it's citing statements by Russian officials. There's no good reason not to include Russian statements about Ukrainian losses, when Wiki cites the wildly inflated Ukrainian "estimates" of Russian losses, which are often uncritically repeated by Western officials. For a better idea of the true scale of Russian losses, the ongoing BBC/Mediazona reporting is a great resource. There's always gonna be a bit of a time lag in the reporting, but it gives the right general idea. -2003:CA:8717:D2D8:1BE4:F7FE:FBB2:F006 (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

✅ Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, nobody takes Shoigu seriously, and when they refer to him, they do it like Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu continues to falsely characterize Russian offensive efforts in Ukraine as part of an “active defense” in an effort to temper expectations about the Russian military’s ability to achieve operationally significant objectives - Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 1, 2023 | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org) . Note how this source doesn't pay attention to his numbers claim. Shoigu numbers can only be included accompanied with analysis from an RS. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we need to remove Ukrainian claims aswell. You can't just argue that only one side inflates and we know very well that the ISW tries to portray the Ukrainian situation favorably whenever possible. Western estimates aren't that reliable either as they were very involved with the war. Remember when they claimed that Ukraine was inflicting a 5:1 casualty ratio? Why is Ukraine having acute conscription issues now? Furthermore, wouldn't you call the initial characterization of the counteroffensive by both Ukraine and the West as the biggest false claim yet? Besides, nobody takes Shoigu seriously is quite WP:POV, it could just as well be said that nobody takes Zelensky or Biden seriously. The citation had enough attribution when describing as "claimed". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No russian propaganda please. WP:SOAPBOX . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is correctly attributing an estimate propaganda? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That was regarding your comment above. Now regarding your CN tag. As said above, nobody pays attention to their numbers, so there will be no source. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. Well I'm pretty sure people refuted him in the past. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * a lot, in many occasions. This particular claim? not every claim is paid attention to. See a secondary source (ISW) given above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There’s another issue, which actually has nothing to do with Shoigu himself, but the source. It incorrectly attributes all of the numbers to just the Ukrainian counteroffensive, when he really said that these are Ukraine’s total losses since June. Russia had launched its own offensives in Marinka, Avdiivka, Kupyansk, Bakhmut and Luhansk Oblast, which have undoubtedly inflicting heavy losses on the Ukrainians, which would be included in his (albeit inflated) casualty figures. As a compromise, it should be moved it to the Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War page, because it should still be mentioned, even if it’s not true, at least until the actual numbers are released (if they ever are). Tomissonneil (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be better to just explain that in a footnote, because the official Russian claim is still important for completeness and balance/WP:NPOV. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve the footnote. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that his claims shouldn’t be removed. While Shoigu’s claims are widely dismissed, even by some Russian sources, he’s still an official source, and should definitely be mentioned at least. It should just moved to a different page, as it’s beyond the scope of this one, which is why it should be moved to either the Casualty page, or the Timeline for December 2023, which is when he said it. Tomissonneil (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea, alright. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it would be useful to somehow forward the reader to that total casualties page? i.e. See also Russian estimates of Ukrainian casualties here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Aftermatch section?
Should there be some kind of aftermatch section with Zaluzhnyi dimissal, etc. or do sources not support that? Smeagol 17 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable to add an Aftermath section. This counteroffensive was a turning point in the war. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but are there some good sources yet that say this or that is the result of the (concluded) counteroffensive? For example, Zaluzhnyi dismissal is probably mentioned by some as a result of his November article, but I dont know if it is acknowledged that the article itself was the result of the 'conclusion' of the counteroffensive. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * are there some good sources yet that say this I haven't checked them for a while. the article itself was the result of the 'conclusion' of the counteroffensive. That would be a fair assumption, nothing special really happened in the counteroffensive after his interview. In fact, even before that, it was clear that the offensive had stalled. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, but the problem is getting this in RSs. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Change the result
For God sake a lot of people and mainstream western media that are so "reliable" already called the Ukrainian offensive as a failure. This is the reason why I hate English Wikipedia when it comes to geopolitics and history, they are so biased. Now probably infiltrated by NAFOs to deny any mention of Russian victory or Ukrainian failure. Absolutely embarrassing Dauzlee (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We need to figure this out first. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Na. Here it is, posted today, from one of the most trusted news sources with multiple trusted authors to the article...and in black and white.
 * If you care to read it...https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/30/volodymyr-zelenskiy-asked-top-general-to-step-down-but-he-refused 2A0A:EF40:1225:201:5DCA:C24D:2FF8:5725 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, please provide feedback on Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive#Comments. We certainly do not need 3 open topics on the same question. Jokojis (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is embarrassing
First Bakhmut now this in both cases the NAFO bots that have infiltrated Wikipedia try their best to keep an entry of a battle from being labeled a Russian Victory using the most absurd cherry picked mental gymnastics possible and you people that don't subscribe to that do nothing to stop them 2A02:587:E803:3E69:1803:8589:5C6:239C (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * im pro west I hate to admit it but I know when a battle is won or lost 49.145.42.90 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Counteroffensive was a turning point in the war. Maybe just got to let the dust settle, then revive this issue with new sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/how-russia-stopped-ukraines-momentum
 * Another source for total fail of counteroffensive. Kanikosen (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * God-tier article! It must be used in multiple places in the Ukraine war articles. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here in Wikipedia one can't be any pro-this or pro-that other than pro-neutral and pro-objective. A thing which the majority of the users who edit Ukraine-related pages fail to do. Knowingly. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no point in arguing with the editors on here. Any attempts to question their decisions usually ends up in censorship and being reprimanded. It's very unfortunate but Wikipedia is no netural and never will be again, it doesn't matter at the end of the day it won't change the reality of what is happening on the battlefield. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though I still have hope. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but please provide feedback to Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive#Comments. A discussion on this topic is already open. Jokojis (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on infobox "result" parameter
Should we change the text in the result parameter of the infobox from the present wording:

See

to the following (or something similar):?

Operational failure For more details, see

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The essence of the proposal is to include an adequate and informative operation result descriptor, not just a section link, that is used widespreadly in reliable sources, even if it is not a standard term in the used infobox template.

Comments
Please place comments (i.e. support or oppose) below this. Editors are asked to comment on the essence of the change rather than the exact wording of the proposal.


 * No for three reasons.
 * We can not say an "operational failure" because the Ukrainian forces have scored a number of moderate successes during the counteroffensive, even though everyone expected much more. Among the Ukrainian successes:
 * (a) taking over the bridgehead at the left bank of Dnipro (that was described as a "key" Ukrainian victory in some sources ),
 * (b) taking over several tactically significant territories to the North and South of Bakhmut, in the direction of Tokmak, and elsewhere,
 * (c) the Ukrainian attacks in Crimea and
 * (d) against Russian Black Sea fleet. The Russian fleet was evicted from Crimea. Note that (c) and (d) are described at length on this page, and rightly so because they are regarded as a part of this offensive.
 * (e) The human and equipment losses of Russian army were not huge by all accounts. The "success" or "failure" of military operations is not judged only by the territorial gains.
 * The instruction Template:Infobox_military_conflict says this 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.. It does not include such option as "operational failure". One would have to include "inconclusive" here per this instruction.
 * "A failure". What exactly objectives did it fail to achieve? We do not know them. It is true that public, journalists, a number of commenters, and even Russian MoD had very high expectations of the offensive. The Ukrainian command did officially declare that they are planning to achieve such and such targets prior to the offensive. One of them, Kyrylo Budanov did say that "we will be in Crimea in a few months". However, some independent Ukrainian military analysts are now saying it was an intentional deception, and the top Ukrainian commanders knew from the very beginning that the counteroffensive can not succeed because only a part of the promised military equipment was delivered by the West, and Russian forces had a significant advantage in aviation, people, ammunition etc. According to the analyst, the deception served to frighten Russian forces and prevent them from gaining initiative during the summer, even though they had a significant advantage. So, basically, the classic The Art of War: If you are strong, pretend to be weak. If you are weak, pretend to be strong. And then the strength of your enemy will become his weakness. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, the proposed Note (a) is misleading. No, Russian forced did not thwart everything, and they suffered a lot more than just "logistical setbacks in Crimea". My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, the defeat of Russian Black Sea fleet and air defenses in Crimea is a significant strategical victory of Ukrainian forces. No doubts, they will continue attacking Crimea if provided with enough weapons by their partners. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support strongly. The term "failure" is used widespreadly in reliable sources to describe the result of the offensive which ended in premature stalemate.        To omit it in the infobox solely based on the argument that it isn't a standard term is a big mistake and possibly an attempt to "game the system" to push a personal bias. If reliable sources describe the offensive as such, but the template doesn't expect such term, then it's the template doc's problem, not the article's, which should not be held hostage to such technicalities. This is a good case for WP:IGNORE. Besides, the template simply attempts/recommends to standardize the result descriptor, it doesn't try to force it (which could be easily implemented, but isn't), therefore we also should not attempt to force that recommendation when it is inadequate. Infoboxes should only help in summarizing the article: they serve the article, not the other way around (article serving the infobox by misrepresenting the context and subject just to conform with a recommendation). We must weigh in the importance of following RS vs following a template's doc. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 's second point. The infobox documentation for clearly states what is currently there is most suitable:
 * "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."
 * Note that this also forms part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, as a more succinct wording is provided at WP:MILMOS: "The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result"." Harrias  (he/him) • talk 08:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The interpretation of “failure” completely depends on an unduly restrictive definition of the scope, goals, and expectations of the counteroffensive, used to ignore several unambiguously non-failure outcomes. I disagree with this view as unduly narrow. (Successes include unilaterally restoring shipping through Odesa and humiliating the Black Sea Fleet, achieving massive enemy attrition of resources, equipment, and casualties, continuing to conduct a ground campaign without achieving air superiority or even parity, implementing drone warfare, demonstrating the capability to strike Russian territory with domestic resources, maintaining significant air defence and preserving the civilian power grid, preventing any significant advances by an enemy that maintains everything is according to plan, successfully receiving and employing foreign aid despite divisive setbacks [e.g., knocking down “unstoppable hypersonic missiles” with Patriot missiles that “could not be provided to Ukraine,” commitment to jet fighter delivery], political successes in domestic anticorruption and an international milestone in EU accession, and preserving or increasing Ukrainian national unity and the perseverance of resistance.) —Michael Z. 17:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [Non-EC comment deleted. —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)]
 * Oppose No, this is textbook example of original research plain and simple. And seriously using “Putin said so” as a source? Come on!  Volunteer Marek   13:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your justification is completely detached from reality. Are you really unaware of the dozens of western sources that call it a failure?! I've linked 10 in my justification just to name a few. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please watch the language. Also most sources do call it “stalled” or “deadlocked”, which is different, and yes, some call it a “failure” but usually within a specific context. Also, why are you providing sources which just say “Putin said it was a failure” and claiming that these sources say “it was a failure”. Obviously these are two different things, as Putin isn’t a reliable source here.  Volunteer Marek   18:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That Putin source could be removed. I just included it because it was bundled with the list of citations used by the article when it talked about how the media and the west considered it a failure. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * At first I supported "Ukrainian failure" or similar, while opposing that specific note. I would have loved to see Ukraine break through Russian lines for a third time and I completely thought at the start of this year that Ukraine would already be in Melitopol by this time. However that is not what happened and the counteroffensive was a failure. All the points listed by editors opposing the proposal are either quite irrelevant or not part of the counteroffensive, the only "moderate success" that I find worthy of mention is the successes against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and the restoration of the grain corridor, which still has nothing to do with the original objectives of reaching Crimea by summer 2023 or a bit thereafter . I find comments such as that these claims were an intentional deception campaign to be frankly really naive and wishful, with full respect to the editor I am quoting.
 * Still My very best wishes makes a good point mentioning the fact that the infobox doesn't really support the proposed outcome. I don't entirely agree with such a thing but in this case I support the status quo or removing the parameter altogether. However, things like "inconclusive" do not actually reflect the situation at the battlefield but only adjust to Wikipedia's standards as it is clear Ukraine did not reach its objectives and thus failed. As Mzajac notes, we cannot even agree on what the outcome is or what the sources say it is, so completely removing the parameter might be the best solution. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-EC comment deleted. —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So what? Yes, I am a normal person, I wish for Ukraine to expel the invading forces in its territory. As long as my personal views do not compromise my edits I can show as many opinions as I want on talk pages. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * [Non-EC comment deleted. —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)]

Fully support. Don't particularly care whether the failure is labelled as "Operational", "Tactical", or "Strategic" Ukrainian defeat, because this constitutes all 3. It seems this offensive led to the destruction of close to 40% of the Ukrainian Leopard II's. Raids/naval operations are not conventionally called offensives, but if sinking two Russian ships was of such consequence, it might be worth saying 'naval victory, land defeat', but I'm skeptical even of this. Merely capturing a few villages without any notable rail lines, highways, depots, airports, or other strategic objectives captured does not amount to a success. Jokojis (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
Mostly summarizing some of my prior counter arguments... moderate successes insignificant operational successes, not even the Ukrainians were that optimistic. taking over the bridgehead at the left bank of Dnipro (that was described as a "key" Ukrainian victory in some sources a more recent source (NYT article linked in a previous section) disputes this claim and instead presents the battle of Krynky as a near suicidal and meaningless fight. taking over some territories to the North and South of Bakhmut greatly reverted by now. in the direction of Tokmak, and elsewhere again, insignificant and at an extremely high price, hard to call it a success, Ukraine possibly could have been better off not even attempting it. The instruction Template:Infobox_military_conflict says this minor "technical issue" and WP:IGNORE. It was a failure to achieve what? the objectives, obviously, just like how it's obvious that if the attacker has a victory in a battle it means it effectively captured the target/subject. But the Ukrainian command did not officially declare that we are planning to achieve such and such targets prior to the offensive. so didn't the Russians in almost all of their offensives, yet we still draw targets and objectives and extract results based on them. However, some independent Ukrainian military analysts are now saying... Unfounded speculation by WP:PRIMARY sources thus far. the proposed Note (a) is misleading. No, Russian forced did not thwart everything It's not misleading, it's a general summary. Russian forces DID thwart the offensive overall. There's no need to explain that that doesn't mean it didn't lose 'any inch' of territory. I literally talked about cities right next to that statement implying that defending them is what is meant by "thwarting the offensive". Besides, there's literally a parameter talking exactly about the number of recaptured villages, therefore there's no need to add this detail/make this caveat in the result summary too. they suffered a lot more than just "logistical setbacks in Crimea". Both sides suffered heavy casualties, there's already an infobox section saying this, no need to repeat that in the result summary. But anyways, this is besides the point and is not the essence of the RfC, the footnote can be tweaked/improved afterwards. Again, most of these points aren't new in this talk page though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You say: "yet we still draw targets and objectives and extract results based on them." - Yes, in many cases, but making speculations is a risky business. From what we know right now, the Ukrainian forces did not have nearly enough resources for any significant offensive, and they still do not have them. Did not the Ukrainian command, who had every bit of information about their own resources, knew that? Well, Zaluzhy would be an incompetent idiot if he did not. That is what the cited Ukrainian analyst was saying. It is another matter that Zelensky wanted to take Crimea. Yes, sure. He could want whatever. Many people, me including, were mislead by statements by US administration, like "the Ukrainian forces have everything they need [for the offensive]". That was obviously not true. My very best wishes (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be denying the fact that sources widely use the term "failed counteroffensive" including in headlines. They rarely if ever say "moderately successful counteroffensive" or "partially successful counteroffensive". And when they do talk about those other "successes", they do it in longer explanations, which is also what we do (in the Result section). Saying that short labelling the counteroffensive as "failed" is misleading would mean that you consider those articles in the reflist below as misleading. That would be worse than WP:OR. The explanatory footnote and link to Result section is more than enough to contextualize the catchy/headline/infobox term "failed counteroffensive". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that the proposition doesn't ask for using a "general failure" descriptor, it constrains the failure to being "operational", therefore it doesn't go against the other Ukrainian "successes", it leaves room for "non-operational successes". Your uncompromising stance on these kinds of issues is problematic. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am only saying (as one of the arguments) it is not clear what exactly "failure" means in this case. This is also the reason "failure" is not included as one of the options in the template. Also, according to cited sources, this is more complicated than an outright failure, because there were a number of modest Ukrainian successes, as also mentioned in very same sources. Just taking a single word of unclear meaning and using as a single descriptor is not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just taking a single word of unclear meaning and using as a single descriptor is not a good idea. You should tell that to the authors of those articles, to delete all occurences of the sequence "failed counteroffensive", because no matter how much they are contextualized in the article, someone will think they are being misleading. And we literally have the commodity of adding a footnote right next to the words to immediately contextualize them. This all feels like a rigged game, don't you think? The word "failure" with footnote is forbidden because then the footnote will be ignored and only the simple descriptor will be accused of being misleading; if a longer bullet note result is provided, then people will complain it's ugly and doesn't follow the concise format; if a standard term is used for the defender, then people complain because the Western sources which are loved in Wikipedia hardly directly admit Russian victories, unless they are painfully obvious (instead they love to talk about Ukrainian victories whenever possible). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What other articles with "failed counteroffensive" in infobox are you talking about? I have no idea. Let's fix these articles. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The closest I can think of is Case Blue which another editor mentioned. There are surely others. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The proposal of this RfC is hopeless, especially when the people who motivated my change in opinion don't back it up or at least participate. The only strong argument I see worthy of an oppose is the WP:MILMOS one. I'm willing to accept it and end the RfC, but I think I can't/ain't allowed to actually close it. Well, if that's the case, I would strongly suggest that the template enforces those standard formats so that confusions like this never arise in the future and so that less time is wasted by editors arguing over this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you had to address this concern at the talk page of the corresponding infobox template, not here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The only strong argument I see worthy of an oppose is the WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX one. The rest is mostly embellishment and value/significance WP:ANALYSIS, not to mention WP:FORUM. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

With that mentality, everything Ukraine has ever done and will ever do could be interpreted as at least partial success. Countering your arguments and mirroring your mentality for discredited Russian successes in the past would instantly turn this into WP:FORUM. The ISW would welcome you. Get real. It's so convenient to forget about the real important failed objectives of the operation and instead contemplate the cherry-picked side-quests and isolated pyrrhic victories. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You forgot to cite any reliable sources about my mentality. What strategic goals has Russia achieved in the last two years of its three-day “special military operation”? —Michael Z. 15:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 🤦‍♂️ Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the most detailed descriptions of the counteroffensive (e.g. ), what do they say?
 * This is far cry from just saying "a failure". My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're claiming it's more like a "draw"...? just saying "a failure" that's why I emphasized "operational failure". But whatever, there isn't a consensus that it was a modest success either. Although that's a good source, the best/more neutral analyses are still yet to come. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The scope described in the infobox (“South Ukraine (Kherson Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Crimea) and East Ukraine (Donetsk Oblast)”) and the one in the quotation above (including strikes in Crimea, a changed posture in the Black Sea, and theatre-wide casualties) is at the strategic level, not operational. Even the land counteroffensive itself, one part of this, is a number of operations in different directions (I believe three offensive axes, plus the bridgehead on the Left Bank).
 * “Operational failure” appears to refer to something involving possibly three operations, but not the entire counteroffensive. It’s inadequate as a description of the entire counteroffensive, which is really a theatre-level strategic phase during six months of a 20-month larger phase of a ten-year war.
 * (And as noted in the proposal, it directly contradicts the instructions for Template:Infobox military conflict: Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. We shouldn’t try to do this even if the actual result is clear and uncontroversial, much less when neither editors nor sources can agree on it.) —Michael Z. 21:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you have a good point. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. For example, the quotation just above says: Still, the ultimate aim of retaking land in occupied Ukraine failed to materialize. Only that goal/part of the offensive has failed, but others (described in previous phrases of the quote) have been accomplished, i.e. they can be considered a success, according to the source. The selective quotation of phrases with word "failed" proves nothing. One need to read whole sources and properly summarize what they say. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "ultimate aim" Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * “Some modest success … still, the ultimate aim.” But "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. . . . Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. —Michael Z. 07:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The selective quotation of phrases with word "failed" proves nothing. Be careful though, because what seems like "selective quotation of phrases with word "failed"" usually are the refering to the main/most important objectives. We can't forget about that. The top Ukrainian general himself said that doing damage alone isn't enough to win the war because Russia has much more resources. Ukraine can't win a war of attrition and we have to portray this (in the result section, I'm not really advocating for the infobox anymore). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The selective quotation of phrases with word "failed" proves nothing. Be careful though, because what seems like "selective quotation of phrases with word "failed"" usually are the refering to the main/most important objectives. We can't forget about that. The top Ukrainian general himself said that doing damage alone isn't enough to win the war because Russia has much more resources. Ukraine can't win a war of attrition and we have to portray this (in the result section, I'm not really advocating for the infobox anymore). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

👍 The well rounded response I was waiting for. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I mostly agree except only one point. There were multiple objectives for this offensive, and we do not really know the actual and specific objective about gaining the territory. A year before, the Ukrainian leadership was repeatedly announcing the intention to attack Kherson, only to draw Russian forces there, but attack around Kharkiv. Good deception! Now Budanov claimed to reach Crimea, but of course they did not. Your second ref refers to Budanov, but that particular official has made a large number of intentionally false statements, beginning from "Wagnergate". I am sure that Ukrainian General Staff has developed a number of alternative plans with different territorial outcomes (they always do), perhaps including one that had actually happened.My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I will be getting a bit into WP:FORUM territory, but I would argue that the magnificently executed Kherson-Kharkiv deception was an exception rather than a rule. You cannot outsmart everyone in every occasion, the Kherson-Kharkiv counteroffensives took place in very concrete circunstances that were simply not present for this one. And, in any case, we can only write about such deception strategy in Wikipedia because reliable sources talk about it. I've seen no RS talk about another deception strategy for this counteroffensive. As I see it, if the real aim was for example reopening the grain corridor (it was still open when the counteroffensive strated anyway), and Ukrainian commanders decided to announce an objective fifty times more desirable which is the liberation of the country's south, and then this supposed original aim is achieved, has Ukraine really won after shattering the expectations of everyone including Western policy-makers as well as its own people? Such deception would not have really contributed to reopening the corridor anyway, other than having the two have heavy losses at the time of its reopening.
 * But there was no such twisted hidden strategy, as Ukrainian commanders themselves have let us know real aims of the counteroffensive as it developed. Oleksandr Tarnavskyi said a minimum goal of the counteroffensive was the logistical hub of Tokmak . Tarnavskyi was if I understood correctly the commander directly leading the counteroffensive from the front lines, and after the report I've linked in the previous sentence rumours appeared that he would be dismissed . Also worth citing these from Zaluzhnyi's infamous interview: There will be no deep and beautiful breakthrough, According to Zaluzhny, the army of the level of Ukraine is able to move at a speed of 30 km per day when breaking through defensive lines. With such an indicator, the commander-in-chief believes, four months was enough to retake the Crimea. . We have evidence from RS that objectives of the counteroffensive have not been achieved, and no evidence that these objectives were deceptive. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to read the mind of Zaluzhny. It is indeed possible he had hoped that Ukrainian forces will be "able to move at a speed of 30 km per day when breaking through defensive lines", as this source say. Or perhaps he did not, knowing that the Ukrainian forces have not enough resources. And in any case, the Ukrainian General Staff was working to prepare plans also for other, worse case scenarios.My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is possibly a misquote. I understand that "30 km per day" would be after they break through Russian lines. What were the exact words of Zaluzhny? My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Our job is not to read the mind of Zaluzhnyi but read the sources trying to read his mind. So far I see no suggestion from RS that the stated counteroffensive objectives were not honest.
 * Yes, you're right. I do not have open access to the interview. It requires subscription. I think this is the one . Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of this discussion is at cross purposes. Ukraine had successes if we consider the 2023 counteroffensive phase of the war. It fell short of a range of possible objectives if we consider the 2023 counteroffensive land campaign of the southern and eastern fronts, but did not completely fail if we consider the range of possible results. Do sources consider the difference between these two strategic and operational scales of kinetic activity when assessing success, failure, or inconclusiveness? Is the scope of this article uncertain in these terms?
 * And is supposed “stalemate” on the southeastern lines really a “Russian victory” when we consider the possible range of outcomes?!
 * Some other successes might be ignored if we don’t zoom out to the broader view and consider what was widely expected before February 2022. In this counteroffensive Ukraine prevented the enemy from gaining any operational advantage from the occupation of Bakhmut, prevented its victory in attempted offensives at Avdiivka, Kupiansk, and Vuhledar, prevented it from taking back the initiative at tactical, operational, or strategic scale, prevented it from taking more ground or achieving air dominance. These are not nothing. They are Russian failures that are significant in both the context of the southeastern land campaign and the war overall. They prevented this from being a “Russian victory.” —Michael Z. 19:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is true that during this phase of the war, Ukraine has had its successes. But none of them were the objectives of the counteroffensive, and some of the things you mentioned were happening before the counteroffensive and are still taking place right now. Like we can draw some tangential successes we can also mention some failures for Ukraine, such as heavy losses, disputes among the Ukrainian leadership including several military dismissals, decreased faith among Western policymakers (quite hypocritically), and the simple fact that the counteroffensive did not bring the war to an end (against the expectations of many Ukrainian officials: ).
 * In my opinion to avoid subjective and opinionated analyses by editors, we should focus on the counteroffensive's main objectives. I find that to be cutting the land bridge to Crimea and splitting Russian forces in Ukraine into two, which did not happen. It was not a total and absolute defeat for Ukraine, but we cannot convey that in the infobox. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "But none of them were the objectives of the counteroffensive". Oh no, attacking Russian fleet and many other targets in Crimea clearly were one of the objectives of the counteroffensive, especially after the claim by Budanov that "we will soon be in the Crimea". My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that meant either taking Crimea or reaching Crimea's "border" after taking southern Kherson Oblast. Anything implying territorial change. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [Non-EC comment deleted. —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)]
 * Even among the most optimistic political predictions, I do not think anyone said Ukraine was going to storm across the Perekop isthmus and liberate all of the Crimea last spring. Ukraine’s intention is to make the Crimean peninsula untenable for the Russians, and it has indeed advanced in this objective. Count the BSF ships that used to sit parked threateningly off Odesa and are now disabled, destroyed, or withdrawn to Russia. —Michael Z. 03:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the measure of success is meeting own stated objectives, then the Ukrainians are still well ahead of the Russians in their partial achievement. Russians failed to occupy all of the Donbas, failed to occupy all of the “annexed” oblasts, much less Odesa, failed in the “demilitarization” of Ukraine, failed in the “denazification” of Ukraine (genocide of self-identifying Ukrainians), really failed to better their situation in any of these terms during the period of the counteroffensive, and were weakened in some aspects (esp. power in the Black Sea and defence of the Left Bank, Crimea, and Russian territory). So “Russian victory” is not an acceptable infobox result. —Michael Z. 03:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [Non-EC comment deleted. —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)]
 * While I expressed support for "Ukrainian failure", I am also against "Russian victory" in the infobox. Russia was completely passive during the counteroffensive, they just dug in and held, reliable sources have put much more attention in Ukraine's ways of attacking than in Russia's ways of defending, given this I wouldn't put the focus on Russia but preferably on Ukraine in the parameter. To me it would feel weird to say Russia won when most of the discussed variables by analysts have been things out of its reach. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. It’s misleading nonsense that Russian forces were “passive.” They tried to regain overall initiative and conducted massive assaults on three or more axes, where Ukraine caused many tens of thousands of Russian casualties and destroyed significant equipment (they called it “active defence,” presumably because there was no Russian victory). They continued the missile and drone campaign against military targets and resumed a campaign against civilian infrastructure. They continued shelling wherever they could on a 1,000-km front. They continued criminally deporting and forcibly recruiting Ukrainians. They continued stealing food and attacking Ukrainian ports. They continued propaganda against foreign aid. 2. “X failure” is not an allowed option according to infobox docs, even when the result is clear and uncontroversial. I think this case exemplifies why: it implies “Y victory” and is absolutely misleading. Choosing to “put the focus on Ukraine” is not a neutral POV. —Michael Z. 16:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s misleading nonsense that Russian forces were “passive.” you know what he meant: Russia mostly defended and made limited counterattacks to regain lost positions whenever adequate (active defense). They tried to regain overall initiative and conducted massive assaults on three or more axes What are you talking about? The renewed assaults after the counteroffensive? If yes, what's the point of even bringing this up? They happened after the Ukrainian offensive anyways and it's standard in warfare to always put pressure somewhere along the frontline to tie up enemy troops and not completely give up the initiative. (they called it “active defence,” presumably because there was no Russian victory) what does that have anything to do with victory/defeat?! "Active defense" doesn't mean you suck at defending, it's simply more efficient. where Ukraine caused many tens of thousands of Russian casualties and destroyed significant equipment ... They continued criminally deporting and forcibly recruiting Ukrainians. They continued stealing food and attacking Ukrainian ports. They continued propaganda against foreign aid. Why do you seem to love loading your replies with unrelated stuff like that? Please avoid WP:FORUM; I would expect more from a long-time admin.
 * This discussion is derailing and going off-topic. The WP:MILMOS argument is enough to block the proposal. No need to engage in WP:FORUM. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know what they meant, and what they wrote was a serious mischaracterization. There’s no point in you defending the concept of active defence when my point is that that’s all the Russians could manage is to use the term as a euphemism, when all of their stated war aims demand offensive successes, and when their dictator’s upcoming “reelection” demands victories. I’m trying to demonstrate that not only is “Ukrainian failure” not allowed (because it also implies “Russian victory”), but that the arguments to justify it regardless of that are wrong, and it’s not just FORUM to clarify when active editors are operating on the basis of these misapprehensions. I see a good-faith but tunnel-visioned effort to cast Ukraine’s performance as a failure with only its most optimistic political statements about only one small aspect of the war as the benchmark. Yes, the ground “stalemate” is important but it’s far from everything.
 * Please try to look at the entire range of forecasts over the last two years, including by supposedly reliable sources, including that Ukraine will fail in three days, that 40M-population Ukraine can’t possibly win against 144M Russia, etc., and consider that the forecasts keep swinging from overly pessimistic to overly optimistic and back, disregarding the unpredictability of war. In fact, never mind forecasts but look at events. In the big picture, Ukraine seized the initiative and still prevents Russia from regaining it, prevented Russia from achieving any more of its strategic goals, retained liberated territories from previous counteroffensives, and increased its military power in the Black Sea coast, the Black Sea, the Left Bank, and Crimea. I think Ukraine prevented more of Russia’s achievement of goals than Russia prevented Ukraine’s. This is not only not a Russian victory, it’s far from an unqualified Ukrainian failure. —Michael Z. 18:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You stated So “Russian victory” is not an acceptable infobox result while replying to my message, I clarified that I was not supporting adding "Russian victory" (to me it's not the exact same implication, more on that later) in the infobox and why briefly just in case there was any confusion. That's all. You clearly have a tendency to disregard other opinions, as it can clearly be seen by wording like serious mischaracterization, the arguments to justify it regardless of that are wrong, misapprehensions. In MY OPINION, adding "Ukrainian failure" does not convey the same as "Russian victory". In the hypothethical case that I had never visited this article and didn't know much on the topic (so all future generations of readers), reading "Ukrainian failure" would have suggested to me that Ukraine did not achieve what it wanted. "Russian victory" would have suggested to me instead that Russia obtained a glorious victory, brutally destroying the Ukrainian army, maybe even gaining some land. That is part of what I meant by "putting the focus on Ukraine". It really isn't that deep. I didn't want to argue much my view because I saw it as unnecessary.
 * Mzajac, I would tell you this with much much stronger wording if I didn't see you as a net positive for this topic area. Have you considered toning down your intensity in discussions? I am far from the first person suggesting you something like this.
 * By the way, I totally agree that this is really tilting towards WP:FORUM. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What’s wrong with the current version where the “Results” entry just links to the relevant section? Sometimes things can’t be summarized with a succinct catchphrase and this seems like a reasonable way of dealing with that fact.  Volunteer Marek   23:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [Non-EC comment deleted. —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)]
 * Yes, I stated support for the status quo. Seemingly that will be the result of this RfC. At least we've now got consensus for it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [Non-EC comment deleted. —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)]
 * Interesting, though I assume you took a non standard path to work, given you saw so many things. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [Non-EC comment deleted. —Michael Z. 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)]
 * Wow! Your testimony is quite insightful. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This article needs to severely reduce the amount of times it uses the institute for the study of war as a source
They are fairly controversial as a source and have made wrong or weird statements many times before. So the fact that this article has entire paragraphs that are nothing but ISW quoting isn't very good. There is at least 15 times the article doesn't just use ISW as one of it's sources but namedrops them D1d2d3d29 (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024
Please change

but fails to advance more

to

but fails to advance further.

in the infobox. Current wording is grammatically poor. Jokojis (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ RealKnockout (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Single opinion labeled as autoritative.
Please stop using single opinion articles, from unreputed and unkown authors as reliable sources for extraordinary claims. WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Mr.User200 (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nova Kakhovka dam explosion
I think it would be a good idea to emphasize more how big of a part the breaching of the dam was in the overall counteroffensive. There has been more information coming out suggesting Ukraine had a more significant offensive operation across the Dnipro river planned, but the dam explosion messed those plans up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Characterization as "Russian victory"
This makes little sense- Ukraine's failure to reach its objectives does not mean a Russian achievement to stop territorial gains completely. I'm aware that the options for the infobox are "X victory" or "inconclusive", so changing the result to "Inconclusive" and specifying the territorial gains in conjunction with the failure to achieve set military objectives makes more sense than discarding the territorial gains made by the Ukrainians and calling the counteroffensive a "Russian victory". - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 20:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see it supported by the article body (or sources). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This should be named as "Russian defensive victory". Bortak42 (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine just lost Robotyne
https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1761446540785201338 So what is stopping us to change outcome as they don't hold 14 villages any more. Kanikosen (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not yet (it seems). And besides, that's off the proper scope of the article. At most, it could be commented as Aftermath. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is what I mean. It's not longer 14 villages taken. Kanikosen (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Attacks now are not within the scope of the article. This one is about the failed counteroffensive. Now they are in defense. Mellk (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be mentioned that Russians reclaimed area? Kanikosen (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't hurt. It was sequential after all. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable proof on that. One tweet is not a source. 211.238.95.199 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess we can say that from today, but only from today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)