Talk:Battle of Antonov Airport/Archive 1

what unit did ukrainians have
according to one of those signt accounts on twitter, the ukrainian unit involved was the 4th rapid response brigade of the national guard. no idea how true this is but keep this in mind incase proof is found. a photo was taken of the ukrainian defenders after the battle but no unit insignia located — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:6841:700:D1F8:C702:637B:3F07 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

11th Guards Air Assault Brigade
11th Guards Air Assault Brigade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3E:400:641B:ECC1:D7E6:1A79 (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

battle doesn't seem to have ended. paratroopers still holding out
paras might have regrouped and still putting up a fight. hardly 'destroyed'. Goggo2022 (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that they have surrendered; we haven't seen any footage of destroyed Russian equipment or dead personnel like in other battles; only a photo of a flag. There are also reports of huge losses for Ukrainian Military near Gostomel as Russian Air Force reportedly hits a huge column of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that was going to reinforce their units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.164.184 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Think ryssians were 31st Guards Air Assault Brigade
Change to 31st Guards Air Assault Brigade 77.53.214.3 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Number of Russian Helicopters
Cited article from BBC reports 200 Russian helicopters attacked on the second assault, but REUTERS and other sources report about 20 helicopters. HERE https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-russia-paratroopers-hosto/ukraine-says-russian-helicopters-aircraft-dispatch-paratroopers-to-hostomel-airport-idUSR4N2UT04T I'm positive the BBC's 200 is a typing error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigifi (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed. Curbon7 (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Two different articles
Should we have a First Battle of Antonov Airport for the first assault and a Second Battle of Antonov Airport for the second? Js26x (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Js26x
 * No. Fine as is. Curbon7 (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Two different units russia first and secondhand assault
First assault 11th Guards Air Assault Brigade Second assault 31th Guards Air Assault Brigade (Guardian mention 31th Guards making second assault) 77.53.214.3 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs source. Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2022
According to the Russian Ministry of Defence,[11] the capture came following an operation that involved some 200 helicopters and that 200 Ukrainian soldiers were killed during the fighting, while the Russian military suffered no "reported" casualties.[3] 216.73.162.123 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Source? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Result is incorrect
Though russia captured the airport eventually, achieving a military victory, it should also be considered a Ukrainian strategic victory. Defeating the first attack bought Kyiv significant time to prepare defenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.255.72 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Curbon7 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The usage of the airport after the battle ended
There is a contradiction: 1- in the article it’s written that the result will enable the Russian troops to use it for future operations in the battle of Kyiv. 2- in the end, it’s said that the heavy battle has left the airport useless.

Where is the truth!? 185.81.140.118 (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian claim of no casualties
The Russian claim of no casualties suffered seems rather farcical and there do not seem to be any independent sources that do not cite Russian statements. It seems to me that this information should be removed until verified by a more neutral source. Ericloewe (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * it's as neutral as the line saying paratroopers 'were encircled and destroyed'. the page needs work. Goggo2022 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There’s legitimate Russian propaganda on this page. Someone who can include the cite note from the BBC that the Russian account is from state-run media and completely unverified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.130.33 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * But BBC is british state run media. everything they say is per se just as completely unverified. what now? unless somebody of us was at the airport when it happened then there is no good source, of course we all can choose who we'd rather believe but that is not the point of an encyclopedia. at best you can equally cover both legitimate Russian and Ucrainian propaganda, to which I would add that according to tertiary source russian news aggregator Intel Slava quoting an Ucrainian news agency the whole of Hostomel fell on the 24th with no mention of destruction of the paratroopers https://t.me/intelslava/20267 2A00:1028:96CB:F556:D45A:2624:46D1:207F (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * State-funded != state run.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both claims by Ukrainian and Russian military are given, attributed, with RS cited. Mellk (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It is noted that the claim from the BBC comes from Russia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Living persons and claims of killings.
One user is insisting in adding the alleged death of a Chechen commander on 26 February, here and in the Magomed Tushayev article. The source; The Times of Israel acknowledge that this information could not be corroborated. However the user insist on it. The same article also cites Daily Mail that is a Blacklisted source per WP:PRS. I don't see a reason to keep such type of edits in this article and on the living person article. We should wait if more RS agree on that info. Remember WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims need extraordinary sources and we are talking about living persons. Mr.User200 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, the entire section should not be removed as the Times of Israel states the attack took place, meaning the section should stay. Information not stated by TOI should be removed, but not the whole section. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove Tusachev and the KIA icon from the battle box it's a claim that could not be corroborated. We are talking about living persons. Also don't reinstate that claim on its biography since is a extraordinary claim. Keep the entry on 26 February if you like, agree?Mr.User200 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removing the information about him now. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I got all the information about the KIA commander, if I missed something, feel free to get it. Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Add destruction of Antonov An-225 Mriya
The Antonov An-225 was the largest aircraft in the world before its destruction today, February 27th, and held multiple size and cargo records. It was very important in the aviation world and thus I believe the destruction of the aircraft should be included in this article. It was destroyed by Russian forces who caused fires and explosions at the airport and specifically at the hangar where the 225 was located. At first, there was only speculation, and the chief pilot for Antonov at one point confirmed it was safe, but today the aircraft was reported as destroyed or "damaged beyond repair" by Ukrainian authorities. Some sources:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombian696 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Battle is presumably over
What it says on the tin. Action seems to have stopped on 26 Feb. Curbon7 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL, until one said clearly states they won, the battle isn’t over. Russia claimed victory on the 25th, and Ukraine said Russia had one, but the fighting on the 26th shows that it really isn’t over.  Since the fighting on the 26th, no new claims have been made to one side having complete control, so the battle can’t be stated as a victory for either side yet. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The fighting on the 26th, as per the sources, took place near the town of Hostomel. Not at or near the airport itself. Both Ukraine, Russia and 3rd party sources confirmed on 25 February the airport to be under Russian control and there is no subsequent information that the airport itself is contested. I have no objection to leave the Ukrainian claim of the attack on the column as part of the article's aftermath section. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022
Edit request: The end of the article states "The next day, a 40-mile long Russian military convoy[29] arrived at the airport in preparation for an assault on Kyiv." Can we have the imperial measure converted to metric (e.g. 64 kilometre (40 mile) long), and the imperial measure in brackets? Or even have the metric added? (e.g. 40-mile long (64 kilometres)). This article concerns an event occurring in a country that uses the metric system and involving actors who use the metric system, and as such the use of an imperial measure is confusing. Dee654 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Since it was reported in the imperial measure, the metric conversion was added. RGoes (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Airport has been destroyed
There are reports that the airport has been destroyed, either deliberately by the Ukrainian forces to prevent it from being captured or by the Russians during the attack. It appears to be unusable for landing planes according to reports of locals from Twitter. Someone should look into this and find a good source to add it to the article, I currently cannot as I am on mobile. 151.37.51.198 (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not really, severely damaged, but the cement on floor, the taxi-ways, equipment, even an oldtimer aircraft near the destroyed An-74T-100 etc are Intact... it was not like bulldozers cave the whole airport. An regarding An225, Wiki should stepdown from destroyed to damaged... Also put this lock in Article, we do not know what is editable correctly or not. Regards --90.186.219.179 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we change the name of the article to Battle of Hostomel
Hear me out. The name Battle of Antonov Airport will only talk about the fighting for control of the airport, but not the town in which the airport is located in. Even after the Russians captured the airport, the Ukrainians still fought for control of Hostomel itself, as seen in the "Aftermath" section. More recently the Ukrainian armed forces claimed to have destroyed 20 combat vehicles on 3 March 2022, and regained control of Hostomel today. And they also claimed that Russian forces are now taking Ukrainian citizens hostage. We should still keep the information about the battle of airport because of the airport's strategic significance in all this, but I believe we should also expand on writing information about the fighting that has been going on in Hostomel itself. It is for these reasons I believe the name of this Wikipedia article should be changed to Battle of Hostomel, to reflect that the battle encompasses the entire town of Hostomel and the nearby Antonov/Hostomel Airport. I would like to hear all of your opinions. Thank you for your time. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022
Final sentence of 24th February segment of the Battle section, Mriya misspelled as Mirya 85.237.234.235 (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kosack (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:AN-225 Mirya ablaze in it's Hangar on February 27th, 2002.jpg
FYI File:AN-225 Mirya ablaze in it's Hangar on February 27th, 2002.jpg has been nominated for deletion on COMMONS -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An-225 Destroyed.jpg

Requested move 5 March 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  NW1223  &lt; Howl at me &bull; My hunts &gt; 16:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Antonov Airport → Battle of Hostomel – First, I would like to apologize in advance for repeating this in the talk section. I did not know how to request a single page move until now. I will explain my position again.

The name Battle of Antonov Airport will only talk about the fighting for control of the airport, but not the town in which the airport is located in. Even after the Russians captured the airport, the Ukrainians still fought for control of Hostomel itself, as seen in the "Aftermath" section. More recently the Ukrainian armed forces claimed to have destroyed 20 combat vehicles on 3 March 2022, and regained control of Hostomel on 4 March. And they also claimed that Russian forces are now taking Ukrainian citizens hostage. We should still keep the information about the battle of airport because of the airport's strategic significance in all this, but I believe we should also expand on writing information about the fighting that has been going on in Hostomel itself. It is for these reasons I believe the name of this Wikipedia article should be changed to Battle of Hostomel, to reflect that the battle encompasses the entire town of Hostomel and the nearby Antonov/Hostomel Airport. I would like to hear all of your opinions. Thank you for your time.

Update on 5 March. The Ukrainian Armed Forces claimed that the Russian forces are withdrawing from the airport. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose instead write a different article called Battle of Hostomel. There's no reason not to have two articles to cover this, one focusing on the airport, and a greater regional topic for the Hostomel area. Just as other battles have sub-battles, and these having different articles on Wikipedia. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Slight support If the battling in the city has enough notability to warrant this (Which is what I am thinking yes) it could move over. Both sides have had lots of coverage under "Battle of Hostomel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclonicpot (talk • contribs) 05:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support  If the article grows large, it can be split per WP:summary style. —Michael Z. 17:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Slight Oppose There's few stuff about the battle on the rest of the city itself on the article, but we do now by reports there are fighting for the city. When there was a fight for the airport there is some spillover to the surroundings, but the focus was the airport. Besides the fighting for Hostomel (the town) is also blended with the fighting that is going on Irpin and Bucha, which are all part for the bigger Battle for Kyiv. The article should remain for the Airport Battle itself.LordLoko (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now with support for creating an individual article for Hostomel. Once this whole kebab is over, we can decide if there needs to be a merge, but for now it should be fine. Curbon7 (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The battle at the airport and its objectives were specific to the airport only and was separate to the battle ongoing in Hostomel, Bucha, and Irpin. I think a new article should be created for the battles going on in these areas titled Battle of Bucha since all 3 are within the Bucha Raion (admirative district level below oblast) NW of Kyiv, so it would make sense to group them all into a battle within that Raion. There is also a lot of content that could be put into that separate article likewise with this article. The battle for the airport was a battle under the Kyiv Offensive, not a sub-battle for the Battle of Bucha, since the point of the battle was to secure the airfield so an airbridge could pour in troops to capture Kyiv and quickly end the war, not capture Irpin or Hostomel or Bucha, they are in a way unrelated to this battle despite their proximity to the airport; the fighting ongoing there should have a separate article titled Battle of Bucha is my final verdict for what it's worth. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Battle of Bucha has since been created now. TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The battle for the airport is notable enough to warrant its own article (unlike the battle for the town). EkoGraf (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit needed
https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-thought-ukraine-would-fall-quickly-an-airport-battle-proved-him-wrong-11646343121?mod=hp_trending_now_article_pos3

Lt. Kharchenko of the Ukrainian Military who was present at the battle, states the Ukrainians failed to retake the Airport. Article is thus incorrect and must be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgoll774 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate information
Inaccurate information

The Ukrainians won this Battle. This article only states the first phase of this battle. During the second phase Ukrainian special forces quickly responded with force, The Russians were wiped out and the survivors surrendered. Unless this article is being monitored by the Russian government and is spreading inaccurate information 173.247.147.24 (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Main sources are Russian
I find it strange that this article has built its facts of the events upon Russian sources. This is clearly a problem for accuracy and neutrality. 92.220.156.99 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize most of these "Russian sources" are actually Ukrainian sources but written in Russian-language? While the other Russian sources like Dozhd and Novoye Vremya were subsequently blocked in the country by Russian government as part of censorship. Mellk (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Chechens
The Guardian reported on 22 March that troops from Chechnya supported the initial russian attempt to capture the airfield, suffering substantial losses. If there are other sources for that, it should be put in the article and the infobox. Alexpl (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That would be the 141st Motorized Regiment, mentioned in the article. LordLoko (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Reopening the battle?
There are increasing reports, including from the US DOD of Russian soldiers having abandoned the airfield and that Ukrainian forces are slowly moving to secure it. Should we list this battle as at least 'ongoing' once again until we get confirmation that the airport has been retaken by the Ukrainians or that Russian soldiers are still occupying the airport? Or should we create a 'Second Battle of Antonov Airport' once more details emerge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seannie4 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022
I have no idea how to use wikipedia but might I suggest adding the detail of US intelligence giving ukranian prior notice that the russians planned to take the airport? This happened weeks in advance of the actual battle and might be a valuable bit of information on this article. Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/vladimir-putins-20-year-march-to-war-in-ukraineand-how-the-west-mishandled-it-11648826461 (archived w/o paywall) https://archive.ph/ysWRR 193.234.33.13 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out this source. I will integrate the information into the article. Applodion (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Applodion (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that there is sufficient data in this source to go further. To say how the Ukrainians were able to boost their defences around the airport and thereby form a stiffer defence than was expected. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the article itself does not say that. For such claims we would need another source. Applodion (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible source: Ukrainian soldier testimony on the battle
See ~10:00 on https://youtube.com/watch?v=btgaTBWweN0 -- Kreyren (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Destoryed AN225.png
FYI, File:Destoryed AN225.png has been nominated for deletion at COMMONS -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Destoryed AN225.png -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022
for the truth 156.201.218.121 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Interview with captured VDV soldier recalling the assault
Surviving VDV soldier Nikita Ponomarov interviewed by journalist Volodymyr Zolkin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TStvtOgp4ow This might be an interesting first hand account of the battle. For example, at 11:50, Ponomarov talks about how Russian vehicles bunched up right next to Mriya and were hit by artillery, which will certainly have damaged Mriya if it was not yet destroyed at that point (at the time of writing, there seems to be still a debate when and how Mriya got destroyed). His account also demonstrates a lack of mission awareness and initiative on part of the air assault troopers. Micge (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC) As to the videos veracity: Nikita Ponomarov was captured before March 6, 2022 as proven by this video uploaded on March 5and this (apparently older) video uploaded on March 6, 2022, which both show him wearing the typical markings worn by the VDV assaulting Hostmel, namely the Ribbon of Saint George down the outside of both arms from shoulder to sleeve and reflective silver tape around the left arm. On the interview itself, there is an older version of the video, proving that the Interview was made before April 2022 as it was uploaded on March 30, 2022 - sadly it does not come with subtitles and the channel uploading it does not seem very reputable. However, I found an early version with subtitles (also from a not very reputable source) that was uploaded April 1, 2022, which does links to the interviewer's (Volodymyr Zolkin) YouTube channel. On Volodymyr Zolkin's channel I could not find the video, but many similar ones with the same interviewer. All in all, it is certainly a propaganda video, but seems to be a genuine interview with a genuine captured soldier who really could have been there. If I where to speculate, from his description of the accident before his capture, I would not be too surprised if (one should ask him), which would place his capture at March 4, 2022 or earlier - but this is just an educated guess consistent with the timeline of the battle as described on Battle_of_Hostomel. -- Micge (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the lack of mission awareness and initiative are already covered in the article by non-primary (i.e., more reliable) sources. The info from the POW does not contribute anything really noteworthy for this specific battle article. In addition, even though eyewitness accounts are important for historians, Wikipedia tries to avoid primary sources, as it is difficult for Wikipedians to judge their quality and truthfullness. Applodion (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Should wait for better sources so we don't get it wrong. YouTube is unreliable, and interviewing a witness is WP:PRIMARY. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is WP:PRIMARY and YouTube is unreliable. Still, I thought the link to the video was worth preserving in a place were people researching the topic might find it (which might just be here on the discussion page). I will try to find the original version of the video, to provide that link as well. On a discussion page, the WP:RS is not as important IMHO, as people can judge the reliability of a source for themselves, as long as it is not obvious disinformation. As the interview paints the assault operation on the airport in less than glowing colours (and is thus not pro-Russian propaganda), the information on the artillery strike (presumably Ukrainian, as it seems to precise for accidental friendly fire - baring the unlikely case of misidentification by Russian artillery spotters) next to Mriya and the hangar getting hit (a detail a pro-Ukraininan propagandist should not want to invent) seems believable to me.

there's a typo
'Enteprise', should be 'Enterprise' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memyself23 (talk • contribs)


 * Fixed. Thanks for reporting. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Someone Updating this ... ? because since long was back to Ukraine
so this seems totally wrong :

Territorial changes	Russian capture of the Antonov Airport

well, if it still this the whole article, which gonna not read, because if still says it is with Russians, means all are unprecise. But it is common Wiki so, some editors and administrators only pay attention to bs guidelines as sources, rollback nonsense and warning allerts, blocks etc. but no to content, so happened to Antonov An-28 with info made precise from me, but now a s-h-i-t --188.96.90.63 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Read this, Template:Infobox military conflict. Under the parameter "territory" it says this, "any changes in territorial control as a result of the conflict; this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions of the peace settlement". Yes, it is now under Ukrainian control. But the Russian forces captured it as a result of the battle. Their withdrawal is stated in the aftermath section. The editors mentioned that in the revision history. But then again, as you have stated yourself, you didn't make the effort to look into this before you posted your rant. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has time to read a wall of text. The infobox really needs to be updated because it gives the impression the Russians are still in control of Antonov Airport. 119.74.177.38 (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The infobox is perfectly fine the way it is. The article's main topic is the 'Battle of Antonov Airport', which ended in a Russian victory and the Russian capture of the airport.  The withdrawal later in time does not have any effect on the territorial changes during the actual battle. It is modeled the same way the Battle of Bunker Hill infobox is.  The British captured the hills, and won the battle, but the British do not still control that area. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 119.74.177.38 ... for me this chart infobox is what see most in Wiki as well as the tables... for the big texts my attention is low ... For me as said is like Russians are still in Airport, but for now they are only far away in east 188.96.90.63 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC) In Kyiv Axis it is better written :

Territorial changes	Ukrainian forces regain control of the entire Kyiv Oblast

so for me, it should be so :

Territorial changes	Ukrainian forces regain control of the entire Antonov Hostomel Airport
 * It cannot say that, as that would be technically inaccurate. Here is the thing, the dates for the battle, and the article, are 24–25 February.  During those specific dates, Russia captured the airport.  Russia did not retreat for over a month later.  By saying even (later withdrawn), that would give the impression that Russia captured the airport and withdrew on the 25 February.  The infobox is accurate the way it is now. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So what's the point of "Result" in the infobox if readers are directed to read a wall of text? 220.255.241.198 (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The "point" is that, sometimes, things are not clear-cut. As explained, the results were very complicated, and a simple label such "X's victory" does not suffice. Wikipedia tries to portray stuff as factual as possible. If it is not possible to simplify information, we should not do it. Applodion (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Result
(copied from user talk page) You wrote: "several editors discussed this, and agreed that it was the best solution". Give me a link please. Oloddin (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See the article talk page, and a series of edit summaries by different editors, including these ones:, , , . Over some time, there was back-and-forth editing between "Russian victory", "Ukrainian victory", and just stating some facts (i.e. "Russian capture of the airport" + "Russian failure to secure the airport for an airbridge") until Elijahandskip proposed the current version which was generally accepted for about 4 months until you challegened it. I would also like to note that reliable sources generally describe the battle as a Russian failure (see the analysis section), so if you would want to your way and for the infobox to say "X victory", we would have to list it as "Ukrainian victory". Applodion (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any actual discussions in the talk page which resulted in having exactly this wording (i.e. consensus), that's why I asked you about this. So it looks like it was your personal decision to which nobody objected. When these edits were being made, it was the time of Russian withdrawal from the area, and it could create some mess of how to describe the outcome, so putting something neutral made sense just to prevent edit wars. But now it can be replaced by something more specific. To the point: as I understand, and according to the infobox documentation, the result parameter is for the immediate outcome, i.e. military outcome. And it should reflect what is related only to this particular area of military action. In this case airport was captured = Russian victory — for the infobox that's enough, especially for the battles. Everything else can be described in the article. What is written in the analysis section is more about the general Kyiv offensive and is not relevant that much to the outcome of the battle of the airport. In other words, Russians may have failed the Kyiv offensive, they may have failed a blitzkrieg, may have lost a lot of armory and were unable to advance further etc. but they still could have won this battle for the control of the airport. Even if made no sense for them, because the airfield was too small, it was under fire etc. But anyway, even if you still don't see it as a victory, what's the problem with the factual "Russia captures the airport"? It is pretty clear as a result and reflects what actually the battle resulted in. Finally, it can indeed be cited as "Ukrainian victory" if we agree to extend the end date of the battle up to early April (i.e. Russian withdrawal), by analogy to the other battles in the area (Hostomel, Bucha, Irpin). "Russian victory and subsequent withdrawal" can also be used.--Oloddin (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like you completely ignore the facts here. 1st of all, my proposal was the "Russian capture of the airport" + "Russian failure to secure the airport for an airbridge" version. The current version, as i said, was introduced by Elijahandskip; everyone considered this a good-working alternative. The immediate outcome of the initial two-day battle was, to quote a researcher, a "Russian Airborne Disaster", as the Russians completely failed to achieve any of their main objectives during the airport fighting. I kindly ask you to consult the sources which are fairly clear that this cannot be considered just a "Russian victory". Applodion (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read all my arguments and suggestions about this point? What "main objectives" did they fail to achieve? I should repeat: about the airport, not the general Kyiv offensive. Actually I have some doubts about how reliable this source for "airborne disaster" is. --Oloddin (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I read your entire argument; what I was trying to say (and I should have made that clearer) is that "Russian capture of the airport" as result was literally the version I had proposed four months ago. Yet my version was removed/changed, as other editors disagreed with it - which eventually led us to the status quo that was accepted by everyone but you. Regarding the "main objectives", just read the sources in the article - they clearly say that the Russians only attacked the airport to secure an airbridge and a staging ground for the attack on Kyiv (see for example here). What they captured - i.e. the remains of the aiport - was not or only barely useable for these aims. Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans outline this quite well. You do not have to repeat "about the airport, not the general Kyiv offensive", as the sources say that the initial battle was a Russian failure. Even if you ignore McGregor's take on the issue (even though he is reliable), the other sources say the same. Andreas Rüesch, Michael Shoebridge, Jonathan Eyal, and Severin Pleyer also described the initial fighting as a Russian failure. One can find more sources which do the same, such as this one. Sure, you can also find sources which call it a Russian victory based on the eventual capture of the location. Others, like Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans are more neutral in general, and note the successes on both sides. Yet that's the point I am trying to make - there was no easily listable result. "Russian capture of the airport" (my initial proposal which you also now suggested) also sounds like the Russians captured a functioning airport - but they did not, they could not land any planes there. Note that almost all sources - even McGregor who called this a "Russian Airborne Disaster" - avoid the terms "victory" and "defeat" when trying to describe the overall outcome of the initial two-day battle. Applodion (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see it, but it was you who reverted my recent changes and who wrote the FAQ. That's why I came to a conclusion that even if you proposed it that time, you're against it now. It's not that important now actually. This kind of wording in result is effectively refusal to put there anything. At that time it could make sense, but now we can try to find something more specific. Yes, of course, it was part of the Kyiv offensive, but this article is about the area of airport. Military engagements in other areas have their respective articles including the main article about offensive. As I see, all these sources say that it was a general ("strategic") failure not because Russians couldn't capture the airport at all or were repelled from the area, but rather because this capture didn't help them in Kyiv offensive and slowed it down. By "initial battle" as I understand the first day of the battle is meant. So the wording "victory" here doesn't contradict these sources, because infobox doesn't have to reflect all reservations and nuances. But OK, if to say about "Russia captures", why does it sound to you like it's about a "functioning airport"? It merely means it was captured and that's it. The nature of infoboxes in general, their purpose and the result parameter in particular imply that we shouldn't worry that it "doesn't tell all the story" — it shouldn't, this is what sections like "Aftermath" are for. --Oloddin (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Regarding "you're against it now", you have presumed correctly. Though it has to be said that the idea about writing the FAQ was not mine - I was asked to do it - I indeed support the current version as superior to the alternatives. About "initial battle": Both the first day with the paratrooper defeat, and the second day with the Russian capture of the airport are meant. By the time Russian troops secured the airport, it had become strategically largely worthless - Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans explain this is detail. Anyway, I understand your frustration, and your arguments are not wrong. Yet I must persist with my position: Why should we try to simplify the infobox result if even reliable sources struggle to define it as "X victory"? And why should we use "Russian capture" as result if we already list it under "territorial changes"? Applodion (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because these sources analyze the results in the much wider context of operations in Kyiv Oblast (I just assume good faith that there is no politics here). I think this is why the infobox doc says about the immediate result, because otherwise it will be hard to determine the result in the majority of battles where a situation can be very dynamic. This is why we don't need to put anything complex. If you don't like the word "victory", it can be just statement of the fact — they captured the area. This seems to be uncontroversial. It can also be combined with "see "Aftermath" as infobox doc example shows. This was actually one of my suggestions — if we can safely say that capture is a fact, we can put is as a result. Oloddin (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummh, Oloddin, as I said above the authors I listed are specifically talking about this one battle. Yes, the fighting had a wider strategic impact, but they also say that the direct combat for two days at the airport was in many ways a Russian failure. Not only in the context of the wider Kyiv offensive. In the context of only the airport itself. Applodion (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you specify these "many ways" in the context of the airport itself if they eventually captured it? Oloddin (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did. Russia wanted to capture a functioning airport with a quick air assault. Its initial landing force was destroyed, and the airport was no longer functioning. To illustrate what I mean, I will use a parable: Let's say someone goes into a mall to buy an apple. The person really, really wants an apple. Instead, the mall sells them a rock. This is a failure even in just the context of the acquisition, as the individual did not get what they wanted or paid for (the tactial part, so to say). They got something, but not what they needed. The fact that they cannot eat a rock and could potentially starve (the strategic, wider part) is not even included here. In the end, though, it does not matter what we think. The sources are rather clear that this battle cannot be simply called "X victory", thus we do not do it either. The capture is already mentioned in the infobox, so we do not have to move it somewhere else. The simple fact is that the current version is completely neutral and does not unnecessarily simply or mislead. When we eventually get major studies and books on the topic, we might be able to change it to a definitive result. Currently, however, the "See analysis and aftermath" version is the best medium to showcase a reader the complexity of the issue.Applodion (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't tell a reader anything about how the battle ended. So I don't understand the reluctance of moving "capture" it to the result section to tell that it's the result. Again, it's rather specific and uncontroversial. And more informative. The infobox doesn't have to "show the complexity", its purpose is to summarize key information. Oloddin (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is that including a concrete result gives the wrong impression. As I mentioned above, saying that the Russians captured the airport would sound - for the casual reader - as if they succeeded in their plan to capture the airport intact. Yet saying something like "Russian capture of unusable airport" would also be problematic, as the Russians did use the airport (as a storage facility). As far as I am concerned, adding an initially uncontroversial statement such as "capture" leads into a spiral of controversy about conditions, context, aims, and other stuff. Is it frustrating to not list a proper result in the infobox? Yes. However, life is often frustrating, and when simplification might lead to misrepresentation, we should not try to simplify. Applodion (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain me this logic by which "Russia captures the airport" transforms into "Russia captures the airport intact"? And I don't understand how it can mislead if the infobox by definition should contain only basic information, so it actually implies that details are in the article. By the way, having them both "Russia captures (see "Aftermath")" is also acceptable. Oloddin (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely sorry that we reached an impasse here, but I explained this already, like, four times. If you want to get this changed, open a discussion on the article's talk page. We are not getting anywhere here. I will copy this conversation to the article talk page as well. Applodion (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO, unless my last comments suddenly convinced you of my position, we have probably reached a dead end. I propose that you raise this issue on the article's talk page, and ping the editors who were most involved in the editing process or even start an RfC. With a larger group, a proper consensus can be determined. Applodion (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to summarize and/or should we extend the scope of the article to include March events (up to and including Russian withdrawal)?

You may also ping other users who are involved in editing similar articles (Battle of Hostomel for example).--Oloddin (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , the scope of the article should not be expanded. I helped write the FAQ which is linked in the top part of this talk page which explains why the scope should not be expanded. To summarize it here, this article only covers the "Battle of Antonov Airport", which lasted 2 days, ending on February 25, 2022. The Aftermath section already links to parts of what happened during the Russian occupation & the evacuation/regrouping. Realistically, that section should probably be a lot smaller and the Russian occupation of Kyiv Oblast should be created, similar to the other occupational articles (ie. Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast or Russian occupation of Sumy Oblast) to have that larger scope you are asking about. I had not really got around to creating the article yet, mostly because it would probably take some like RfC with how many articles and sections in articles would need to be changed for it. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It can go either direction really. But unlike Southern and Eastern Ukraine areas there were was no further development here.--Oloddin (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As per Elijahandskip, the subject of this article was the two-day battle at the end of February, after that there was no more fighting for the airport. Thus the scope of the article should not be expanded. The aftermath section already adequately in a neutral way expands on the results of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The template documentation is given voice through MOS:MIL. Its guidance is quite clear. The scope of the battle is 24-25 February, at the end of which, Russian forces had captured the airport and therefore, the immediate result was a Russian victory.  I do not see it would be reasonable to broaden the scope by about a month unless there is a clear consensus in good quality secondary sources.  However, the Russians failed to achieve their tactical objective.  The Russian attack lost both momentum and the initiative both at the level of the particular battle and the overall operation in this sector. This was a critical failure and ultimately lead to the withdrawal from the airport a month later - though this is outside the scope of the battle and the immediate result. There is certainly too much nuance to the result and consequently, the guidance is to direct readers to the appropriate section/s where this nuance is captured (eg See Analysis and Aftermath).  Since the immediate result was a Russian victory (rather than inconclusive), the guidance would further indicate Russian victory: see Analysis and Aftermath except that Pleyer is paraphrased as stating: ... the battle as the worst defeat inflicted on the Russian Airborne Forces in recent history.  I would certainly be interested in reading this to confirm the context of the attributed statement and would appreciate if somebody might email me pages 8-15, which are the cited work.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I was the one who added Pleyer to the article, I can quote the original text: "Im Morgengrauen des 24. Februar näherten sich Hubschrauber der russischen Armee vom Typ Mi-8 MTV-5M mit Elite Fallschirmjägern des Kommandos VDV (Vozdushno-Desantniye Voyska) dem Flughafen Hostomel im Nordwesten von Kiew. Eskortiert wurden sie von einer Gruppe KA-52 'Hoskum'-Kampfhubschrauber. Diese sollten eine mögliche Gegenwehr der ukrainischen Streitkräfte bei der Landung unterbinden. Was wie eine Bilderbuch-Luftlandeaktion während einer Übung begann, wurde in nur wenigen Stunden die größte Niederlage der Elitetruppen der russischen Streitkräfte. [...]" Translated: "At dawn on February 24, Mi-8 MTV-5M helicopters of the Russian army with elite paratroopers of the VDV (Vozdushno-Desantniye Voyska) approached Hostomel airport in northwestern Kyiv. They were escorted by a group of KA-52 'Hoskum' attack helicopters. These were supposed to prevent possible resistance of the Ukrainian armed forces during the landing. What began as a picture-perfect airborne operation as if during an exercise, became, in just a few hours, the biggest defeat of the Russian Armed Forces' elite troops." Pleyer then gives some detail on the airport battle, before moving on to other clashes and the overall performance of the Russian military during the invasion, both in regards to capabilities as well as morals. (Update: I found an online source for the entire article, see here). Applodion (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , thankyou for that. Pleyer is referring to the first day of fighting and the defeat of the initial air assault force. I have added that detail to the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, so as I see, there is some agreement that the scope of the article should be limited only to February events. But the other question remains: how can the result be summarized into something more definite to reflect the immediate result?--Oloddin (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So if nobody would object within several days, I'll change the result parameter to "Russian victory (See Analysis and Aftermath)" per infobox template documentation and example. --Oloddin (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has agreed with your position. I still oppose it, anyway. Applodion (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PER WP:Consensus In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. So actually only positions based on the policies and guidelines matter. --Oloddin (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would highly recommend you do not change it without gaining a consensus. While you are correct that arguments like "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever, at the beginning of the discussion, I provided a reason that explains why it should remain how it is now. As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only editor actually arguing to change it, with myself and a few other editors providing reasons that are valid for consensus as to why it should remain the same and the scope of the article should not change. In fact, changing it without having a consensus agreement after starting a discussion to get the consensus would be disruptive editing, and honestly, would be more like a "I just don't like it" argument (through actions instead of words). If you would like to help outreach to more editors, you are free to start a Request For Comment (RFC), which is a 30-day long discussion and normally has an admin close. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already did it. About 'the only one arguing' — I'm actually a little surprised why there are so many editors who oppose it so fiercely and I really hope that it is not politically motivated, because the immediate result of the fighting in this particular area during these two days is clear. But if there's consensus from other people as well, OK... --Oloddin (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote basically a mini-essay explaining why calling this a Russian victory is wrong, and provided severals sources supporting my position. My opposition is based on the policies and guidelines. Applodion (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any source exactly for this: calling this a Russian victory is wrong? --Oloddin (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire Battle of Antonov Airport section is about that. One source is this one titled Russian Airborne Disaster at Hostomel Airport from a published military historian (the article is not published, but the author has military historical articles that have been academically published). Elijahandskip (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And... what? This article is only about the airport area...--Oloddin (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And that article is about the battle at the airport area… Elijahandskip (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

...--Oloddin (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

the georgians really fight in the battle of Hostomel??
I saw the statement of the georgian office about he run over several VDVs during the battle, but now i understand its a lie, according a saw on Twitter, in a profel called "Ghost of Mahomed", "Spliter" and "No one",never happened that particular fact. You should change it of try to confirm it. Other point i wanna talk, the VDV was really expelled on the first day of the operation, the 24 ?? Once again, I saw on various channels and profiles on Twitter and Telegram ( one called "Ghost of Magomed", who make a total line explaining the battle with photos and tweets) that they lost part of the base during the counterstrike made by ukrainian troops, the 4 Rapid Respond Force, not completely lost the airport and thats the reason the next day the russian reinforcement managed to take the entire control of the airport, with the help and support of this VDV trapped in the airport. Perla Perlini (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The complete recapture of the airport by Ukrainian forces on the battle's first day has been reported by multiple reliable sources. In regards to the Georgians, I will look into it and see if there were any fakes. Applodion (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but I have added another reference confirming their presence. Applodion (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on result of the battle
Can the immediate result of this battle be considered "Russian victory"? Oloddin (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per my detailed explanation from above. Applodion (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Though past discussions, which inspired the FAQ section linked at the top of the talk page. The infobox format was chosen to be similar to Battle of Bunker Hill. Why? Because in that battle, it was a British Victory, however, historians agree that tactically, it was a British defeat. Similar situation with this battle.  Russia did win the battle, however, analysts and historians seem to agree it was a tactical Russian defeat. The FAQ and style was picked months ago, which stopped numerous edit wars, especially since we do have a situation (battle) that has almost duplicate results to model the infobox format off of. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Russian victory (See Analysis and Aftermath) Within the scope of the article, the Russians did capture the airport, even if it was a disaster and they withdrew sometime later, (which is outside the scope of the immediate result). While it is a Russian victory, there is also nuance to this such that See Analysis and Aftermath is necessary to indicate that nuance exists - ie it is a qualified victory.  This "result" appears to be most consistent with the guidance at MOS:MIL and the template documentation. While I can live with See Analysis and Aftermath, it tends to conceal that the airfield was capture and held as the immediate result. Just saying See Analysis and Aftermath might be considered a salve to Ukrainian national pride.  Alternatively, we could just omit the result parameter, which is also consistent with the guidance - particularly if we can't reach a consensus on what the result is (as indicated by a consensus of sources and not resorting to WP:OR).  I believe that omitting the result is preferable to See Analysis and Aftermath.  From what I can see, the Russian withdrawal is the significant argument being forwarded by editors to support the present "result" even though it is well outside the scope of the immediate result. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * PS - see my late comment added at the end of this thread. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As I see, not the withdrawal itself, but rather the perceived fact that the capture of the area didn't help them in further advances. Oloddin (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just so. Applodion (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: The capture of the airport is covered directly below the "result" parameter as part of the "Territorial changes". Applodion (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which makes referral to A and A sections largely unnecessary. Oloddin (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of debate. The "Territorial changes" section covers only territorial changes; here it matters not what kind of land is conquered - even if someone captures a pile of rocks in a barren field it is a territorial change. However, if an attacker uses great resources to conquer an area which the attacker then cannot use properly, is it really a victory? In essence, that is the core issue here. Applodion (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just meant that readers who come to the article merely for "how this battle finished?" (the main purpose of these two parameters in the infobox) will still get the answer there. About "is it really a victory?" — in terms of territorial control, yes, like Donetsk Airport or Azovstal.--Oloddin (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think the Battle of Bunker Hill infobox should be changed as well as this infobox was modeled directly from it? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I briefly read, I wouldn't say "should be changed", but if somebody will put there "British victory" or "British pyrrhic victory", I personally won't object, since it's already stated in the preamble. But this may be a completely different story, so let's not discuss it here.Oloddin (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While it may be a different battle/story, this battles infobox was directly modeled after that battle as the results were practically the same. Changing one could mean changing the other, which is highly unlikely as in fact, when this battle's infobox was switched to model Bunker Hill's infobox layout/format, it stopped edit wars. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As I told, I don't mind if your battle will have "British victory". And of course, changing the result to "see X" will stop any edit wars — because it doesn't give any information, as if there is no parameter or template at all. Universal solution for all disagreements.Smile.png --Oloddin (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Which sources cited in the article say “Russian victory” or “qualified Russian victory”? If they don’t say so, then that is WP:original research, or perhaps an unfounded opinion. —Michael Z. 20:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of, if not all, sources I saw describe this engagement only in the context of Kyiv offensive. Oloddin (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The “Analysis” section says nothing but “disaster,” “failure,” and “failed.” How is the unfounded refusal to plainly label it a defeat not “a salve to Russian national pride”? —Michael Z. 21:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Late Comment The prevailing guidance is the template documentation given voice by MOS:MIL. As far as I can see, both sides in this discussion acknowledge this guidance, that the result is the "immediate outcome" and that this is the end of the day on 25 February - as defined by the scope of the article and reported in the infobox. However, there are not necessarily two distinct sides. To this extent, the RfC is poorly formed since it poses what is essentially made as a binary question (and will ostensibly elicit responses accordingly) when there are at least one or two intermediate alternatives between Russian victory and the status quo.
 * The guidance would clearly define victory in terms of who won. Traditionally (and unless somebody actually surrenders) this is who holds the field at the end of the day or who has forced the other from the field. The guidance does not refer to sucess or failure in achieving operational objectives but this is the primary argument for not describing this as a Russian victory to any extent - yet there was a degree of success even if it is described as a "disaster". This is not an unqualified success or victory - it is indeed highly qualified.  It might be described as a hollow or pyrrhic victory but the guidance does not permit such qualifications.  This is where the proposition of the RfC fails since it is clearly not an unqualified victory or success.  The question is then how best to describe a qualified victory or success.  In the first instance (per the guidance), this is to add a see section.  The arguments to oppose the proposition of the RfC address why this should not be described as an unqualified Russian victory (to which I agree) but do not address this or the other alternatives. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you said aside of your last sentence. As far as I can see, opponents of the RfC proposition do "address this or the other alternatives", namely by arguing that we should just leave the current "see section" result. Instead of choosing an extremely simplified "victory" or "defeat", the current version instead directs the reader to actual experts discussing the results in depth. Applodion (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I would think there is consensus that this cannot be reported as an unqualified Russian victory. We at least, would agree. The guidance would state that Russian victory (see section) is an acceptable qualification. Another option is to omit the result parameter. My question would be, why the status quo should prevail over these two other valid options? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Re "My question would be, why the status quo should prevail over these two other valid options?" - because the other options are, as by your own arguments above, factually incorrect? At least that's what I and other editors try to say here: The sources do not support either "Russian victory" or "Ukrainian victory", while "Russian capture of X" is already covered under territorial changes and could lead to various misunderstandings if listed as part of the "result" parameter. Applodion (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * RfC by definition is for short questions and it discourages questions with multiple-options answers. But nevertheless it actually included the word "immediate". The case here is indeed rather complex, so I don't think many editors here would be against adding "see X" (maybe leaving only "aftermath" section). Anyway, the summary of this RfC may include all arguments that were brought here and all possible options. Oloddin (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No Result of the battle was decidedly mixed. Russia took the terrain, at least in the short term, but was not able to use the airport to capture Kiev, which they appear to have hoped to do. If anything, that's a Ukrainian success, but I wouldn't characterize it that way in the info-box either. It's just too complicated to summarize one way or the other in that format. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t see any sources say “mixed,” either. “Analysis” section says failed, failed, failed. —Michael Z. 20:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It is one of a family of battles where Side A won the immediate encounter, yet the result for side B was arguably better than might have been expected, and the battle was part of a series of events that led to disaster for side A, and this outcome was arguably a consequence of the battle. Examples include the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Alamo, the Siege of Sevastopol (1941–1942), and the Dunkirk evacuation. Correctly or not, Wikipedia describes the first three of these as victories for what I'm calling "side A" above. Like the other battles listed above, the actual encounter of the Antonov battle was won by the side that came to disaster, at least in part as a result of the battle. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Infobox military conflict template documentation says that result is for immediate result, which makes some sense because not so many battles end with 100% victory for one of the side if all factors are considered. Oloddin (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Immediate result was failure to secure a usable airport. —Michael Z. 14:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The state of the airport doesn't matter.Oloddin (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why did they conduct a risky airborne operation to seize an airport? For the view from the observation lounge? —Michael Z. 01:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Try "what if?". Military deception. Try to have special units in place to secure surrender etc... --Oloddin (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re just making that up. It’s not in the article, and not sourced. Sources say it was a failure, not victory. Don’t waste our time. —Michael Z. 18:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked me "For the view from the observation lounge", and I replied. Don't tell me what to do — you are free to stop answering here at any moment if you don't like. Sorry me, I once again forgot about pro-Western bias. --Oloddin (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Except this is WP:NOTFORUM. If you don’t have a suggestion to improve the article that’s consistent with the guidelines, then it doesn’t belong here.
 * I have no idea what point you’re trying to make about bias. —Michael Z. 04:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So don't ask distracting questions then. Nobody knows what was the real purpose of this offensive, including sources in "analysis" section; only speculations. --Oloddin (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to support Michael in this regard. While we might not completely know the Russian strategy, some things do not require speculation to know. A rapid airborne operation clearly aims at quickly securing a target, otherwise one would not need the speed and surprise of an airborne operation. Applodion (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Which cited sources say “A won”? —Michael Z. 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No  Are you kidding?! The operation’s objective was to capture and secure the airport in time and in suitable condition to exploit for the quick capture of Kyiv. It failed to achieve its objective because Ukrainian forces prevented Russian victory. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at the article’s “Analysis” section:
 * “‘Russian Airborne Disaster’”
 * “Russian intelligence had failed”
 * “the initial landing force was too small”
 * “the Russian military was unable to secure air transport for reinforcements as well as prevent Ukrainian counter-attacks”
 * “the failure to take Antonov Airport . . . ended Russia's chance to bring the conflict to swift conclusion”
 * “‘possibly prevent[ed] a rapid capture’ of Kyiv by Russia”
 * “this operation failed”
 * “the initial Russian failure to take the airport as "a turning point" in the war”
 * “the operation failed”
 * “‘broke the back of the Russian assault on Kyiv’”
 * “showcased the Russian military's general failures”
 * “highlighted that the Russian battalion tactical groups are ill-suited for warfare”
 * “disproved the myth of the extreme capabilities and near-invincibility of the Russian Airborne Forces”
 * “the worst defeat inflicted on the Russian Airborne Forces in recent history”
 * I don’t see a whiff of “victory” in there, not with all the qualifications in the world. In fact, it clearly, unambiguously ought to classified a “Russian defeat,” or rather “Ukrainian victory.” Because the sources literally say Russian forces failed. —Michael Z. 20:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All parties seem to agree that Russians had military success in capturing the airport. All these sources are western, and while they may be appropriate in the analysis section, they're not enough for determining the result of this particular battle. It were mainly Americans who claimed that Kyiv would be captured within several days, both before the war:  and in the first days of the war:  , and Russians later denied that they had any plans to capture Kyiv. Maybe it's propaganda, but who really knows? So whether the "blitzkrieg" strategy actually existed as a military plan is disputed. Regardless, winning this battle and losing the whole Kyiv offensive is also possible. Oloddin (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "All parties seem to agree that Russians had military success in capturing the airport" - No, they really don't. As I pointed out, the sources are quite clear on the fact that the actual aim of the operation failed. It is also irrelevant that the Russians denied trying to capture Kyiv, because we have literal evidence that the Russian sent several transport plans worth of airborne reinforcements to the airport during the battle which could not land due to the fighting. They tried really hard to take the airport intact -for whatever reason-, but couldn't do it. When they finally captured it, they couldn't use it for anything and were just endlessly shelled until retreating. Even if they wanted to take the airport for another reason than the capture of Kyiv (which is extremely unlikely), they couldn't achieve that plan either. I have to emphasize this; the airport proved to be basically worthless to them, showcased by the fact that the only thing they tried to do with it after the capture - using it as a depot - was also a failure. I also want to point that this entire dispute mainly stems from differing understandings of what a "victory" is. I respect your opinion, Oloddin, but I disagree with your view of victories/defeats. Applodion (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant solely that they eventually captured it. they couldn't use it for anything and were just endlessly shelled until retreating No, they continued their advances and captured several cities after capturing the "useless" airport. Also, the article is about the battle rather than the operation. Oloddin (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Their advance in Hostomel was mostly stopped after the airport battle; they were never able to secure this city. If the airport had worked as intended, they could have quickly secured the area. In this specific zone, they were indeed fought to a standstill, and then shelled until their retreat. Yet as I said, even if you completely ignore the Russian failure to capture Hostomel city, the capture of Hostomel airport provided them with nothing of worth. Applodion (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sake of truth, the main article says they captured the city. About worth, this is disputable: if one side controls the area, another side doesn't. And this is why I emphasized that this is a battle rather than an operation. --Oloddin (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I said "they were never able to secure this city", not "capture"; the resistance in the town did not end when the Russians claimed its capture, and there were only about three days when no regular Ukrainian troops were present in Hostomel. Applodion (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say “the Russians” without citing a source, I believe you are referring to political statements by the side that was defeated in the Kyiv offensive, and not by reliable secondary sources. So your logical argument is based on false premises, settling on a false balance between apples and oranges.
 * Anyway, I’m not referring to the larger offensive. I’m referring to the immediate result, which was a complete failure to secure a usable runway quickly, or at all. The objective wasn’t to occupy some hundred acres of land, it was to secure a usable airport.
 * All parties seem to agree. What? Which “parties”? Why are they not used in this article? Again, all sources cited in the “Analysis” section say failure, not victory. —Michael Z. 14:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that some users referred to that section doesn't make all sources that are present there appropriate for determining the result. Actually, even these analysts claim "failure" not because of the state of the airport, but mainly, if not only, because "Russians didn't capture it within hours", which, in turn, is based on the "political statements" from the other side (as I presented above). But if to avoid speculations, the mere facts are that 1. Airport was captured. 2. Airport was controlled for the whole period of Kyiv offensive. 3. Russians withdrew from the airport voluntarily (were not forced to go away). P.S. The Russian leader's initial aim was to overrun Ukraine and depose its government, ending for good its desire to join the Western defensive alliance Nato, Since February 24, when Russia invaded Ukraine, its objectives have changed frequently.... Oloddin (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The result should come from sources, or it is WP:original research. Do any of them say “Russian victory”?
 * No, Russian forces were forced to withdraw from the Kyiv front under fire, because they lost the ability to advance or sustain. This article tells us that they had to withdraw hastily and lost and abandoned equipment at Hostomel, presumably that part wasn’t voluntary.
 * Your P.S. source 1 doesn’t seem to refer to this battle. Source 2 has mainly a broader perspective and glosses over this battle, but does allude to the Russian failure to achieve objectives at Hostomel: “. . . were to establish control over a key suburban airport in anticipation of reinforcements, which would ultimately break into the capital and depose the official government. However, these landing parties were unable to break into Kyiv and capture major transport routes to bring reinforcements.”
 * But, blah, blah. If sources don’t say Russian victory, we ain’t gonna say Russian victory. —Michael Z. 02:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Sources don't interpret the result of this battle outside of the broader perspective. 2. There was no counteroffensive, and a lot of sources refer to this action as "withdrawal". 3. Sources should be interpreted carefully and exact wording is not usually needed. Oloddin (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Sounds dubious, but it doesn’t matter, because if sources don’t call it a victory, then we don’t call it a victory. 2. Both your sources say the Kyiv offensive failed and was abandoned, but that seems immaterial. 3. Nothing in these or any other cited sources can be interpreted as “Russian victory.” —Michael Z. 18:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. It matters, because it can raise the question of merging it with the main article about offensive. 2. Yes, usually "withdrawal" counts as victory (though some disagree). 3. The fact of controlling the airport? Could they have achieved some success in cities nearby if the airport had been under Ukrainian control? --Oloddin (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "raise the question of merging it with the main article about offensive" - Now this is absurd. Just because a battle has no clear winner does not mean that it has to be merged into another article. Applodion (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did I say anything like that?--Oloddin (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understood it so. If I was mistaken in this regard, I retract my comment. Applodion (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here’s what’s supposed to go into the “result” field, according to the docs at Infobox military conflict:
 * result – optional – 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.
 * Since all the sources cited in the “Analysis” section say this was a Russian failure, and none say it was a Russian victory, the field unambiguously should say “Ukrainian victory,” or “Ukrainian victory. See the Analysis section.” —Michael Z. 22:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The "result" parameter is not for analysis, it's for an outcome. And again, immediate outcome...Oloddin (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand what the first sentence means. Sources all agree that the outcome of the subject conflict was Russian failure, in so many words. Sources do not say “Russian victory,” and they do not say “inconclusive.” “Immediate” here means not, say, the outcome of the larger Kyiv offensive (2022), which was also a Ukrainian victory. —Michael Z. 00:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case it means result as of 25 (26) February when this battle was finished. Oloddin (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources all say the Russians failed when the battle was finished. The article says the Russians failed. You’re just trying to play details lawyer to get us to reach our own conclusion that doesn’t agree with them. That is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. —Michael Z. 02:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ... Oloddin (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternative suggestion: "Airport occupied by the Russian forces." Thus the reader would understand the outcome immediately while the details can be explained in the body of the article. Alaexis¿question? 19:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally support this as the least controversial, but not the others here who claim it's already there under "Territorial changes".Oloddin (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s cherrypicking a detail, and preventing understanding the outcome, when every source says “Russian Airborne Disaster,” “worst defeat,” or equivalent. —Michael Z. 20:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * According to infobox purpose the purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts, so we shouldn't put all these analysis there.Oloddin (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the source that would say "worst defeat" is referring to the initial airborne assault and not the result at the end of the day (25 Feb). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the source (Loyal, May 2022)? —Michael Z. 19:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I quoted it above (see the "Result" discussion section), and Cinderella157 is right that "worst defeat" was used to describe the first day. The other sources are about both days, though. Applodion (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to it above. I disagree with your assessment. It appears to say that the attack became the worst defeat within hours (Google translation): “What began as a picture-perfect airborne operation during an exercise became, in just a few hours, the biggest defeat of the Russian armed forces' elite force.” It does not say only the first hours were a failure, it does not say that the rest of the operation was anything but a failure, in fact the second paragraph starts with “The attack on Hostomel is considered an example of one of the failed Russian operations in that war” and makes it clear that it was a failure, period. —Michael Z. 21:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This kind of text is not permitted by the infobox docs. See my quotation above. —Michael Z. 22:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * MILMOS is a guideline, and therefore: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."Oloddin (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do not see a reason to make an exception here, since sources agree. —Michael Z. 00:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Russian objective was not to capture the airport specifically, *it was to capture it intact, so it could be used to land troops*. The airport was destroyed, so they didn't capture it intact. It was a mission failure. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Destruction of Mriya
There is a video maybe from February 26 or early 27, taken with a phone from one of the airport buildings. In the parking lot next to the hangar there are dozens of active Russian vehicles and the hangar and the plane can be seen intact. The video was apparently taken after the arrival of the russian reinforcements and before the artillery attack that destroyed some vehicles and the plane, the result of which is seen in other video, vehicles and the plane aflame (the attack that a Russian prisoner recounts in an interview). I think it is one more example that the plane was destroyed by the Ukrainian artillery when attacking the Russian forces at the airport. Found it again, here,  and here  152.207.201.16 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, in the header image, the smoke in the distance IS NOT the An-225 on fire. the fire is a destroyed An-54 in the parking lot and some burning fuel tanks at the southern end of the runway, as can be seen in several videos and photos of the events. at that moment the plane is intact (as seen in the third image, taken a while after the one in the header, all coming from a video published by the russian MoD). the An-225 was destroyed late Feb 26 or early Feb 27 by a Ukrainian artillery attack on the russian vehicles and forces accumulated on the place, mostly under and between the hangars, as seen in several before and after videos, taken from drones and on the ground.152.207.201.43 (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)