Talk:Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024)

Shouldn't it be "pyrrhic victory"?
Considering the losses of Russian army and exhausted (for now) advancement potential, shouldn't be the result changed to a "pyrrhic victory" instead? 37.55.114.124 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * cope more
 * cope 2A02:E0:A50B:E900:2D5D:3657:43A3:85FE (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really, per longstanding Wikipedia policy not to add such adjectives to results. Also, I don't think there are RSs that call it that. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * per definition a Pyrrhic Victory is one that inflicts a toll onto the Victor which is tantamount to defeat which clearly is not the case here. The Russians can and still are conducting offensive operations and the Ukrainians are still on the defensive, there was no real change except that Avdiivka has now been taken and the frontline moved. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Its ukraine, not russia getting attrited according to mainstream sources
 * “One of the key events from 2023 was that Russia was able to recruit a large number of volunteers,” said Rob Lee, a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, which is based in Philadelphia. :“The flip side is that this is happening right as Ukraine is facing mobilization problems.”
 * "Ukrainian leaders responded to the gathering pressure by rushing in a medley of special units and the Third Separate Assault Brigade, an experienced infantry unit with a far-right heritage, to plug the gap and eventually help the retreat. A soldier with the brigade said they had been taken off the front line around the eastern city of Bakhmut in recent months and had only a short time to recuperate before being sent to Avdiivka as firefighters."
 * "The exhausting of one of Ukraine’s best units during a time of crisis, military analysts said, points to a growing problem in Ukrainian ranks: There are simply not enough troops to go around on the front."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/world/europe/ukraine-russia-strategy-avdiivka.html
 * The idea that the side dropping dozens of FABS with 5x the artillery is getting attrited faster than the smaller force that isnt is absurd. Do ukrainais seriously believe their killing 10x the russians for every Ukranian KIA? How? With drones and snipers? Russia has more of those than Ukraine too.


 * I am getting pretty annoyed that every Russian victory is being claimed as "Pyrrhic". I agree with the anons here. This is pure cope. The reality is that the Russians still have the tempo and are currently assaulting Robotyne right now. Speaking of Robotyne. You know what actually counts as a Pyyrhic victory? Ukraine 'claiming' the small village of Robotyne during the Ukrainian Counteroffensive. Because Ukraine wasted the majority of its remaining elite forces, armoured columns and ammunition to capture a tiny, irrelevant village that so happens to be a salient surrounded by Russian forces on the high ground on all sides. And now? They are losing the only 'victory' they had during the Counteroffensive after losing their most fortified city in the entirety of Ukraine. That is Pyrrhic. 42Grunt (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow that actually makes a lot of sense now that you are laying it out like this, you could add it Here if there are sources agreeing. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats some premium copium right here, Theres simply nothing left of Avdiivka, Russia spent decade trying to capture it and wasted thousands of cannon fodder for a piece of rubble, if that's not pyrrhic victory then I don't know what it is. 128.124.140.40 (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cope Mordanist (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Heavy Cope there my guy BarakHussan (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Lol 77.46.212.180 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Image
Given the change of article scope, the top image probably neds to be changed, given that it is from May. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Per anonymous Russian military source"
Such references have no place in Wikipedia: all information must come from verifiable reliable sources. I am surprized editors who edit such sensitive areas do not know this most basic rule of Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 16:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Navbox position
Nobody will notice the navbox at the very bottom, because nobody will scroll down the enormous list of references (including myself :-). Therefore I placed it under the "See also", which is a natural position: the navbox is the list of pages to "see also". - Altenmann >talk 16:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX - place at bottom of article after other standard article appendices (see also MOS:LAYOUT). Also, your edit left two navboxes in the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

= Discussion on the usage of white phosphorus =

I would change the following description of the second picture in the article from:

Avdiivka's School No. 1 shelled by white phosphorus munitions.

to:

Avdiivka's School No. 1 destroyed by artillery fire including incendiary munitions.

It is not confirmed, that russia used WP munitions. Imagery of shells airbursting clearly depict 9M22S Grad shells beeing used. Zootier (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024
This answer uses the same source to state what Ukraine states are Russian losses repeatedly. No estimate of Ukrainain losses is provided, only a discussion of if there were POWs? Then it skips right to alleging war crimes? Obviously there were substantial losses for Ukraine, likely higher than for Russia, as Russia had encircled the city, and Ukraine lost a bunch of armor to relieve them. If we dont have an accurate count of casualties, then just say, it was very costly for both sides. These constant statements that Russia is looking thousands of troops every day while Ukraine is not losing any is silly. We know from the Donbas war, where the AFU fought irregular guerillas, the casualty rates were about the same for both sides. Then we have Zelensky saying that: 'The ratio of Ukrainian and Russian military personnel losses at this stage of the war is one to six, President Volodymyr Zelensky said on June 30 in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer. "Indeed, they (Russian forces) have much more people, and indeed we care for our people more. We will not have more people than Russia (on the battlefield)," Zelensky said. Zelensky added that the ratio was one to four earlier, but now it is six to one, considering the situation in the directions of the cities of Pokrovsk and Kharkiv. Russia has lost over 540,000 troops in Ukraine since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, according to Ukraine's General Staff. This number includes both killed and injured.' That would suggest that Ukraine's KIA, MIA, injuries were only 90,000? However, in 2021, 'Initially, the known number of Ukrainian military casualties varied widely due to the Ukrainian Army drastically understating its casualties,[16] as reported by medics, activists and soldiers on the ground, as well as at least one lawmaker.[16][17][18][19] Several medical officials reported they were overstretched due to the drastic number of casualties.[16] Eventually, the Ukrainian Defence Ministry stated that the numbers recorded by the National Museum of Military History were the official ones, although still incomplete,[20] with 4,638 deaths (4,500 identified and 138 unidentified) cataloged by 1 December 2021.[9][10]' So we really don't have any idea how many died for Ukraine in that war, only that the Govt of Ukraine has failed to provide proper statistics since at least 2014. 207.148.176.87 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)