Talk:Battle of Hostomel

Result in infobox
, you have reverted my edit that removed multiple dot-points from the result parameter of the infobox. Per the infobox documentation, the result parameter is for "who won" (see also MOS:MIL) and not for multiple dot-points. This is also contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - that we don't write the article in the infobox. The place for such nuanced detail is in the prose of the lead section. It is not. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It was the agreed-to wording as a result of an earlier editor dispute due to the Russians being de-facto in full control of the town for more than three weeks with fighting shifting outside of the town during that period. And, eventually, the battle concluded with the Russians simply withdrawing without further fighting, contrary to being pushed out as a result of the fighting. But if you insist on your wording I won't argue further. EkoGraf (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * HI, I appreciate your response. While I don't dispute what you say at all, the dispute you refer to is not recorded on this TP.  Having said that, the edit is contrary to the guidance.  Cheers, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Guidelines are to summarize the key facts, and the key fact is the town was under Russian control for more than three weeks. Thus I think at least this still needs to be mentioned in the infobox. But, like I said, not going to push it further at this time. EkoGraf (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The result parameter is for who won. Neither the result parameter per MOS:MIL nor the infobox mor generally per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (don't write the article in the infobox) is a place for nuance such as this. The place for nuance is the lead (if at all). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New footage of russian soldiers shooting civilians in Hostomel. Worth mentioning in the article?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/28/ukraine-charges-russian-soldiers-alleged-to-have-shot-at-civilian-cars https://www.facebook.com/kyiv.gp.gov.ua/videos/415253133892434/?t=297 220.255.241.198 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary clutter
Hi Beyond My Ken, why do you want to retain this information? It strikes me as unsuitable for the lead, and it's not in the body of the article text. Also, you seem to be implying that the Hostomel operation was intended to overthrow the government, even though the government doesn't sit there. Stara Marusya (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Casualties
Please add casualties https://www.bbc.com/russian/extra/zub490ht8o/russian-deaths-in-ukraine : ''Например, только за три дня штурма аэропорта Гостомель под Киевом Россия потеряла убитыми по меньшей мере 125 десантников. Реальное число погибших в эти дни может быть выше, поскольку мы опираемся только на открытые источники информации.  For example, in just three days of storming the Gostomel airport near Kyiv, Russia lost at least 125 paratroopers killed. The real death toll these days may be higher, since we rely only on open sources of information.'' Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2023 (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) 22:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Battle of Hostomel, 04.03.2021, Skirmish Aftermath (cropped).jpg

Title

 * I don't particularly care whether we capitalize the "battle" in the lead, but I'd like to point that just about every other WP article on battles has it capitalized, e.g. see WW2 battles, including the Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Battle of Stalingrad or Battle of Berlin. -- Mindaur (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:MILTERMS and the overarching guidance of MOS:CAPS, we only cap if consistently done in sources. For most significant battles, this is the case but not for all battles written about on WP. Article titles are written in sentence case. Unfortunately, many editors unconsciously translate this to title case in prose - ie without consciously considering what is the appropriate capitalisation per the MOS.

Result in infobox 2
The last paragraph of the lead details the Russian strategic intent and the "result", with three sources. To paraphrase the lead and the sources cited therein, the Russians planned a rapid advance from Hostomel on Kyiv to decapitate the Ukranian government and achieve a quick result to the invasion. Russian forces captured the airport and controlled at least most of the town but were unable to rapidly advance on Kyiv (see article). When apparent that they could not achieve their operational objective, the Russian forces withdrew. Ref 9 describes this as a "key moment" and "a decisive event in the war" but the battle of Hostomel is not called a Ukranian victory. There is nuance to what happened here. If one interprets this as meaning "Ukrainian victory", then that is WP:OR.

MOS:MIL gives voice to the documentation at Template:Infobox military conflict with respect to the result parameter. Where there is nuance to the result, we are advised to refer the reader to an appropriate section (eg see Aftermath section) but in this case, there is no such section. It occurs in the lead. The documentation also tells us Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. The infobox is a supplement to the lead. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article and an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored.

Accordingly, I deleted "Ukrainian victory" from the infobox here with the edit summary: This is not so much a Ukraine victory as a Russian operational failure in which they chose to withdraw. Per MOS:MIL, this is a case when it would be most appropriate to use the "See Aftermath" option but there is no aftermath section (or similar). Instead, this is explained in the lead. That surfices.

reinstated "Ukrainian victory" here with the edit summary: The result of the battle very much fits the definition of a victory. RU were forced to withdraw: they took heavy losses and their position was precarious. "Victory" isn't just a full destruction or capture of the opponent. It's consistent with MOS:MIL and we should primarily omit the result if the battle was inconclusive. This battle was more than conclusive: it was decisive.

The justification given in the edit summary is analysis and WP:OR. The claim of a Ukrainian victory is not explicitly supported by either the article or the sources cited in the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you are following some strangely restrictive and narrow interpretation. A few points:
 * There are other WP:RS which describe the battle as a victory (or defeat of the Russian forces), using the word itself, e.g..
 * It doesn't matter that didn't use the word "victory". It describes and explains the battle as victory (as other sources do). This particular source provided the details of the battle, discussing military interesting and significant aspects. It wasn't written to just state the obvious.
 * It doesn't matter whether the victory was achieved by physical destruction of the opponent or by forcing the opponent to withdraw. It's a technicality. The purpose of MOS:MIL note is to make sure that the reader is not mislead if battle outcome is disputed, inconclusive or there are other major implications affecting the military outcome (e.g. see Suez Crisis where military victory was diminished by the political outcome). In this case, the outcome of the battle is unequivocally in favour of Ukrainians; it's what WP:RS write about and it's not WP:OR to summarize it as such. The very fact that multiple WP:RS describe it as "decisive" or having strategic implications suggests that the outcome is the opposite of "inconclusive", which is what the MOS:MIL warns us about.
 * Mindaur (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * MOS:MIL, which gives voice to the documentation at Template:Infobox military conflict is meant to be narrowly construed. We are specifically warned not to engage in WP:OR (synth or analysis). It is not up to us to determine if this meets the definition of victory since that is WP:OR but rely on what (good quality) independent reliable sources have to say. Futhermore, we should not conflate the outcome at Hostomel with the outcome of the Kyiv offensive.  The sources cited in the article might support an analysis of the result but do not explicitly support a claim of a Ukrainian victory. Of the two additional sources you added, [the first does have the headline: The battle of Hostomel: How Ukraine’s unlikely victory changed the course of the war but the article itself tends to be written more generally about the Kyiv offensive when it elsewhere refers to a Ukrainian victory. However, it is not cited in the article.  All of the sources mentioned fall to [[WP:NEWSORG]]: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. A claim of who won is opinionand might carry some weight if attributed to a military analyst of note but the first additional source is attributed to Ashleigh Stewart who is described as An investigative journalist by trade, Ashleigh is particularly interested in stories about mental health, inequality and underrepresented communities.  So far, I am seeing an argument in justification that fall to WP:OR.  It is much better to simply report the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to complain that the military analysts didn't spell the word "victory" or "defeat" for you. Well, it's a bit early for the military history books to be written, but it doesn't mean we can't summarize based on the substance of the existing sources (which are unequivocal that the Russian forces failed in their plan and were eventually forced to withdraw as the Ukrainian artillery began to pound them). IMO, we are getting into the WP:PEDANTRY here. Let me put it this way: do you see any WP:RS contradicting the view that the battle was a Ukrainian victory (or Russian defeat -- it's the same thing)? Or that the battle was inconclusive?
 * Anyway, feel free to ask for a third opinion. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a distinction needs to be made between the tactical and strategic levels (on the operational level it was indecisive, i.e. failure to fully achieve objectives, and let's not confuse lay readers who don't even know what that is).
 * (thought this was about the Battle of Hostomel Airport, nvmd) Strategically, it was a decisive Ukrainian victory. Tactically, it was a Pyrrhic Russian victory.
 * Should be pretty simple to formulate a detailed "results" field along the usual lines. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no such distinction. Sources say it was a Russian defeat. They do not say it was a Russian victory of any sort, not on any level. Please don’t misrepresent your unsupported and unsupportable opinions as facts. —Michael Z. 14:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , the template documentation is very specific in limiting the responses permitted in the results parameter and is given voice by MOS:MIL. Formulating a a detailed "results" field is quite contrary to the guidance. If there is nuance to the result, which is what I see and how I understand your observations, then we are instructed to direct the reader to a section of the article where the result is discussed and nuance explained. However, in this case, there is no section save the lead. We are also told that it is quite reasonable to omit the result from the infobox. As there is no section we can refer the reader to, in my view, omitting the result would appear to be the best alternative consistent with WP:P&G. That way, our readers are presented with the information from the sources and can reach their own conclusions rather than being fed information that is WP:ANALYSIS or a particular POV. We need to be cautious that we only record history and are not writing it. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh crap, that's embarrassing. I mixed up Battle of Hostomel with Battle of Hostomel Airport. @Cinderella157 @Mzajac Anything I said about that applies only to Antonov Airport, obviously. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Notifications requesting input have been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a Ukrainian victory/Russian defeat, the RSs say that or words to that effect, stop messing around on this. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The Russian immediate objective was to seize the airfield and use it for landings. Failed. Ukrainian victory. —Michael Z. 13:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Plokhy 2023 outlines the Russian objectives of the battle, on the immediate tactical level, and on the operational and strategic, and states that they failed :
 * 159–61:
 * The Russian military command planned to seize the airport with the help of a relatively small detachment of airborne troops and special forces. That would allow a much larger paratroop force to land in the vicinity of Kyiv, capture the city’s bridges across the Dnieper River, and limit the ability of Ukrainian armed forces to maneuver and move units through the Kyiv transportation hub. The rumored operation to capture or kill president Zelensky was also to be conducted from there. Chechen fighters loyal to the Russia-backed strongman Ramzan Kadyrov would later be dispatched to Hostomel by land, allegedly to carry out that task. . ..
 * For the Russians, things did not go according to plan. They managed to hold the airport, but Ukrainian artillery fire aimed at the airstrip made it impossible for heavy transport airplanes to land there. Ukrainian paratroopers of the 95th Brigade moved in with their own helicopters, and soldiers of the 72nd Motorized Brigade, the main military unit defending the capital, would contest Russian control over Hostomel for days to come. Their efforts saved the Ukrainian capital from a surprise attack, and Zelensky and his government from possible captivity, if not death. The offensive against Kyiv was stalled as Ukrainian armed forces destroyed the dam on the Irpin River, cutting off the Russian troops in Hostomel from Kyiv. Hostomel and its airport became the site of the first and longest is battle to to be fought during the initial stage of the war, which would last into April.
 * 162:
 * According to later reports, the Russian intelligence services had been working on a military coup against the Ukrainian government, but its participants allegedly refuse to act once the Russian attempt at a quick takeover of Hostomel failed.
 * The notion that they didn’t fail in their immediate objective because they remained in a particular location for a month is nonsense. They didn’t allow air landings to assault Kyiv. When mechanized forces reached the area by land, they still didn’t allow air landings to contribute to the larger battle. They achieved nothing of value. They continued to fail to achieve their objective for a month while it became meaningless, then they were driven away. Making the roll call doesn’t give you a pass. —Michael Z. 22:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See above re: tactical versus strategic definitions of victory. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which sources say this was a Russian tactical, operational, or strategic victory? Is it none of them? —Michael Z. 14:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , the problem with this analysis in justification is just that - it is WP:ANALYSIS. One should also recognise that the Battle of Antonov Airport preceded the battle of Hostomel and that the Kyiv offensive did not consist of just these two battles. The Kyiv offensive was an operational failure for Russia and their initial plan failed when they failed to quickly secure the airport - but then, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. The articles define their individual scope and the result should be consistent with and confined to that scope. The template documentation instructs us to consider and report the immediate result.
 * [T]hey still didn’t allow air landings to contribute to the larger battle - but there was a land bridge established? [T]hen they were driven away. This might be good reason to conclude a Ukrainian victory except it is not supported by the article. This article tells us that the Russian intention to withdraw from Kyiv and Chernihiv was announced in advance in the context of negotiations with Ukraine as "a good faith" measure. It also reports the likely Russian intent to redeploy its forces and focus its efforts elsewhere - since borne out. There is nuance to the result not reasonably captured by being simplistically represented as a victory. It is precisely the type of case addressed by the guidance. In such a case, our readers should be presented with the information from the sources to reach their own conclusions rather than being fed information that is WP:ANALYSIS or a particular POV. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Russian withdrawal was announced “in advance” a full month after the Russian attempt at a quick takeover of Hostomel failed. —Michael Z. 18:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://cepa.org/article/defending-nato-in-the-high-north/ The recent battle for Hostomel Airport outside of Kyiv, where Russian airborne troops were beaten by Ukrainian ad hoc formations, ... Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * http://wiedzaobronna.edu.pl/index.php/wo/article/view/216  According to the author, the Battle of Hostomel Airport was one of the most important moments of the first phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War, during which Russia’s main goals included the annihilation of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, the removal of the government and the President from power, as well as the occupation of the southern and eastern parts of the country as far as the Dnieper River. The destruction of the Russian air-assault troops storming the airport made it impossible to use it as a logistic base and to supply the mechanized troops that then developed the attack on Kyiv. In addition, the victory at Hostomel opened the series of Ukrainian victories that took place later in the battles of Bucha, Irpin and Brovary.With this, can we also re-insert back April 12 as a start date for Donbas war, as discussed here Talk:War in Donbas (2014–2022) Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , the cited passages are clearly referring to the battle for Hostomel Airport (Battle of Antonov Airport), which preceded this battle and is outside the scope of this article., and ... ? They were still not driven away. There is nuance to the result not captured by simply reporting this as Ukranian victory and best dealt with in prose that is suited to capturing the nuance. This is not the Olympics, you don't get a gold medal for doing a Bradbury. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Many sources, talking about Hostomel battle, only talk about the airport. And many only talk about Hostomel town battle as part of battle for Kyiv, considering Kyiv battle a victory, and not elaborating down to "Hostomel town battle victory", "Irpin battle victory" and others. Mentioning only Bucha victory because of its significance.I even went to check sources in the article itself. Which non-news sources actually are talking about Hostomel town battle, not about airport battle?Even with that, the source referenced above says - In addition, the victory at Hostomel opened the series of Ukrainian victories that took place later in the battles of Bucha, Irpin and Brovary. Manyareasexpert (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Even with that, https://globalnews.ca/news/9491396/ukraine-hostomel-battle-antonov-airport/ The battle of Hostomel: How Ukraine’s unlikely victory changed the course of the war . Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the cited passages are clearly referring to the battle for Hostomel Airport - even when it simply states Hostomel. I have already commented on WP:NEWSORG sources as sources for opinion and in particular, that source written by Ashley Stewart. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the cited passages are clearly referring to the battle for Hostomel Airport See above - Many sources, talking about Hostomel battle, only talk about the airport. And many only talk about Hostomel town battle as part of battle for Kyiv, considering Kyiv battle a victory, and not elaborating down to "Hostomel town battle victory", "Irpin battle victory" and others.I have already commented on WP:NEWSORG sources as sources for opinion and in particular, that source written by Ashley Stewart I don't think we should simply disregard conclusions of that article as "unreliable". Its conclusions are pretty much in line with others. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * So, while we don't have good sources for the result at Hostomel town, we do have sources for the airport and Kyiv and can use them to say what the result was at the town. [not a quote, a paraphrase] Sounds a lot like WP:SYNTH to me. At best, it is nuance and nuance is not accurately reflected in a single word description. That is my whole point. The reader should (in this case) gather from the article the nuance of the result rather than being misinformed by a simplistic statement that does not reflect the nuance. My view is supported by the prevailing WP:P&G. WP:NEWSORG is part of a core policy. We should not just ignore it because a source covered by that policy happens to support a POV that we like. Are we to give prominence to the opinion of a journalist on military matters when their area of interest is mental health, just because we like their opinion? In prose, we can say whatever the sources reasonably say. We can attribute opinion and capture nuance without the need to engage in WP:OR (synth or analysis). That is why the Battle of Antonov Airport refers us to the Analysis and Aftermath section for the result. The same should be done here in the best way we can. Clearly, this article needs an aftermath section but it doesn't have one at present. Instead, editors are trying to write the article in the infobox, which is clearly contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE Cinderella157 (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about technicalities, while ignoring the overall outcome, which is supported by every WP:RS provided here. Russian forces failed in their initial objective (Plokhy is another great source provided by ), but without contradicting it, let me just clarify the point: the failure in itself is actually not yet the point of defeat and had the Russian forces changed their objective and adapted, the outcome of the battle could have been different. However, they kept pursuing their objective until the arrival of 72nd Mechanized Brigade, 44th Artillery Brigade and the elements of other brigades. Ukrainian forces counterattacked . That inflicted heavy losses on the Russian forces and that was the turning point leading to the defeat.
 * Whether the Russian withdrawal was forced or voluntary (upon realization that their position is precarious) is a technicality which does not matter for the purposes of the definition of a victory/defeat. It also doesn't matter how the Russian government described it, as it was merely an attempt to save the face.
 * It has been a year and a half since the battle and the retrospective accounts are just emerging, but the described viewpoint is supported by the current sources unequivocally. There is no dissenting view backed by WP:RS, no inconclusive aspect and there is no meaningful "nuance" (other than, perhaps, how the Russian propaganda tried to depict their actions). Russian forces were forced to withdraw; they are no more; they ceased to be there; they are bereft of the position. At this point, you seem to be nitpicking on wording. -- Mindaur (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t see any nuance about the result in sources. The only “nuance” is confusion about the scope of this article and the intimitely related Battle of Antonov Airport. Both of these articles overlap greatly in their content, but the relationship we have defined is not even made clear. Do sources actually treat these as separate? Some or most of them clearly include the battle for the airport in their assessment of the “battle of Hostomel.” But no one has yet named any sources that don’t say the Russians were defeated and failed in both. —Michael Z. 13:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s a nice argument for merging the articles on the airport battle and the Hostomel town battle, but irrelevant otherwise.
 * I repeat: stop messing around on this. FOARP (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (This is a response to Cinderella by the way) FOARP (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s a nice argument - it's unclear what argument you are referring to, after that. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (Separately from this discussion, it would be good to review the cited sources that give significant coverage to the subjects of these two respective articles, then clarify their scope and whether we should consider merging.) —Michael Z. 19:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had a look. See above - Many sources, talking about Hostomel battle, only talk about the airport. And many only talk about Hostomel town battle as part of battle for Kyiv, considering Kyiv battle a victory, and not elaborating down to "Hostomel town battle victory", "Irpin battle victory" and others. Mentioning only Bucha victory because of its significance. I even went to check sources in the article itself. Which non-news sources actually are talking about Hostomel town battle, not about airport battle? Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , call it technicalities, call it nuance, the devil is in the detail. The Russian objective at the start of the invasion was to make a decisive attack on Kyiv that would end the war in two or three days. The premise promoted is that they failed to achieve this objective; they failed to take Antonov Airport consistent with this objective; and, this battle is therefore a Ukrainian victory. By applying this logic, this battle was a Ukrainian victory from the time it started. The assessment of the progress of this battle offered in justification of a Ukrainian victory is not supported by the article. The article does not tell us that the Russian position was precarious. It certainly does not tell us that the Russian forces were forced from Hostomel. If the article was telling us that, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, this source (I previously cited) is telling us that the contemporaneous view by analysts of Russia's announced withdrawal from around Kyiv was that it was likely a pretense and prelude to further attacks on Kyiv. This certainly does not support a view that Russia's position was untenable and that they were driven out of Kyiv oblast generally or out of Hostomel specifically. The campaign failed at a strategic level but was inconclusive at a tactical level. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That source is from news reporting of a US public military assessment at the moment. I believe it was before it was known with certainty that the Russians were about to withdraw from Kyiv, Chernihiv, Sumy, and much of Kharkiv oblasts. What more recent analytical sources say seems more likely to be useful to us now, seventeen months later.
 * But the source does assess Russian tactical performance:
 * “the move coincided with the Russian military's lack of success in its moves on the two northern cities.”
 * “Though Kirby said Russian troops had repeatedly failed in their military objectives in Ukraine, particularly in taking Kyiv, he declined to characterize the Russian move as a defeat.”
 * Sounds quite a bit more like the opposite: failed at the tactical and operational levels (at Hostomel, around Kyiv and throughout northern Ukraine), inconclusive at the strategic (in Ukraine and the Black Sea). —Michael Z. 18:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)