Talk:Battle of Lysychansk

Cluster munition ban
In casualties section there is "He also reported that this attack had been effectuated with cluster bombs, the use of which is banned by international law"

Do we need to mention this? Both Ukraine and Russia did not sign Convention on Cluster Munitions 125.165.110.25 (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No. Since neither Ukraine nor Russia are privy to the convention, the usage of cluster weapons is not prohibited for either side.
 * Such statements ("the use of which is banned by international law") are part of the propaganda war that is currently being fought. We should take them with a grain of salt. Yes, they are banned by an international treaty, but since neither Ukraine nor Russia ratified that treaty, it's a moot point. Russia is using cluster bombs, as is Ukraine. PilotSheng (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, even if Haidai's claim about "anti-personnel mines used by Russia" was valid... Unlike the Ukraine, Russia never signed Ottawa Treaty and thus has full right to use them. So both statements are redundant. --M1911 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Errors, as well as end of the battle being disputed by Ukraine
Says RF rather than Russia for whatever reason, does not mention the Luhansk People’s Republic quasi state either. Also, Ukraine has disputed the battle being over. Also, what does the editor mean by “Chechen”? Also, it’s Wagner Group or PMC Wagner, not “Wagner PMC”. Overall just a lot of errors.2600:1004:B117:24A0:78C0:8653:CA99:2215 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit them yourself CubanoBoi (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential move
If Russian reports are true, Lysychansk fell very quickly. If we included all the information about the battle for the city proper in the article, there would probably be not much and it would be a minor part of the article. Still, Lysychansk has been talked a lot about during this invasion, and this article remains necessary in my opinion even if the battle was as fast as it appears to have been. So we could move this page to "Fall of Lysychansk" following the example of Fall of Kabul (2021), as not much actually happened but it was a relevant event. Super  Ψ   Dro  22:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Something tells me that this isn't over, it seems like it fell too quickly for that to be true. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Gorskoye/Hirske and Zolotoye/Zolote didn't hold for too long either. I find it rather believable that people didn't want to be encircled entirely and preferred to more or less withdrew. But would be better if there were more sources regardless of side. --M1911 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes, Lisichansk fell yesterday. --M1911 (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree... there has still been a week of fighting, I'd say it has been enough to be considered a battle. Potionkin (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok for me, the city was/is being captured in less than 10 days, other "fall of city" battles have range of time like Constantinople (53 days) or singapore (7 days) so this city battle is in the range of time to be called fall. DrYisus (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Over
Battle is over, please, stop reverting to ongoing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62030051 DrYisus (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It was confirmed as finished hours ago by the Ukrainians themselves (see https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid02KUS6NCfLiRTXJrfdm1sgwiTrpjrsX5VskaSavVFNcFYtHRehrMuEjTsY2H5XBuaXl?amp%3B__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R), but for some reason certain editors feel the need to ignore this and revert to "ongoing". And for what it's worth, now Zelensky has admitted (in his nightly address) that the city has been "temporarily" lost. YantarCoast (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * NOOO It is still ongoooing, SLAVA UKRAINIIIIII!!!!! GHOST OF KYYYYYYIV SHALL StRIKE ONCE MORE!!!! 2601:85:C101:C9D0:CCC3:D236:B0E2:D925 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Casualty figures
The infobox states a figure of 2,218 killed, 3,251 wounded among Ukrainian soldiers. However, this is what the source states:

''Since June 19, units of the Central group of troops commanded by Colonel General A.Lapin, in coordination with the units of 2nd Corps of People's Militia of the Lugansk People's Republic and with support of the Southern group of troops commanded by the General of the Army S.Surovikin, have successfully carried out an offensive operation for liberating the territory of the Lugansk People's Republic.Within two weeks, groups in Gorskoye, near Lisichansk and Severodonetsk had been encircled and eliminated. 25 settlements had been taken under control, the largest of them are Severodontsk, Zolotoye, Gorskoye, Volcheyarovka. The operation was finished yesterday with liberation of Lisichansk, one of the largest cities of the Lugansk People's Republic. In total, within intense offensive action, 670 square kilometres of territory had been taken under control. The Armed Forces of Ukraine had lost a total of 5,469 persons, including 2,218 dead, 3,251 wounded...''

This figure is from June 19 to July 5. The source also clearly states that this includes dead Ukrainian soldiers from Sievierodonetsk, Zolote, etc etc. The battle of Lysychansk started June 25, and does not include Sievierodonetsk, Zolote, or any of the settlements listed above. Thus I think we should find a way to write it in the article somewhere, but it should not be in the infobox because it's very misleading. PilotSheng (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I went back and reread the source, which you can too here: and I'm clarifying: the figure of 2,218 dead and 3,251 wounded is clearly stated to be from the entirety of Luhansk Oblast over the period June 19 -- July 4.
 * Thus including it in the infobox is misleading as we should be looking for casualties from Lysychansk and surrounding suburbs only from the period June 25 -- July 3. PilotSheng (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Luhansk Oblast has fallen
- In the interests of not wanting to start an edit war, I will provide my statement here. Russia has declared that Luhansk Oblast has fallen, on the basis of Lysychansk having fallen, and having been the last area necessary for the oblast to fall. Meanwhile, Ukraine has conceded that Lysychansk has fallen. Numerous credible reports from Western sources say that Lysychansk has fallen, and, by extension, the entire Luhansk Oblast. I would recommend describing that Luhansk Oblast has fallen unless there is evidence to the contary. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Luhansk Oblast fell when Bilohorivka fell. It was the last locality in the province to do so, on 3 July. Super   Ψ   Dro  17:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind... Apparently Ukraine still holds two villages in Luhansk Oblast, Bilohorivka and Verkhnokamianske . Super   Ψ   Dro  17:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 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. Proposal has no traction. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Lysychansk → Fall of Lysychansk – I've just read the article and fighting from 25 June to 3 July in the area occurred mostly in the villages and towns surrounding Lysychansk, not in Lysychansk proper. Fighting in the city itself barely happened and when it did, it was mostly on its outskirts, specially the Lysychansk Oil Refinery from what I see. The article also includes one single sentence about confirmed fighting in the city's center which is followed in another paragraph by another sentence saying LPR "officials" were already claiming that Lysychansk was under their full control. This was not a serious battle like nearby Sievierodonetsk was. Lysychansk was arguably even more defensible than Sievierodonetsk and could have lasted longer had it not been part of an ever more narrow cauldron in the constant risk of being surrounded. Ukrainian forces stayed on the city until the last moment and withdrew when it was clear Lysychansk was surrounded, there was not a battle. So I believe the current title should not be kept, and "Fall of Lysychansk" seems like a viable alternative to me. Super  Ψ   Dro  17:30, 24 July 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.
 * Oppose  Out of context, the proposed title sounds like the last phase of a siege. I haven’t reviewed the facts in detail, but my understanding is that Ukrainian troops conducted an orderly withdrawal under fire during fighting in and around Lysychansk, so I don’t have a problem with the current title. If we determine there was no fighting, then Occupation of Lysychansk might be an alternative. —Michael Z. 18:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fighting around the city was with the ultimate aim of who controls Lysychansk. So the current title is appropriate. EkoGraf (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is already a "Fall of Lysychansk" subsection that documents the city's final days before Russian capture anyway. The current title gets the job done and I see no compelling reason to change it at the moment. Also, historically, battles are sometimes named after the nearest major landmark. A battle can take place only on the outskirts of a major city/settlement and still be named after the city itself. RopeTricks (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
result           = Pyrrhic Russian & LPR victory (source: their failed conquest of Siversk) 209.202.201.238 (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You need a published reliable source that calls it a "pyrrhic victory"; this seems to be original research. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox
The commanders in the infobox were removed here with the edit summary: per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - entry not supported by body of article. They were reinstated here with additional editing such that they are now "mentioned" in the body of the article. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for "key facts" and the body of the article should evidence how or why these commanders are key or significant. WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS are also applicable in this case.

In part, the body text now reads: On 26 June, TASS reported that Russian and separatist forces commanded by Aleksandr Lapin and Esedulla Abachev[3] had entered the city from five directions and were isolating Ukrainian units, but this report could not be independently verified at the time. That the presence of the forces that they allegedly commanded could not be independently verified is sufficient reason not to include them in the infobox (per WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS). Also, there is attribution (at least up to had entered the city from five directions and were isolating Ukrainian units) to TASS, but this is not the case.

The the cited source places Zamid Chalaev's subordinates in Luhansk but not Lysychansk and they are reported to be performing the usual role of "protective detachments" - ie echelon troops. It does not place him commanding at Lysychansk.

The source cited for Apti Alaudinov states: The withdrawal was confirmed on Russian state television by Apti Alaudinov, a commander from Russia’s Chechnya region stationed in Donbas. He is a commander in Donbas that made a press statement. To assert from this that he commanded at Lysychansk is a leap of faith not supported by the source.

The source cited reports Marchuk as a battalion commander that was killed at Lysychansk. To be killed in battle is unfortunate and perhaps even careless but it does not of itself make a commander key or significant. Per units reported in the infobox, at face value this is an engagement between two divisional sized forces (plus or minus) and a battalion commander is well down in the pecking order. There is no reasonable justification for their inclusion unless it is evidenced that they and their battalion played a key role. This is not the case.

It strikes me that commanders have been added to the infobox for the sake of populating the parameter with something rather than with information (if it were known) that would actually be "key facts". The revised text is just trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Yes, they are now mentioned in the body of the article but the commanders added still fail WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE as to being "key facts". Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I just disagree with your interpretation of the sources. IMO, each of them provides sufficent evidence of these individuals being present. And whether a commander is significant is not for you to decide. The sources consider them notable, thus we include them. "Key facts" also include commanders, and I find it baffling that you think a battalion commander is not a key leader in a battle which -as per what is currently known- only involved a few thousand soldiers. This is not Stalingrad. Considering the relative small troop numbers, battalion leaders are important frontline commanders. Applodion (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In a division (depending on force structure), there are usually three brigades with divisional assets near equivalent to an additional brigade. In a brigade, there would be perhaps five to eight commanders of battalions or equivalent. Within a division, there might be twenty to thirty battalion (or equivalent) commanders plus brigade commanders and the divisional commander. Hence, I said that battalion commanders are relatively low in the pecking order and we would not normally list these unless there was a particularly good reason. Being killed is not such a reason. We are dealing with news sources and (per WP:NOTNEWS) what may appear in a news source is not necessarily encyclopedic. Where do the sources say that Marchuk and Alaudinov commanded at Lysychansk? Why would we include Lapin and Abachev when the body of the article tells us that it is questionable that they were there? The infobox is for "key facts" not questionable assertions. One may disagree but disagreement without substantiating the basis for same does not contribute constructively to achieving consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * PS if the battle only involved a few thousand soldiers, then the infobox listing of units is grossly misleading since it suggests an engagement between divisions (plus or minus) with a nominal size of 20,000 each. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These divisions were not deployed as a whole, but partially, hence we include the known regiments and battalions in the infobox as well. After all, Lysychansk was part of a wider frontline. And yes, if we had sources for 20 battalion commanders fighting in this battle, then they would not be individually significant. However, we don't have sources for 20 battalion commanders, we have sources for a small number, and Marchuk, Alaudinov, etc. were among them. To assume that they were not important is speculation as much as assuming that they decided the fighting's outcome. We have no proof either way. In fact, relying on the limited sources we have, they were probably were relevant. For instance, this article by Jamestown states that "Marchuk, who was known as 'Brest', which refers to the city he is from in Belarus, and his co-fighters in the regiment repelled Russian armor advancing on Lysychansk" and mentions his role being highlighted by pro-Ukrainian sources, a view shared by his unit. This would suggest that he and his men did play an important role, or at least that Ukraine and its supporters claim for this to have been the case. As for Alaudinov, he is the head of the Akhmat which fought at Lysychansk. Applodion (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * But none of this is written into the body of the article? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That was what I was trying to say in the edit summary: Don't just go and delete sources, expand the article instead. I will glady add this content if you stop removing the commanders. Applodion (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)