Talk:Second Battle of Donetsk Airport

Article contradicts itself
This article contradicts itself regarding Ukrainian government losses. 176.46.125.190 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames of Ukrainian airport forces
The Ukrainian troops inside the airport are nicknamed "cyborg" or "terminator". Should this be mentioned in the article, or is it to trivial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulia Romero (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the brevity of this article, and that of the First Battle of Donetsk Airport, I'm leaning towards its inclusion as being excessive. Frankly, having looked through both articles, they're being kept as succinct as possible in order to avoid POV issues and I don't see a way of working the information in so that it reads comfortably within the structure. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Separatists losses on October 3
There had been a massive offensive on the airport by the separatist and Russian military forces. According to rebels themselves their own losses amounted to 200-400 soldiers. Goliath74 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you possibly looking for the War in Donbass article (specifically the November separatist elections section? For more info, it's being discussed on the talk page here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am talking about the Russian forces attack on the Airport in early October of 2014. Goliath74 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess I was too focussed on developing the article to comprehend that you were referring to content already in place well before you noted it. If you had RS for these figures, you certainly would have been welcome to add them yourself. I'm not quite sure that I understand why you're responding 5 months later. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Article is completely misinforming in its scope and name, the battle has never ceased and continues ever since May 26

 * Russian Wikipedia article (only one):
 * Ukrainian Wikipedia article (only one):

Just a few random articles just from September but before the arbitrarily chosen, completely random dates of "September 28" or "September 29":
 * (the "completed" siege with artillery duels - Sep 2)
 * (a major assault repulsed, attackers lost 5 armored vehicles, Colonel Lysenko says - Sep 9/10)
 * (ground and artillery assault - Sep 12)
 * (the tank/infantry/artillery assault on the airport has resumed - Sep 14)

Etc.

Btw, even YouTube is full of videos of the fighting there before "September 29" (or "28"). For example:
 * (artillery barrage during the night of Sep 25)
 * (infantry assault during the day of Sep 25)
 * (tank and infantry assault on Sep 26)

But accoring to English Wikipedia nothing happened, just because it forgot about after May 26 and all of sudden reminded itself about it on September 29 (or 28). In reality, there was some sort of fighting every day at the airport and/or in the immediate vicinity (btw the "lifeline" villages and the situation at the military base aren't even mentioned in the article).

And so the articles should be merged and completely rewritten.

And also literally updated too, because it's now 2 weeks oudated and for example the upper floor of "the terminal building" (in reality, the new terminal) has been cleared since then and Ukrainian flags were raised.

And I just realized how misleading the article is, as it claims "27" separatists were killed accoording to themselves, citing the 14 October article that says: "A rebel commander leading that assault, who identifies himself only by the nom de guerre Givi, said 27 of his fighters have been killed in the last three weeks while fighting for the airport." So it is covering only the period of ~Sep 23 to ~Oct 14 for just one separatist unit there (Givi commands only the Somali Battalion). So this whole article about that battle (May 26-ongoing) should really be entirely scrapped and writtten completely anew. --302ET (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Separate battle, separate article. EkoGraf (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't and never was a "separate battle", it was always one battle that has began on May 26 and continues ever since (it's been directly at a front line all that time, and actually at first it was even being surrounded, just like Luhansk airport). Look at Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia articles, official statements from the sides involved, and all the media coverage in any language (for example, this Reuters report from Sep 2: ). It was just someone's decision on English Wikipedia to make a completely new article after to the months-long lack of any updates on the battle in the existing article (and the siege of Luhansk airport still has no article at all, and even Luhansk International Airport mentions only the troop plane's downing, with no info on some of the war's most severe fighting that took place on the ground - one short sentence saying it was destroyed and the illustration of the article are the only indications of the fact it was a scene of the battle that also went on for months, and which too was just pretty much completely unreported in English media until Sep 1 when it was reported all of sudden only after it finally ended: ). --302ET (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No, these are separate battles. Even on the most superficial level, the ceasefire and the Minsk Protocol further divides them as being the first battle and a second battle. On the other issues you've brought up simultaneously, we don't just 'scrap' articles and write them 'completely anew'. Not only are you suggesting that an article developed by other editors be bulldozed because you WP:DONTLIKEIT, this would mean that the onus is on you to demonstrate that each citation attributed to a reliable source is not from a reliable source, is not verifiable, or misrepresents the source. As regards being outdated, you are welcome to contribute content to the article so long as it is WP:NPOV and cites reliable sources. If WP:BIASED sources are introduced, they must be WP:DUE, attributed WP:INTEXT, and based on consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And how will you call the fighting between "the separate battles"? What are the sopurces, official or media, saying it "a second battle"? Never seen any. Even in English media.


 * Look at just some Reuters reports.
 * July 27: "tracerfire and shells which regularly strike this village just 5 km (miles) from the airport in the rebel stronghold of Donetsk near where Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels have been fighting for weeks."
 * September 2: "Rebels in Donetsk, the biggest city under their control, said they were close to recapturing its airport from Ukrainian troops who had defended it since capturing it two months ago." (it was actually 3 months - the date the battle has began was May 26)
 * Sep 5: "Fighting had raged for much of the day in two flashpoints in eastern Ukraine - near the strategic port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov and further north in Donetsk, mostly around the city's airport which remains in government hands."
 * Sep 6: "Fighting also broke out early on Sunday on the northern outskirts of rebel-held Donetsk, the region's industrial hub. A Reuters reporter saw plumes of black smoke filling the sky near the airport, which has been in the hands of government forces. "Listen to the sound of the ceasefire," joked one armed rebel. "There's a proper battle going on there.""
 * Sep 13: Heavy artillery fire heard near Donetsk airport in east Ukraine
 * Sep 15: "The weekend saw heavy fighting, for instance, around Donetsk airport, which remains under government control."
 * Sep 21: "Lysenko said separatists had carried out a further attack on the government-held international airport of Donetsk, the east's main industrial hub. The rebels hold the city of Donetsk. He said 40 separatist fighters had been killed in "defensive" fire by Ukrainian forces."


 * And "finally", on Sep 29: "Despite the Sept. 5 ceasefire, fighting has flared frequently around Donetsk international airport, in eastern Ukraine, which is held by government forces. Seven Ukrainian soldiers were killed when a separatist shell hit their armoured personnel carrier near the airport, a military spokesman said on Monday."


 * English Wikipedia version? "Fighting began at Donetsk Airport on 29 September, when seven Ukrainian soldiers were killed during clash with pro-Russian rebels."


 * That's all I've got to say, you were informed the entire article is literally disinformation, now you can do whatever you want about it.


 * Oh, and about actual official rebel losses (also Reuters): "Basulin said fewer than 200 separatists had been killed in the airport fighting, including more than 50 in late May on the first day of heavy clashes." (just remember to note it's an outdated figure from October 6; I think "oficially about 200 separatists killed according to the separatists" would do it). I think there are no official Ukrainian total losses. --302ET (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Separatist losses?
Does anyone have alternate numbers besides the ones the "separatists" themselves have cited? I find it hard to believe that they've only lost 27 men when the Donetsk airport now has become such a major sticking point for them, and considering that the Ukrainian "cyborgs" have reported on killing what would seem to be a lot more then 27 men in the battle for the airport. The kyle 3 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said above (but nobody cared to correct or remove any incorrect/misleading information even after some things being specifically pointed out): The article claims "27" separatists were killed accoording to themselves, citing the 14 October article that says: "A rebel commander leading that assault, who identifies himself only by the nom de guerre Givi, said 27 of his fighters have been killed in the last three weeks while fighting for the airport." So it is covering only the period of ~Sep 23 to ~Oct 14 for just one separatist unit there (Givi commands only the Somali Battalion, and they joined the battle only in mid September or so after the 'ceasefire' started and they relocated from Ilovaisk, and Donetsk airport was being attacked mostly by Vostok & Oplot during the months before that; and Sparta arrived there later, like in late September-early October or so).

About actual official rebel losses: "Basulin said fewer than 200 separatists had been killed in the airport fighting, including more than 50 in late May on the first day of heavy clashes." (just remember to note it's an outdated figure from October 6; I think "oficially about 200 separatists killed according to the separatists" would do it).

Also the Ukr figures for sep losses are completely wild, like a week ago they claimed killing "about 200" seps near the airport within just 24 hours: (needless to say, it's extremelly dubious). It works both way, as the rebel/Russian figures for Ukr losses are similarly unreliable (like Givi & Motorola's "40 killed every day" etc). --302ET (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A) This article does not deal with the entire war, therefore figures for May and both of your WP:OR speculations as to figures (reliable sources please!!) are irrelevant.


 * B) This is an article talk page, not a blog or forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not "entire war" (at least about 4,000 killed), it's only the battle for Donetsk airport. How is (from Reuters) and  (from Interfax-Ukraine) just "speculations" and "not reliable sources"? It's directly from Donetsk rebel spokesman Eduard Basulin and Ukrainian military spokesman Colonel Lysneko. And that's unlike the article's complete misrepresentaion what Givi once said about only his own unit's losses 1 month ago as cited in (completely outdated, as example at least 7 givi's men were officially killed at the airstrip fire station just 2 days ago or so, and Motorola's Sparta and others are of course also taking losses). The actual casualties of both sides are simply unknown and can't be verfified independendly (except for the first day, when it was verifably more than 50 killed separatists, because there was footage from the morgue). But the admitted figure is at least about 200 killed for the separatists (it was put by Basulin at "less than 200" on 10 October, including "more than 50" who died on "the first day of heavy clashes" that is May 26) and the Ukr gov offers no public death toll tally of their own for the airport and the surroundings (the ongoing fighting in the adjoining village of Peski and the fighting for the military compound just to the south of the airport is also a part of this battle).

And, speaking of "reliable sources" and "original research", both Ukrainians and separatists, and all mass media, everyone except English Wikipedia says it is one battle, which started on May 26 and never ended. People were dying there all the time in the siege and attacks, and the would-be final assault began just after Ilovaisk and there was not even a day of peace there during the "ceasefire" - just see some of the links from Reuters I posted above, and then you can also for example check the Kyiv Post archives if you want some news in English: http://www.kyivpost.com/search/?q=donetsk+airport - it's hundreds of articles (such as, randomly from a single day of September 13: Reuters: Heavy artillery fire heard near Donetsk airport in east Ukraine, Associated Press: Ukraine government repels rebel attack on airport, The Guardian: Ukraine fights off attack on Donetsk airport by pro-Russia forces, BBC News: Ukraine forces 'repel rebels in Donetsk airport' just from one day when English Wikipedia claims there was "no battle" there too, which is just because some editor decided a 'second battle" started on September 28 or September 29 and that person wrote here so while creating an all-new article instead of updating an existing one which was not being updated since May, after suddenly hearing a random news of 7 soldiers being killed in a BTR hit by a tank on this particular day - and on the very next day, that is September 14 or two weeks before the "second: battle "started": Guardian: Ukraine fights off attack on Donetsk airport by pro-Russia forces and Bloomberg: Kerry to discuss Ukraine with Russia as rebels continue (to clash with Ukraine troops in several locations including the Donetsk airport), followed by Septmeber 15: New York Times: Despite cease-fire, fighting escalates in eastern Ukraine city, Agence France-Presse: Heavy fighting in Donetsk threatens Ukraine ceasefire, Ukraine Today: Donetsk airport under attack; Kremlin-backed insurgents assault Ukrainian army despite ceasefire (VIDEO), VICE News: Massive blasts and gunfire rock separatist stronghold in Ukraine (VIDEO), Donetsk Airport shelled by rebels all day - NSDC, Associated Press: Six (civilians) killed, 14 wounded in east Ukraine city - and so on, daily, while there was "no battle" according to English Wikipedia). But now I'm just unsubscribing from this article because I don't like being insulted. I tried to help with factual information, but it's clear it is not welcome here, so bye. --302ET (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * OpposeYes, minor skirmishes have continued, but there has been no major fighting at the airport until September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

on the matter of Right Sector
According to http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/11/25/inside-the-right-sector-volunteer-battalion/, Right Sector make up more than half of Ukrainian soldiers at the airport. But since they are not servicemen, they do not get pay for the government and their losses are not reported by NSDC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How did you manage to elicit all of that from "Nevertheless, Right Sector works closely with the regular Ukrainian Army units stationed in Pisky, and performs the most dangerous and risky operations: for instance, more than half of the last rotation’s Cyborgs defending the encircled Donetsk airport from Russian attacks were from Right Sector. However, on November 12 the Right Sector command decided to withdraw their forces from the airport, as they saw their mission accomplished: “volunteer battalion” also means independence from central army command."? The battle did not exclusively revolve around the "cyborgs" exclusively, nor does the author of the piece, Alya Shandra, state where her figures for the number of cyborgs as being Right Sector come from. Reliable source? Please abstain from original research and, more to the point, WP:SYNTH... and please stop using all Ukraine-related current affairs articles and article talk page as your soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up redundant tags
Thanks for getting rid of the two tags I couldn't be bothered tracing to anyone due to the ongoing IP hopping and other forms of trolling on this article, Volunteer Marek.

The merge discussion with the First Battle of Donetsk Airport was a POV non-starter and has gone so stale that it's meaningless. Should we call in an uninvolved admin to close and log it, or is anyone willing to close it as being obvious? I'd be happy to do it myself, but don't want to trigger a fresh bout of trolling. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine says 300 Russian regular troops killed at airport
As usual, we can take that with a train load of salt.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/nearly-300-russian-troops-killed-in-fighting-for-donetsk-airport-nearly-200-wounded-374066.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your position being blatantly obvious, why even bother to post this? See WP:NOTFORUM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1) There is no any evidence of Russian armed forces participaton. 2) Kill ratio DNR-ukraine from 1:5 to 1:10 by this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.193.14 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox being developed without sources
I've tagged the article for more WP:RS as it is being developed daily without providing any sources, much less reliable ones. As it stands, most of the sources are WP:BIASED.

The infobox, in particular, is being developed with flags, emblems, battalions, units that are completely unsourced. If you wish to add any such material, please say where you found the information. It's a shame to see so much time and effort into this, only to end up being deleted. If you know your material is correct, it means that you found out about it somewhere, so WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Trolling"??
English Wikipedia is the only ones to do original research and invent a "second" battle through ridicalous original research. Practically EVERY mass media source (be it in English, Ukrainian, or Russian) describes it a single continous event. Both Ukrainian and Russian Wikipiedia articles treat it as a single event that began on May 26, too. Ukrainian government does it, and NATO, everyone. Only some people on English Wikipedia declared it so.

Someobody said "completely unsourced"? Because you also won't find this phrase EVER used by no one (NO ONE) before this Wikipedia article was created on 2 October and it was invented at that very moment by some random Wikipedia user based on literally nothing. Here's the proof: (there's only Wikipedia and wn.com noise).

Btw, the casualty figures based on an old and misunderstood source are still not corrected. An example of some relatively up-to-date estimates: Ukrainian General Staff, using allegedly interecept Russian military report, claims 198 regular Russian troops have been killed at the airport by November 30 - and that's not including irregular militiamen. (Russian Wikipedia goes with "unknown" for both sides, which is generally true, while Ukrainian Wikipedia uses some completely unreliable figures - but the article uses 83 reference sources + more than a dozen external links, none of which calls it a "second battle" of course.)

Speaking of references, none of the 34 sources used here at Second Battle of Donetsk Airport calls it a "second battle", too. Which is not surprising, as there are no reliable sorces for it at all, and the whole thing was literally invented by the English Wikipedia user on October 2 (again, the proof: ).

And now I'm going away again as I'm done "trolling".--302ET (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. Note, also, that your RM has been closed by a neutral administrator. Please drop the stick as you are continuing your pattern of being WP:POINTy and resorting to disruptive editing. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge, due to original research
Over 1 month later (again), you still didn't address the problem of unsourced original research of "Second Battle" (where are just ANY reliable sources declaring a "second battle" and it's beginning on Sep 28 or 29 or any other date? there are none, because nobody in the whole wide world except English Wikipedia and its French and Romanian forks does it - as opposed to Ukraianian and Russian Wikipedias to this day, Ukrainian government and military (there's not even such a phrase in Ukrainian!), the insurgents, all Ukrainian media, all English media, all Russian media, OSCE (just checked: No results found for "second battle" donetsk airport site:osce.org., and same for: bbc.com, cnn.com, reuters.com, nyt.com, latimes.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, nbcnews.com, skynews.com, anything you want, you will never find anyone calling it a "second battle" despite supposedly going on for months) and other international organizations, and so forth, as quite literally nobody has picked up some Wikipedia editor's original research). Thank you for you lack of attention, completely disregarding everything I ever said and showed to you.

You know what? I just checked the article's given reference for the claim that "fierce fighting broke out at Donetsk International Airport on 28 September": http://cyborgs.uatoday.tv/ - it's a dead link, so here's the archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20141124190144/http://cyborgs.uatoday.tv/

And guess what: Nowhere it says anything about a "second battle", or anything starting on "September 28". Of course. Actually, it directly CONTRADICTs Wikipedia's alternate-reality-like original research, by saying: "For the past five months Ukrainian forces have battled Kremlin-backed insurgents for control of Donetsk International Airport." (That was five months as in as in May-October.) This is the real world. And this is in ALL the sources. Even the one you yourself used to source your own claim. And no one in the world has called it a "second battle" before some Wikipedia editor did.

Furthermore, this is what it (again, I'm citing from YOU OWN CHOSEN SOURCE) says: "In early September the fight for Donetsk International Airport intensified, with insurgent forces bolstered by the arrival of hundreds of fighters fresh from Russian military training camps in Rostov. The attackers were also boosted by deliveries of Russian tanks and artillery sent across the undefended border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The legend of the 'Ukrainian Cyborgs' was born in the first days of September when these reinforced insurgent forces found themselves unable to dislodge the airport's defenders."

But what about that exact date of "September 28" (which was at the end of September)? It's not even entioned there at all! As it was only randomly chosen by whoever created an English Wikipedia article based on literally nothing (and to this day, only this falisfied citation of http://cyborgs.uatoday.tv/ was given). This source, that (once again) is supposed to be a reference citing the claim that something started on that day, mentions just the date of September 30 - and only in this context: "The first announcement that the airport had fallen to the insurgents was made on 30 September, with similar declarations being issued on 3 October and on numerous subsequent occasions."

Also here's what the same (YOUR OWN) sources say what someone above called "minor skirmishes" of August: "In late August, fighting around the airport flared up again. Insurgent forces, reinforced by regular Russian army troops and bolstered by an arsenal of Grad rocket launchers and other heavy weapons, renewed their efforts to seize control of the airport. The late August attacks on Donetsk International Airport were timed to coincide with a larger Russian army offensive along Ukraine's southern coastline towards Mariupol. With Ukrainian forces struggling to contain insurgent breakthroughs along the front lines of the Donbas conflict, the defenders of Donetsk International Airport found themselves having to cope without reinforcements. They succeeded in repelling wave after wave of attacks." "Minor skirmishes" indeed.

And so this farce of an article needs to end. It's already months late.

Btw, the casualty figures are still outdated (about 3 months now) and misleading anyway (and based on original research of editors trying to compile various unrelated reports by adding various figures to create new ones - see WP:SYNTH). And I didn't even try to read the rest of the article. --302ET (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This issue has been discussed several times in the past. The event that occurred in late May was notable enough to warrant its own standalone article. After that, there was almost no active fighting for the airport itself except for occasional shelling. A new battle for the airport started on 29 September when rebel tank shelling hit an APC and killed seven soldiers. The next day (30 September) rebels commandeered an apartment building at the airport to use it for precision shelling and on the day after (1 October) a full-blown rebel ground offensive against the airport started. All of the sources are in the article. As for the casualties: the one source for the 27 dead rebels clearly says and I quote A rebel commander leading that assault...said 27 of his fighters have been killed...; as for the sources for the soldiers they all originally come from the Ukrainian government side and is in line with WP: CALC. PS One more thing, this is your second attempt to merge the articles after the previous one failed a month and a half ago and was closed by a neutral administrator. Usually you should wait at least 3 months before trying to start a new Merge Request. EkoGraf (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "After that, there was almost no active fighting for the airport itself except for occasional shelling." - citation needed. "A new battle for the airport started on 29 September when rebel tank shelling hit an APC and killed seven soldiers." - citation needed (specifically for "a new battle for the airport started", and not a compltely random combat occurence of a tank scoring a hit during the fighting). "(1 October) a full-blown rebel ground offensive against the airport started." - citation needed. And I mean: citations for these very claims (including the dates), and from the date of the creation of this articler or earlier (not later). Also, "29 September"? Because the article claims "28 September". --302ET (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Now, reality time with actual sources (again): Just a sample from September 13-15, three random day of "not a battle": Associated Press: Ukraine government repels rebel attack on airport, The Guardian: Ukraine fights off attack on Donetsk airport by pro-Russia forces, BBC News: Ukraine forces 'repel rebels in Donetsk airport', Guardian: Ukraine fights off attack on Donetsk airport by pro-Russia forces, Bloomberg: Kerry to discuss Ukraine with Russia as rebels continue (to clash with Ukraine troops in several locations including the Donetsk airport), New York Times: Despite cease-fire, fighting escalates in eastern Ukraine city, Agence France-Presse: Heavy fighting in Donetsk threatens Ukraine ceasefire, Ukraine Today: Donetsk airport under attack; Kremlin-backed insurgents assault Ukrainian army despite ceasefire (VIDEO), VICE News: Massive blasts and gunfire rock separatist stronghold in Ukraine (VIDEO), Donetsk Airport shelled by rebels all day - NSDC, Associated Press: Six (civilians) killed, 14 wounded in east Ukraine city - and so on. It's KP reposts, but you can find the original article easily. Do you want me to create an article about an also imaginary concept of "battle-and-half" to cover this "not an escalation" between the "first" and "second" battle, which you claim "began" on either September 28 or 29 (you can't even agree on this, and NO SOURCES IN THE WORLD WILL BACK ANY OF THESE DATES AS BEGINNING OF ANYTHING). --302ET (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - this article confirms that there has been a second battle of donetsk airport: Donetsk Airport Battle Continues As Conflicting Reports Arise In Ukraine--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is 1 article, written over 4 months after Wikipedia's original-research creation of the article and the very concept of imaginary "second battle". Alsol, even it says The so-called second battle of Donetsk airport and the (completely random) date of "September 28" isn't mentioned anywhere in it. --302ET (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice source for the name, will use it. EkoGraf (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. User:Arbutus the Tree seems to be completely unaware of the irony of using an article entitled "the Battle continues" as proof that there are two separate battles. There are no two separate battles. There is only the war. All hail Shiva, Lord of War. -Augustabreeze (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article might say something about the battle continuing, but no major escaltion in violence took place between may and september. If you have read the article, it will say the "second battle of donetsk airport"--Arbutus the tree (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Citation needed for your claim. And "it will say the "second battle of donetsk airport" - nope, it will say "so-called second battle of Donetsk airport". And this is just 1 article. Out of thousands who don't use this ("so-called") term. Including Ukrainian, Russian, and other non-English articles. Btw, did you ever wonder why English Wikipedia article doesn't inter-wiki link to either Russian nor Ukrainian article? Because they doesn't exist, as there was never such a concept (of a "second battle") in existance in neither of these countries at any level (be it mass media reports, official statements / propaganda, social media / soldiers slang, anything). It's all an ionvention of some English Wikipedia editor who created and named an article based on nothing but their own original research. Both Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia of course do have articles, but they're about a single battle, which began in May, including writing about the events that took place between May and the random date of "September 28":  (and btw, this battle didn't end yet - in both of the articles, it's continuing too, it was just declared over by English Wikipedia despite the fact it didn't). --302ET (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per Ekograf and Arbutus the tree. We've only just gone through a merge discussion based on the same grounds being presented. All of my arguments in the previous RM still stand. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Iryna and Eko. This has gone on long enough. When will you drop the stick, 302ET? RGloucester  — ☎ 18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Article being extremely biased with only Ukrainian official position
Currently, information is extremely one-sided, as all the Ukrainian claims - like 500 losses for separatists or continued control over the whole airport - are presented, while none of the opposing claims are even listed. Ukrainian claims are easily disproved by tons of videos and even by Ukrainian media sources - yet they are still there.

If someone doesn't like claims from separatists' side, that doesn't give you right to just outright remove them.

Either list claims from both sides, or keep only the information that was independently verified (and that means more than just "Ukrainian officials cited in media outlet", that means ACTUAL independent verification). That's really neutral position, as in Wikipedia:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.34.206 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

For example, Russian Wiki has BOTH Ukrainian AND rebel claims listed in https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%B0%D1%8D%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83#.D0.97.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B0_2014.2F2015_.D0.B3.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.B0 I don't really understand why English one should just drop separatists' claims altogether, given that they are widely reported as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.60.148 (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Always read the talk page before you engage in edit warring. The content you have issue with has been addressed here before. Read WP:RS and please do not make assumptions as to how Wikipedia functions without familiarising yourself with policies and guidelines.


 * Finally, this is a talk page, not a forum or an advocacy blog. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, that content was not addressed yet. There are dozens of videos and media reports that report the following: 1) that separatists took over the old terminal 2) that there was a meeting between rebel and separatists commanders in the airport proper with shaking hands. That is reported in many reliable Russian, Ukrainian, and pro-separatist sources. They are all cited in the edit you're reverting. Please, stop your POV pushing and actually READ what you revert. And finally, can you please just stop rules lawyering and actually post the reasons why you feel that the whole edit - even with literally 10's of sources, several of them more reliable than sources for lots of preexisting points on the document - should be just reverted outright and not improved? Seriously, there are many reliable sources claiming points 1 and 2 I described, if you feel that I misinterpret them or something, feel free to correct. Just outright reverting is really a POV push as if you don't want to admit that significant part of the airport is captured by separatists - which is, by now, confirmed by many sources and denied by just one. 95.25.60.148 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of the sources you're trying to add, the only one which appears to be reliable is the OSCE one, the rest are not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is the most ridiculus thing I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. 霎起林野间 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is it you find so ridiculous, ? That unreliable and biased sources have no place in an encyclopaedic article unless attributed WP:INTEXT as being biased, or rejected as being WP:UNDUE. Perhaps your preference is to disregard reliable sources in favour of your own POV. Bits and pieces of unverifiable and propagandist footage from YouTube and blogs cobbled together by cherry picking and WP:SYNTH may appeal to you, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, nor is it your your playground. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Decisive DPR victory?
And the source is DNR's official site?

LOL. Russians claimed several times so far that they have captured the airport and every time it turned out that the Ukrainians are still holding out.

Also - decisive victory? Even if they did capture the airport, what about it was decisive? It took them 4 months of heavy fighting and they had a lot of casualties and the airport is completely destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.117.55 (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Failed tank assault
It seems there was a failed tank assault by Kiev forces, I guess we will have to wait for confirmation, but a lot going on within last 24 hours.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone keeps updating this article as if it's a news article. I erased the line saying that the airport has been retaken by the government forces. Do not re-add it until there is proof. Ukrainian Defense Minister is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.169.220 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Savur-Mogila similarity: please take all official claims with grain of salt
All current events strongly reek of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_in_Shakhtarsk_Raion#Savur-Mohyla situation. In this case, both sides claim complete control, while in fact NEITHER has it for a long time. However, to preserve claims of complete control, both generate fake stories about capture or "holding ground".

It's also important to remember that Ukrainian officials do not admit territory losses - usually at all. Example is, again, Savur-Mogila situation, there're no Ukrainian sources for rebel capture of it - because they never admitted it! It's just so apparent that since it sits in the rear of rebel-controlled territory, there's no way rebel claims of controlling it may be false.

So, please, consider adding "said by rebels" or "said by Ukrainian officials" when the only source for the claim is words of a non-neutral party to the the conflict.

Journalist reoprts with photos/videos are much more trustworthy. Anyway, that's about just trying to give balanced view of the situation to the readers, by listing claims of both sides AND designating them as claims w/o proof, so the reader can decide for himself. Because, otherwise, the whole article seems really messy. 174.67.194.217 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference 12 - Russian Naval Infantry
Come on. Are you f'ing serious? That is a link to a Youtube video where you can see one DNR soldier with a Russian Naval Infantry patch.

I can buy that on eBay (http://www.ebay.ca/itm/NEW-Russian-Naval-Infantry-Marines-Uniform-Sleeve-Patch-/200910035510?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec72bda36)

This whole article is extremely biased and definitely not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.169.220 (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In NAF hands now.
Mutiple videos and reports as of 21.01 show the airport in NAF hands with numerous POWs taken(some of whom were digged out of rubble). Even pro-Ukrainian media are reporting this now. We should have confirmation by mainstream media within 2-4 days or so, it usually takes that long for them to catch up.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. That's how this airport looks like. It seems that the airport was taken a few hours ago by Russian army and rebels. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to be correct. I trust Kyiv Post. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For those who have constantly dismissed Kyiv Post as propagandist, considering it to be WP:BIASED, I certainly don't see how this announcement would benefit pro-Ukrainian propaganda. It's safe to say that that it's accurate. Molobo, your 'contention' that the mainstream media is days behind is belied by these reports: BBC; The Telegraph; Los Angeles Times; Washington Post; etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kyiv Post is definitely reliable, though it tends to favour the volunteer battalions and the like, and isn't exactly friendly toward the Ukrainian government. It seems to take a populist angle. This is another case, just like Ilovaisk, where poor management by the Armed Forces is blamed for the loss, whereas the cyborg types are glorified. I'm not passing judgement on the situation, but that's just how I read Kyiv Post's coverage of it. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OSCE
can an admin add something about this from OSCE - "A Ukrainian soldier in a hospital in government-controlled Konstantinovka (56km north of Donetsk) told the SMM that he was being treated for injuries sustained at the Donetsk airport on 19 January. He said 80 Ukrainian soldiers in total had suffered the same injuries, manifested in uncontrollable muscle spasms, vomiting and difficult breathing. Some, he said, had become unconscious. Eleven of the soldiers had been transferred to a hospital in Dnepropetrovsk, he said." -osce.org - also why do the last sentences say 'accordign to a bbc report captured Ukrainians were paraded ..' -  independent- soldiers paraded - it happened,  no need for bbc report said.. - just say 'soldiers paraded, subjected to abuse, violence  - and add refs - and add  - (The Geneva Conventions’ common article 3, which applies to all non-international armed conflicts, prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”  )  Sayerslle (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got a rewrite ready for the "parading" of the Ukrainian soldiers. The only reason I attributed it to the BBC originally was because there were conflicting reports at the time, but now other sources say the same thing, so attribution is no longer required. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * oh right, - and what about mentioning the OSCE and the bit in a report about  'uncontrollable muscle spasms, vomiting and difficult breathing. Some, he said, had become unconscious.' - (, its happened before  Moscow theater hostage crisis ) Sayerslle (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Decisive DPR Victory?
And the source is DNR's official site? Also - decisive victory? Even if they did capture the airport, what about it was decisive? It took them 4 months of heavy fighting and they had a lot of casualties and the airport is completely destroyed. I believe it just needs to be just DPR victory.  A.h. king  • Talk to me!  07:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainians claim to hold parts of the airport. So there is no conclusive outcome - until we have a reliable source. Alexpl (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly! If it was even decided that it was a DPR victory, I don't see it as being decisive. The linguistic term doesn't apply here. A.h. king  • Talk to me!  13:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter if their information is occasionally close to the truth - I dont think the DPR is a reliable source. Alexpl (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need the DPR source, which an IP added. The Daily Telegraph called the defeat "devastating". RGloucester  — ☎ 14:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They called it devestating because the airport has been completely destroyed and many losses from both sides and because it took around 4 months. But the actual victory wasn't decisive in the linguist meaning. A.h. king  • Talk to me!  15:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine to remove the "decisive". It doesn't really add anything, anyway. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seemed logical for Ukraine to abandon the so called "New Terminal", which caused all these reports. It is surrounded by buildings and residential areas under prorussian forces control and the only route for supplying it was over the open stretches of the runway. Nothing could be won by staying there. I would call it "a victory" for the rebels, not more. Alexpl (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Victory over Ukranian forces & militias its the bottom line, "Decisive" its a little bit exaggerated, Decisive propaganda Victory fits better.200.48.214.19 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * victory with bullet point saying "Airport terminals completely destroyed" and "Ukraine pulls back positions to X" (i forget, there are other areas on the airport proper they still control and Pisky) LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no more areas that Ukrainian Armed Forces control in the airport proper - both the ruins of the control tower (http://lifenews.ru/news/148829) and radar bunker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&feature=player_embedded&v=JIYJGNBcP3g&x-yt-cl=84503534) are overran by rebels. As for terminals being completely destroyed, that's Ukrainian-only claim that is not fully backed by evidence: while new terminal is indeed a devastated wreck, an old terminal is still standing with floors intact and rebel positions are still there, since it's still defensible. What would be the point of "completely destroyed" bullet anyway? It's like saying "battle for Stalingrad results": "Soviet victory, Stalingrad completely devastated". That's misleading because it implies that positions were voluntary given up instead of being overran - which is just not true, since there was no "planned retreat". Generally, armed forces don't leave 10's of wounded soldiers dying in the rubble on "planned retreat". 174.67.194.217 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

decisive is misleading and POV. It's not like they took it in a day, the first airport battle was decisive, Ukraine mopped up in a day and it was over. This battle took months and the airport itself is completely gone. If you capture the land but not the airport, and lose hundreds in a drawn out process with Ukraine just pulling back positionally to return fire with artillery, that's not "decisive" --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 20:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the bulk of Ukraine's forces retreated to Pisky, which is only 500 meters west of the airport, and are actively continuing to attack the terminal. The Russian separatists reporter 24 deaths from Ukrainian artillery fire today at the airport, so I'm not even sure if the "battle" itself is over if both sides are still attacking each other in the area, let alone it being a "decisive victory." http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2015-01-23/ukraine-rebels-say-24-fighters-killed-by-rockets-at-airport Koonter (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree that "decisive" is misleading, the battle for the "airport" itself is really over. There's a video showing that rebels overran the ruins of control tower - http://lifenews.ru/news/148829, which is the last position in the airport proper. As for the losses from rocket/artillery fire - they are not relevant to the battle result by itself. Ex. rebels are obviously suffering losses from bombardment of Donetsk, UA suffers losses from bombardment of Debatlszevo etc. that doesn't change who controls respective cities. 64.147.4.208 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, I would say that you could very much call the current situation in Debaltseve "The battle of Debaltseve" even though Ukraine controls the city as the area is under constant attack, much like the area around the airport. The battle of London is considered one of the most important battles in WWII but the English were in full control the whole time, Germans never crossed into England and were just bombing it from miles away, that is my main reasoning for it as hostilities are still happening in both areas and both sides are still actively trying to attack each other.Koonter (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the offensive is ongoing, so we´ll see. Alexpl (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing entry in infobox
There's a missing entry under "Internal Affairs Ministry", it looks like Azov Battalion was there too.


 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11362022/Ukraine-abandons-fiercely-contested-Donetsk-airport.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/world/europe/ukraine-cedes-donetsk-airport-to-rebels-as-fighting-continues.html?_r=0

Unfortunately the article's locked, so I couldn't add it myself. - Anonimski (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian special forces
This is not a a "Ukrainian claim" but a widely known fact at this point, reciprocated here by a US rep - truthfully this shouldnt require the parenthesis, but at most it should say "Denied by Russia" not "Claimed by everyone but Russia" LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Claimed by everyone but Russia" US and EU are NOT "everyone", moreover neither OSCE nor EU, nor any US official (Herbst is not an official state rep.) actually confirmed presence of Russian special troops at the airport. Journalists just reporting Ukrainian claims doesn't count as "Claimed by everyone" 64.147.4.208 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. We know for sure that entire formations, composed of Russian Nationals, fight in Donezk, esp. the Chechens from "Smert". But thats not enough to write that they operate under the jurisdiction / or command of the Russian Federation. Alexpl (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ffs, a Russian general was part of the battle's negotiating side. --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks to be sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Russians still say they're not involved. Russian and Ukrainian military higher-ups have been collaborating in the "Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination" since autumn, which the originated from Trilateral Contact Group talks. However, the OSCE opposed the usage of OSCE insignias by this distinctively non-OSCE organisation. Despite their involvement in the centre, the Russians say that they are only there as a "neutral" party to act as middlemen between Ukrainian and separatist forces. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a huge number of sources (including Russian language sources) by now telling about participation/leading role of regular Russian army, not only special forces, in the war. Yes, this is officially denied by Russia, which must be noted. So, yes, welcome to include this info by any means. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so Ukraine + US + NATO itself say Russian forces are involved. Reducing that to "Ukraine claims" is disingenuous and dismissive of the reality. We know Russian forces are involved, Girkin admitted to it with regard to other battles in the region, let's not tow the Russian propaganda line and treat readers like idiots. --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 21:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be no "Ukraine claims". It should be "denied by Russia". As much as I hate the "denied by Russia" insertions everywhere, it is better than this "Ukraine claims" crap, which fails WP:ALLEGED. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are official claims by the Russian, Ukrainian and other governments. Such claims may or may not be included, depending on context. Other than that, there is no such thing as "Ukrainian", "US", etc. claims, because different Ukrainian sources, for example, may claim something opposite. What matters are reliable sources, and those can be Russian, Ukrainian, US, whatever, but they do not represent "Russian, Ukrainian or US views". My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not true, as RS do often report the official "claims" of states and non-governmental organisations. They may give different claims different weight, though. If they endorse one side's "claims" in their own voice, however, and they are an RS with a reputation for fact-checking and neutrality, i.e. N.Y. Times or BBC, then that's a different story. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of dead Russians/rebels
The number in the infobox is hilariously low. By their own admission, yesterday, they lost 24 men in the past 24 hours of fighting Are you trying to tell me they only admitted to 40 losses in the entire months long battle? The current "we lost 40 and they lost 500" info on the infobox needs to be removed and better sourced, because it's a joke --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is only that way because the article has been protected for two days, precluding an update. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those 24 killed are not listed as being killed during the airport battle - they are listed as getting KIA near the airport (Avdeevka attack). While including the airport surroundings into calculation makes sense, then it requires the same policy to be applied to Ukrainian Armed Forces. Anyway, it's quite obvious that losses for boss sides are grossly understated (looking at the videos from captured airport, there are literally piles of corpses of UA personnel who got buried under the debris after the terminal collapse), but I think until some kind of trustworthy sources appear it's better to list own claims for both sides, because anything else would be just guesses or propaganda from one of the sides. 174.67.194.217 (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, but I'm just saying it follows logic that if 20+ die regularly in lesser skirmishes, then saying 40 died during the months long battle for the airport itself is just laughable and makes the article look ridiculous. They lost 30 in the first day alone (first airport battle) --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 21:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First, 24 sld. were lost not in regular skirmishes, but mostly in ambush. Losses in such circumstances are usually high (for example, 35 or smth. Ukr. slds perished in ambush at 6 or 7 september). Second, 1st battle for airport were 'battle' by name alone - before that, all military bases in Donetsk were taken without major confrontations or violation, so rebels made a mistake by attempting to take AP by small force with handguns and assault rifles only. Ukr. side uses air support etc., but losses would've been smaller, if rebels would've not destroy a vehicle with their own WIA by mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.15.244.71 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Claimed by Ukraine"
There is a trainload of unverified claims marked "Claimed by Ukraine" in infobox, but not a single rebel claim presented like foreign mercs on government side. How is this NPOV? 192.92.94.23 (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you actually checked where these purportedly 'unverified' claims come from (BBC, Reuters, Belfast Telegraph, etc.)? Do you have any reliable sources for the separatist 'claims' you'd consider to be reliable and verifiable? The reason they are defined being as being by Ukraine is that these reliable sources are referencing what they believe to be, at the least, reliable claims attributed to Ukrainian sources. Would you find it more appropriate not to attribute where the information has been gleaned from?


 * In fact, citation 12 (in the infobox dedicated to separatist units involved) uses an unofficial YouTube channel which is dedicated to DPR propaganda, as well as a list of the "United Armed Forces of Novorossiya" which have no sourced attribution, plus also features "according to separatists" in the casualties and losses section.


 * That being said, where do you actually perceive the problem to be? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is amusing how we've moved from "denied by Russia" to "claimed by Ukraine". I wish we'd stick with one appendage, but I'd prefer none. If such an appendage is absolutely necessary, I'd recommend converting them to footnotes so as not to mar the aesthetic of the thing. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. It's down to POV pushing: first those who were admittedly 'pro-Russian' demanded that "Denied by Russia" had to be shoved into the infoboxes; now they've turned it into a POINTy 'according to Ukraine' despite the fact that it's been reported in RS from around the world.


 * Attribution belongs in the body of the article where it's required, not the infoboxes. I don't recall any such convention being deployed in other current affairs conflicts prior this one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Minsk agreement assigned airport to DPR
The article fails to mention the reports that the airport had been assigned to the DPR in an appendix to the Minsk Agreement that was kept secret for some time. According those articles Kiev's propagandistic celebration of the "cyborg" defenders of the airport made it impossible for it to give up the airport.

83.86.53.85 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This article should more accurately reflect Russia's role in the battle
Since this article was originally created, quite a bit of additional material has come to light (not least the annexation of the DPR by Russia and Russia's open and admitted support for both the DPR and LPR). This article from the institute of Land warfare is from an authoritative source and describes in quite a lot of details the role of Russia in both the first and second battles for Donetsk airport. I think it also worth revisiting the description of the Russian-backed fighters as simply "pro-Russian", this elides the basic fact that many of them were Russians - the descriptor "separatists" seems to now be favoured in reliable sources for the DPR and "Russians" for the actual Russians. The presence of the Russians at the second battle of Donetsk airport is now not merely "claimed by Ukraine" but generally accepted. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)