Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 23 December 2023

Battle of Neskuchne was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 September 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

[REDACTED] Current events [REDACTED] This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Military Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive was copied or moved into Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine with this edit on 2 August 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Mealie, Daniel; Barros, George; Kagan, Frederick W. (17 September 2023). "Ukraine's Operations in Bakhmut Have Kept Russian Reserves Away from the South". Institute of the Study of War. "Miscalculations, divisions marked offensive planning by U.S., Ukraine". Washington Post. 4 December 2023. "In Ukraine, a war of incremental gains as counteroffensive stalls". Washington Post. 4 December 2023.

Change counteroffensive back to failure

It said on this article for the past few days that the counteroffensive was a failure. I get we picked an end date for the counteroffensive but it dosn't make much sense why it dosn't say failure. It now says see result. I'm not sure what the motive was behind this change but it seems to me that were trying to hide from casual viewers that the counteroffensive was a failure. We cited multiple sources that explicitly say failure. I understand that we all want Ukraine to win but one of the most explicit rules on Misplaced Pages is that articles are free from bias. I hope we can correct this soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages free from bias? lol

They literally removed "status:failure" because of their bias. 2A09:6383:0:5:45:147:98:110 (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Have any of you even read my explanation? This is not a bias issue, it's a template usage issue, thus more like "technical issue". If you think we should use a non standard term in the result parameter, then feel free to make an RfC (check the Battle of Bakhmut one, for example), I may vote with you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Literally bias issue 41.254.64.205 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you had read my previous comments, you would have known that I was an advocate for writing Failure in the infobox. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Offensives have only two results: Success or failure.

Did you take the ground? Did you achieve the objectives? Yes or no?

In this case, the answer is a resounding no.

"Stalemate" doesn't apply when one combatant is (generally) on the defensive, and the other, a stated offensive campaign.

Stalemate would apply if both sides were launching (unsuccessful) offensive operations over a mutually contested ground... 2600:1700:21F8:6080:9010:5E64:70D9:6BA (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that we all want Ukraine to win You didn't need to say this. In fact wanting one or the other to win has nothing to do with one's editing credibility, as long as common sense and Misplaced Pages guidelines are followed. This is an encyclopedia for all afterall. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

They didn't imply that. They were calling for reservation from editors holding the standard, majoritary and correct moral position, which is supporting Ukraine. OP has expressed more than one position coinciding with the ones you've expressed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

majoritary and correct moral position, which is supporting Ukraine You know this is WP:POV... And it's also a big bait for engaging in WP:FORUM. Though I get your overall point and you surely get mine, so I'll leave this thread at this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Its really sad seeing how biased[REDACTED] has been on the conflict as a whole. Its always some technicalities being cited as obstacles to declaring something as Ukrainian failure or Russian success.

On one hand, you have articles about quite literally 1 day clashes as battles. Take Battle of Vasylkiv as an example. Article based on "allegedly and reportedly" shooting down a plane with Russian paratroopers, plane whos wreckage has never been found. And even though in the very article you have "According to The Guardian, "no convincing public evidence has surfaced about the two downed planes, or about a drop of paratroopers in Vasylkiv", it still stands as a battle, with a clear Ukrainian victory status, listed on the list of engagements as well.

And its one example out of many.

Not sure what more than the statements from Zelenski and Zaluzhnyi anyone wants, they will never say it outright, but those statements are clear as day. The counter offensive was a failure, and its over. 37.0.71.202 (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

They may think that by not acknowledging the failure of the offensive they are doing some type of lip service to Ukraine and Ukrainians. And as UKRAINIAN citizen my concerns comes from the fact that this type of service is nothing more then disservice to my people. By outright lying about the status of counteroffensive it creates false hopes for my people and can be a dissuading factor into questioning our government tactics and accountability. I am hoping long after i am gone and when my people read this page they will hold those in charge responsible so that things like this wont be repeated, and lessons learned. Multiple people have already linked both Ukrainian and Western sources showing and explaining how and why the offensive failed by not reaching the minimal goal. Although i do believe that Russian sources should be included also so that when my people read they get all the sides of the story (and we do read English Misplaced Pages.)

All of us show bias when it comes to what information we take in. We typically focus on anything that agrees with the outcome we want. But this bias simply does not belong here. Papagulag (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no better word but bias to describe the situation. Prior discussions is trying very hard so that the result would not be 'failure' citing some technicalities. But previous articles shows that 'failure' as a result IS possible as shown in the[REDACTED] article of german case blue offensive

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Case_Blue 125.165.98.252 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Indeed this seems to be a clear case of double standards. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   I think readers might want more of a concrete answer. Maxsmart50 (talk) 

Should Battle of Robotyne be a separate article?

Robotyne is only one point where fighting has been ongoing during the (counter)offensive. In Ukrainian Misplaced Pages a separate article is dedicated to the battle for Robotyne, which could be translated: Battle of Robotyne 

That Ukrainian page is more like a timeline than like an article. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

should it still be translated? Salfanto (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If the article meets quality standards in the end, I would have no objections. After all, it was the culmination of the counteroffensive, so of all the other smaller battles, it should have the most attention. And it's the only battle besides Krynky that could be argued as ongoing. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

When will the offensive be regarded as over?

Theres been near to no action from the Ukrainians on the front, and in fact now its the russians pushing northwards south of Robotyne. When will the counteroffensive be finally considered as over, based on these facts? and, still based on these facts, the counteroffensive will be considered a failure, correct? Andreax2014 (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We are not going to go through the same we did at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut again. Either bring sources saying the counteroffensive is over or do not initiate the debate. I propose that we delete threads like these in the future (not this one in virtue of being the first) unless they bring something of substance. The archives of the talk page of the Battle of Bakhmut are filled with IPs and recently registered users starting the same thread all the time ("the battle is over, accept reality!!!"). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article and recent news/reports before threatening. You would know that core of what he said is essentially true and legit (increased Russian activity in multiple areas including Avdiivka, though the extent of success remains to be confirmed). With that being said, I repeat what I implied before: we should wait for some consensus among sources before updating the status. And yeah, if nothing changes, it would be a failure. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't threatened anyone. I'm well aware of the news and of the situation of the article. I know the counteroffensive is a failure. But sources do not say so nor do they say it's over. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being objective. It’s ok to not succeed all the time. After all it is a war, the experience gained by Ukrainian Military will be invaluable going forward. As long as western support holds true, Ukrainian victory one way or the other is more than likely inevitable. In my opinion. 66.191.25.44 (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:FORUM Alexiscoutinho (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not inevitable at all lol, even with Western support. We saw how that spectacularly failed against Russia and the West has been depleted of munitions and rockets to give out. Elias Ziad (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Ukrainian offensive have failed in every possible way. It's time to either call the status a "Russian Victory" or "Ukrainian Failure" because that's the reality. Ukraine is no longer pushing, and Russia is making limited counterattacks, the front here has largely died down. You need to get your priorities straight because it seems that you are being influenced by Ukrainian propaganda. Elias Ziad (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

May I also note this is in fact the second thread you open about this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

When the reliable sources say it's over. Misplaced Pages doesn't lead, it follows what sources say. HappyWith (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonel Markus Reisner of the Austrian Armed Forces said so Andreax2014 (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if he said that, that's one guy out of dozens of reputable analysts and organizations. HappyWith (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Which havent said the offensive is not over Andreax2014 (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This comment is ridiculous. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The ISW still resists calling the offensive over, for example, which isn't surprising coming from them. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, for sure on December 31 the *2023* Ukrainian counteroffensive will be over. Alaexis_¿question? 18:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

When Ukraine says it's over Scu ba (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

yes. Russian sources have said the counteroffensive ended a week after it started. and the Media is only going to call it over when Ukraine does. Scu ba (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources exist, they don't need to ask permission from Kiev to conclude if the offensive is over. Besides, regarding your first reply statement, I was actually considering that analyst from ZDF that op talked about, not Russia's UN representative. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No reliable sources exist so far. The opinion of a single Austrian officer who runs a blog that is sometimes cited in the German equivalent of PBS isn't enough to say the counteroffensive has either failed or is over. Scu ba (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

He has more military experience and knowledge on the topic than the entirety of Washington Post's staff combined lol. Hes a better source on this than any of the sources mentioned in this article. Andreax2014 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Good for him, maybe he should try and get into a reputable newspaper like the WP and then we can cite him. Scu ba (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda media outlets hate when their narrative is countered. Also, its already been cited...so... Andreax2014 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Everybody knows it's mostly over. But we have to wait until an analysis comes out with an accurate end date, or at least when it transitioned into a campaign (positional battles). Gotta see what turns out of Krynky... Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say along the entire Dnipro front, to be more accurate. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"A reputable newspaper like WP" lol, you are overdosing on copium. Elias Ziad (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine will never call it over lol. Thats like Hitler saying on the radio that Operation Citadel is over and has failed. Elias Ziad (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

True but how will we know when to report that the counteroffensive is over? Salfanto (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Counteroffensive petering out

Should change status from ongoing to done, its pretty clear its petered out, especially with mechanized units from the 47th now in Avdiivka.

Another thing to add, I would recommend deeming it a failure as it is has not achieved either of its objectives (Minimum: Tokmak Main: Melitopol)

Also, Zaluzhny's article practically confirms it is over 68.231.86.198 (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We need to cite a reliable analysis suggesting an end date though. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source explicitly says "The counteroffensive is over as of x date," per Wiki policy we can't say it ended. Not to say it hasn't slowed down to the point of completion, but we have to have sources that explicitly say that. Jebiguess (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

On November 1. The Economist published it's Interview with Zaluzhnyi where he explicitly said they had reached a "Dead End". In the German Wiki they used this as the end date and said the offensive stalled out in late October and effectively ended, would have thought the same applies here as personally I find it very unlikely Ukraine will concede defeat since this war is largely fought in the media-space aswell. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point, though I still think that was a bit of original interpretation. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

If the Russians indeed reenter Klishchiivka, it would be a good opportunity to WP:BOLDly follow your suggestion, in order to save Klishchiivka from being removed from the infobox total. But then again, what about that Zelensky promise of "success" still this year? Is he just bluffing? Could whatever renewed attack be attibuted to this offensive? And should we even care (tie our hands in antecipation of speculations)? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Piatykhatky is also having more activity recently. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

If there is a revert of gains from the Counteroffensive on a larger scale that would mean Ukraine would be on the defensive, meaning that this isn't an offensive operation anymore. But even if there was no significant revert the notion that the Offensive will just continue after the winter is just silly and could generally be classified as a follow-up Counteroffensive. The only way I see that it's justifiable for the article to keep the status as ongoing is if Ukraine does advance within this year atleast. I do understand that Misplaced Pages needs a source for an End-Date and that is a good rule but I fear as we have seen by both sides that defeat is rarely aknowledged. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Hopefully we don't need to wait much longer. Although I explained my own "activation" criteria, I won't oppose if someone boldly does the proposed edit. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Just use November 1st as end date. In reality, the offensive had ended just 1 week after it has started due to the switch of tactics to "attrition" which means it cannot be an offensive no more but just positional fighting and small movements. Elias Ziad (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

They did that in the spanish wiki as well. Well never get an exact date so I guess thats the best we got and the one we should use. DuckTheDucker (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a counteroffensive

Sorry for being pedantic, but to my understanding, this was a Ukrainian offensive, not a counteroffensive. I understand the desire to call it a counteroffensive to underline that Ukraine is fighting a defensive war against Russian invasion, but a counteroffensive is an offensive launched into an ongoing enemy offensive, and the Ukrainian offensive was launched into defensive positions. The Russians were not attacking in that area at the time, as far as I know.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/counteroffensive

2A02:AA7:400C:E400:1:1:4786:DBB0 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We could mix the terms a bit more in the article (I'm doing my part), but at leat the title should remain counteroffensive as it's a better index. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree while it might not be the correct terminology this could be said within the article saying that "Ukraine launched an Offensive against Russian forces". Changing the name of the article could very well lead to confusion because Ukraine and the Media have repeatedly named this Offensive as a Counteroffensive. While Ukraine is in a defensive war I also don't think it warrants counting every Offensive operation they do as a Counteroffensive like brought up in a previous talk with that precedent set there would be a change needed in almost all defensive war offensives. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Telegraph Says Counteroffensive is a Failure

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/12/ukraine-counteroffensive-failed-russia-putin-war-plan/

Is this good enough? Telegraph is considered a reliable source and the headline is pretty clear. The article then goes in detail about the mud season signalling the end and western restrictions on what could be done causing failure. Requesting article is changed to say the counteroffensive is over and a Ukrainian failure. UkraineSPA (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a talk about this topic already by the way, but about the article yes it's published by the Telegraph but from my Knowledge the Author Lewis Pages is not reliable. Besides one of the criteria given to change the articles was an actual date which was also not given here Alex.Wajoe (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.zeit.de/news/2023-11/15/krieg-gegen-die-ukraine-so-ist-die-lage there is also claims of a Bridgehead and Jermak says it is part of the Counteroffensive. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Any proof he is not reliable? And its not like anything he says is crazy or insane. Mud season has started, it's only a couple more weeks until winter starts, and pretty much all attacks have stopped. These are both facts. As for a date it officially ended one isn't going to be given for months or possibly even years. If theoretically the counteroffensive is still listed as ongoing a year from now just because zelensky or other Ukrainian officials don't wanna talk about it would be ridiculous. UkraineSPA (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Again this was brought up in the already existing Talk about this topic. I agree that we are unlikely to receive a date for the end of the Counteroffensive by Ukraine. As for Lewis Page he used to be very controversial with his articles about Climate Change and was criticized last year for his article "How 13 Whitehall mandarins crippled Britain’s aircraft carriers". From what I can tell he is a sensationalist downplaying actual danger like the ZNPP (claimed it was a "complete non-issue") while overexaggerating others Alex.Wajoe (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure it matters more this article came from a reliable trusted news outlet. This article was ran through editors and again no outrageous claims are made in it. You can't say an article from an outlet like The Telegraph doesn't count because you don't like the guy who wrote it. UkraineSPA (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I never said it did not count I just reiterated the earlier point that an actual end date is needed aswell as that end date needing to be the Consensus like with the start date where 3 sources plus an explanatory comment are attached to it. Again there is an earlier talk where a confirmed extended user said what was needed for a change to the article to be done. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but thats not gonna happen though. Even if the offensive is clearly over knowing the exact date the order was given to stop is impossible unless Ukrainian officals say something which they won't because talking about your failures in a war is not common practice. Most likely scenario is Ukraine being radio silent and more articles like The Telegraphs will come out saying it's over but not giving a clear date because we don't have one and aren't going to for a long time. UkraineSPA (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Also worth keeping in mind the date Ukraine finally admits failure and the date they ordered their forces to stop will be far apart. UkraineSPA (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that it is definitely valid to say that the counteroffensive is over. There's a difference between the counteroffensive being a failure and the counteroffensive having ended. We have several reliable sources about the former but none or very few about the latter. I still see news about fighting in the area around Robotyne. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the only area where Ukraine is still trying to be on the offensive (excluding Krynky as it's debatable if it should be considered part of the originally "summer" offensive). Alexiscoutinho (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-29/ukraine-counteroffensive-challenges/103158114

Australian ABC also claiming that the offensive failed 1.145.185.11 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the bottom of the concerns sub-section there is a line talking about Ukraine being "prone to mutinies" but there is no mention of that in The Economist article that it cites, and I feel like the part about mutiny should be removed as a result of it not being in the cited article. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 22:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Reverted Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It is implied in the article (you can read the full version with the archive link):

General Zaluzhny is desperately trying to prevent the war from settling into the trenches. “The biggest risk of an attritional trench war is that it can drag on for years and wear down the Ukrainian state,” he says. In the first world war, mutinies interfered before technology could make a difference. Four empires collapsed and a revolution broke out in Russia.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not in the article from The Economist, I checked. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What? https://web.archive.org/web/20231101191731/https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/11/01/ukraines-commander-in-chief-on-the-breakthrough-he-needs-to-beat-russia Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about mutinies in the article itself. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that the link isn't the article? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that the quote isn't in the article that you cited. If it's in the source, then cite the source instead. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by article vs source? The free version vs archived full version? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the full version. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

But the free version url would still have the quote if the reader was a subscriber. Afaik, that is the correct way to cite. I don't need to explain that I synthesized parts of the full version. That's the purpose of those {{Cite web}} parameters. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it turns out they removed it in the current version of the article, so it doesn't exist anymore. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the citation template would probably need updating. I'll see what I can do later. But the synthesis is still valid. Thanks for the clarification anyways. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've fixed the citation template. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You may need to reword it as well, it just talks about being worn down instead. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I just remembered that the |date= parameter has this purpose. Therefore my citation is still valid since it refers to the original version of the article. Afaik, Misplaced Pages doesn't have to adhere to neutered/censored versions of articles (which is likely in this case given the huge backlash). It's not as if the original article was lying or making stuff up. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there's more to the edit than that, and you always assume the worst for some reason. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Which "edit"? The one in The Economist article? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course 72.229.242.36 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The Informational part about the context with the first world war WAS still in the Economist but we can't know why it has been edited. Since the edit was made in silence a grave mistake by the Economist seems unlikely besides the "claim" is something that happened in real life especially in ones where the Ecpnomy collapses, Citizens grow tired all the time especially in WW1 where almost all loosers had rebellions leading to a collapse of the war effort and the standard of living(Example given was Russia but Germany aswell as Austria-Hungary faced dire conditions at the Home-Front even if not as bad as Russia). I do not see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:Alexiscoutinho "assuming the worst" here rather being realistic given the situation and source. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless the general didn't actually use that word (the original interview video, if it exists, would help greatly here), that edit still just seems like an effort to minimize the backlash/impact of his words. I don't have an extensive WW1 knowledge, but it's more believable that mutinies were a more relevant concern back then than politics. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There is literally an essay at the end of the article that goes into more detail. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Will check. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

But it's not the raw interview though. I don't see how that essay would help much here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think they changed it because a mutiny isn't really realistic when you are fighting for the future of your nation, and would be counterproductive for the soldiers who are determined in defending their homeland. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Alex.Wajoe already made a good explanation regarding this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Again to go back to the WW1 example even the side that was "defending" (the Entente in this case) had incredible amounts of desertions and mutinies by their soldiers, it is a side effect of a long war further there could also be a point made that Ukraine would want it to be kept quiet. This is because the West obviously feels less inclined to send state of the art equipment if there is the prospect of Russia acquiring it in pristine condition due to desertions/mutinies (A Helicopter pilot I believe did exactly this taking his Russian Helicopter and surrendering it to the Ukrainians). Alex.Wajoe (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Our text says that he said it, but it’s just a side comment from the Economist itself.
2. If the source - the Economist - removed the text then we have no business keeping it either
3. It’s a cherry picked minor comment from the source.

Volunteer Marek 16:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, a line like "likely in an effort to minimize the impact of the allusion" is WP:OR and is in no way neutral. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If that interpretation bothers you, then feel free to improve it (I could even fix if for you if you have a suggestion). Or alternatively omit it and just keep the objetive comment explaining that the word was changed. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The interpretation bothers me, but the fact that we need to include it bothers me more. Most of the sentence seems fine, actually, but why do we need to keep the outdated "mutinies" instead of what the Economist currently says? ARandomName123 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

why do we need to keep the outdated "mutinies"? Because it's a relevant concern. The general, all the time, compares the current state of the war with WW1 and, as Alex.Wajoe explained, mutinies played a big role back then, so they could very well play a role in the near future too. The general wasn't sugar coating the situation, he was actually being quite frank. And I feel confident that the original version of the article represents better what the general really said. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The general does compare it to WW1, and I am familiar with it, but we still don't know if the general actually mentioned mutinies. As Folly Mox said, it could have just been a piece of background information thrown in by the author. ARandomName123 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe I know now the reason for the change. It's that they were referencing the First World War when the word "mutinies" shows up, saying that was the sole cause for the collapse of these empires, which is inaccurate since it was a number of things that caused the collapse of the central powers and Russia, with a number of them being internal and not from the military. So, they changed it to politics, since it was more than army mutinies that caused the collapse of these four empires in the end. And if you want me to list a few reasons, then they included, but were not limited to, nationalist movements, war weariness of the populace, political upheaval, economic crises, food shortages, and a number of other reasons as well. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

but it’s just a side comment from the Economist itself. How would you know? I'm not sure that's how interview articles go. It would be very clunky writing/reading if every sentence of the article was followed by "he added", "he suggested", "he implied"... I would prefer to hear from other experienced editors about this. If the source - the Economist - removed the text then we have no business keeping it either Simply no, what would be the point of |url-status= then? It’s a cherry picked minor comment from the source. Excuse me? How is summarizing the most relevant parts of an article "cherry picking"? If it's a "minor comment" from the source, then why did it bother revising it anyways? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, Arch dude, and Folly Mox: From Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Citing a revised article. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: Sorry to ping you once more, but I wanted to know your opinion too. Do you believe the part about "mutinies" in this paragraph from the original Economist article just came out of the journalist's mind and not the general's mouth? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Seeing the context here and examining the source in full, I'm not seeing cause to include the term "mutinies". In the original Economist piece, it was part of a historical background sentence added by the article author, not part of a direct quote from the interviewed general. (Irrelevant speculation on my part: the article author lacked subject matter expertise in WWI, and made a silent correction to a misunderstanding.) In any case it is a minor point, the main point being the possibility of being "worn down". Folly Mox (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

👍. Will wait a little more for the others to reply though, before potentially tweaking the citation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

As I stated above, I'm fine with leaving the "worn down" part in, as long as the bit about "mutinies" is removed. ARandomName123 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Same, I only wanted the "mutinies" part to be removed, I was fine with the "worn down" part since that wasn't changed in the Economist article. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. ARandomName123 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but don't close this edit request though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it works, you can put it as answered, but it doesn't close the request, nothing is stopping you from continuing to post in it. All it does is show that the request has been resolved, nothing more. I'm not going to do it now, but I'm just letting you know. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Alexis, I’m troubled by the fact that in this revert you reinserted text which claimed that Zaluzhny, a BLP subject, said something he didn’t actually say. Even if there was some justification for including the stuff about mutinies (and seeing as how the source itself removed it, I can’t see any) then the proper thing to have done was to make it explicit that this was an off hand comment by the author of the Economist article, rather than continue misrepresenting it as Zaluzhny’s. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, I did believe in good faith that the article implied that the general talked about that. I'm still unsure if that's an editor's addition or rewording of the interview. That's why I'm asking the opinion of others, to understand how interview articles actually work. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Change Request: Counteroffensive failed

The counterattack failed because Ukraine failed to make any territorial gains. Brar06 (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the sources:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/7/russia-looks-stronger-and-has-a-four-fold-advantage-in-manpower

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-29/ukraine-counteroffensive-challenges/103158114 Brar06 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're jumping the gun here, I feel like we need a consensus before making such an edit, and not just do whatever this new user is saying. Besides, it has already been mentioned in the analysis section of the article. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It was not just because of this user. This was already pending/"had it coming" given the previous extensive discussions. I just hadn't done it earlier because I had thought that removing the |status= parameter (which is necessary to enable the display of the |result= parameter) would make it seem like the counteroffensive was over. But I forgot that by keeping the date as running (present) would suffice in conveying this notion (of stalemate). Besides, it has already been mentioned in the analysis section of the article that's even more reason to reflect such info in the infobox. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be applied to the infobox if there is no consensus that it is over, so it should still be labeled as ongoing until sources actually say that it is over. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

RealKnockout's subsequent edit already makes the current situation very clear. And we couldn't just keep the word ongoing without any caveats. Wouldn't make sense to write: Ongoing (but it pretty much stopped...). Or: Ongoing, but widely accepted as failure. Keeping the end date open/vague and mentioning the stalemate is more than enough and in fact, perhaps, the most adequate display of the infobox. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus What do you think of this? 72.229.242.36 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No other article marks an ongoing event as a failure or victory, so I replaced "failure" by "ongoing". Likewise, since it does not make sense to say that Ukrainian forces have failed in doing something marked as ongoing, I've added to the infobox that they failed to reach their counteroffensive objectives in the expected timeframe. If I remember correctly, Zaluzhny had stated in the interview that four months were supposed to be enough for Ukraine for reaching Crimea. It is also advisable to source heavily these points in the infobox. I don't think too strongly of whether we should have them or not in the first place but I am opposed to the former wording. We shouldn't mark anything as an absolute victory or failure until we can reliably say it has concluded. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus

Thank you for commenting. I just wanted to add that the Counteroffensive is going since June 2023(almost 6 Months) and I would say that the Counteroffensive has failed. It's just taking to long and we see now that Russia is progressing some directions. 79.247.156.198 (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We cannot add to the article our own personal interpretations of the situation, we rely on sources. There seems to be consensus among reliable sources that the counteroffensive has not reached expectations, but not that it has ended already. Currently the infobox reflects this situation accurately. The counteroffensive is marked as ongoing but the fact that it has not reached its objectives is also noted. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You guys are conveniently ommiting the facts, reality and the great article linked below by Aennfred. It unambiguously treats the counteroffensive as over. The most you could argue is that this info should be said in the article body first. In that case, we should do that, NOT invent our own interpretation of sources and reality. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple sources have declared the counteroffensive as being a failure:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-28/kyiv-s-harsh-winter-deepens-gloom-over-battlefield-failures

https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-generals-view-war-stalemate-appears-recognition-failed/story?id=104576525

https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2023-11-03/ukraine-confirms-its-counter-offensive-has-failed-day-617-war

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/zelensky-concedes-counteroffensive-failed-but-insists-thats-no-reason-to-surrender

One even says in no uncertain terms that the counteroffensive has been halted:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/11/12/ukraine-counteroffensive-failed-russia-putin-war-plan/ (paywalled)

Furthermore, none of the counteroffensive objectives were reached by Ukraine. Both sources & interpretation lead to the conclusion that the counteroffensive has failed. RealKnockout (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am going to say it one last time. The counteroffensive failing doesn't mean it has already ended. Period. Halted implies that offensive operations are not causing progress, not that they aren't being made anymore in the first place. The source that Aennfred linked is the very first since the counteroffensive started that could be used to imply that the counteroffensive is indeed over, even if through Zelenskyy's indirect comments, which is not ideal. By the way, I apologize to Alexiscoutinho for it having taken me a scandalous half a day to find about the first source deviating from what we've been hearing about from Ukrainian officials (or at the very least from Zelenskyy) for over a year already, and also for conveniently ommiting the facts, reality and for inventing my own interpretation of sources and reality.

May I also note that this isn't a race, nobody will give anybody a medal for being the first to write that Ukraine's counteroffensive has ended in Misplaced Pages. We will follow Misplaced Pages's common procedures and not someone's wishes for being first in an imaginary race. There has never been, to date, consensus among reliable sources, that Ukraine's counteroffensive has stopped. Even if we imply that this interview from Zelenskyy which Aennfred has linked will lead to a change of discourse among reliable sources (like Zaluzhny's November interview arguably switched sources' discourse to the counteroffensive having indeed failed, at least more solidly), it's only been 12 hours, and sources have not catched up. Until (if) they do, you can continue pointlessly pushing for marking the counteroffensive as over, it will not happen just yet. I am also curious about which day would users pushing for this argue that the counteroffensive ended.

As a final note, we still mark Battle of Bakhmut as ongoing, and it took us a year to mark the Battle of Donbas (2022) as over. It will take some time until things are apparent to us. Which shouldn't be surprising as we're talking about an ongoing war. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You and the IP editor seem to be the only ones with this dissident interpretation that a failed offensive/offensive that cannot succeed/doomed offensive/stalled operation which is being actively discussed as a thing of the recent past/concluded/analysis of results, can be considered ongoing. Come on, Zelensky gives clear indications that it's done because of shortage of many things and he is even looking forward/preparing for this new phase.

If you are waiting for a source to directly say that the counteroffensive ended on X date, then you'll have to wait for years because that's what historians do. The most we're going to get are the Russian statements that the counteroffensive is over. Throughout this war Misplaced Pages has followed common sense when structuring its articles.

Furthermore, please don't use the Battle of Bakhmut as example here as the termination criteria are quite different and because the current understanding of status there is questionable at best.

By the way, why were you quoting retracted parts of my comment? That could be viewed as baiting escalation, but I will assume good faith and just leave it at that. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, what kept the status of the offensive afloat was the intention/objective of the armed forces. An offensive isn't just a grouping of battles, it's a grouping of battles which aim to achieve a certain strategic goal. When that goal is lost/is given up, then the battles become meaningless or isolated/detached from a main/parent operation. Even if minor skirmishes continue around Krynky and Robotyne (areas of interest of the offensive), they are mere battles to secure the settlements they have captured for possibly another offensive in the future. NOT for the stated goals of this offensive. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Further note, I'm pretty sure we don't need the "approval" of all editors (100% consensus) to proceed with an important change. A general or overall consensus (majority) should be enough if the subject of discussion is the interpretation of a source. So far we seem to have 3 in favor of the change and 2 against. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVOTE, it is not about who gets the majority. So far I have only seen one source mentioned here that can be interpreted as stating that the counteroffensive is over, Zelenskyy's interview published today. I am just arguing for patience, sources that could be useful for this viewpoint are already popping out from this interview. Such as this one: his country's long-planned summer counteroffensive failed to produce the results... , but this one only implies it is over indirectly. And still some sources don't reflect this viewpoint: this one is from yesterday, and states that Ukrainian senior commanders have said the counteroffensive will continue through the winter , since we are dealing with indirect implications this one is just as valid as that from Zelenskyy's interview.

I also remind that some people were already arguing here that the counteroffensive was over in October and we were having reports of fighting around Robotyne until mid-November. The fighting at Krynky was also connected by some sources to the counteroffensive. It is just too early, it's not even been 24 hours since Zelenskyy's admission. I think the ISW's report of today hasn't come out yet, for example, and it might give us valuable info, useful as it is a respected source. In some weeks more sources should appear, just like they did after Zaluzhnyi's interview regarding the counteroffensive's failure.

If you want in any case to change it right now, I recommend starting a RfC. This will build consensus much more effectively. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

As a member of the silent community on Misplaced Pages I find no clarity in the unscrupulous delay & debate over the obviously failed/stalled offensive. We must take the “innocent” till “proven” “guilty” approach to the information we receive. Ukraine announced the counter offensive, the onus to prove their success is on Ukraine. Most sources here have taken a Guilty till’ proven innocent approach and insist on asking open ended questions like “has Ukraine’s offensive stalled?” The fact that these sources are asking that question does not imply inconclusively, it implies a total failure of the Ukrainian military. 2605:B100:1131:5267:D825:8994:A9E9:700B (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the well rounded response. Will wait a few more days then, and then open an RfC if necessary. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Another source that suggests that the counteroffensive is over is https://web.archive.org/web/20231110022135/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/11/09/is-ukraines-counter-offensive-over: "our data suggest that the counter-offensive’s big push is over, not that the war is". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Will compile a list of sources in the meantime. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems the BBC has confirmed the counteroffensive's failure here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67636302

Quote: "There was huge anticipation about Ukraine's counter-offensive, which finally began in June.

But already there are endless post-mortems as to why the effort has failed, with analysts pointing to problems such as a lack of air superiority, strategic miscalculations and heavily fortified Russian defences." RealKnockout (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, Zelensky seems to have confirmed that Ukraine is going to a deep defense against Russia. If so, that probably means that counteroffensive is officially over and failed. --Aennfred (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

List of relevant recent sources

1. "Is Ukraine's counter-offensive over?". The Economist. 9 November 2023. Archived from the original on 10 November 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2023. our data suggest that the counter-offensive's big push is over, not that the war is sent by Alexis Coutinho
2. Blackburn, Matthew (21 November 2023). "Ukraine War: Selling Stalemate and Prolonging Pain". The National Interest. Retrieved 4 December 2023. In this regard, Ukraine has just given up an unsuccessful offensive that incurred heavy manpower and equipment losses. sent by Alexis Coutinho
3. Psaropoulos, John (30 November 2023). "A hard, bloody winter awaits Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, say experts". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 1 December 2023. Ukrainian senior commanders have said the counteroffensive will continue through the winter. sent by Super Dromaeosaurus
4. Jordan, James; Kullab, Samya; Novikov, Illia (1 December 2023). "The AP Interview: Ukraine's Zelenskyy says the war with Russia is in a new phase as winter looms". AP News. Retrieved 1 December 2023. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the war with Russia is in a new stage, with winter expected to complicate fighting after a summer counteroffensive that failed to produce desired results Zelenskyy, though, isn't dwelling on the past but is focused on the next stage — boosting domestic arms production. sent by Aennfred
5. "Ukraine Is Digging In as Russia Renews Its Offensive, Zelensky Says". Get the Latest Ukraine News Today - KyivPost. 1 December 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2023. President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Kyiv is focusing on improving its fortifications in a strategy shift from counteroffensive to defensive. With some exceptions – such as a small, newly established and fiercely contested bridgehead taken by Ukrainian Marines on the east side of the Dnipro River in the Kherson region – Kyiv is now digging into its positions more than it is going on the offensive as winter sets in sent by Alexis Coutinho
6. "Zelenskyy laments slow progress in war with Russia, but vows Ukraine "not backing down"". cbsnews.com. 1 December 2023. Retrieved 1 December 2023. his country's long-planned summer counteroffensive failed to produce the results Zelenskyy said the lack of forward movement by his forces trying to reclaim ground from Russian troops was due mainly to not receiving the weapons they needed from allies. sent by Super Dromaeosaurus
7. Miller, Christopher (1 December 2023). "Volodymyr Zelenskyy pushes to 'accelerate' defences on Ukraine frontline". ft.com. Retrieved 1 December 2023. Zelenskyy's appeal to reinforce his military's positions, made in an address, appeared to signal a strategic shift to defence after the counteroffensive launched in summer that aimed to retake significant areas of territory under Russian occupation. sent by Alexis Coutinho
8. Klein, Naomi (1 December 2023). "Russia-Ukraine war at a glance: what we know on day 647". the Guardian. Retrieved 2 December 2023. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy told the Associated Press that "winter as a whole is a new phase of war" and acknowledged that "we did not achieve the desired results" with the summer counteroffensive. sent by Alexis Coutinho
9. Hird, Karolina; Evans, Angelica; Bailey, Riley; Mappes, Grace; Barros, George; Kagan, Frederick W. (1 December 2023). "Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 1, 2023". Critical Threats. Retrieved 2 December 2023. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi signaled intent to increase Ukrainian defenses and fortifications around the Ukrainian theater, but notably did not include Zaporizhia Oblast in discussions of ongoing and future defensive measures. sent by Alexis Coutinho
10. Talmazan, Yuliya; Mayer, Daryna (3 December 2023). "As its counteroffensive fizzles, Ukraine battles itself, Russia and a shift in the world's attention". NBC News. Retrieved 3 December 2023. with its much-vaunted counteroffensive fizzling into the snow Fighting is likely to grind to an even more definitive halt as bitter weather sets in Analysts say this latest apparent attempt to breathe life into Ukraine's counteroffensive would only be likely to make a difference if Ukrainians manage to establish a bridgehead — a secure way across the river that could allow them to bring over armor and other support. "A Ukraine success could alter what's now widely seen as a stalemate," said Rajan Menon Sviatoslav Yurash, a member of Ukraine's Parliament and a serving soldier, said that the counteroffensive is still achieving one important aim — exhausting Russia militarily. The latest Dnieper offensive was a surprise for the Russians, Yurash said sent by Alexis Coutinho
11. Ellyatt, Holly (6 December 2023). "Ukraine signals a shift toward defense as analysts ask whether 'failed counteroffensive' is over". CNBC. Retrieved 6 December 2023. Eurasia Group founder and president Ian Bremmer commented Monday that "Ukrainians have shifted to building defensive fortifications, putting an end to the failed counteroffensive." sent by Super Dromaeosaurus
12. Gall, Carlotta; Chubko, Oleksandr; Konovalova, Olha (16 December 2023). "Ukrainian Marines on 'Suicide Mission' in Crossing the Dnipro River". NYT. Retrieved 16 December 2023. sent by Alexis Coutinho
13. Dickinson, Peter (21 December 2023). "Putin scents historic victory amid growing signs of Western weakness". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 22 December 2023. sent by Alexis Coutinho

Discussion

To me, it seems like the significance of the term "Ukrainian counteroffensive" has greatly diminished. The ISW tries to alleviate the implications of Zelenskyy's statements by hinting that offensive actions may continue in the southern front specifically. This sounds good for Ukraine and the proponents of keeping this article as ongoing, but it also highlights a big matter: so what? So what if the Ukrainians will still try to drag on battles around Robotyne? By following their logic, the counteroffensive could extend well into the winter and 2024, which would completely lose the focus/aim/defeat the purpose of what the "counteroffensive" really meant when planned. The term "counteroffensive" is insignificant right now. It's mostly a PR crutch. We are seing a revival of the original term "summer conteroffensive" and the results we're discussing so much about are related to it, not whatever is happening/is called right now.

Therefore, I suggest that we revert the scope of the article and name to the original one (that had "summer"). The article would cover events until the stalemate began. As soon as it became clear that the counteroffensive would fail/had failed, we indicate the end. However, we make a note in the article that fighting would continue in some areas albeit in a much smaller scale. If desired, we could even create a new article like "counteroffensive aftermath", or "southern ukraine campaign" or whatever, to include these minor fights that are happening during the "stalemate". This seems like the best fit interpretation of the situation and of the understanding of RS. What do you think? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

All of this will require an extensive analysis of what reliable sources say, both for changing the article's title (reminder that WP:COMMONNAME is the leading policy for deciding article titles, although it's less strict for descriptive titles) and for giving an end date to the counteroffensive. A title change should definitively be made through the WP:RM format and not through an informal discussion. I again insist for patience, I am sure more useful sources will appear in the next weeks and months. By the way, Southern Ukraine campaign exists. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

👍 Though I expect articles and analyses about the counteroffensive to start decreasing/falling under the radar from now on. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It may be mentioned offhandedly in other future articles. Smeagol 17 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Alexiscoutinho, as I had implied, sources are already appearing discussing whether the counteroffensive has ended, precisely after Zelenskyy's 1 December interview. Just like sources discussing whether the counteroffensive had failed appeared after Zaluzhnyi's interview. See this article, it is from nine hours ago . More will appear as time passes. I would recommend waiting until the second half of December for the RfC. Though I suspect in January of the next year sources will very clearly treat the counteroffensive as over, as a result of the psychological effect of the change of year. I'd assume your case will be the strongest by then. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  👍 Thanks. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Stalemate as a result

The infobot says, "Stalemate develops at the frontline" with a note saying "Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi said in November 2023 that a stalemate had developed." but I think it should more appropiate to say "Ukraine claims a stalemate" afterall we shoudn't go after anything the the ukrainians state official says, as they are in war they have to do some propaganda and aren't that reliable, so we should at least specify this was a claim of theirs. Thanks! 82.48.78.110 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say a "stalemate" reflects well the reality of the southern front. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Stalemate sounds good for all fronts. Ukraine had some gains, but these were barely any significant or strategically important in any way, when Russia has at least claimed so far Promka (Avdiivka southeast part), the key location for Russian further movement away from Donetsk and declared securing control over Khromove (recently) and Serhiivka (July), the latter confirmed, the first looks correct even according to pro-Ukrainian OSINT teams such as DeepState. Today, the Russian flag was raised over the southwesternmost part of Marinka town, hinting that the Ukraine is likely going to lose almost all of it or the entirety of it completely. Besides, there were barely any even tactical gains for Ukraine since the end of August. "Stalemate" sounds most true for 1 November or 1 December as the end day of this phase. --Aennfred (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Either 1 November or 1 December would be WP:Original research. I doubt there's any sources exactly saying the counteroffensive ended in any of those two days. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there at least something with a month? We can even use "the fall" if it comes to it. Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

These pro-Russian trolls just do not get it. Yes, the 'counteroffensive' didn't quite achieve any of the objectives. Yes, 125k Ukrainians are dead in the ground, but at least Ukraine got 10km into its own territory (and the largest minefield on Earth). Yes, Zelensky has admitted in multiple sources that the war has entered a new phase (i.e., the old phase has ended) and admitted to the press that this is a FACT. Yes, the Russians are now pushing further in a few weeks than Ukraine managed since June in said offensive. But we CANNOT let the Russians think, nor our public believe the Russians have the win. We MUST double down on our rejection of reality so as not to give them the time of day, nor the propaganda victory. Even when the brave Ukrainian soldiers are marching backwards towards Kyiv, meter by meter, We must prevail in our narrative that Ukraine is, in fact, winning in its 'counter-offensive', on the defence, and giving up land is simply defence in depth! The lie must be maintained at all costs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:EF40:1210:7901:DDFB:20E8:CCCE:EA93 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopedia, not a propaganda site. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, it seems to be a very good pro ukrainian propaganda site. Andreax2014 (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking if there was any battlefield event within that timeframe? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean a source of when the offensive ended, if one exists. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Afaik, there have never been sources explicitly saying (spoon feeding) end dates of stuff in an encyclopedic/historic style. There have only been indications, and we've lived with this since the war began. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but this can be said not only about dates, but about most facts of the war in general. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Ukrainian offensive have failed in every possible way. It's time to either call the status a "Russian Victory" or "Ukrainian Failure" because that's the reality. Ukraine is no longer pushing, and Russia is making limited counterattacks, the front here has largely died down. You need to get your priorities straight because it seems that you are being influenced by Ukrainian propaganda. Elias Ziad (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't even participate in this talk page after comments like these . This is the second trolling comment in this thread, I will remove unhelpful comments from now on. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:CLAIM and MOS:WEASEL Parham wiki (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a statement. The attacking side failed to advance and defensive side succeeded in stopping them. Misplaced Pages has become a laughing stock. Nobody can ever use it for reference. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the reporting/sources from the past few weeks it is evident the counteroffensive is over and the article should be closed. However, since there is no one source stating an end-date I would suggest either when the failure/stalemate of the offensive this fall was first reported (I would suggest date when Zaluzhny admitted it was a stalemate) or when the last Ukrainian gains were reported. Or, just write generally a month as Smeagol suggested. As for the result, I think what is already written in the status section is good enough already as a compromise solution, although generally this is seen as a Ukrainian failure (which RS also confirm). EkoGraf (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

So you basically saying we need to wait until Ukraine admits their counteroffensive failed? Good luck with that, they could literally lose the minimal gains made and they will still say it's progressing well. I would rather use when they made their last advancement or wait until they lose most of their gains. We could also use the Battle of Kursk as an example, the moment the Germans stop attacking the battle was considered over so the same should apply for the Ukrainian counter-offensive. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

But using your ideas would mean employing logic and intelligence, which the self-professed admins of this talk page and wiki page will not allow. They are blinded by petty minor details, grounded in bias, which they try to hide behind the façade of 'but there isn't a true source stating it yet,' even though Ukraine's general who organized the entire 'counteroffensive' says it has, and even their own president has now all but admitted it. The war could be over, and 30 years may pass, and they still won't accept reality. 2A0A:EF40:1210:7901:DDFB:20E8:CCCE:EA93 (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

LegendaryChristopher we already have Zaluzhny (representing Ukraine) admitting the situation had reached a stalemate as of November 1st (Zelensky seems to have de-facto confirmed it now himself, although a month late). Alternatively the end date can be when the last confirmed advance was made. I didn't say to wait for Ukraine to admit it failed, because realistically that will never happen. EkoGraf (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I second this, the status section seems like a decent indicator at the moment. The biggest thing is that fighting is still fiercely ongoing on both sides, just few territorial changes. That's why I'm in favor of keeping the status still over a result. Jebiguess (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It is, (depending on your definition of fierce, of course...). But this was true before the counteroffensive, too. So it is not exactly an argument that it belongs to this article. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. There is a wide consensus that the result of this counteroffensive was stalemate, see for example . My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is a big issue with that source though: it describes the state of the war as stalemate, not the counteroffensive. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No, there is not. It says: "Over the past 11 months, during which both Russia and Ukraine launched major offensives, little more than 500 square miles of territory has changed hands..." and interprets this as a stalemate. It says about this Ukrainian counteroffensive. There were no any others. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The counteroffensive is not 11 months in duration. The article (the quote) clearly compares the offensives from this year with those of last year and reasonably concluded the overall war is at stalemate. However, that does not mean it automatically considers the result of the Ukrainian counteroffensive "stalemate" instead of failure (it's even questionable if that word fits as a single word infobox result). Those 11 months also include the Bakhmut offensive which was neither a stalemate nor failure, it was a success. Even so, with local successes/failures the war can still be at stalemate. You're putting words in the authors' mouths. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Status as failed

The status should be returned to Failed, and not Uncertain. The very fact such a change was made is a SHAME upon all[REDACTED] admins involved. The copium is strong within your pro-Ukrainian bias. What is uncertain about this? None of the objectives were met, no cities conquered (only small villages). This counteroffensive is an utter failure, and the refusal to accept this by pro-Ukrainian admins is truly pathetic. Andreax2014 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating, but we got to follow the "due process". Look at the Battle of Bakhmut for example to have an idea how hard it can be. See also my initial answer at #Bias. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This only because of the bias present in[REDACTED] administration Andreax2014 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The administration isn't interfering in any of this afaik. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alexiscoutinho Of course there's going to be biases. Everyone has it to degrees. Nonetheless it would be wise to stick to using proper arguments instead of just accusations that will get you nowhere. And I agree it's hard for anyone to objectively deny it was a failure. Few papers if none, are touting it as a success. And I am sure that in due time, it would be too hard to deny it when the event becomes less fresh. I rather not get into an edit war especially on a sensitive topic. But just have faith that eventually it would likely self correct and just give it time for the others and western media to come to accept an unpleasant truth. 49.186.74.197 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, im not trying to start insulting you or anything like that, im simply expressing my profound frustration against such biased people. The counteroffensive is OVER. Andreax2014 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

im not trying to start insulting you or anything like that I know. I've shown concern about this somewhere else before. But it's not like anyone is impeding (EC) editors to show the other side. But we just gotta follow the process to resolve controversial topics and disputes of opinion. In the end, everything will be fixedcorrect. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally i just don't understand what's the point in writing articles on controversial topics instead of creating a draft article for something like "battle of bakhmut" STATING THAT THE ARTICLE IS UNFINISHED (maybe even hiding it from the public) and then keeping it that way until the dust has settled and the results are known.

Otherwise you just create an unnecessary battleground for the endless holy wars. In the academia nobody publishes poorly made drafts of the articles, no reason why[REDACTED] shouldn't do the same.

I understand that people who write stuff here come from different backgrounds, but a little bit of professionalism won't hurt. Otherwise you all yourself undermine this website as a legit source of information and make people avoid it. It has nothing to do with this specific article or the topic of ukraine war in general, it's an OVERARCHING problem with[REDACTED] in general. 79.164.26.39 (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This will eventually be marked down as a Decisive Russian Victory, once the full strategic consequences of the blunder have become abundantly clear and reflected in the course of the war. The editors have a process, so it's gonna take a while before it's even a basic Victory, but the bigger problem I have with the article is the claim of a stalemate, which has no basis and just reflects the current narrative in obviously biased media circles. A Stalemate occurs when the sides are exhausted and neither of them can advance. This is not the case in Ukraine because:

A) There is no conclusive evidence of exhaustion of Russian resources, and the reality is that nobody has a full understanding of why Russia isn't conducting massive sweeping offensives. It is merely a wishful assumption that this is the case because they *cannot* conduct them, just as it's a wishful assumption on the opposite side that it's the case because Russia *doesn't want to.* Both are assumptions, nothing more, and the only truth is that we don't know either way to a certainty.

B) Russia is advancing right now.

The info box clearly states the Offensive has also taken place in Donetsk/East Ukraine, where Russia is making gains right as we speak in more than one direction, as per endless sources on all sides. (Avdivka, Bakhmut, Terny, to name a few) There is no stalemate that can be proven, there is only a Ukrainian failure and defeat in this offensive. Nothing more, nothing less. 178.221.88.240 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The losses section of the info box is another issue. Just putting "Heavy" for both sides is, again, wishful thinking. There is plentiful evidence that Ukrainians have taken staggering losses while there is no evidence that Russia has taken close to the same amount. Someone has purposely used the same word to imply equivalence, when there is no evidence for equivalence whatsoever. It should either be "Unknown" or "Per Ukraine: Heavy" for the Russians. You already have a link to the casualties section, so it stands to reason you could have just put in "Uncertain" and linked to the section, where there can be a discussion and analysis. But no, somebody has clearly wanted really badly to put "Heavy" under the Russian side of the box. 178.221.88.240 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Consider making specific edit requests then (in a copy-paste format for us). I can't just boldly change the infobox like that without solid backing from the article body. If anyone puts in a lot of work, they have the potential to change the article a lot, paragraphs... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Fully agreed... Opefully the articles about the Ukraine war will be fixed soon in[REDACTED] Mattia332 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Kherson — Future GAN

I am currently working to get the battle of Kherson to good article status. I think all the necessary information is in the article (could use another editor to confirm that though), so I put a request in at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for a copy-edit. I am still waiting for that request though. After a copy/edit, I think the article is ready for GAN. If someone would like to check that out and/or assist in getting ready for a GAN, it would be much appreciated. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think a few more pictures would be nice. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Bias

Second time I've had to make a comment about Misplaced Pages's bias. The status being changed to "uncertain" is absolutely ridiculous. Ukraine's counter offensive has been an absolute failure with even top Ukrainians and western msm admitting that. If this was the other way around, wiki mods would have instantly claimed a "Ukrainian victory". This needs to be changed to a Russian victory. Calebman127 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the |result= and |status= parameters are mutually exclusive. Until an RfC is done to decide if the counteroffensive should be considered over, editors could simply claim that a result can't be given to something that might be ongoing. It's a shame, but at least the lead indicates it's a failure. I think keeping it Uncertain is a nice compromise until the RfC is done. I won't start anything big though until the RfC at Battle of Bakhmut is concluded. In the meantime, you could help by collecting good recent sources, perhaps to the list of sources in a previous section, so that when the RfC is created the debate will be more about facts rather than opinions. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two different issues here:

1. Has it been completed? Not yet because the Ukrainian forces continue offensive operations at the left bank of Dnipro. But it will be probably completed very soon.
2. Did it fail the objectives? To say that, we need to know what exactly objectives they had because there were many contradictory statements by various people. Yes, it is usually regarded as reaching the Sea of Azov, but perhaps they only had an objective to block a possible advancement by Russian forces and make small advances themselves wherever possible? That is, we need a sourced statement by their commander in chef (Zelenskiy) saying "We have/had such and such objectives". My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

   It's stated that Tokmak was the "minimum goal" by Oleksandr Tarnavskyi and I don't know if you could even add the landing on the on left bank of the Dnipro to this specific offensive rather than have it as it's own Alex.Wajoe (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. “Uncertain” should not be an option, rather “ongoing” or “failure” there are no sources that say that this offensive was a success. 2605:B100:1131:5267:D825:8994:A9E9:700B (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. The 2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive#Dnieper_front is prominently included on this page, and rightly so. But this section is outdated. The current operations in this area should be added. This is the most active area of their counter-offensive operations, and it is very active right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources don't view Krynky as that relevant though. Seems more like a side mission that is irrelevant until it delivers. But we shouldn't base the article on expectations. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes currently it is featured on this page but the landings on the left bank may at some point become their own article because they are so detached from the main effort that had been ongoing for months at that point, realistically it could be handled like Dragoon and Overlord which are seperate operations with the same target. Also the Offensive operations mainly stalled and I did not find any Sources in the past week about Krynky itself and only few covering the left bank at all, the main focus of the war has shifted to a point were Russia is again on the offensive mainly in avdiivka. If you think there is notable operations going on that are missing just add them ot ask for an edit with the sources. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The bridgehead occupied by Ukrainian forces at the left bank of Dnipro is strategically important for any their future offensive . That's why there is such fierce fighting for this area. Some military experts say that after being unable to breach the "Surovikin line", the Ukrainian forces should forget about reaching Crimea any time soon if they lose this bridgehead. This is their last hope. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody denied the importance I just stated that I was unable to find reliable sources for events that you described are missing from the article. Also the Source you included is not giving any new information that would be missing and is already several weeks old and does not represent the current status of the war anymore. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

status: failed

Of course UA govt won't admit defeat as this would lead to another Maidan, however, it's pretty clear they failed to achieve anything (except maybe turning some rubble into more rubble). Pretending otherwise is painting grass green.

Why Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed to deliver 85.193.228.106 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. but they won't change this due to how good the US Government's money is BarakHussan (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Sure, many people expected a lot more from the offensive. But one must rely on sourced statements by people who where in charge of the offensive to define the status. According to Zaluzny , “Just like in the first world war we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate,”. Hence, the official status must be "Stalemate". My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  How so? Any offensive that does not achieve it's goals would be a "stalemate" then? Not achieveing the goals that were defined before the offensive and during it's early stages (also included in this article) is the definition of a "failure". This page is not supposed to be a mouthpiece for any of the warring parties Alex.Wajoe (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

  But one must rely on sourced statements by people who where in charge of the offensive to define the status. Would you hear Putin's, or the MoD's, or the Russian generals' statements? If not, then you don't stand by your own statement. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, Putin or Russian MoD were not in charge of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Therefore, I did not suggest them. However, if they were commenting something about the success or failure of Russian offensive, that might be worth including to proper page in proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

proper context key, especially since they're all primary sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sure, one would need some secondary RS, and they typically say something like this. Including "failure" (as you did) is not unreasonable. But as the same article says, "It's not over yet" (on December 7) and says that it was not all failure, for example, " Hits in the occupied Crimean peninsula and against the Black Sea Fleet, as Zelenskyy celebrated a few weeks ago, have been huge successes, furthering a goal of making the area untenable for Russian forces.", etc. Actually, all activities described in the large section 2023_Ukrainian_counteroffensive#Behind_front_lines of this page "have been huge successes", as the linked article and many others say. Therefore, defining the entire operation as one big "failure" is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We have to show though that all military/territorial goals haven't been achieved (i.e. minimum goal of Tokmak). The way you wrote now, only mentioning Crimea (the maximalist goal), seems like sugar coating the situation and is also way too vague. It doesn't give any indication of degree of success. Just reading that infobox description would allow an understanding of "partial success" or even that Melitopol was recaptured, but not Crimea. I suggest something like tactical or operational failure (excluding logistical which is where Crimea attacks would fit in I think). I'll tweak the multiline result a bit. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I added word "Crimea" because that is what the in-line reference says (see the diff): Valerii Zaluzhnyi stated in an interview from November 2023, five months into the counteroffensive, that four months should have been enough for Ukrainian forces to reach Crimea. Simply saying "objectives" is not clear. What objectives? That was main objective according to Zaluzhnyi, Zelensky, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I added word "Crimea" because that is what the in-line reference says yeah, I figured. Simply saying "objectives" is not clear. What objectives? all objectives, main objectives... I think that understanding is implied, but would you prefer to add one of these words? But I thought the main objective was to split the Russian grouping in two. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As of note, the instruction Template:Infobox_military_conflict says for field "result": - optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". ...Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. What this is going to be? No one won. Based on the instruction, this parameter should be probably just omitted. My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that the equivalent of "X victory" for an operation/offensive is "success"/"failure". The template seems to be targeted towards battles. I don't think though that the result here is controversial enough to warrant a complete omission. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. Per template instruction, we have only 4 choices for this parameter: (a) Russian victory, (b) Ukrainian victory, (c) inconclusive, and (d) do not use this optional parameters. If we can't agree about it, you would have to start an RfC with such 4 choices. But I think this is clearly (c) or (d); there is no need in an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(c)?! Seriously?! That would be disregarding the sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You forgot option (e): link to an article section. If we radically follow template guidelines, this would be the closest match. I also thought about using the {{Infobox military operation}} template instead, but it seems to have more limitations than freedoms. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

According to the template instruction, "inconclusive" means we can not say this is a "victory by side X". Another suggested option (d) in such case is not to use this optional parameters. BTW, I saw recent Ukrainian sources claiming this to be (b), i.e. they have stopped a much stronger (in terms of the number of personnel, ammunition, aviation, artillery, etc.) opponent and successfully hit targets in Crimea. But I do not insist on (b). My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As about linking to article sections, that would be great, no problem. Changing to "Infobox military operation" would also be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think option (e) is a reasonable compromise unless an RfC is created. That section would need to be expanded more though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done

@My very best wishes: After reading several comments from various topics and checking other articles, it became apparent that using the "technical limitation" argument is setting double standards. The Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensive articles use the "X victory" standard term despite being operations where the ideal term would be "success". Furthermore, other articles do use non-standard terms like "operational failure" when it's more adequate and improves the article's quality. Template guidelines are not hard rules. If they were, checks could easily be implemented to only allow certain formats. Therefore, I regret making that decision to omit the result term in the infobox and only link to a section. Given that Russia achieved its objective and successfully thwarted Ukraine's counteroffensive, the result could naturally be interpreted as Russian victory. The link to the section could be kept there as a "for more details..." link. 17:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alexis Coutinho. Yes, there should be no double standards. We should follow same consensus template instructions everywhere, i.e. on this and other pages. You may see it "technical", but such instructions, guidelines, etc. reflect WP:Consensus. Speaking about "Russian victory", this is contrary to RS and logic, but you are welcome to start an RfC if you feel strongly about it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"Russian victory", this is contrary to RS and logic How is this contrary to logic? If you view an offensive as a battle for a 'wide front city', successfully defending from the attacking forces would be obviously interpreted as the defenders victory. I thought it was more complicated, but it's actually quite simple: if the attacker succeeds in an offensive (achieves breakthrough), the attacker gets victory, if the defender successfully thwarts the attack and defends the territory, then the defender gets victory. If the defender suffers high casualties and has logistical difficulties in the rear areas, it doesn't take away the victory, it's just extra information about the result. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll make a proposition in the infobox and try to be as neutral as possible. Hope it's acceptable to everyone. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. One of independent Ukrainian military analysts recently said that the top Ukrainian commanders knew from the very beginning that the counteroffensive can not succeed (they knew it because only a part of the promised military equipment was delivered by the West, and Russian forces had a significant advantage in aviation, artillery etc.). Whatever they were saying about the huge plans for the offensive back then was intentional disinformation, according to him, to prevent Russian forces from gaining initiative during the summer (even though they had a significant technical advantage). In particular, he said, that a number of statements by Kyrylo Budanov were intentional disinformation. And of course a lot of people, me including, did believe some of this disinformation. I do not know if this is true, but that is what this analyst said, and it is entirely plausible. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

For me that's just another claim to justify an overall failure. Remember when Russian sources claimed that they withdrew from northern Ukraine as a gesture of goodwill following the Istanbul peace talks? While it's entirely plausible that it was true, the most natural assumption (that it was an overall failure) was followed and this counteroffensive should be no exception. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree you can't just change the goals of an Operation after it has been concluded when there have already been set goals before. Further I think listening to Analysts here is the best choice. In the German speaking Area where I'm from there would be Markus Reisner from the Austrian Bundesheer and Gustav Gressel prominently featured on News Networks. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The interpretation it was "Russian victory" was made by you, not by RS. This is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Way to stop discussion on end date

To prevent discussion on the end date, which differs across sources, we should follow the example of the german wiki, which says it lasted from (June to fall 2023). An offensive doesn't just stop in an exact day, it petters out. So I propose we follow their lead and introduce this change. DuckTheDucker (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no specific end date in sources. Moreover, we do not even know if it ended. At least, there was no official statement by Ukrainian military about it, if I am not mistaken. Obviously, it either ends by default in 2023 December (simply based on the title of this page), or we need to rename this page if it continues during winter and claimed to be a part of the same counteroffensive. But we do not know it yet. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an OK solution. It seems that way more than 50% of sources consider the counteroffensive over already. If so, fall 2023 would be less controvertial than present as end date. I'll change the text to "uncertain" for now which is less controvertial and reflects better the current situation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be best to look at when assessments started appearing of the results of the Offensive, most notably would be Zaluzhnyi's Interview with the Economist (Nov. 1.) wherein the the failure to achieve the Offensives goals had been admitted. Autumn would fit as an end there as a placeholder. Getting an actual date will likely take years after this war and be left to specialiststo decipher. Also no the offensive ended, several times it was said Ukraine moved to the defensive across the front (the polar opposite of offensive). Alex.Wajoe (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

"no the offensive ended" - yes, excluding the continuing operation by Ukrainian forces at the left bank of Dnipro. They are still keeping the bridgehead, which does not make any sense unless they will use it for an offensive. If not, that was a suicide mission, which is though entirely possible. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually the Ukrainian Marines maintaining that bridghead are calling it exactly that, "suicide mission", see The New York Times article here . In any case, as Alexiscoutinho pointed out, most RS agree the offensive has ended (in failure I might add), so I agree with DuckTheDucker, Alexiscoutinho and Alex.Wajoe. If no exact date can be agreed upon/established at the moment, then putting "fall 2023" is a good alternative solution. EkoGraf (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a typical recent source (NPR) . The title: "With an inconclusive counteroffensive, Ukraine looks toward an anxious winter". It says "inconclusive", this is the result of the offensive. What it tells in the first phrase? "Six months into Ukraine's counteroffensive this year, the battle to retake Russian-occupied land seems as frozen as the snowy winter setting in.". "Six months" , but it is now (in December) "frozen". Saying it ended in December would be fair. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Zelensky officially announced on 30 November that Ukraine was building defensive forifications, which means that counter-offensive ended by that time since defensive is opposite of offensive, this means that counter-offensive was officially abandoded and a shift occured towards defence (according to Wall Street Journal):

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ordered the construction of an extensive network of fortifications aimed at holding back Russian forces, signaling a switch to the defensive posture after a monthslong Ukrainian counteroffensive yielded only small gains.

Zelensky’s message in a video address late Thursday is the clearest official acknowledgment that Ukraine faces a hard winter defending the territory it holds, with little immediate prospect of major advances against the nearly 20% of its land occupied by Russia. Instead, as the war approaches a third year, Ukraine is digging in just as winter starts to bite, with Russia pursuing grinding military offensives in the east and northeast.

Therefore, 30 November can used as an date, because that's when abandonment of counter-offensive was officially acknowledged, based on statement of Zelensky. -- Fodrid (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, he ordered this, i.e. to improve the Ukrainian defenses in certain areas, while ordering his forces to attack and keep a bridgehead in another place, i.e. at the left bank of Dnipro. Therefore, no, that does not mean he ordered to stop the offensive, and that November 30 is not the date. I do not agree that the offensive just died out. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

2024 counteroffensive

https://english.nv.ua/nation/general-zaluzhnyi-plotting-new-2024-counteroffensive-with-more-western-weapons-says-german-outlet-50377021.html The Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, is planning the 2024 counteroffensive already, should this page's name be changed to "2023-2024 Ukrainian counteroffensive" or should a new "2024 Ukrainian counteroffensive" page be created? I think the line is blurry because despite media and government reports of the counteroffensive being over/failed and the Ukrainians having switched to a "defensive" stance this article does not reflect that and shows it as happening "presently". 2804:D57:5516:BD00:B27E:286B:6383:53C9 (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I say, new year, new counteroffensive. Like a football season. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But it did not start yet. Will it ever? It is too early to start another page or change this page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If we were to talk about it, it definitely should be a different page. The content/scope would be too different. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This counteroffensive already ended in failure and Zelensky has asked his military to build up defensive lines. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Result of of the counter offensive

The following discussion 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.

The result of this counter offensive is widely acknowledge in both western and Russian media to be failure. Why isn’t that mentioned? It’s been now confirmed by the most pro Ukrainian and anti Russian western outlets like New York Times and Washington Post and even General Zaluzhny himself. Is Zelensky editing this Misplaced Pages article?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/politics/us-ukraine-war-strategy.html#:~:text=The%20push%20for%20a%20fresh,officials%20and%20their%20Ukrainian%20counterparts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/why-ukraines-counteroffensive-failed-to-deliver/ Yasarhossain07 (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

One of the editor is a denialist. acknowledge by ukrainian media wouldn't cut it. It needs direct confirmation from ukrainian MoD/general staff. And since that is virtually impossible we're stuck here 125.165.98.252 (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. There's between 4-5 rabidly pro-Ukrainian editors which have an outsized impact on any invasion-related articles. Hard to find objectivity on Misplaced Pages when it comes to the invasion sadly. 2601:85:C100:46C0:D5A4:E925:2E5:8796 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. This is because the instruction for Template:Infobox_military_conflict used on this page says the following for the field "Result": - optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". ...Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.. It does not include such option as "failure" and explicitly recommends not to use any non-standard options. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Russian victory?

I reverted this per WP:BRD. RS do not say it was "Russian victory". This is WP:OR, plain and simple. But anyone is welcome to start an RfC about it. But prior to starting any RfC, please just list here some RS which tell it was "Russian victory". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What do the sources actually say? They say that Ukrainian forces have achieved some modest successes (captured 370 km² of territory, the attacks in Crimea and against Russian Black Sea fleet), but did not fulfill expectations. How on the Earth this can be interpreted as "Russian victory"? My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Modest successes" is an overstatement. It's more like "minimal successes" or "insignificant territorial successes". Many sources confidently use the word "failure" therefore we shouldn't sugar coat the reception. In fact, calling it "Russian victory" could be viewed by many as less dissapointing for Ukraine because it doesn't attach the negative and strong word "failure" to the Ukrainian operation. Furthermore, how is logic and common sense WP:OR? You seem to be the only one disputing this idea. There's clearly something wrong if a successful offensive can be labelled as an attacker's victory, but a failed (Ukrainian) offensive cannot be labelled as a defender's victory. Look at Northern Ukraine campaign, sources overwhelmingly say it's a Russian failure and Russian defeat, yet no one seemed to have an issue labelling it as a defender's victory. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, do the majority of RS (or at least some RS) say assertively it was "Russian victory"? If not, this is WP:OR, plain and simple. "insignificant territorial successes" by Ukrainian forces is fine, but this is not "Russian victory". "Failure" is not included to the template parameter for a good reason. This is something uncertain. Failure to achieve what? As I cited above, some commenters say that the actual objective was to simply hold Russian forces and to probe their defenses. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Speaking on the Northern Ukraine campaign, yes, this is generally regarded in RS as Ukrainian victory because Russian forces have retreated from the huge Ukrainian territory they occupied. If the Ukrainian forces would make such significant retreat, that would be a Russian victory. But it did not happen. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The Northern Ukraine campaign was a huge Russian breakthrough and huge withdrawal, so net 0 change. This offensive is nearly a net 0 change considereing the general understanding of the offensive's objectives. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You still did not provide any multiple RS assertively saying it was "Russian victory". Northern Ukraine campaign is a different page. Please use talk page of Northern Ukraine campaign if you disagree with something on that page. However, you are wrong about it. Several references in on page Northern Ukraine campaign say it was a defeat of Russian forces and win by Ukrainian forces, and of course it was such. Now, speaking about the Ukrainian "failure" on this page, yes it was a failure to win significantly. That is defining it as a "Ukrainian victory" would be problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I did check the sources and found nothing about "Russian victory", except something like that , i.e. Putin believes that he will ultimately make a victory in the war. Yes, he probably believes it, and he might be even right, but this is an entirely different issue/subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I know this isn't actually part of this Discussion but where on Earth does the number 370 km² actually come from I could not find a source for that one but could find one for "slightly" less two weeks prior might want to change that. So coming to the actual discussion here, a failure of Russia would be a Victory for Ukraine in this war on the other hand a Ukrainian failure would be a Russian Victory they are interchangable. Coming to your whole argument about how Ukraine did not completely fail, yeah thats cool but the goals weren't achieved you dont go tell your parents on a test you failed that you did one of the tasks on the test correctly, similarly Operation Market garden which has a debateable result is considered a German Victory here. Yeah almost everything worked in that Operation but the Goal was just not achieved leading to that conclusion and it should be the same here. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"a failure of Russia would be a Victory for Ukraine". Said who? No, this is WP:OR. A failure to achieve certain military objectives (if the objectives were clearly stated) may or may not be a defeat. For example, if the Ukrainian forces were be able to reach Crimea, but then surrounded and completely destroyed by Russian forces, that would be a defeat. And in any case, the RS must explicitly say that something was a "defeat" or a "victory", or this should be plainly obvious so that everyone agree. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on infobox "result" parameter

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should we change the text in the |result= parameter of the infobox from the present wording:

See § Result

to the following (or something similar):

Operational failure
For more details, see § Result

?

Notes

1. Russian forces thwart the offensive operationally and defend the cities, but suffer logistical setbacks in Crimea.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The essence of the proposal is to include an adequate and informative operation result descriptor, not just a section link, that is used widespreadly in reliable sources, even if it is not a standard term in the used infobox template.

Comments

Please place comments (i.e. support or oppose) below this. Editors are asked to comment on the essence of the change rather than the exact wording of the proposal.

• No for three reasons.

1. We can not just say an "operational failure" because the Ukrainian forces have scored a number of moderate successes during the counteroffensive, even though everyone expected much more. Among the Ukrainian successes:

(a) taking over the bridgehead at the left bank of Dnipro (that was described as a "key" Ukrainian victory in some sources ),

(b) taking over several tactically significant territories to the North and South of Bakhmut, in the direction of Tokmak, and elsewhere,

(c) the Ukrainian attacks in Crimea and

(d) against Russian Black Sea fleet. The Russian fleet was evicted from Crimea. Note that (c) and (d) are described at length on this page , and rightly so because they are regarded as a part of this offensive.

(e) The human and equipment losses of Russian army were huge by all accounts. The "success" or "failure" of military operations is not judged only by the territorial gains.

2. The instruction Template:Infobox_military_conflict says this for field "result": - optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". ...Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.. It does not include such option as "operational failure". One would have to include "inconclusive" here per this instruction.

3. "A failure". What exactly objectives did it fail to achieve? We do not know them. It is true that public, journalists, a number of commenters, and even Russian MoD had very high expectations of the offensive. But the Ukrainian command did not officially declare that we are planning to achieve such and such targets prior to the offensive. One of them, Kyrylo Budanov did say that "we will be in Crimea in a few months". However, some independent Ukrainian military analysts are now saying it was an intentional deception, and the top Ukrainian commanders knew from the very beginning that the counteroffensive can not succeed because only a part of the promised military equipment was delivered by the West, and Russian forces had a significant advantage in aviation, people, ammunition etc. According to the analyst, the deception served to frighten Russian forces and prevent them from gaining initiative during the summer, even though they had a significant advantage. So, basically, the classic The Art of War: If you are strong, pretend to be weak. If you are weak, pretend to be strong. And then the strength of your enemy will become his weakness. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• In addition, the proposed Note (a) is misleading. No, Russian forced did not thwart everything, and they suffered a lot more than just "logistical setbacks in Crimea". My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support strongly. The term "failure" is used widespreadly in reliable sources to describe the result of the offensive which ended in premature stalemate. To omit it in the infobox solely based on the argument that it isn't a standard term is a big mistake and possibly an attempt to "game the system" to push a personal bias. If reliable sources describe the offensive as such, but the template doesn't expect such term, then it's the template doc's problem, not the article's, which should not be held hostage to such technicalities. This is a good case for WP:IGNORE. Besides, the template simply attempts/recommends to standardize the result descriptor, it doesn't try to force it (which could be easily implemented, but isn't), therefore we also should not attempt to force that recommendation when it is inadequate. Infoboxes should only help in summarizing the article: they serve the article, not the other way around (article serving the infobox by misrepresenting the context and subject just to conform with a recommendation). We must weigh in the importance of following RS vs following a template's doc. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Barnes, Julian E.; Schmitt, Eric; Sanger, David E.; Gibbons-Neff, Thomas (2023-12-11). "U.S. and Ukraine Search for a New Strategy After Failed Counteroffensive". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-12-14. Ukraine's monthslong counteroffensive failed in its goal of retaking territory lost to the invading Russian army ... U.S. officials said that Ukraine's deep strikes into Crimea this fall proved deadly to Russia and were a bright spot in an otherwise disappointing counteroffensive. ... There are a lot of reasons why the counteroffensive failed
2. "U.S., Ukraine Officials Privately Say Counteroffensive Against Russia Has Failed". The Messenger. December 2023. Retrieved 12 December 2023. concluded that the months-long counteroffensive against Russian forces has failed to meet its objectives and reached a stalemate ... key objectives of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which began in June, have not been met and that there was little chance that they would be ... the recent counteroffensive has resulted in only marginal territorial gains. ... Herbst, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, disputed the suggestion that the counteroffensive had failed and blamed the White House and Congress for a slower-than-needed delivery of military support. ... "So to suggest that their counteroffensive was a failure, especially coming from the American officials who did not give Ukraine what it needed, is kind of laughable,"
3. Jaffe, Greg; Ryan, Missy (4 December 2023). "Ukraine's counteroffensive stalls amid Russian defenses". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 December 2023. "As for the counteroffensive, which is allegedly stalling, it has failed completely," Putin said in October. ... Throughout the counteroffensive, Ukraine has continued striking far behind enemy lines in an effort to weaken Russian forces and sow panic within Russian society. ... Stalemate: Ukraine's failed counteroffensive.
4. Stewart, Ryan (November 2023). "How the Ukrainian Counteroffensive Ran Into Trouble". Business Insider. Retrieved 12 December 2023. Ukraine's counteroffensive has failed to achieve big breakthroughs over six months of hard fighting. ... Six months later, Ukraine has not achieved the sweeping territorial gains it sought, and it is unlikely to do so, Ukrainian officials have acknowledged. The Ukrainian counteroffensive, at this point, is basically over. ... As Russia resisted against the counteroffensive, its forces also employed an elastic defense approach consistent with its warfighting doctrine, withdrawing from territory and then striking hard in a counterattack once the Ukrainians had advanced and were vulnerable. ... Evaluating the latest counteroffensive is necessary, but there are political ramifications of discussing Ukraine's failures. ... Ukraine and its Western partners didn't see the success they had hoped for in the counteroffensive
5. Ignatius, David (7 December 2023). "The lessons of Ukraine's stalled counteroffensive". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 December 2023. the summer's failed counteroffensive against Russian forces. ... The stalled counteroffensive was a signal that the war in Ukraine is deadlocked. ... "There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough," he said, in an epitaph for the counteroffensive. ... The story of how and why Ukraine's counteroffensive failed was explained this week in a superb two-part series by The Post. ... the failed counteroffensive has brought some recriminations.
6. Page, Lewis (12 November 2023). "Ukraine's counteroffensive has failed — here's why". The Telegraph. Retrieved 12 December 2023. The counter-offensive has halted. ... it remains a fact that the offensive is stopped for the winter.
7. Soufi Burridge, Tom (3 November 2023). "Ukraine general's view of war 'stalemate' appears to be recognition of failed counteroffensive: Reporter's Notebook". ABC News. Retrieved 4 November 2023. The offensive did not succeed.
8. "Ukraine im Schatten von Nahost - Reisner: Die Gegenoffensive ist gescheitert". ZDF (in German). 12 October 2023. Archived from the original on 13 October 2023. Retrieved 13 October 2023. Reisner: The counteroffensive failed
9. Kilner, James (2023-10-15). "Ukraine's counter-offensive is a 'disaster', says former Zelensky adviser". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2023-10-18.
10. Dickinson, Peter (21 December 2023). "Putin scents historic victory amid growing signs of Western weakness". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 22 December 2023. international coverage of the war has focused almost exclusively on Ukraine's failing counteroffensive. ... The failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive has played a key role in this process

Discussion

@My very best wishes: Mostly summarizing some of my prior counter arguments... moderate successes insignificant operational successes, not even the Ukrainians were that optimistic. taking over the bridgehead at the left bank of Dnipro (that was described as a "key" Ukrainian victory in some sources a more recent source (NYT article linked in a previous section) disputes this claim and instead presents the battle of Krynky as a near suicidal and meaningless fight. taking over some territories to the North and South of Bakhmut greatly reverted by now. in the direction of Tokmak, and elsewhere again, insignificant and at an extremely high price, hard to call it a success, Ukraine possibly could have been better off not even attempting it. The instruction Template:Infobox_military_conflict says this minor "technical issue" and WP:IGNORE. It was a failure to achieve what? the objectives, obviously, just like how it's obvious that if the attacker has a victory in a battle it means it effectively captured the target/subject. But the Ukrainian command did not officially declare that we are planning to achieve such and such targets prior to the offensive. so didn't the Russians in almost all of their offensives, yet we still draw targets and objectives and extract results based on them. However, some independent Ukrainian military analysts are now saying... Unfounded speculation by WP:PRIMARY sources thus far. the proposed Note (a) is misleading. No, Russian forced did not thwart everything It's not misleading, it's a general summary. Russian forces DID thwart the offensive overall. There's no need to explain that that doesn't mean it didn't lose 'any inch' of territory. I literally talked about cities right next to that statement implying that defending them is what is meant by "thwarting the offensive". Besides, there's literally a parameter talking exactly about the number of recaptured villages, therefore there's no need to add this detail/make this caveat in the result summary too. they suffered a lot more than just "logistical setbacks in Crimea". Both sides suffered heavy casualties, there's already an infobox section saying this, no need to repeat that in the result summary. But anyways, this is besides the point and is not the essence of the RfC, the footnote can be tweaked/improved afterwards. Again, most of these points aren't new in this talk page though. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You say: "yet we still draw targets and objectives and extract results based on them." - Yes, in many cases, but making speculations is a risky business. From what we know right now, the Ukrainian forces did not have nearly enough resources for any significant offensive, and they still do not have them. Did not the Ukrainian command, who had every bit of information about their own resources, knew that? Well, Zaluzhy would be an incompetent idiot if he did not. That is what the cited Ukrainian analyst was saying. It is another matter that Zelensky wanted to take Crimea. Yes, sure. He could want whatever. Many people, me including, were mislead by statements by US administration, like "the Ukrainian forces have everything they need ". That was obviously not true. My very best wishes (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be denying the fact that sources widely use the term "failed counteroffensive" including in headlines. They rarely if ever say "moderately successful counteroffensive" or "partially successful counteroffensive". And when they do talk about those other "successes", they do it in longer explanations, which is also what we do (in the Result section). Saying that short labelling the counteroffensive as "failed" is misleading would mean that you consider those articles in the reflist below as misleading. That would be worse than WP:OR. The explanatory footnote and link to Result section is more than enough to contextualize the catchy/headline/infobox term "failed counteroffensive". Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Also note that the proposition doesn't ask for using a "general failure" descriptor, it constrains the failure to being "operational", therefore it doesn't go against the other Ukrainian "successes", it leaves room for "non-operational successes". Your uncompromising stance on these kinds of issues is problematic. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I am only saying (as one of the arguments) it is not clear what exactly "failure" means in this case. This is also the reason "failure" is not included as one of the options in the template. Also, according to cited sources, this is more complicated than an outright failure, because there were a number of modest Ukrainian successes, as also mentioned in very same sources. Just taking a single word of unclear meaning and using as a single descriptor is not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Just taking a single word of unclear meaning and using as a single descriptor is not a good idea. You should tell that to the authors of those articles, to delete all occurences of the sequence "failed counteroffensive", because no matter how much they are contextualized in the article, someone will think they are being misleading. And we literally have the commodity of adding a footnote right next to the words to immediately contextualize them. This all feels like a rigged game, don't you think? The word "failure" with footnote is forbidden because then the footnote will be ignored and only the simple descriptor will be accused of being misleading; if a longer bullet note result is provided, then people will complain it's ugly and doesn't follow the concise format; if a standard term is used for the defender, then people complain because the Western sources which are loved in Misplaced Pages hardly directly admit Russian victories, unless they are painfully obvious (instead they love to talk about Ukrainian victories whenever possible). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

What other articles with "failed counteroffensive" in infobox are you talking about? I have no idea. Let's fix these articles. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is Case Blue which another editor mentioned. There are surely others. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment