Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
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:
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
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. If more sources report on the offensive (e.g. the section in the merged article becomes long enough), the article can be recreated. DantheAnimator22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
There isn't much of significance in the Sloviansk offensive article that can't be effectively covered in Battle of Donbas (2022). It mostly consisted of Russia repeatedly bashing infantrymen against Ukrainian fortifications south of Izium over and over until the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive - which is covered just fine in other articles. Even though it's been over a year since the events, large amount of the material is also just not independently confirmed, leaving even less notable events in the Sloviansk offensive article. It makes most sense to cover the notable stuff in the Donbas battle article, since it was one of the prongs of that offensive. HappyWith (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose As ISW and others have discussed, the operation was pretty notable/decisive precisely because the Russians failed, both initially and later on. A successful drive and exploitation could have had very serious consequences. Instead, the Russians ended up having to take a more frontal approach, leading to limited and Pyrrhic gains.
The main Battle of Donbas article has a far larger scope, and any weaknesses in the current article don’t reflect on the topic. In fact, the current revision doesn’t contain a lot of the substantive discussion found in sources, probably because it was only recently moved to its current title.
I would also suggest that the skirmishing around Velyka Komyshuvakha and Husarivka be covered, as well as the Russian mistakes in troop dispositions and force-to-space ratios that set the stage for the Ukrainian counterblow, which is fairly extensively discussed by sources.
Unfortunately I completely missed out on that previous, closed, discussion which others have linked to.
We could divide this campaign into many several subcampaigns. If Russia took Siversk it could have also been bad. Also if they took Avdiivka, or Vuhledar. We can't give articles to every subaxes of this campaign, and I am not convinced the fighting north of Sloviansk was particularly more notable than the others. Plus, A successful drive and exploitation could have had very serious consequences. is speculation. Instead, the Russians ended up having to take a more frontal approach, leading to limited and Pyrrhic gains. can apply for the whole campaign, or for the whole invasion itself. If this article got into a better shape and became longer, we could discuss a split in the future. But currently both the proposed merged article and the proposed target article do not cover the fighting north of Sloviansk in great detail. In my view having everything neatly packed into one article will make expansion easier, at least in this one case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this argument - the Sloviansk offensive page could hypothetically be its own thing, but the article as of now doesn’t have enough to stand on its own. We could re-split later if needed; not like there's much there in the Sloviansk offensive page now anyway. HappyWith (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hastily to supplement
What kind of abbreviated piece of crap is this article? What kind of artificial piquancy is this? Who says the battle for Donbas ended in September 2022? Who are you making crazy? What about the Battle of Soledar and the Battle of Bakhmut? Soledar and Bakhmut are not located in Donbass? This is hard core cretinism that it is unrepeatable to watch, let alone read. I have never seen so many cavities and malicious oversights in my life. There is more neutrality in the current Israel—Hamas War 2023 than a single battle related to the Russia-Ukraine War. I had to write this or I was going to explode with rage. How rude of you to leave out Soledar and Bahmut battles. This is a crime by moderators and admins. My stomach hurt from nervousness. I no longer have the energy to look up anything related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the English Misplaced Pages. Trunke has no objectivity and all are ordinary hairstyles of piquantery wrapped in very low-quality wafers. The horror. — Baba Mica (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It was either this or deleting the article. As the "hard core cretin" who initiated the scope-changing discussion myself, I put forward the argument that the idea of the "battle of Donbas" in its former form was largely invented by Misplaced Pages editors and not a concept actually well-defined in sources - and that the only actual defined scope for an article with this title would be the summer 2022 offensive, as referred to by a couple of military analysts. ("Summer 2022 Donbas offensive", or something along those lines, might be a better name for this article in the long run, IMO, but I doubt that could get consensus.)
Better that this piece of garbage be removed from the article like many of my articles that have been deleted, edited or redirected than to look this disgustingly hollow, illegible and artificially shortened to the point of unbearableness. I literally feel sick. The Sloviansk offensive never existed because the Russian forces could not get closer than 20-30 km to it, but from a bunch of my local articles related to the battles for nearby places, someone simply put everything in one bag and made the Sloviansk offensive article. I understood this as a kind of simplification of the archival material of the fighting after the Russian victory after the Battle of Izium, until the heavy defeat in the Kharkov counter-offensive. Essentially, the Russians never or still did not launch an offensive on Sloviansk not because they did not want to but because they could not because they were stopped at the places of Krasnopillia and Bogorodichnoe and at the city of Seversk. The Donbas offensive was officially announced by Sergei Lavrov on April 19 last year that it had officially begun, which happened the day before with the rapid Russian capture of the city of Kreminna. That is all known. The fact that the Russian side slowed down the advance by no means means that the offensive was stopped in July after the battle of Lysychansk nor after the Ukrainian Kharkov counter-offensive, as evidenced by the Russian offensive operations in the battles for the places of Avdiyivka, Marinka, Soledar, Bakhmut, Bilohorivka and Vuhledar, where the casualties are huge on both sides. This Russian offensive was stopped, but not by the Ukrainian Kharkov counter-offensive in September and October last year, but after the takeover of Bakhmut by members of the Wagner Group and the Ukrainian summer counter-offensive that began on June 4. The result is tied because Russian forces captured the cities of Soledar and Bakhmut this year, but they lost Lyman, Svyatogorsk and Bilohorivka last year, and this year Ukrainian forces recovered many lost settlements around the city of Bakhmut and soon regained some lost positions in the city of Bakhmut itself on its western periphery. The offensive was stopped either on May 20 after the Russian capture of Bakhmut or on June 1 after the retreat of the Wagner group or on June 4 at the beginning of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. There is no fourth, and it was certainly not stopped before May and June of this year. It is so obvious and the article must be updated until that period or better removed and deleted. It looks so amateurishly hollow that it's unbearable to look at, let alone read. A simple pamphlet. — Baba Mica (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was always unnecessary duplicated trash. I had advocated for its deletion many times. Finally it was given a proper scope, the Russian offensive that ended after the capture of Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk. This article extends a bit after that because it still makes sense to group the info here.
The fact that the Russian side slowed down the advance by no means means that the offensive was stopped in July after the battle of Lysychansk they explicitly announced an "operational pause" right after it. nor after the Ukrainian Kharkov counter-offensive we've never seen any regional-scale offensive aimed at taking the whole of Donbas after it, only focused and localised efforts at Bakhmut and Soledar, Avdiivka, Marinka or Lyman, or at small villages in Luhansk Oblast, these not having taken place at the same time being part of one single coordinated effort, rather an intermittent Russian try of their luck in different parts of the front every once in a while. Even smaller in scope articles like Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present) feel like they make little sense because fighting keeps stopping and re-erupting. Effectively the Kharkiv counteroffensive put an end to the strategy of taking the whole of Donbas at once as encircling it was not possible anymore. I believe the shortening of the article's scope was a very good idea. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@Super DromaeosaurusFinally it was given a proper scope, the Russian offensive that ended after the capture of Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk.
Considering that scope, would you be open to the prospect of moving the majority of the post-Lysychansk (July–September) information to either the background or early sections of the Battle of Bakhmut article? I'm suggesting this split because nearly all of the content in that timeframe takes place within the environs of Bakhmut, and much of it involves the Wagner Group. Geographically, I'm talking about places west of Popasna and north of Horlivka, like the Vuhlehirska Power Station, Berestove, Novoluhanske, Pokrovske, Soledar, Vershyna, Kodema, Travneve and the like.
I know you said This article extends a bit after that because it still makes sense to group the info here, but considering the "operational pause" and the different geographical focus, I think adding that info to Battle of Bakhmut makes more sense than retaining it here. I also want to ping @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith since I know you've been closely involved in defining the scope here. Lastly, apologies to all for replying to such an old comment.
I don't think it should be done. The logic here is that this Russian offensive was the second phase of the war, between the first (from the full-scale invasion to the withdrawal from the north) and the third (Ukrainian counteroffensives, starting in September) phases. Between July and September took place engagements that I do not believe should be included in the Battle of Bakhmut article, such as the Battle of Pisky. I think it makes more sense to keep pre- and post-July Russian advances in the same place as they have in common that Russia still had the initiative at that moment. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Super Dromaeosaurus: First of all, apologies for my lack of clarity. I am not suggesting that the entire section, including Avdiivka–Pisky, be added to the Battle of Bakhmut article – only the relevant portions. The remainder should be removed and integrated into Eastern Ukraine campaign and/or location-specific articles like Battle of Pisky.
I think it's a fallacy to say that Russia lost initiative country-wide on the entire front line during September 2022. Wagner was still conducting offensive operations in the Bakhmut region before, during, and after the Ukrainian counteroffensive. I'd argue that in the Bakhmut sector, Wagner/Russia had "the initiative" the entire time. The post-Lysychansk engagements in that region are a prelude/opening phase to the Battle of Bakhmut; there is already some overlapping information, since that article begins on 1 August 2022.
But I think the key disagreement is whether or not the scope of this article should be a "phase" or an "offensive." You say this Russian offensive was the second phase of the war, but I don't see them as one and the same - the "offensive" ended at Lysychansk, but the "phase" ended with the Ukrainian counteroffensive. It seems unreasonable to consider the April–July Severodonetsk–Lysychansk operation to be part of the same offensive as some later clashes much further south, which followed an operational pause.
If this necessitates a consensus to change the scope to refer strictly to a April–July "offensive," I am prepared to propose that. We don't have articles on First phase of the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Third phase of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because phases encompass a number of offensives in different geographical regions which are better understood when separated.
I request to the status changed from inconclusive to ongoing. There's no indication that the battle of Donbas is over. There's still fighting ongoing in settlements and cities in the Donbas such Advika, Marinka, near Bakhmut and surrounding areas. It doesn't make any sense that the battle is considered over while both sides are still launching offensive to capture territory in the region. I also request to change the title to "Battle of Donbas (2022-present)", as the battle is still ongoing. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the issue comes from the fact that we are still using terminology from when the war was still mobile. The choice to separate the war to "campaigns", like Eastern Ukraine campaign made sense because at the time it was mostly about Russians rapidly advancing without a solid frontline (and many probably thought it will be over soon). Now however it's the opposite, static fighting that far surpasses the scope of a single campaign taking place in the same area, so any "Battle of ____" article bloats out of proportion, because years on, fighting still takes place there, so we still file it under the same article.
The battle of Donbass was always a flawed term, it was justified because that's how the media talked about it, but the media doesn't need to keep a consistent terminology, so it simply stopped using it once it became clear fighting in the Donbass will continue past anything that could be considered a single "battle". So Eastern Ukraine campaign and Battle of Donbass are both leftover terminology that largely overlap. We wouldn't choose to segment the war this was with our current hindsight.
The situation is a bit like if Wikipedians during the Race to the Sea created an article for the new campaign, and then kept adding stuff even after the front became static given "fighting is still taking place in the area". If the Battle of Donbass will continue until fighting stops there, then it started back in 2014. No, the concept meant to refer to a new Russian offensive in the area, it's just that the terminology at the time didn't have the hindsight to know how long this war will drag on fighting in the same places.
We can have articles that discuss the entire history of war in a specific area. Maybe Front or Theater should be used for that.
We can have articles about the offensive pushes one side makes, but they should have clear beginnings and ends when it runs out of steam. So far, it seems we have alternating periods of Russian and Ukrainian offensives, with the original "Battle of Donbass" being the first Russian offensive that ended once the front stabilized in August 2022.
Over at the Syrian civil war they made separate pages for every time one faction gained territory, and called it a separate offensive, like Aleppo offensive (July–August 2016). The other side starts gaining ground -> New offensive -> New Article
Imo, we should have Donbass offensive (April-September 2022), Luhansk counteroffensive (September-October 2022), 2022-23 Russian Winter Offensive (Bakhmut, Soledar, Toretsk, Vuhledar October 2022-May 2023), 2023 Ukrainian Counteroffensive (Robotyne, south of Velyka Novosilka, Klishchiivka, 2023 June-Sept), and 2023-24 Russian Winter Offensive (Avdiivka, west of Bakhmut)
The same issue occurs in a smaller scale in individual city battles, like the drama around if the Battle of Bakhmut ended or not. It was originally coined, like the Battle of Siversk, to refer to the fighting after the fall of Severodonetsk, east of the given city. But then fighting moved into the urban area, and the article became about the fighting to capture the city. That was over by May 2023, but fighting continues around the city with sustained intensity - so where should we write about those. Following the aforementioned example of the Syrian civil war, they would just make "Bakhmut counteroffensive (May - September 2023)", then move onto a different article now that it's Russian gains again. I think we have enough material for separate articles.
Point is: keep it straight: are we talking about an offensive, or a theater of war? The article name should reflect that. Vauia Rex (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request the status of the battle of Donbas to be changed from inconclusive to ongoing as fighting is still ongoing in the region and no information states otherwise. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
Note: since it was changed by HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, I think it would be best if they could explain why the rationale behind it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: per HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith's explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)