Talk:2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gora-Podol

@Zerbrxsler You restored the material talking about how the rebels are claiming they liberated Gora-Podol, but I do not see that backed up anywhere in any of the cited sources. Am I missing something? HappyWith (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

here, and from the horses mouth here. Scu ba (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are not the sources cited in the sections I was talking about, though, so I'll just insert these in. HappyWith (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

At the time of this comment the source "Ukrainska Pravda" stating this was in both instances, in the introduction and attack page, linked. Zerbrxsler (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think something weird was going on with the website, like maybe the Yahoo mirror had updated while the original pravda source had not? Whatever, it’s all resolved now. Thanks for your contributions to the article! HappyWith (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

yes sorry, I put the wrong link in for the second one, I meant to put the telegram link there Scu ba (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Two deaths

Both the pro and anti-kremlin sides claimed a kill. 2A02:3030:809:C0BF:1:0:1CFA:FC04 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you link some kind of article that reports on this? I'll add it in if I can. HappyWith (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/albafella1/status/1660589851249459200 - this source suggest a FSB border guard being killed Cristi767 (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A Twitter account belonging to an info warrior is not going to pass WP:RS. Mellk (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but it could be considered as a claim for the moment. Cristi767 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I heard about the FSB border guard getting killed as well - it got briefly mentioned in a few articles I read - but I don't think it's been confirmed yet, most sources are uncertain as to whether it's real. From my judgement, it is probably real, but let's wait until it's actually confirmed. This is all happening pretty fast, I think we'll get verification from Bellingcat or some other source before too long has passed. HappyWith (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected request for "Belgorod government response"

Please add the russian and ukrainian WP pages of Andriy Yusov to the section mentioning him in "Belgorod government response":

" According to Ukrainian official Andriy Yusov [...] " Zerbrxsler (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. HappyWith (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

Ukraine should be removed from the list as the only source for it is Russia, that doesnt even know whats going on in the region. Also, proven to be not trustworthy source. LeeMarx (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

New video

A video just came out showing the destruction of atleast one more maxxpro and 2 humvees on the checkpoint 2A00:1FA0:4237:442E:D8FC:A026:82CD:EFD6 (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Statement from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

Sources are starting to report the ministry's latest information. It will have to be fully confirmed, but the losses claimed by the ministry can be added as Russian claims, as they claimed 70 'saboteurs' destroyed alongside 4 infantry fighting vehicles and 5 trucks:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/may/23/russia-ukraine-war-live-updates-latest-news-belgorod-kremlin-russian-pm-china

https://news.ru/vlast/minoborony-pokazalo-kadry-unichtozheniya-diversantov-v-belgorodskoj-oblasti/ LarryCaul (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Grayvoron is supposedly under Russian volunteer corps control

Grayvoron is no longer in control of the Russian government. 2A02:3030:804:3D5A:1:0:1FDA:D199 (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So called Russian volunteer corps has no control over anything and has been pushed out to yhe border, many kilometres away from Grayvoron 2A00:1FA0:4237:442E:D8FC:A026:82CD:EFD6 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1660941138013081601

? 2A02:3030:804:3D5A:1:0:1FDA:D199 (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia claims 70 kills

source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2023/5/23/russia-ukraine-live-news-attacks-on-belgorod-region-continue 2A02:3030:81D:AF74:1:0:20A8:12D8 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have a question

Will this last long and lead to a civil war or is this just a small raid that will end soon ? 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:4C44:69FB:7783:772A (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

how are we supposed to know? There's no way to predict something like that and even if there was Wikipedia isn't the place to do it.

Also probably just a small raid it looks like a distraction to drag the press away from the fall of Bakhmut. G1ngerRobot (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Color scheme for map

Should the map have the same color scheme as the main Ukraine war map (i.e. red for Russia & yellow for the militants) or the reverse, since Russia is now on the defence & the two legions are on the offense? Physeters^✉ 11:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Because this article is apart of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the color scheme remains the same (Red for Russia & Russian-backed groups, Yellow for Ukraine & Ukrainian-backed groups). At least for now.

MateoFrayo (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Russia claims two dead civilians

Russia claims that the insurgents killed more civilians today.

https://tass.com/emergencies/1621495 2A02:3030:81D:AF74:1:0:20A8:12D8 (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The article says there are two wounded, not two dead, and quotes Gladkov as saying " So far, there have been no civilian casualties". HappyWith (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Map

The new map is so zoomed out that I can't even see the relevant areas where fighting is taking place without massively magnifying the image. On the old, more zoomed-in map, it was easy to get a grasp for what was going on. I propose we switch back to that one for now, or some other variation that's easier to read. HappyWith (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian involvement?

The infobox, and the rest of the article, shows the Freedom of Russia Legion as being separate from Ukraine. However, the unit is a part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, so I see no reason for them being labeled as separate. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian intelligence official Andriy Yusov said to CNN: [1]

He said the units [Freedom of Russia and the RVC] were “part of defense and security forces” when they were in Ukraine, but were independent from Kyiv when they were not: “In Russia they are acting as independent entities.”

This is obvious nonsense, but speaks to the relationship going on here. It's very fuzzy legally, to the point where an official Ukrainian statement will say something like that. I don't really know what to do here, honestly. I think we could for now stick to what the infobox is now, where it says Ukraine is accused but denies participation. HappyWith (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll add a footnote to the Ukraine mention on the infobox mentioning the connection, I think that would be the most reasonable. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, the equipment used (for example International M1224 MaxxPro) suggest support from Ukraine. Cristi767 (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course they follow Ukrainian orders. The point of the groups is plausible deniability, because Western arms are sent on the condition they won't be used on Russian territory, so they cannot admit direct involvement. But for now it can only be stated that they were accused and denied involvement. Mellk (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could specifically use "Allegedly Supported by Ukraine" Sam(A Horrible Person) (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether the government of Ukraine supports it, is unknown. There would have to be very hard proof of this. So far, I see it as Ukraine the state just observing the events, and Russia blaming it anyway. -Mardus /talk 02:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Because these are Ukrainian military units, it's probably worth listing Ukraine as a belligerent, with a note that the Ukrainian government denies its involvement, i.e. a reverse Battle of Ilovaisk. Lightspecs (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s exactly what this is. See Mykhailo Podolyak’s comments 😏 RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, the infobox isn’t sufficient on its own to really explain the situation. I think it would be a good idea to create a "Ukrainian involvement" section in the article going over the extent and analysis of Ukraine's involvement in this raid. HappyWith (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And done. HappyWith (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Grayvoron Has Held By Freedom of Russia

Today in a TikTok, the profiles, WarUpdatez & Blaze Daily, released a video about Grayvoron is now held by The Freedom of Russia Region 68.71.12.18 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That may be true, but we'll need some more reliable sources to pick it up to put it on Wikipedia. HappyWith (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.tiktok.com/@lonelywombat13/video/7236425220897230123?lang=en from Lonleywombat13

https://www.tiktok.com/@xapkiba3ob/video/7236431631521680646?lang=en from Xapkiba3ob

these are confirmed that Grayvoron is actually held by Freedom of Russia 68.71.12.18 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not Grayvoron, rather Grayvoron border checkpoint which is not the same at all. Inspektor256 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Free-russian-legion-belgorod.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That should have been uploaded as fair-use. It is arguably a significant image for this event. -- llywrch (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove "(claimed)".

Both regiments confirmed it's them fighting there. I don't even know why someone would doubt that. Claimed by who, too? Inspektor256 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Members of two anti-Kremlin groups, the Freedom of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps, have claimed responsibility while Kyiv denied involvement."[2] So far it is a claim, just like the Bryansk attack. Mellk (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have removed for now since it might be potentially confusing. Unless someone else thinks it makes sense or there is a better way to show claims of responsibility. Mellk (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Request adding strength

On several sites I have seen numbers ranging from 300-438, so i think that the number could appropriately be chnanged to 300-500, thus would also be realistic considering the strength of the belligerents, claiming to field 2+ battalions. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28637569 Idontknowimnotcreative4828 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

But that article is from 2014. HappyWith (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't catch that, just read through the numbers quickly Idontknowimnotcreative4828 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Dontsov Being Attacked by Free Russia?

When I was exploring of Tiktok of Free Russia, I see Dontsov, Russia tags at each edges? Is it been captured or under attacked, or is it a just a joke? 173.238.231.70 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RS. You're welcome to propose sources here. Boud (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian loses

geolocated destroyed russian equipment in Glotovo, Belgorod oblast - https://t.me/Tsaplienko/32428

50°27'16.9"N 35°38'43.3"E Inspektor256 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Potential "2023 Kursk oblast attack"?

It is 10:22 PM in Ukraine and few minutes ago, a photo (https://ibb.co/T0z1f0V) surfaced with soldiers sitting near sign "Gogolevka" (which was identified to be in Kursk oblast). Photo was released by ukrainian war journalist Tsaplienko. Considering that it's night in both western russia and Ukraine, it's most likely recent. Inspektor256 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen any news article about such an attack, at all, and it seems to be that the sole proof of any such incursion in Kursk is that photo, so probably not Presidentofyes12 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

TSN, a well known news source in Ukraine, made an article already: https://tsn.ua/svit/ne-tilki-byelgorodschina-u-merezhi-pokazali-foto-rosiyskih-dobrovolciv-z-sche-odniyeyi-oblasti-rf-2335321.html Inspektor256 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That news article appears to still be the sole article about the event, and reading it, it is based solely on that image. Not ruling it out as a future possibility, but considering how no news reports of actual major actions committed by a paramilitary in Kursk seem to exist, and the only news report about the situation is based on an image purporting to depict those forces merely existing in Kursk, and the fact that it'd likely be deemed as a mere expansion of the ongoing incursion in Belgorod Oblast, I'd doubt that a new article on the subject would be necessary.
However I just checked and found another source (still based on the image) so I guess I'm wrong about only one source but still, it'd likely be deemed an expansion of this ongoing attack rather than an entirely new military action. In the future, if more RS' begin to cover more events in Kursk Oblast, a new section dedicated to events in Kursk could be created. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Helicopter Shot Down

Freedom Of Russia Legion has shot down an Russian KA-52 Alligator (Type of Helicopter) over a village/town of Bilohorod, which is in the Belgorod Region.' 68.71.12.18 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This site is the best place for confirmed vehicle losses. There was never any evidence of the helicopter shoot down. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2023/05/the-ballad-of-belgorod-listing.html Liger404 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Any updates of the map?

It's been almost a day since this map stayed basically the same, is there any updates, new movements, or so on? 173.238.231.70 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Issue of description of units involved.

The current description labels the paramilitary units as rebels. This is not consistent with the more accurate description from the units own wiki pages. They are described as paramilitary units based in Ukraine, made up of Russian citizens. A rebel would more usually be used to describe an internal conflict. In this case its fairly obvious to all that these units are a component of the Ukrainian war effort and not an organic uprising in the Belgarod region. This language is fairly important I think as there is a noticeable deliberate attempt to frame this as a separate civil war in Russia and we should seek to clarify this. Liger404 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

the units involved are anti-government units consisting of ethnic Russians. it doesn't matter if they are organized in Ukraine or Russia, they are still anti-government rebels. Scu ba (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

But they are not based in Belgorod, and a lot of them are not even from Belgorod, they are attacking from Ukraine. Hind242 (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It does matter. The French Foreign legion is formed from non French people. When it attacks a place, that is France attacking. Also these units formed after the War in Ukraine began , there ethnicity is actually unknown, but being ethnically Russian doesn't stop you being Ukrainian. The DPR and LPR and Crimea being obvious topical examples of ethnic Russian who are Ukrainian citizens. RVC are likely all Ukrainians, and they serve and receive equipment from the Ukrainian government (Via the USA it seems.). The leader of the RVC, Denis Nikitin ,is the only one we seem to know anything about, and pre war he lived in Kiev running a Neo Nazi club called Reconquista Club. This man fights for Ukraine, the country he lives in as part of their foreign legion. A Russian rebel should live in Russia. If your goal is to miss inform people about where these units formed, were equipped and attacked from leave it as rebel. If your goal is to accurately convey where these units are from and who equipped them, use the already established definition on the RVC wiki page. This debate is already settled there "The Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC; Russian: Русский добровольческий корпус, РДК, romanized: Russkiy dobrovolcheskiy korpus, RDK) is a Russian nationalist paramilitary unit based in Ukraine" Liger404 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

On Ukrainian losses

You should add these confirmed losses in equipment

— 2 American armored cars M1224 MaxxPro (both captured) (one is already mentioned in the article)

— 2 American armored cars HMMWV M1151A1 (both damaged and abandoned) — 1 American cargo armored car HMMWV M1152A1 (destroyed) — 1 Ukrainian armored car KRAZ COBRA (destroyed) — 1 Polish armored car AMZ Dzik-2 (destroyed). source: https://t.me/milinfolive/101129?single this russian channel's pictures, some from a video geolocated at the border checkpoint. ItalianGrenadier (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

https://t.me/russvolcorps/526 RVC evacuating MaxxPro.

> Please tell General Lapin, who is "in charge of clearing," that we are not far from there and that when we pull out [evacuate] the APC, we will definitely control the process. Inspektor256 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

To me, that russian video from Zvezda about allegedly destroyed equipment is total bullshit, like the

"za bahmut" sign that wasn't affected by the fire. Inspektor256 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There is video evidence. Andrea e luca (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Just use Oryx as your reference. They are the best Open source intelligence site for this. It has a picture of the destroyed Cobra. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2023/05/the-ballad-of-belgorod-listing.html Liger404 (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The battle seems to be over

The Russians already are back at the bordercheckpoint, as shown by the video they made of the destroyed Ukrainian equipment there. The battle's over Andrea e luca (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

and yet the RVC and LSR have continued to post pictures of themselves infront of various town signs across Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk's border. We should wait until several major sources say the incursion is over, or if the anti-government forces say so themselves. Scu ba (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The photos are likely old. Ukrainian channels confirm themselves the incursion is now over. https://t.me/DeepStateUA/16646 Andrea e luca (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Heck, even the EuroMaidanPR claims it's over. https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1661120743478906882?t=sy4yiee-Xdm7vsaVT3DoWg&s=19 Andrea e luca (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the source of the video? Why is RVK, Legion accounts aren't saying anything? How about we just wait? Inspektor256 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The source should be russian media. The RVK isn't saying anything because, as obviously shown by the equipment losses, their operation was a failure, and achieved nothing except being a delivery of western equipment to the Russian army. They aren't speaking for the same reason Ukraine won't admit Bakhmut fell or for the same reason Ukraine waited a week to admit Soledar fell.

If even ukrainian sources confirm this, then i do not see any reason to delay the information any further: the operation is over, russian forces pushed them out. Andrea e luca (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

the source is zvezda Andrea e luca (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Table of losses

Not sure I agree with this revert. The old version was a normal-looking table. The new version is a non-standard table with excessive headings and parentheses. Can I get a second opinion on restoring this version? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Both tables are based on an unreliable source. Volunteer Marek 13:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Oryx is considered reliable. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What is this claim based on? Here are two WP:RSN discussions which say essentially the opposite [3] [4]. Don’t get,e wrong, it’s a great account/blog, but “great” /= “RS”. Volunteer Marek 15:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Comment: in second discussion there is a bit more support at the end) Volunteer Marek 15:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Oryx comes under WP:RS, since dozens of big and reliable new sites used it as a source, just google it, so this discussion is pointless. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

For example: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/09/europe/1000-russian-tanks-destroyed-ukraine-war-intl-hnk-ml/index.html / https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/03/21/the-ukrainians-are-knocking-the-russians-newest-and-oldest-tanks-as-fast-as-they-arrive-at-the-front/ Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Then when it's used by other sources we can use it. But that is not the case here. Volunteer Marek 15:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

One can apply it to all his works, on the other hand, some articles would have to be revised. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Which indeed should be done. Volunteer Marek 16:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Kraken Regiment

What is known about the involvement of the Kraken and the Ukrainian Foreign Legion in this attack?

The Russian side reports that during the attack, a sabotage group shot an unarmed member of the territorial defense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence, just a few unreliable rumors. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

1. Please fix reference number 48 to a date of 23 May 2023
2. Please add to the top of the article {{Use DMY dates|date=May 2023}} so the bot can go through and format all the dates the same per MOS.

Thanks! 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:2C63:7A5A:4C71:80C7 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done LDM2003 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Oryx

I added a tag to the section on losses as it’s only sourced to the Oryx blog. Oryx is an OSINT account and not an RS. More over, the images only show that Russia is in possession of a couple Ukrainian vehicles, which may or may have not been captured during this incursion. And on top of that the units involved have denied that these are their vehicles.

The tag was removed by User: RadioactiveBoulevardier without explanation, in an edit incorrectly marked as minor [5]. Unless actual reliable sources can be provided this table should be simply removed. At very least the tag should be restored. Volunteer Marek 08:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually there is videos of at least part of that equipment being hit. Plus, how did damaged and destroyed Ukrainian equipment which those troops were shown using just end up at that exact border crossing?

Video evidence:

https://twitter.com/elmustek/status/1661073089575243777?t=pqe3Y92-fuuDjKP6vjpIbA&s=19

https://twitter.com/elmustek/status/1661073086551138304?t=py7y5nxRa9Azbdm8OTSgMg&s=19

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/1661070731067682816?t=-JoDwmy_zeUvbFc2kg6SUQ&s=19

And there's also pictures of Lapin with one of the captured MaxxPROs,you can recognize it by the damage on the side and by the painting on it. Andrea e luca (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

http://nitter.it/FluteMagician/status/1661162964261404673?t=7npw05PtdiKfkwK7XaNDsw&s=19 original video debunked Inspektor256 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how any of that is debunked.

1st objection, so you're telling me that, during a battle or at least a heated situation, russian forces managed to arrive at the border checkpoint from which the ukrainian forces arrived and decided "you know what, let's take two Humvees and put them on a flatbed truck and a crane, lower them into the trench and show it to the world!" What kind of mental gymnastics is that?

2nd objection, let us pretend this is fake. The vehicles were actually lowered into that trench. Where in tarnation would Russians find two Humvees in perfect conditions, and for what reason would any commander agree to this lengthy and wrothless operation?

3rd objection, those are all simply conjectures. Andrea e luca (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

1. How do you know there was an intense or heated situation? What if RVK withdrew by the time? What if they were in different location? What if it's not even the same checkpoint? Dude, propaganda. Internal propaganda. IDK how can you even not know this.
2. Trophies...? It's not like Russia has no trophied ukrainian vehicles
3. Iron argument, sir.

Inspektor256 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

1 The Ukrainians had just fled an occupied position. danger of repisals or artillery strikes is highest at that moment. You just do not even think of doing such an operation. All of this for two Humvees? This is supposed to be the great propaganda move? The place is the same, it has been geolocated.

2 You didn't answer the second part. Your answer to the first part however is problematic aswell: Sure, Russia might have such trophy vehicles, but the problem is represented by the fact these two vehicles, with identical camo and paitings, in almost perfect conditions, have to be found among all the storage areas of the ukrainian captured equipment (if it isn't even on the frontline). Thus the Russians, in a few hours, managed to find two identical Humvees from storage areas probably dozens or more likely hundreds of miles away, tow em on a truck, and just lay them in a trench, for this propaganda stunt? what propaganda stunt? this is a waste of money for something so insignificant and useless, it makes absolutely zero sense.

3 Is it not? Andrea e luca (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops! That was completely unintentional. I had to check my diff to see what happened. It was probably something to do with the visual editor.

I'm all for restoring that tag :) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

How about instead of using “stuff from twitter”, the article actually follows WP:RSN and uses actual reliable sources? Volunteer Marek 13:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you denying the validity of that video evidence? Andrea e luca (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting that we follow Wikipedia policy WP:RS and use actual reliable sources rather than “stuff from twitter”. Volunteer Marek 13:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

They are not "stuff from twitter", they're videos published by the Russian forces (specifically by Zvezda, a Tv channel ran by the Russian MoD) that were then published on twitter. The video has been geolocated to be at the same border checkpoint the Ukrainian troops entered from. Andrea e luca (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Should I send the link to Zvezda's telegram channel's original video? Andrea e luca (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The links I see above are to twitter. And if these were published by Russian MOD then that’s actually even less reliable. The source in the article is the Oryx blog. Please read WP:RS. Volunteer Marek 14:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if you have read them. Especially the part on biased sources. The point is that Oryx is using Zvezda as a source... Andrea e luca (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This Zvezda: Zvezda describes itself as "patriotic" and is considered one of the most sensational and anti-Western news channels in Russia. It has a reputation for publishing biased news stories which favor the Russian government and whitewash Soviet crimes of the past? Yeah, that still fails WP:RS. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

These assertions are absurd, Zvezda's images were only utilized since they were the first, and there are more pictures about it presently. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

These aren't news stories however, this is undeniable video footage Andrea e luca (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What is this "undeniable video footage" you're referring to? Volunteer Marek 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The footage published by Zvezda showing Ukrainian equipment abandoned at the border checkpoint. Andrea e luca (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You deny the undeniable. How pitiful. Andrea e luca (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss content, not editors. Zvezda is not a reliable source. And again, what video footage are you talking about? Is there a link? Volunteer Marek 16:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If it is showing factual footage, even if it was the most unreliable source in the world, you can't deny it.

It's like saying you wouldn't trust them telling you the sky is blue as they show you a picture of the sky.

As they're owned by the Russian MoD, they're the only ones to have access to such videos recorded by the Russian Armed Forces.

Here's the video of Russian forces showing the destroyed equipment at the border checkpoint:

https://t.me/zvezdanews/119242

Here's the video of Russian artillery strikes on Ukrainian forces in Belgorod. The important part of the video is the fact it shows some of the equipment in the first video being destroyed:

https://t.me/zvezdanews/119212

One thing is taking with a pinch of salt. Another thing is ignoring facts and evidence. Andrea e luca (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Who is performing the geolocation? Is it an independent source with a history of doing so? Multiple separate sources?

That's really what matters. The vast majority of geolocated footage is published by one side or the other, after all. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I sent earlier the geolocalization of one of those pictures. I can't and certainly won't find a source like CNN publishing such things, as it isn't precisely what they do. Andrea e luca (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-us-equipment-used-border-raid-shows-growing-western-role-ukraine-2023-05-24/ in this article Reuters confirms the geolocalization... so I was right all along? how surprising... 2A01:E11:400E:30:A063:23D4:944B:E331 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, policy must be followed. If you can find a more reliable source, then feel free to use it. Honestly at this point there seems to be a refusal to get it. --Firestar464 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps i didn't make my argument clear enough. I'm not saying Oryx is a bad source, I'm saying Oryx is showing pictures from Zvezda. And i was arguing Zvezda was, as such, the primary source. Andrea e luca (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Posted to WP:RSN: [6]. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s over then

Well then the map should be uploaded 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:48EA:D3FD:FB0C:11BE (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Which one? 2A02:3030:814:7797:1:0:2674:B69C (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Today’s map

man today’s it still shows the territory of the capture on the 23rd but now all of them were kicked 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:F9ED:502B:EE69:5903 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

They have now reportedly taken garyvorom https://t.me/legionoffreedom

according to their page theyve taken garyvoron Huumas (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This is just propaganda, they are not in Russia anymore. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Source? 2A02:3030:814:7797:1:0:2674:B69C (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

That was a video from Twitter. I just removed it. Not an RS. This could be fake or whatever.My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you confirm it? At the moment it's just a claim. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I am only saying that such posting is not an RS for any claims. But I see this has also been confirmed on their Telegram channel. Still, I would not include such claims without having a better source. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What is LSR?

The acronym LSR is used at least 3 times in the article including the infobox, but it's not clear what it stands for. Someone please clarify in the article/infobox. Referencer12 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of Russia Legion Scu ba (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Legion Svoboda Rossii LDM2003 (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Do media sources refer to them by that acronym? It’s a little confusing for English-language readers on first encounter. HappyWith (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Add "local collaborators" on the side of "Svoboda Rossiyi"

A lot of locals have collaborated with the Insurgents. 2A02:3030:816:6172:1:0:20DA:B6DB (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Militarily? HappyWith (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes.

https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/17820695 2A02:3030:816:6172:1:0:20DA:B6DB (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm reading through the article, and I don't see where that's mentioned. Can you provide a quote from it so I can find the exact passage? HappyWith (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed from the article. 2A02:3030:816:6172:1:0:20DA:B6DB (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.atalayar.com/en/articulo/politics/from-belgorod-to-red-square-anti-putin-russia-takes-up-arms/20230523165436185179.amp.html 2A02:3030:816:6172:1:0:20DA:B6DB (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be added. 2A02:3030:80B:44C2:1:0:2645:4499 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What info from the article do you want to add? HappyWith (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to the supported incursion title (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Belgorod Oblast attack → 2023 Belgorod Oblast conflict – "Conflict" is a more accurate noun than "attack" (which implies only one incident) as fighting is occurring in at least three towns. It's also not really an invasion by Ukrainian troops but more a rebellion by armed Russian opposition groups. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that the article title falls short in my opinion as this is not a simple attack, Russia has supposedly lost control of two villages. However I believe there could be another better alternative. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Also there is the matter that it's not the only attack to take place in Belgorod in 2023, or even this month. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Could "clashes" be a good option? Also "invasion", "incursion". Super Ψ Dro 15:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I like "incursion" for now. I think if it escalates, it could become an "invasion" later. HappyWith (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of providing the best information possible regarding a topic that is getting a lot of attention right now, I've performed the move (WP:BOLD) rather than wait the usual seven days of the RM process. Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I was about to do it but just saw a WP:BOLD move has already been reverted. I will let consensus be established. So far I support "incursion". Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I support "incursion" too. Here are a ton of sources that say "incursion", to support that course of action:

• [7] [8] "Ukrainian military intelligence: Russian groups behind Belgorod incursion"
• [9] "The alleged incursion would be the largest attack of its kind since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022."
• [10] "Russia Says Ukrainian Commandos Stage Cross-Border Incursion"
• [11] "Kremlin says Putin has been informed of incursion into Belgorod Oblast"
• [12] "Belgorod governor reports incursion into region by 'Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance group'"

HappyWith (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I support incursion as well. Despite the conflict drawing on, incursion would still be the best way to describe it. Jebiguess (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I support "incursion". Too big for a singular attack, and too small for a conflict. Zerbrxsler (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

What about "offensive"? As in "2023 Belgorod Offensive" MLPfanficwriter (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• We should wait to see what happens, if this is a short term operation it should be called Belgorod Oblast raid, if this ends up being a sustained offensive it should be called Belgorod Oblast offensive or Belgorad Oblast campaign.XavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Support either "incursion" or "raid" for now, at least until the situation develops further. -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose "conflict", this is almost undisputably a part of the Russo-Ukrainian War, not a conflict on its own. Support "incursion" for now, but, as XavierGreen said, if it is sustained as a theater of warfare then change it to "Belgorod offensive" or smth. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Raid" is also a good name, better than "attack" or "conflict" at least. HappyWith (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Support the title "2023 raids on Belgorod Oblast". Using "raids" implies several separate military incursions and changing the word order could improve the flow. Arithmagic (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

- Or "May 2023 raids on Belgorod Oblast" to avoid mistaking "2023 raids" to mean two-thousand and twenty-three individual raids! Arithmagic (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support either "incursion" or "raid" My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose “Conflict”. Support “Incursion” or “Raid”. This is almost undeniably a part of the russo-ukranian war. If this is it’s own conflict, then so is the battle of Bakhmut. Tahadagal (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support "incursion". It sounds better. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 01:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Strongly Support "Raids" I feel like incursion implies more significance than what is known right now, though I highly prefer it over . Possible alternate could be "Assault". Highly oppose "Conflict" Sam(A Horrible Person) (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Wait this isn't even a day old, we need to wait until we can say if it's a raid, an attack, an incursion or a conflict. Norschweden (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support ‘attack’, because this is what it is so far, and not a conflict. Then wait. I won't mind, if the plural form would be used — several settlements have been attacked, though it could be called a single attack of several settlements. Won't mind, if it would be renamed to 'raid', but a raid would mean, that attackers make an attack and leave, and they have not left. I do not support 'incursion', because that would mean an attack by a foreign force, but the attackers are all citizens of Russia. -Mardus /talk 02:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support “incursion”, then wait. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support "incursion" per Super Dromaeosaurus Flalf^Talk 13:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Now that the attack has seemingly ended, I think raid is the best term. "Incursion" is too vague; it could mean anything from a non-violent crossing of the border all the way up to an invasion. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose we just change the name to "2023 Belgorod Oblast attacks. If the issue is that it isn't a conflict, which it obviously isn't, but it's not a singular event/attack, just using a plural and saying "attacks" is ambiguous enough for this early stage without having to say something like invasion or incursion, which suggests a bigger operation than it is.

I think raid doesn't work because a raid is meant to be hit and run and right now we don't know if they intend on staying or not.

Conflict makes no sense as this is not independent from the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Invasion suggests a much bigger campaign, and because the fighters are Russian volunteers, it isn't really a Ukrainian invasion of Russia.

Incursion is decent but I still think attacks makes more sense. G1ngerRobot (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, "attacks" could refer to any of the Ukrainian strikes against Belgorod region over the course of the year. We need to specify this is an actual movement of troops to disambiguate. HappyWith (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Wait This may turn out to be nothing more than a raid into Russian territory -- as some expert commentators believe -- with no further purpose than to distract the Russians. We'll know this if the FRL & RVC withdraw after a few days. If so, then it would be more accurate to name this "2023 Belgorod Oblast raid" or maybe "Battle of Grayvoronsky". -- llywrch (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Support "incursion" or wait We don't know too much right now, thus a term like "incursion" is the best we can do. If it turns out not to be more than a distraction, I'd be enclined to support either "incursion" or "raid". I oppose "attack" or anything that wouldn't make it clear troops were fighting on Russian ground (which differentiates it from Ukrainian attacks on Belgorod that happened previously) Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Support, but might not a preposition clarify that this cannot mean a missile strike or sabotage by partisans: 2023 incursion into Belgorod Oblast?  —Michael Z. 19:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems there are incursions into Briansk and Kursk oblasts as well, by now. How about 2023 incursions into Russia? —Michael Z. 21:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That would seemingly cover the scope of 2023 Bryansk Oblast attack. If we did something along the lines of your proposal, we would then either merge the articles, or need to rename both articles to signify which was the March '23 and which was the May '23 incursion. HappyWith (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks.  —Michael Z. 21:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This makes absolutely zero sense. Both Russian Volunteer Corps and Legion "Freedom of Russia" are part of Armed Forces of Ukraine. So it is not a "conflict". And they're also not rebels. Inspektor256 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

They are Russian citizens.  —Michael Z. 21:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, remove "Oblast" from the title, as "Oblast" is rarely ever included in titles for things like this, even if the city was not the scene of fighting. It's 2022 Kherson counteroffensive, not 2022 Kherson Oblast counteroffensive; it's 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive, not 2022 Kharkiv Oblast counteroffensive. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I am who proposed the RMs that achieved both titles. It made sense for the Kherson counteroffensive as it recaptured the city which was said from the start to be the main objective of the operation. For the Kharkiv counteroffensive things were different. The city of Kharkiv never fell and was not the aim of the counteroffensive. The move was carried out by WP:COMMONNAME principles, which are individual and independent for every article. We should study common names in sources for this operation too, rather than moving per WP:CONSISTENT. And I am pretty certain that "Belgorod counteroffensive" is not a name used in sources, specially because here "counteroffensive" makes no sense as it is not Ukrainian territory that Ukraine is trying to recover. So I don't think it's a good alternative. Super Ψ Dro 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, no, I agree that this isn't a counteroffensive. I'm saying that it should be 2023 Belgorod incursion or something along those lines, as we rarely include "Oblast" into titles like this. The Kherson and Kharkiv articles I linked to were examples of not including "Oblast" in the title. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support "incursion" incursion fits more, agree that attack would be if it only was 1 incident, but conflict is too much. SnoopyBird (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I also support using the term "incursion". El819 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title but Support for 2023 incursions into Western Russia 2023 incursions into western Russia, similar to Michael Z's proposal, and similar to the descriptive title 2022–2023 Western Russia attacks for the broader range of incidents. This is justified by the current rumours of an RVC incursion into Gogolevka, Kursk Oblast. So far there are no sources claiming that the anti-government Russsian forces aim to hold the territory rather than just show that they can enter freely and withdraw after a few days to avoid being massacred, so "incursions" appears currently justified by the sources. In a week's time, 2023 Western Russia conflict might become supported by the sources (internal Russians versus Russians continuous military armed conflict), but that's not the case right now. Boud (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) (Fixed W to w per Michael Z. Boud (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)) (New !vote below. Boud (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC))

To be honest, i think your proposal is even better, as there have been rumours of incursions in kursk and bryansk (per the article itself), so i agree with that. SnoopyBird (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Lowercase western.  —Michael Z. 00:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Boud (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If it is confirmed that attacks have taken place outside Belgorod Oblast, I endorse your proposal. Super Ψ Dro 08:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The Atlas News and Readovka reports are probably OK to remain in the text as currently stated (with 'better source needed' and explicit attribution, but not enough to justify the wider scope of the title. So I've struck through this proposal. New !vote below. Boud (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - too short and it was just a spoiler at best Braganza (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Incursion it wasn't a single attack or raid, it was a series of them, that is what an incursion is. Scu ba (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support "Raid" or "Incursion" - we already have a page for a similar incident (2023 Bryansk Oblast raid) and now it seems indeed it was a raid. The militias moved across the border, caused some problems and promptly retreated back into the border, which is quite similar as a raid or an incursion.LordLoko (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Incursion or raid. These forces are not Ukrainian regulars, but it is a Ukrainian force and it was just a quick and small in and out raid. There is definitely no rebellion, that borders on miss information. This is a Ukrainian run paramilitary unit moving from Ukraine in to Russia, not an organic uprising inside Belgorod. Notice the western equipment they all used, clearly equipped by Ukraine. Liger404 (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Support "2023 Belgorod raid" or "2023 Belgorod Oblast Incursion" - A large number of references use these names. see here. Sincerely, Parham wiki (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed title, Support for 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursion, based on the majority of the reliable sources describing this as a brief series of raids and a rapid withdrawal, and only in Belgorod Oblast, and not in Belgorod city itself. Boud (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

The BPR/BNR and the Bilhorod oblast of Ukraine jokes

The "Bilhorod is Ukraine" poster Юе Артеміс (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a valid source. Things like that can be included to pages only if described and put to proper context in multiple secondary RS. Saying that, there is nothing wrong with expanding the section about public reactions in Russia and Ukraine - per good secondary RS. The operation was apparently planned as a Psyop. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and large portions of the active editing community enthusiastically bought into said PSYOP…the amount of highly optimistic thinking was absurd. Hopefully this will be a lesson to editors to separate more clearly between their personal views and their encyclopedic assessments of ongoing events. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It had a huge effect in Russian and Ukrainian information space, and various opinions about it can be reliably sourced (if anyone cares). It shows that Ukrainian forces will attack various military targets and infrastructure on the Russian territory that appears to be poorly protected. They can try to cut the lines of communication of Russian forces in Ukraine in such way, etc. This is in addition to attacks by drones. Of course they have previously attacked the Crimean bridge, but coming with a force of hundreds (potentially thousands) soldiers on Russian soil is something different. Hence the reaction. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The Result

The map must be updated, or 'no territorial changes'/'retreat of the attackers' should be added to the Result part. Now, it's misleading as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.40.122 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the map is there to document the greatest extent of the incursion. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

completely agree Andrea e luca (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the result parameter to "Inconclusive", since both sides declare victory. The RVC said they essentially got what they wanted out of the raid, and they didn't intend to actually hold territory for long. HappyWith (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

LSR Telegram feed

Although not a trustworthy source, ill put the LSR telegram feed here so people can get updates on the situations straight from the Horses Mouth. We should cross-analyze what they're saying with what the Media and Russian government are saying to create a full picture, and refrain from quoting them directly.

That being said, their most recent update was at 7:06 where they said fighting was still on. Scu ba (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Map of the second incursion

Would it be a good idea to create a map documenting the extent of the second incursion? Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I think we could move the 23 May map down to the "23 May" section and put a more recent map in the infobox. HappyWith (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

So uh, they did it again

Should we make a separate article on the new incursion, or dramatically rework this article to include both? Scu ba (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I’d make a separate article tbh, I don’t think these are the same incident. HappyWith (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

They're not the same incident, but there are not enough sources to establish notability as two "things" that are each individually "notable". For the moment, wait for more sources, add them into the 1 June subsection, and if the sources solidify enough, rework the article. The sources mostly describe these as actions by one pair of groups, so they qualify as a single topic. See the section immediately above for switching from singular to plural. Add an objection if you have one, or do a WP:BOLD move if you guess that nobody will have a good reason for objecting to the plural title. I wouldn't say that a de facto WP:SPLIT - into two separate incidents - is currently justified based on notability. Boud (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. Couldn't we just add it into 2022-2023 Western Russia attacks for now, then? I don't like the idea of changing the scope of this article so dramatically. HappyWith (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably we need some more opinions. I already made a few minimal changes, but we should see what others think. And I guess having external sources give us their judgment on how to group these would help. Boud (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we should get more opinions. One big concern I have is just the formatting of everything and how I fear it'll be messed up if we make this article include all the raids in Belgorod from this point forward: Are we going to create sub-tallies of casualties and sub-date durations for the different raids in the infobox, and multiple Reactions sections, or group them all together in a very confusing way?

I feel like it's going to get very messy very fast, and that's one reason why I think we should really make an article just covering these pro-Ukrainian, ethnic-Russian raids into Russia that can cover this article in summary style and cover less important raids in their scope. HappyWith (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Good source: Meduza seems to have the most complete report with clear attribution about who says what. Later on Thursday, the Defense Ministry added details ... gives details (times, places), per the Ministry, that we mostly haven't yet used. Boud (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Boud. But I am also reading this [13]. Kind of interesting and perhaps should be noted on the page. Some commenters said there was a discussion about relocating these nuclear weapons from the facility, but I did not find it reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

May 25 incursion

The Russians claim to have invaded Russia again. It’s in the same place (Glotovo), so it belongs in this article.[14] But repeated incursions support this as a wider topic and the merging of the 2023 Bryansk Oblast raid into this article, perhaps under a title like Raids into western Russia. —Michael Z. 21:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is apparently a prolonged campaign. But I am really surprised by statements like "Mykhailo Podolyak ... confirmed that Ukraine had nothing to do with the actions of the RDK and Legion in Belgorod Oblast". It has "nothing to do"?? This is ridiculous. They should probably say: "they are not our regular forces, but rebels we trained and support". My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not really surprised that a country fighting a war isn't being transparent. I'd also expect most people to be able to realise that and also why they're doing it. Super Ψ Dro 19:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sure. They are trying to deny it because of this [15], which possibly needs to be mentioned on the page. Apparently, they had to use only old Soviet or Ukrainian-made equipment during such raids (I assume they did not because these vehicles have a much better mine protection). I am surprised though that the Biden administration is afraid of Putin so much. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering the current discussion on a name change, I guess it'd make sense to change it to "2023 Belgorod incursions" or something like that. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I would actually suggest that we keep this page as is, but split 2022 Western Russia attacks into two pages: one covering the Ukrainian airstrikes within Russia, as its original scope was, and another covering the cross-border raids. Most sources consider this incident to be finished and separate from the raids before and after, but we could cover all the similar incursions along with this one in summary style in my proposed “cross border raids” article. Thoughts? HappyWith (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

For the moment I would go for just adding "s" to make incursions. I'll start an informal RM below to see if this gets easy consensus based on (especially) today's apparent raid. Boud (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion that may interest editors here at Talk:2022–2023 Western Russia attacks#Splitting proposal. HappyWith (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

Article has been created for the Polish Volunteer Corps Ajhuheu (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2023 (2)

Prigozhin said he would send his army to Belgorod if the Russian army couldent stop the incursions

On 3 June, two civilians driving a car near Maslova Pristan were killed in an artillery strike. Governor Gladkov stated that the strike had been conducted by Ukrainian forces. The LSR stated that the artillery strike that killed the two civilians was by official Russian army forces. The leader of Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin stated that if the Russian Armed Forces could not stop the incursions, that he would send his own army to Belgorod to stop the LSR and RVC. Ajhuheu (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The section you're referring to do is about the events, not about verbal promises made in reaction to the events. There's an equivalent sentence in the Reactions section in 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions#Russia. Moreover, the article as a whole has to make sense. There's no point telling the reader again and again and again and again who Prigozhin is. A little redundancy is acceptable, but not this much. Boud (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

References

The table of equipment losses

I removed it per WP:BRD. Please get consensus for inclusion. Also note: (a) this is based on a single source which is hardly reliable, (b) the claim was disputed, (c) such detailed table based on a single source is undue on the page. I think this at most deserves a single phrase with a reference on the page. That is assuming that the source is decided to be reliable per WP:CONSENSUS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the funniest cope I have ever seen, just the fact the victory is "disputed". Judging by the confirmed and recorded losses it isn't, but since wikipedia, despite being supposed to be an unbiased and certain source, is all but that, we will never see the actual losses.

I hope justice is done and the losses are restored. The losses showed a ĺarge loss in Ukrainian equipment which displayed the Russian victory, thing that, of course, some (if not many) here do not want to admit. Andrea e luca (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The status is disputed because on one side Russia says they killed every member of the LSR, while the LSR says they suffered only light casualties achieved all their objectives. Scu ba (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

However what do we know? We know Russia lost one old infantry carrier, while the LSR lost a whole bunch of western-made equipment and retreated. Or at least we would know that, if only wikipedia would share all the true, factual and new information, instead of just ignoring the losses and calling this "Dusputed". Unfortunately, bias rules here. Andrea e luca (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The LSR has said that the images that Russia circulated aren't their vehicles, either old footage of unrelated units, or total fabrications. There have been no reports to contradict that from a reliable source. Scu ba (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Except they've been shown with those vehicles? and there's video evidence of at least some of the videos being destroyed? So the Russians just moved some of those vehicles possibly hundreds of miles from whatever storage they're in and destroyed them just for this? Is wikipedia based on facts, claims or just mental gymnastics? Andrea e luca (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

some of the vehicles* Andrea e luca (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

again its disputed. Russia says they totally wiped out the entire legion, blowing up a gagillion armored vehicles. the legion says they suffered light casualties and lost no vehicles, and instead captured several Russian vehicles. that is two different accounts of events, hence disputed.

what is to say Russia didn't fabricate the images? media has yet to confirm the Russian story yet, any update should wait until that happens. Scu ba (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

you're supposed to send evidence it's fabricated. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-us-equipment-used-border-raid-shows-growing-western-role-ukraine-2023-05-24/ Andrea e luca (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

From the source: “Russian military said…” and “could not verify…” Volunteer Marek 12:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"Reuters verified the location of the damaged vehicles shown in the defence ministry video to be Graivoron, a Russian border checkpoint close to the frontier with northeastern Ukraine.

Buildings, fencing, the road layout, terrain and the tree lines matched satellite imagery of the area and corroborating videos from the same location.". I was talkinbg about the location. However one is supposed to send evidence that something is falsified. Andrea e luca (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Instead, wikipedia decides not to report factual evidence because of insignificant reasons. The images posted by Oryx were geolocated by amateurs, and those geolocations were confirmed by reuters, but no, let's all call it fake, close our eyes, ears and scream this is "disputed". Wikipedia isn't a place for factual evidence, unfortunately. I've learnt this a long time ago, and this is yet a confirmation of that Andrea e luca (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

key word, amateurs Scu ba (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

key word "Confirmed by Reuters" Andrea e luca (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

source? Scu ba (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-us-equipment-used-border-raid-shows-growing-western-role-ukraine-2023-05-24/ Andrea e luca (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Reuters is just reporting on Russian claims. Volunteer Marek 12:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"Reuters verified the location of the damaged vehicles shown in the defence ministry video to be Graivoron, a Russian border checkpoint close to the frontier with northeastern Ukraine.

Buildings, fencing, the road layout, terrain and the tree lines matched satellite imagery of the area and corroborating videos from the same location."...did you even read the whole thing? Andrea e luca (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"Reuters was able to confirm the location of damaged vehicles and surrounding details shown in the video" Andrea e luca (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So Reuters' are confirming that the images supplied by Russia were taken where Russia claimed they were taken. Not that the Russian claims are true. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have evidence it was faked? You see destroyed equipment, is it not there? Andrea e luca (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I make no claims, I see the equipment and trust Reuters' that the pictures were taken in the place that Russia claims they were taken. But Reuters' are not confirming Russia's claims, only the location from which the pictures were taken. Do I trust Russia's claims, no. Would I believe unverified claims made by the Ukrainian government, no. Would I trust Reuters' if they confirmed the location shown in pictures taken by the Ukrainian government, yes, but that still wouldn't verify any claims being made about the pictures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You see abandoned equipment. The video is being posted by Russian troops, as the poster is directly the Russian MoD. Thus, I do not see what diqualifies these pieces of equipment from being confirmed as Ukrainian losses. Andrea e luca (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources are of little value here, Wikipedia uses secondary sources. If any such source confirms the details then it will be added. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So you ignore undeniable truth because there's no secondary source saying it? What if no secondary source said the sky is blue, would that make it false according to Wikipedia standards? This is the reason wikipedia isn't used as a reliable source, and shouldn't be used as one. Let's wait until your favourite flavour of propaganda media (CNN,fox, Radio free europe, you decide) confirms this.ttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna85946 Andrea e luca (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Ignore the link, sent by mistake. Andrea e luca (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether I care about the truth or not is irrelevant, Wikipedia cares only about secondary sourcing. I suggest reading WP:Independent sources. As to the sky being blue see WP:BLUE, but that would only apply to uncontestable claims. As the claims by the two different side don't match, the details are contest. As for truth itself see WP:TRUTH, as I said even if I knew these things to be absolutely true it would not matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russia-u-equipment-used-border-114559703.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACPWJoMyk_XTYrDnaM5ScGDwlaPeMEFhwcVFETcPU03Z-0veFVpa6jK5oRPS5SJXDToBfZhzjyBpqWV3ZNqEx2qAnfrFkkac6PW7g8j2wQCIDZ1HeEufXiX7xhzvJTEDM5l3VX4mruxHQu8Wk9nUVfnnPIr4AQTxSAxIlgxusTQc

"Footage of some of the destroyed vehicles released by the Russian defence ministry showed U.S.-made military hardware such as Humvee military trucks."

Is this enough? The source is indeed telling you the sky is blue. Is that enough evidence? Andrea e luca (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's enough to say that the video showed US made military Humvees. You don't appear to under the difference between WP:SYNTH and WP:BLUE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Andrea e luca I have added the info about the supposedly destroyed vehicles to the article, with the proper attribution, since reliable sources do actually cover this, but they always say the truthfulness of the photos is uncertain. If you have suggestions about how to improve the material, feel free to let me know. HappyWith (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally someone with sense. Andrea e luca (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Is what you're seeing deniable perhaps? Do you see something else instead of the destroyed equipment? Andrea e luca (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Is what I'm seeing deniable, easily given the current Russians governments fondness for misinformation. I see two Humvees in a hole, which proves that two Humvees were in a hole, and Reuters' has confirmed the location of the two Humvees in a hole. Everything beyond that is unconfirmed by any third party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The Humvees in the hole, as proven by the markings on them, belonged to the pro-ukrainian grouping who previously occupied the area. Afterwards, the area was occupied by the Russians, who took the video and posted it through their MoD. Again, I do not see the problem. Andrea e luca (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

All I can suggest is actually reading the links other editors have mentioned, maybe afterwards you'll understand. Unless you do there's not much more to say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY HappyWith (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a photo with two brand new vehicles allegedly left by the intruders. Even if it was authentic (some say it was staged), this is not the long and detailed list of equipment previously included on this page. Given the amount of contradictory claims and denials about every piece of equipment, I suspect this detailed list was a fake, a "fog of war". My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Copy vio: "Belgorod People's Republic" flag

I took a look at the page for the image of the "Belgorod People's Republic" (satirical) flag and I don't believe the copyright rationale is in order. It claims to be non-copyright on the basis of being an official state flag of the Russian government, but this is obviously NOT the case. Whoever designed this parody flag probably wasn't even located in Russia, much less an official representative of the Russian state. Unless the actual original creator of the "flag" can be identified, and he or she officially releases the flag as non-copyright or under some sort of CC license or whatever, the image should be removed. -2003:CA:870C:E88:CD5:B59B:5DC6:3C69 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the copyright argument is that the official flag is public domain, so derivatives (modified versions) can be given any copyright they wish. In any case, the file is at Wikimedia Commons, not at Wikipedia. The place to dispute the copyright status is Commons:File talk:Flag of the fictional "Belgorod People's Republic".svg. Boud (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The public domain status of the original flag being satirized isn't particularly relevant. Even if the original flag were copyright, one could still make a parody of it under fair use doctrine. The issue is that we don't know who created the parody version, so we have to assume that the parody version displayed here is copyright. -2003:CA:870C:E88:CD5:B59B:5DC6:3C69 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless this should be a talk on the file's talk page, not here. Scu ba (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 Belgorod Oblast incursionS

Any objections to changing the title to 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions with an "s" for plural, based on today's apparently serious incursions, once (if) there are a few more sources?

This seems likely to be uncontroversial to me, at least once there are more WP:RS confirming today's raid, which is why I'm trying an informal passive consensus decision. A possibly more substantial name change or article split debate can come later - this one is just singular vs plural. Boud (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd put the material about the new raids into 2022-2023 Western Russia attacks for now. WP:RS treat this as a separate event [16], and the events are separated by like two weeks. HappyWith (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, so the proposal is controversial: I was wrong. (By the way: 23 May to 1 June is 9 days, not two weeks.) So a more formal RM would be needed if there's likely to be a chance of a new consensus. Boud (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikipedia entry title, changing of the title is nothing new---a more recent example before this Belgorod Oblast incursions is the Battle of Svatove-Kreminna Line, for at first, back in Oct-Dec 2022, lots of us may suppose Ukraine will take both cities at once, but later on that front line ended up being a stalemate of sorts, so later on, the entry was changed to the current name to reflect the situation instead of "Battle of Svatove" or "Second Battle of Kreminna"(similar to "Second Battle of Lyman").

Though there's nothing wrong with changing the entry title, but there should be an update in the summary box, for, yes, the second incursion is ONGOING as we speak, and the Belgorod governor had to make a humiliating proposal to the partisans on getting back Russian soldiers, so for the end result, under First Raid, there should be a Second Raid, and we can depict as "Ongoing; LSR and RVC controlled Novaya Tavolzhanka" right now...and this is nothing wrong to update, because even the more notorious Battle of Bakhmut, the status update recently vacillated between Ongoing and Russian victory too. Bf0325 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)