Jump to content

Talk:Eastern Ukraine campaign/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Source collection dump

Please add sources to this list so we can build up this article. We created this way too late so a lot of sources have been lost in the furor. Curbon7 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Chernihiv Oblast (not Chernihiv though): [1]
  • Donetsk Oblast: [2]
  • Kharkiv Oblast:
  • Luhansk Oblast:
  • Sumy Oblast: [3]
Added some content (and sources) to this article (too lazy to put them all here). Seantseng918 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah this is just a list to toss-in source that need to be added in. Obv if the sources are already in the article, then it's fine lol Curbon7 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Improve image in infobox

The image on the infobox show only from Konotop to Sumy, Kharkiv is not visible, and it is a static image. Can someone replace it with a crop of the map of the whole invasion that shows the whole offensive. Ridanbp (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2022

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

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator. after seven days have passed. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Ukraine offensive → Northeastern Ukraine offensive – To distinguish it from the offensive in Donbass and the Kherson offensive.Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Can you please provide a list of sources that separate it by calling it a northeastern offensive or similar term like axis/campiagn? We shouldn't change it just because of geography. Advances in Donbass are already mentioned here. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources? It's an evolving situation. Where were the sources for "Eastern" when ity was created? Let's be practical here. The operation in Donbass is completely different to what is happening near Kharkiv. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
We don't make up names here. What is your proof that it is different? Or has a different objective? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Where was the proof that it was "Eastern" at the time of creation? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Kharkiv

To which theatre of war does this battle belong? To the Eastern Ukraine offensive or the Northeastern Ukraine offensive? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Northeastern Ukraine offensive. —Michael Z. 20:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. Being that the offensive in Sumy and Chernihiv (Northeast Ukraine) has ended, its more useful to think of Kharkiv as part of the Eastern Ukraine offenseive now. Wolf359Locutus (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2022

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

Result:
No consensus. Closure requested – <permalink>. See no agreement below to rename this article to the proposed title. No prejudice to begin a new RM for the "Donbas" usage. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again to garner consensus in a few months for this name change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Ukraine offensive → Southeastern Ukraine offensive While this article covers only the military operations in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts in southeastern Ukraine, this article is titled "Eastern Ukraine offensive." This can confuse our readers into thinking that the article covers offensive operations in both the northeastern and southeastern Ukraine regions, when this is clearly not the case. This article used to cover military operations in both northeastern and southeastern Ukraine. However, ever since content in this article pertaining to northeastern Ukraine was split off into Northeastern Ukraine offensive, the title for this article has not been updated accordingly to reflect the changes. Since we already have an article titled Northeastern Ukraine offensive, I propose moving this article to Southeastern Ukraine offensive, per WP:PRECISE. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Query How is it a fractionation? The entirely of the territory in the current scope will remain, just under a new name. It's not being split. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crimean Tatars are also in this war, someone please add them

Crimean Tatars are also in this war, someone please add them Nizamcı (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Nizamcı, please provide a reliable source. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger Kharkiv with Eastern Ukraine Offensive?

Looking at the Ukraine war map (areas of focus), it makes more sense to connect Kharkiv (currently part of the Northeastern Ukraine offensive article) to the Eastern Ukraine offensive. Also some units, for example the 20th Guards Combined Arms Army, are active in both Kharkiv and the Donbass. As of now, nothing with the Kharkiv battles has anything to do with main focus areas in Northeastern Ukraine (Sumy and Chernihiv). Thoughts? KajMetz (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, true, they should merge the battles in the Kharkiv oblast with the Eastern Ukraine offensive. SavageBWiki (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge parts of Northeastern offensive into this?

I raised on Northeastern offensive talk page a question whether parts of it should be merged with this article: Talk:Northeastern Ukraine offensive#Merge Northeastern offensive into Kyiv and Eastern offensives?.--Staberinde (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2022 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2022

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

The result of the move request was: it is clear that reorganization is necessary for many related articles as circumstances change, but there is no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Merging other articles here is an editorial decision that is outside the scope of this close. Dekimasuよ! 05:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Ukraine offensive → Donbas offensive (2022) – The offensive occured in Donbas only so it is more precise. Panam2014 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Question/oppose Apart from the comment that there may be some overflow (per Applodion), what evidence is there as to WP:COMMONNAME for either proposition? We are only free to make up a name if no common name exists. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 and Applodion: we should update the infobox because it covers only Luhansk and Donetsk. Panam2014 (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support to Donbas offensive. There is no common name for this offensive yet, although reliable sources do prefer "Donbas offensive" over "Eastern Ukraine offensive", but the offensive is generally referred to as being in the Donbas, rather than Eastern Ukraine generally - see the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and the BBC. BilledMammal (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    @BilledMammal: The articles you cited are talking about the Battle of Donbas (2022) which is a sub-operation of this larger campaign. Thus, "Battle of Donbas (2022)" should be renamed, not this article. Applodion (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    Good point; switch to Oppose. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    @BilledMammal and Applodion: in that case we must add Kharkiv oblast to the location. Panam2014 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Panam2014: Thanks for pointing this out; I had not even noticed that only two oblasts were mentioned in the infobox. Admittedly, there is some overlap with the Northeastern Ukraine offensive, but ISW - one of the most important academic sources on the war - categorize Kharkiv as part of the eastern campaign. Applodion (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    I have adjusted the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) article as well; the latter now says that it was part of both the northeastern and eastern offensive. IMO, that is probably the best we can do until experts actually publish other views or we learn more details about the Russian planning. Applodion (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose although I supported this before, it is true that the offensive also extends into the Kharkiv Oblast, which is not in Donbas. It is, however, included in the geographical region of Eastern Ukraine, see the article for a map. Super Ψ Dro 17:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge Battle of Donbas (2022) into here and then we can discuss what the name should be. Curbon7 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    Support. Super Ψ Dro 17:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    I also Support a merger of the two articles, as the April 2022 Donbas offensive is merely a continuation of this offensive. Also, neither article is anywhere near the readable prose size limit, and even if merged, a combined article still wouldn't get there, so there's no need for a content fork here. If, however, the two articles remain separate, then I think that the new article should continue using the title Battle of Donbas (2022), as that is a name that is actually used by media outlets, and since we have used "battle" to name articles on large military offensives, such as Battle of Manbij (2016), Battle of France, Battle of Britain, and Battle of Kiev (1941). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose the Battle of Donbas is a battle within the offensive. There is no doubt that it is a battle, all the media outlets, Russian sources, Ukrainian sources, are calling it a battle. The Eastern Ukraine offensive is the overarching parent offensive to the battle and includes all the fighting from 24 February to 18 April. If we merge the Battle of Donbas into there, casualties and fighting info will be inaccurate as it takes into account almost 2 months of fighting prior to the battle. Additionally, the battle page is over 120,000 bytes, and expanding, it is much longer than before, and is definitely long enough.
    TL;DR: "Eastern Ukraine Offensive" is parent operation, "Battle of Donbas" is a sub-operation, and thus the two have no business being merged together PilotSheng (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose Battle of Donbas concerns the Joint Forces Operation area[10]. The Eastern Ukraine offensive includes Kharkiv Oblast, which is not part of the JFO[11] Yokohama1989 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support – Unless we merge the Kharkiv Oblast and Chernihiv Oblast operations into this article, this article focuses exclusively on the military operations in the two Donbas Oblasts. It makes absolutely no sense to call this the "Eastern Ukraine offensive" when the article covers only two oblasts in southeastern Ukraine. Per WP:PRECISE, we should use the most accurate, concise title as possible. "Eastern Ukraine offensive" gives users the impression that this article covers offensive operations around the Kharkiv and Chernihiv regions when that's simply not true, which can be confusing. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Laurel Lodged, Fijipedia, Wikisaurus, Laurel Lodged, Activist, Olchug, RGloucester, CX Zoom, Benjitheijneb, and EkoGraf: Pinging the participants from the previous discussion, as they'll probably have an interest in this one as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Since the Kharkiv Oblast operations have been moved out of Northeastern Ukraine offensive and merged into this article, I no longer support the proposed renaming. Changing my vote to Oppose. I'm Neutral on merging Battle of Donbas (2022) into this article, and I would suggest that users consider the length of each article when considering a potential merger of the two. Nonetheless, the major developments and the ultimate outcome of the Battle of Donbas (2022) do need to be covered in this article. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Oppose Rename ± Fork - the new localisation of the renewed offensive does not change the geographical coverage of the past months as per the last requested move above, which covered an area far beyond the two oblasts; the overall theater of operations since February should not be renamed just on the basis of developments since April. However, the present wave of operations is concentrated in and around the Donbas region and could easily constitute a sub-offensive of its own with its own page. Battle of Donbas (2022) already fulfills this purpose very well, but should other operations occur which very clearly occur for strategic control of the Donbas region, even if not located within Donbas proper, a Donbas offensive (2022) page would be appropriate, which in itself would still be nested under the wider Eastern Ukraine offensive. Edit to clarify: per Applodion below and the rename proposal above, there was already a strong argument that the Kharkiv operations were included in the present understanding of Eastern Ukraine offensive. That debate can be rehashed separately, but as it currently stands "Eastern Ukraine" effectively means "Donbas Region and Kharkiv Oblast". Benjitheijneb (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    We already include the Kharkiv operations here because our main sources state that the Kharkiv Oblast clashes support the Russian & Ukrainian attacks in the Donbas. It is factually false to call this the "Donbas offensive". Applodion (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    This article does include the fighting in Kharkiv Oblast. Where else could it be included? And geographically speaking, Kharkiv Oblast and the Donbas comprise a single region in Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 08:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Let me understand... not only do we have a fork article already of this offensive covering most of the fighting happening on its front lines (Battle of Donbas (2022), but there are editors who also want to cut off the only region which sets apart this offensive's and the Battle of Donbas' articles. I would like to know how can the editors supporting this move justify having two separate articles with exactly the same scope and where are we supposed to include the fighting in the Kharkiv Oblast. Fighting in the latter is anyway interrelated with Donbas, the recent fighting in Izium is said to have as an objective to surround Ukrainian forces in the Luhansk and part of Donetsk Oblasts [12]. Super Ψ Dro 08:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too soon to be sure. Donbas is in eastern Ukraine, and it is too soon to separate definitively Luhansk. Forking on artificial distinctions is not a good thing, not in real time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allies vs proxies vs regulars

@EkoGraf: You are confusing the terms here; "proxy" not as in proxy war but as per the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (and Rome Statute) definition i.e. "employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries". The term "allies" implies that these forces are independent and that is WP:POV. Recognition by one UN member, especially the aggressor state, does not make them legitimate or universally recognized states. They are not state actors; they are irregulars or mercenaries, if not a mere extension of Russian regulars by now. Hence it should either be "Russia and proxies" or even just "Russia". --Mindaur (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to back my point with WP:RS, e.g. BBC writes [13]: "His proxy forces seized more than a third of the area after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014". I have seen other descriptions, such as "self-proclaimed republics", but I haven't seen WP:RS calling them "allies". -- Mindaur (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The terms used by newspapers are often not a good indicator for anything; for example, Western media likes to call the Houthis in Yemen Iranian "proxies", despite the fact that the Houthis have never allowed themselves to become subordinates of Iran. In regards to your arguments: The DNR and LNR troops are not "armed irregulars or mercenaries", even if many people like to call them that. As per academic research, these groups range from militias to regular military quality and work for quasi-states (before you claim bias on my part: I would not call the main army of the Islamic State "armed irregulars or mercenaries" either). Like it or not, the LNR and DNR are, de facto, states. It does not matter that they are vassals of Russia or not recognized by most countries. They are still functioning states, just like, say, Somaliland. Thus, "proxies" is not the correct word to describe DNR and LNR troops. Anyway, "allies" is a quite neutral term which produces none of the baggage associated with "proxies". Applodion (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I provided you the UN definition and an WP:RS. You provided your interpretation and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. You might have a point, but you still need to back it by WP:RS (that's one of the pillars). I have not seen ANY reliable sources using the term "allies"; moreover, I find such labeling just echoing the Russian propaganda about LPR/DPR being independent states (strong WP:POV). Mindaur (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
No problem: For example, Mark Galeotti (who specializes in researching Putin's Russia), does not call the DNR and LNR forces "proxies" in Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine, a book written to specifically cover the War in Donbas, i.e. the direct precursor of the invasion. Instead, he prefers "rebels" or "separatists". He also uses "allies", although much less. Applodion (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
That is a complete misrepresentation.
Galeotti defines them as proxies. P 19, §“The Rebels,” first line: “the bulk of anti-government forces in the Donbas are proxies: local militias (in some cases, essentially organized criminal gangs given official status), volunteers, defectors from government forces, Cossacks, and mercenaries.
Earlier, he addresses their command, on p  17: “Novorossiya – “New Russia” – with Strelkov as their defense minister. This project came to nothing, however; Strelkov was dismissed in August, and the dream of Novorossiya was dead by the end of the year. ¶ Instead, 2014 saw Russia increasingly mixing its own soldiers and even whole units in with the insurgent militias . . .” Etcetera. —Michael Z. 02:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
We could also just use "pro-Russian separatists", a term which, as Curbon7 pointed out, is used by almost everyone. Applodion (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: has said it all. I have almost nothing to add. The BBC refers to them as "proxy forces" during the events of 2014 (a period for which I might agree they could be considered proxies), but not during today's events. Also, as Applodion pointed out, even during the 2014-2022 period "proxy" wasn't the exclusive term to describe them (others were used). If we are sticking to WP guidelines, a check should be made what is currently the most common term with which reliable sources describe the DPR and LPR forces and go with that. And yeah, @Curbon7:'s proposal also sounds good. EkoGraf (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: Institute for the Study of War uses "proxies", e.g. see their latest report: [14]; it is a legalistic term. "Pro-Russian separatists" is fine by me, as that's what arguably most WP:RS use. Although BBC, The Economist and others started to use "proxies" recently, indicating a switch in how they label them (which reflects Russia moving from covert warfare to overt). Mindaur (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mindaur: In regards to your last edit, you seem to misunderstand something. It was not agreed upon that the DPR and LPR should never be called Russian allies. They factually are allies of Russia. This discussion was solely about the descriptors used in prominent places, such as the order of battle or the infobox (where certain words can be misunderstood). It is absolutely fine to call them "Russian allies" in the text. Applodion (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: Nowhere did I limit the scope of this discussion in my original post raising the issue, so it applies to the article. It was not agreed that DPR/LPR should be called "allies" either.
I provided you WP:RS, both "academic" and "newspaper" (you seemed to have implied that some WP:RS are automatically better than the others, but that's not necessarily the case), both being recent and in the context of this conflict; I provided you with a UN definition of "proxy" forces (which you seem to have just ignored); we seem to have compromised on "pro-Russian separatists", as that is indeed widely used by many WP:RS. However, I do maintain that "allies" is a wrong term and the vast majority of WP:RS do not use such term. On a general note: DPR/LPR are puppet states, orchestrated by Russia during the covert phase of the war; while in 2014 and later they heavily relied on irregulars, mercenaries as well as local militants (yet in some battles, especially in 2015, covertly backed by the regular Russian units), today those forces are fully integrated into the Russian command and control structure. Suggesting that they are independent and, therefore, "allies" is WP:POV.
If you wish to pursue your POV further, then I suggest that we create an WP:RFC. -- Mindaur (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, EkoGraf and I adressed your POV. We did not "ignore" your arguments, we refuted them. Either way, 'allies' is not a term implying independence in any way. Even Wikipedia defines it just as a "relationship among people, groups, or states that have joined together for mutual benefit or to achieve some common purpose". For example, if you look at Google Scholar, you will discover that Nazi vassals like the Slovak State are called the "allies" of Nazi Germany. These were not at all independent. There is no reason for a WP:RFC because allies is a neutral descriptor which I only advocate for within the text to avoid tedious repetition. It's that innocent. I am not trying to push some kind of agenda - especially as I pointed out above that I do consider the DPR and LPR to be Russian vassals. That's why i agreed to the compromise - I have no issue with precise terms (such as "separatists"), as long as they are accurate (which "proxy" is not); I only wanted to make the text nicer to read. Applodion (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Mindaur, neither Applodion, nor me, are trying to push a POV. And implying either of us are is contrary to WP:GOODFAITH. We all may have a personal opinion about the conflict and its actors, but when editing Wikipedia we leave those opinions aside so that we can present the information on Wikipedia in a neutral and verifiable manner. Regarding your "general note", I would remind that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum, unless comments are for the purpose of resolving an issue based on verifiable sources, compromise if needed and ultimately improvement of Wikipedia. Applodion has laid it all out fairly and accurately. EkoGraf (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"Separatist" is a standard alternative. Curbon7 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Allies is problematic: it can be used informally to describe a relationship, but it can also be inferred as referring to a member of a formal alliance, implying a sovereign state party, and shouldn’t be used as a defining term. Separatist is similarly problematic because it describes a goal but is not defining because of the contradiction in foreign founders wanting to “separate” from a state they never belonged to.

These entities are widely considered to be ultimately constrained by and existing at the whim of the Russian government, if not totally under its control, and their militaries under the command of the RF’s 8th Combined Arms Army. The way they are referred to should reflect this. They are not independent nor sovereign, and not really autonomous. —Michael Z. 02:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This is factually false. As Galeotti outlined, the separatists are formally integrated into Russian command structures, but they do have their own agendas and their officers pursue their own operations - for example by killing each other. Again: By stating that, I do not want to suggest that the DPR or LPR are functionally independent. However, they are -at the moment, mind you- not merely provinces of Russia or equivalent to Russian military units. Even if Russia would annex them soon, they would be more akin to Chechnya than any regular part of Russia. Furthermore, I disagree that "allies" automatically indicates a "formal alliance"; and even if one assumes a formal alliance, such a relationship can also be formed between a state and its vassals. Applodion (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: I looked to your source and, in addition to the quotes provided by Mzajac above where Galeotti described these forces as "proxies", I found that the author leaves a note in page 65 (the end of the book): For the sake of brevity, the terms “rebel, “insurgent,” and “militia” are all used for proxy forces not directly made up of regular Russian troops, but with the understanding that this inevitably simplifies a complex reality. If anything, this reinforces my point (and you didn't provide any counter-argument to the UN definition of "proxy"; so I fail to see the refutation of my point, as you claimed above).
Regarding the facts: what you write is not wrong, but your source is from 2019 and the situation after 24 Feb 2022 is materially different. These forces have been integrated into the Russian C2 structure and are arguably not different from the regular Russian forces anymore. WP:RS are scarce on this, though.
So, I do assume WP:GOODFAITH (you've been trying to engage constructively in this discussion) and I accept that you didn't intend to imply a particular POV with the use of "allies" as a term, but I share exactly the same concerns expressed by Mzajac; many readers might not find such term neutral, therefore it is not suitable here. -- Mindaur (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mindaur: Though I cannot find this note in my copy of Galeotti's book (my version has only 64 pages), assuming that we are talking about the same work and possibly some other edition, the wording of the quote makes it clear that the "proxies" referred to are meant to be substitute fighting forces - i.e., deployed as part of proxy warfare -, not in the U.N. definition way. As EkoGraf outlined, this war is no longer proxy warfare since 2022. Furthermore, as I said, Galeotti prefers most other descriptors in his book.
In regards to "you didn't provide any counter-argument to the UN definition of 'proxy'". Yes, we did, by pointing out that this definition is simply to applicable here. They cannot be called "armed irregulars or mercenaries" because they are simply neither of these things; they are the professional forces of two quasi-states which operate as Russian vassals / puppets.
Frankly, I really do not care enough about the word "allies" to keep fighting over it, as I only wanted to improve the article's wording. I am also not ignorant; if editors like you and Mzajac (who have good intentions) do consider "ally" to be potentially problematic, we can avoid its usage.
However, I would recommend that you raise this point at a larger discussion, as "Russian allies" (or variations) is also used in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine main article. Perhaps it would be sensible to compile a list of terms for the separatists which are generally fitting to avoid future issues. Applodion (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Look for the “Author’s Note” on p 2, opposite the table of contents.
They were all illegal militias or mercenaries until February 19, not the members of a legal military force. Since the emergency and general mobilization decrees in DLNR, their members are largely conscripts, not professional military.
Thanks for clarifying the note's position, I found it now. Like I said, ally could be used informally, but is problematic, and probably best avoided. The relationship with “republics” created and maintained by the Russian state is not what is generally understood as an alliance: a legal agreement between sovereign peers. —Michael Z. 16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that this is an issue of definition. For you, the DPR and LPR forces fell under the category of "illegal militias or mercenaries" even after Russia had killed many of the most irregular warlords. However, most of the separatists were never "mercenaries" as they did not fight for pay but ideology. Heck, many groups even attracted foreign volunteers. In my opinion, they also ceased to be mere "militias" the moment that they started to use tanks, heavy artillery, and sophisticated command structures (funnily enough Middle East Eye has claimed that Russia's warfare style resembles the one of IS). As I pointed out above, this is rooted by my empirical view, as I would not call the armies of the Islamic State "illegal militias" either, even though many states insist on doing so due to legal reasons. In regards to the conscripts, we currently have no idea how that has affected the original separatist groups. Are the conscripts even enlisted into existing groups or is Russia setting up entirely new battalions? I have not seen sources commenting on this, so I feel that we cannot say how this affects the separatist armies as of now. Applodion (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: can you name the officers that pursue of their own agendas and operations during the eastern Ukraine offensive since February 24? You are stating generalities backed by no concrete evidence. In fact it sounds like you are talking about the warlords who were permitted to operate until August 2014, and nothing resembling the current situation. Now, all males in the Donbas are subject to general, forcible conscription (press gangs) and sent to fight with little or no training, equipment, or even body armour.[15] Some were sent as cannon fodder to Kyiv oblast. It’s likely all of their officers are Russian citizens under Russian command. —Michael Z. 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The large-scale killing of warlords indeed took place in 2014/2015. However, separatist leaders were still being murdered (either by rivals or Russia) in 2016 (Gennadiy Tsypkalov), 2017 (Valery Bolotov, Mikhail Tolstykh), and 2018 (Alexander Zakharchenko). In fact, the New York Times points at Zakharchenko's death being probably part of the last major purge. In regards to the current situation, as you yourself say, the sources on the DPR and LPR are scarce. However, the media still calls to local military strongmen "warlords" (see for example [16] ad [17]), suggesting that they are not mere officers. Shortly before the invasion, Small Wars Journal stated that "the armed forces were, however, inundated with rival warlords. However, given the lack of high-profile assassinations since late 2018, the more extreme elements of separatist leadership can be considered to be eliminated". IMO, their wording confirms that only the most independent-minded commanders were killed, not all warlords. For example, Igor Girkin is still around, despite being critical of Russia (though his actual position seems currently quite unclear, seeing as he was fired from his gov. positions). I do not dispute that Russia uses the separatists as cannon fodder, though I would like to point out that the more prominent separatist groups like Prizrak Brigade, Sparta Battalion, Somalia Battalion, and Vostok Battalion appear to operate close at home, i.e. at the eastern frontline (see this article's sources for that). This is related to the point I made above about us not knowning how the separatists are currently organized. It is entirely possible that the separatists sent into meat grinders are mostly conscripts folded into new units, whereas the old veterans maintain enough cloud to avoid being thrown away. We will only be able to confirm such things, however, once more infos surface. Applodion (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Libyan/Syrian mercenaries (according to ISW)

Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov reported that Ukrainian forces killed 20-25 ”Libyan and Syrian mercenaries” in Popasna.[13] Danilov stated he thinks Russia has deployed only 300-500 Syrian and Libyan mercenaries to the frontline. ISW has not observed any deployments of cohesive units of Syrian or Libyan fighters, and these recruits are likely individual fighters operating under the umbrella of the Wagner Group.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-20

I think Libyan/Syrian mercenaries/fighters (on Battle of Donbas, which uses the same source) should be removed as ISW states that any Syrian/Libyan fighters are part of Wagner and we are not separating Wagner group fighters by nationality. Secondly, this claim of 300-500 is being made by a Ukrainian official and not by ISWAngele201002 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of unsourced / badly sourced content

As a general note: Recently, an anon mass added units and commanders to the order of battle section. None of the commanders was referenced, and neither were several units. Some of the newly added units were referenced to a blog post on medium.com (though the author of the blog is a military researcher, by my understanding we are supposed to avoid blogs unless they are stated to be reliable by other experts). A few units were referenced to sources which did not mention said units at all. Thus, I first mass reverted the additions, and then reinstated those units which I could confirm with reliable sources. Applodion (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Applodion, thank you. Your edit did not appear to deal with this consistently and touched on other matters outside the scope of the edit summary. It was also done en mass. Your edit is primarily to the order of battle section. It might have been better if you had edited that section rather than the whole article. If you were manually restoring a previous version of the section it might have been better to have stated this with a link. Your rationale might have been easier to follow if it were broken down into a few more incremental step - such as "removing material sourced to a blog". These suggestions would make your rationale more transparent and easier to support (IMHO). Thank you for reinstating unrelated edits. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I recognized this mistake on my part; in the heat of the moment, mass reverts are an appealing action even if they are not the right course of action. Either way, I talked with the anon (with whom I had the dispute with) on their talk page, and we have worked out a way to avoid stepping on each other's toes. Applodion (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation - eastern Ukraine offensive

The offensive is not just in the oblast of Eastern Ukraine but generally in the East. Per MOS:CAPS, cardinal points are not usually capitalised except if they are part of a proper name that satisfies the criteria more generally at MOS:CAPS. This is not such a case. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

...that's not how titles work... Dawsongfg (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What's up with the order of battle

Seems to be long as shit and just cluttering up the article with a bunch of useless names. Maybe we ought to have a separate article for the order of battle, or maybe I don't even think there's a need to put every single little battalion and regiment that is fighting. PilotSheng (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Covering "every single little battalion and regiment that is fighting" is literally the purpose of an order of battle. IMO, the current list is not long enought to warrant its own article. Applodion (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion Sure, but take a look at other very similar pages such as Northeastern Ukraine offensive, Kyiv offensive (2022) and Southern Ukraine offensive. None of them have a massive clunky section of the article containing the order of battle. I will put them in the infobox as "Units involved". PilotSheng (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@PilotSheng: That's because the order of battle lists for those battles are utterly incomplete. Putting this stuff into the infobox would either result in a gigantic infobox or delete most of the units. Be so kind and don't touch a list no one else has so far voiced concerns about. Applodion (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Revamp of the commanders section

Currently, the commanders section of the infobox is identical to that of the Siege of Mariupol, almost copy and pasted. I believe we need to revamp the section to more accurately cover the main commanders of the offensive, instead of deleting it outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebiguess (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 June 2022 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging discussion

I've started a merging discussion at Talk:Battle of Dovhenke#Merge into new article. It involves a reorganization of some battles in this offensive and may be relevant for this talk page. Super Ψ Dro 09:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 Donetsk attack which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

The word "Ministry" is misspelled as "Ministery". Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Grammar edit reauest

Change firecest to fiercest in the third paragraph under the November 2022 - present heading under timeline. Spoonswin (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done thank you for your suggestion! Lizthegrey (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Ukraine_campaign/Archive_1&oldid=1175807128"