Talk:Battle of Antonov Airport

Infobox result

It’s been over 8 months since the infobox result field was discussed above, in #Request for comment on result of the battle, with no consensus. There was understandably opposition to calling it a “Russian victory.” All sources deem this battle a Russian failure.

My edit was reverted, and the text now stands with a hidden note reading <!-- Aftermath section shows technical Russian victory, but analysis section describes tactical Russian loss. See FAQ on talk page. —>”

There’s nothing about “technical Russian victory” in this article nor in any reliable sources. This evaluation is WP:SYNTH. Russian forces definitively failed to achieve their goals in this operation. Afterwards, holding a useless airport for a while before the forced retreat was no victory. The result should state “Ukrainian victory.” —Michael Z. 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not WP:SYNTH. The Russians captured the airport; that's just a fact. A clear-cut Ukrainian victory would have been the case if Russia failed to capture the airport at all. "All sources deem this battle a Russian failure." - no, they do not. Are you going to ignore that Ukrainian commander Oleksandr Syrskyi himself said that the fall of the airport "played a negative role" for the Ukrainian forces? Most sources say neither "victory" nor "defeat" for either side, but rather just try to describe the complicated outcome. Applodion (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see my list above, starting with “Russian Airborne Disaster.” I’ll remind you I compiled that from only what I found in this article’s text, without looking for further sources.

Which sources say “technical Russian victory,” or anything close to it? If it’s not supported, then I’ll remove the hidden note as misinformed.  —Michael Z. 02:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources for technical Russian victory are all sources which say that Russia captured the airport. And in response to your comment "I'll remind you I compiled that from only what I found in this article's text" I will answer with I wrote the entire Analysis section. I read all those sources. I was also the one who added "Russian Airborne Disaster" to the article in the first place. The issue is that the eventual capture of the airport was achieved by the Russian ground forces, meaning that statements like "airborne disaster" etc. are entirely correct, but do not apply to all involved Russians. Ultimately, the result was complex, and this is well reflected with a lengthy analysis section showcasing the details. Applodion (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Complex? The objective was to establish an airhead. It failed.  —Michael Z. 15:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(Your work is appreciated. I don’t think we disagree on the events. I’m just disputing the definition of victory, according to sources, being applied.)  —Michael Z. 15:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There is an easy was to evolve this more accurately - describe it as a temporary Russian occupation that successfully captured an airport briefly but all Russians were eventually captured, killed, defected or retreated and the airport remains in Ukrainian control to this day. The word victory is a loaded word in an ongoing war. Spectre9 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict:

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

 —Michael Z. 23:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The battle was a clear Ukrainian victory. Saying otherwise is like saying the Pacific Theatre in WW2 was a "Japanese Victory" after Pearl Harbour. The Russian objective was to take & hold the airport. They failed to hold it. Russian loss even if it destroyed the facilities. If the page needs to be updated to reflect this then it should be. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This comparison is extremely lacking, as the Attack on Pearl Harbor is marked as a "Japanese victory". The Pearl Harbor attack also failed in its strategic objectives, but was still a Japanese victory. Applodion (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s a little more specific than that. Russian objective was to capture Kyiv with a mass airborne landing conducted here, after securing a usable airport. Initial invasion plan hinged on this failed op. (Plan B, a land invasion, failed too.)  —Michael Z. 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but this is reflected in the Battle of Kyiv and Kyiv offensive articles. Both are listed as Ukrainian victories. This article is only about one battle, and in this battle forced Ukraine to give up the target area; even if the overall result was a strategic failure, it ended in a tactial (albeit largely worthless) victory. Applodion (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say “technical victory,” “tactical victory,” or equivalent?  —Michael Z. 15:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I was extremely busy yesterday and today, but I will collect sources which describe it in this way. Already found a CNN report which described the battle for the airport as a "Russian victory". Applodion (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

So, I'm going to collect some content. there are of course few sources which claim that the battle was an outright Russian success - because it wasn't - but many emphasize that the airport was captured by Russia:

• CNN: "First Russian victory: The capture of the Antonov airfield was the first major victory notched by the Russians on the first day of the war" (note, though, that the article misdates the airport's capture by Russia)
• The Washington Times: "Still, the Russians had their bridgehead. [...] 'That they were able to storm the airfield and take control of it in the course of a few hours, on the one hand, played a negative role [for us],' Syrsky said. [...] Later, however, the Russians were able to bring in reinforcements to Hostomel via aircraft, Vdovychenko said."
• Yahoo: "As a result, advancing Russian were able to seize the strategically important airfield and nearby settlements, and destroy An-225 Mriya."
• CSIS: "By the time Russian forces had secured Hostomel Airport in late February 2022 and were in place to launch an attack on Kyiv, they lacked the combat power to seize the city."
• NBC: "Those early shoot-downs helped thwart the Russian air assault operation designed to take Hostomel Airport near Kyiv, which would have allowed the Russians to flood troops and equipment to the region around the capital. The Russians eventually took the airport for a time, but never had enough control to fly in massive amounts of equipment. That failure had a significant impact on the battle for Kyiv, U.S. officials say."
• It's probably best stated by this MWI article: In the initial paratrooper operation, "the Ukrainian counterattack was a success" (meaning an overall strategic failure for Russia), but "the Russians reattacked Antonov Airport the following day with a combined air and ground attack that succeeded in finally driving off the Ukrainian defenders". The author compares it to Operation Market Garden whose results were also decidedly mixed, with the famous paratrooper attack on Arnhem being a strategic failure despite other parts of the operation succeeding.

These are just some examples. Applodion (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Comment:The result is Russian capture of Antonov Airport. Everything else is speculation.--Oloddin (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted in the infobox that it was recaptured on April 2 by Ukrainian Forces. - MateoFrayo (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't object, but several others disagreed, mainly because there were no more fighting in the airport itself until withdrawal. Oloddin (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Could we include the withdrawal in the infobox under the Territorial Changes or Result sections? It doesn't note that Russian Forces withdrew from the Airport until the third paragraph of the article, which is important. - MateoFrayo (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the scope of this article is only the capture, it could state that the Russians would hold the airport for 1 month and 1 week. But a temporary occupation during war is not exactly territorial change.  —Michael Z. 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fair—the only reason why I'm suggesting it is because it may appear to the reader that the Airport may still be under Russian control. - MateoFrayo (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable content for the field per template:infobox military conflict. And others disagree this was a victory, as the Russian objective of establishing an airhead was not achieved. And the result depends on the framing of the identity and duration of the battle, which is being discussed below (i.e., is it distinct from the battle of Hostomel?). Finally, most sources say it was a Russian failure.  —Michael Z. 17:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

End date

Which sources say the battle has ended on Feb 25th?

As I have no edit access, can somebody add {{fact}} template to it? Thanks! Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources of the article do, for example Pleyer, Kofsky or the CNN. Please don't request tags for well-sourced content. Applodion (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Pleyer article is not available to me. In Kofsky https://mwi.usma.edu/an-airfield-too-far-failures-at-market-garden-and-antonov-airfield/ I couldn't find that date, but I found The Ukrainians maintained pressure on the Russians in the surrounding area of Hostomel and repeatedly attacked Russian armored columns, blunting any chance of a quick strike emerging from the airfield into Kyiv. At the operational and strategic levels, the VDV’s inability to support a quick strike meant its forces were tied down for weeks until finally being withdrawn in early April.
CNN - not sure which of CNN sources supports the date, but one source does - https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-04-2-22/h_c33699b81548c70cc5d9b911ada4fe82 says First Russian victory: The capture of the Antonov airfield was the first major victory notched by the Russians on the first day of the war — Feb. 24. A number of transport and attack helicopters ambushed the base, and the Ukrainian soldiers stationed there; CNN witnessed some of the intense firefight at the base. , which also contradicts Kofsky above.

Also another source from the article https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/kyiv-battle-ukraine-survival/ says Along with elite Ukrainian units, the 72nd Brigade’s troops contested the airport for days, firing artillery barrages and blocking Russian forces struggling to move out of the facility., apparently contradicting info in wikipedia article. Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No offense, but you are making the same mistake as you did on the talk page of the Battle of Hostomel: You confuse one battle for the other. Just to take one example, you quote a section of Kofsky on the battle of Hostomel, while ignoring "After the Ukrainian's successful counterattack, the Russians reattacked Antonov Airport the following day with a combined air and ground attack that succeeded in finally driving off the Ukrainian defenders" and "The Market Garden operation was supposed to take forty-eight to ninety-six hours and the Antonov Airport assault ended up taking approximately the same amount of time" about the airport battle. Applodion (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You confuse one battle for the other
I'm actually trying to find this distinction in sources. Without much of success. Quite the contrary, I see overview sources talking about both. Look at Battle of Hostomel sources, for example, they mostly are about an airport battle.

you quote a section of Kofsky on the battle of Hostomel, while ignoring "After the Ukrainian's successful counterattack, the Russians reattacked Antonov Airport the following day with a combined air and ground attack that succeeded in finally driving off the Ukrainian defenders"
... He continues in the same paragraph with The Ukrainians maintained pressure on the Russians in the surrounding area of Hostomel and repeatedly attacked Russian armored columns, blunting any chance of a quick strike emerging from the airfield into Kyiv. At the operational and strategic levels, the VDV’s inability to support a quick strike meant its forces were tied down for weeks until finally being withdrawn in early April, meaning the battle was not over.

and "The Market Garden operation was supposed to take forty-eight to ninety-six hours and the Antonov Airport assault ended up taking approximately the same amount of time" about the airport battle.
No, he's talking about Russian assault. The assault has ended, but the battle continued. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea how you can claim the "assault has ended, but the battle continued". The assault was the battle for the airport. The Market Garden comparison clearly showcases that Kofsky divides the confrontation into an initial battle involving paratroopers and the remaining campaign which lasted till April. Operation Market Garden lasted a few days, not months, just as the aiport battle lasted days, not months. Frankly, I just don't know how you can interpret his words any other way. Applodion (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Kofsky article clearly defines phases: the Russians’ “initial assault” that took the airport in the morning and ended while the battle continued. Then the Ukrainians “immediately counterattacked” and Russian paratroopers were “driven off the airfield into the surrounding woods by 2200” by the “successful counterattack.” This is the point when the Russians failed to secure an air bridge. Then the Russians “reattacked Antonov Airport the following day with a combined air and ground attack that succeeded in finally driving off the Ukrainian defenders,” but the runway was no longer usable, because of damage as well as inability to secure the area from constant attacks: then the Ukrainians “maintained pressure” while Russian forces “were tied down for weeks until finally being withdrawn in early April.”

The airport battle is part of the larger Hostomel battle, whether they deserve separate articles or not. But I think the dates of the larger battle should include this one, because I don’t think sources consider the other to have begun after this one ended.  —Michael Z. 17:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Improvements

1st: the mission was a "failed air assault mission"(by US military language), trying to inflitrate the airport via helicopters. Sources state it was carried out by the 45. th russian guard air reconnaissance brigade (Speznas) [https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-battle-for-kyiv-dc559574ce9f6683668fa221af2d5340], [and a german source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bniPj92YVhU citing RT showing their leader Vadim Pankow preparing the assault and taking part in actions on the airfield].

The identification of the attackers was difficult since they "did not have military badges and any identity documents, except for vaccination certificates and blank medical books."(https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3420446-ukrainian-armed-forces-take-control-of-hostomel-intelligence.html)

sources claim the 200 defending conscrips of the ukrainian national guard, without combat experience from the local military base, moving into positions in the very south of the airfield around 5:00 a.m. where armed with small arms, MANPADS and Zu-23-2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Ji7KqqEqg min 2)

2 sources claim Mi-24 where involved in the attack on the airfield (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Ji7KqqEqg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bniPj92YVhU) . (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Ji7KqqEqg) Mentions the russian 31st air assault brigade landed with Mi-8 on the south west of the airfield, after the defending ukrainian national guardsmen ran out of ammunition and withdrew towards their base in the south east of the airfield. while the russian 11th seperate guards air assault brigade was deployed in the fields north of the airfield. These units where armed with small mortars, grenade launchers and small arms pushing back the national guard fighters out of their base forcing them to retreat into the city. The Ukrainians where responding with the encirclement of the russian forces carried out by the 72nd mechanised brigade from north east, the 80th air assault brigade from north west and the 95th air assault brigade from south. WikiYeti (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Typos

Can somebody change the instances of "aiport" to airport? I'm not able to edit the page. Thanks. ThermodynamicLawyer (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)