Talk:Battle of Vuhledar

The battle has begun

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023, Russian forces officially launched an offensive against the strategically important city of Vuhledar. There is no longer any doubt about that. I expect other users to join in the aesthetic improvement of the article. It would make my job easier. – Baba Mica (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Casualties and losses inaccurate

Not sure what the appropriate protocol is for casualty and loss figures, but what's listed is very outdated for a battle which has accelerated in the past couple weeks. Additionally, it's not an accurate reflection of the source, and the source isn't a Ukrainian claim, but rather the limited claims of interviewed individuals on the ground. Should maybe be removed or replaced for the time being. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Vuhledar is current a grey area, which is difficult to determine the losses of personal. Even exact losses of armoured vehicles are difficult to determine solely relying on drone footages. I believe we should continue to use these inaccurate sources for the time being Amnop1234 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Pavlivka. Separate page or merge with Battle of Vuhledar?

So I noticed that the Battle of Pavlivka was merged with the Battle of Pavlivka. Should it stay as such or should it be separated. I think it should be separated because the Battle of Pavlivka happened much earlier before Vuhledar, and there appeared to be a pause by Russian forces after capturing Pavlivka and before the commencement of the Battle of Vuhledar 209.147.97.30 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but discussions had taken place between January and March, which had been decided to merge the page.

The main reason is that the battle of pavlivka was actually meant to take Vuhledar (but failed miserably due to the incompetence of the RuAF)

Secondly, RuAF also attacked Mykilske at the same time, which they were able to capture and attack the area around Vuhledar (and also tried to flank Pavlivka but also failed miserably)

Third, there are still constant fighting after the capturing of Pavlivka (such as TOS shelling Vuhledar)

It would be reasonable to split the two pages before January, but it's better to merge the two pages now. Amnop1234 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Operational-strategic significance: Expansion?

I feel we need to find more RS discussing the operational-strategic context. Because right now it's very unclear what the battle is/was actually about.

You might say that in fact that's the case. I would personally disagree since I recently noticed that the place is key to fire control of the T0509 highway, which if achieved, would open a third major GLOC as far as Velyka Novosilka, which would obviously have been a big deal.

However, I haven't found RS to support this. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Usually we'd look at ISW (😏), but the overall focus of the Ukraine team there has gradually moved away from operational-level military strategy as the war has progressed. I've read almost every daily report, and I've seen no mention of that, despite major coverage of GLOCs in the context of the Kherson and Kharkiv counteroffensives.

Obviously Telegram is not really a good enough source. The best bet might be random news articles. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

BINGO! https://www.rferl.org/amp/ukraine-russia-battle-vuhledar/32276547.html

Will process/add it tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Confirmation on clashes around the City of Vuhledar in late 2024

Ping @Flemmish Nietzsche, Ping @RadioactiveBoulevardier Ping @SaintPaulOfTarsus Just pinging frequent editors of the Russo-Ukrainian war on whether it is confirmed that there are clashes taking place around the city of Vuhledar. Would like their feedback. Gerald1984 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, maybe, some people have said Russia has been trying to storm the city for the past day or so, and making serious attempts rather than rolling around on dirt bikes, although I haven't seen reliable sources talking about it. There are, however events that have happened around the city prior to this week that can be mentioned as well, such as the advances up to the road near the city near Vodiane and Pavlivka. [1] [2] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Reports from the best available TG collators on both sides suggest so.

If the operational situation develops further, we may have to figure out a new battle titling scheme.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This could be the 2nd Battle of Ugledar, where this one should be called the first with a Ukrainian victory. 83.23.165.237 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

New article?

The battle of Vuhledar stalled and ended in Ukrainian defensive victory. With new efforts being made to capture the city by Russia should a new page be made for a second battle of Vuhledar? 85.229.111.139 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree in principle with the splitting of content.

In my opinion, article titles involving the term battle of Vuhledar, which is generally not found in reliable sources, are uncalled for – second battle would be especially inappropriate, to my mind, as it would be a completely Wikipedia editor-coined neologism. Terms more frequently found in RS, such as assault or offensive should be preferred.

WP:CRYSTAL here, but eventually the most appropriate name for the second article you are proposing may be Capture of Vuhledar.

Then again, we have yet to see how notable the current combat for the city ends up being; it may very well turn out that it warrants only a few sentences in the Eastern Ukraine campaign article.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The battle should be changed to Russian victory once Russians inevitably capture the city, the 72nd Mech Brigade has already retreated according to some sources. 2605:A601:5553:B000:5C1:A896:3DC9:FD7 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If Russia captures Vuhledar then this phase of the engagements around Vuhledar will be marked as a Russian victory, but this would not mean we could call the entirety of the fighting in this area of the front since 2022 as a "Russian victory", as that would wrongfully negate the failure of the past Vuhledar capture attempts in 2023; we could call the entire period of fighting from October 2022 until today as one "battle" (how it is done now) and demarcate the two main phases of the battle in the infobox, split this article into two "Vuhledar offensive" articles, (covering the main assault in early 2023 and this current offensive) or rename this article to the suggested offensive-based name, combining both main offensives to a "Vuhledar offensives" titling. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have to do a second battle when it actually starts, because the first one is long over and ended with Ukraine's victory. Now it's a completely different battle and you have to distinguish it. 83.23.165.218 (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Russia won the battle of Vuhledar by conquering the city, just like they won the battles of Bakhmutt, Avdivvka, Soledar, Mauripol by conquering the cities. Soon they will win the battles of Chasiv Yar, Toresk, and Pokrovsk by conquering the cities, and may very well win the entire eastern theatre by conquering the Donbass. Just because Ukraine resisted their defeat for a time does not mean Russia lost and Ukraine won. 2605:A601:5553:B000:7079:6009:8644:AA9 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Russia will be stated as having won this current offensive if they capture Vuhledar; that has not happened yet. It would be like replacing the current battle of Sumy article with exclusively a "Russian victory" if Russia were to theoretically capture the city, more than two years after the last battle did not end in Russia's favor; these are separate engagements. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

New article Vuhledar offensive

I propose to close the article Battle of Vuhledar as a Ukrainian victory and, in relation to current events, create the article Vuhledar offensive. 83.23.165.218 (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SaintPaulOfTarsus Thoughts? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections, if you are of the mind that the topic of the proposed article meets WP:N. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@83.23.165.218 What indicators are there, or what sources say that there is a distinctive offensive in Vuhledar? It is one offensive effort in a theatre of many. Not every deserves its own article. Zerbrxsler (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Russia Widens Assaults Against Hard-Pressed Ukraine Defenses, Opens New Attack Axis in East "Russian forces have opened a new attack axis in the Kremlin’s ongoing and so-far relentless Donbas offensive, launching assaults at the industrial city of Vuhledar"

Russia Makes Gains Near ‘Fortress’ Vuhledar as Its Donbas Offensive Rolls On "After months of relative calm around Vuhledar, Russian forces kicked off repeated attacks in late August aimed at capturing the heavily fortified industrial city"

Russians intensify offensive on Vuhledar and will not slow down quickly – ISW

Ukraine’s Gamble: The Risks and Rewards of the Offensive Into Russia’s Kursk Region (2 September 2024) "...while maintaining offensive operations around the eastern cities of Vuhledar, Pokrovsk, Toretsk, and Kupiansk"

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 5, 2024 "Russian forces have recently significantly intensified their offensive operations near Vuhledar as of September 1 [...] Russian forces intensified offensive operations near Vuhledar shortly after starting to widen the southern flank of the Pokrovsk salient, suggesting that Russian forces intend to conduct mutually reinforcing offensive operations"

These are some sources suggesting this is a new, distinct offensive effort;

It is one offensive effort in a theatre of many. Not every deserves its own article. I disagree; there really isn't very many "distinct offensives" in the theatre (Donetsk Oblast); there's Toretsk, Pokrovsk, (and the related advances east of Kurakhove), Chasiv Yar, and Vuhledar, but that's about it; the first three have their own articles, and rightly so; I don't think we necessarily need a separate article here until the battle for the city itself begins (as the current situation of the recent offensive being a section seems fine for now), but it is without a doubt a distinct offensive that would be notable were an article to be created. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Two separate battles

There is no doubt that the first battle was a Ukrainian victory. They destroyed dozens of Russian tanks, ended the Russian offensive in this sector and decisively stopped the southern Donetsk push during the Russian Winter Offensive in Ukraine (2022–2023). The fighting around Vuhledar ceased for almost 20+ months and the new phase of the battle will almost certainly end in a Russian victory, although likely not as strategically significant as it would have been January 2023. Therefore their should be 2 seperate articles about the 2 distinctly different battles. Maxsmart50 (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk of Russian losses. but none of Ukrainian. Is this information unavailable? This battle turned into one of the most significant defeats of the Ukrainian Army yet you wouldn't know it reading this article. The ramifications of Ukraine's loss have been catastrophic but this isn't mentioned anywhere. This article just reads like a Ukrainian propaganda piece. 97.119.233.187 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Change Result to Russian Victory

In reflection of the reality on the ground, which that Vuhledar is now cauldroned by 75% and soon to fall (if it hasn't already) change the result box to - Russian victory with Territorial changes Russian forces capture Vuhledar and some surronding villages.

Reasoning:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever from RS that this battle is divided into two distinct battles. In fact, there isn't much evidence that "Battle of Vuhledar" exists as an official designation outside Wikipedia. There is NO - ZERO support for TWO battles of Vuhledar, with Ukraine winning one and Russian winning the other. Even if there were (there absolutely is not) I think we can all agree that Russians storming and conquering the city while Ukranians are put to flight with death at their heels is more important a defining characteristic than Ukranians blew up some IFV and APC a year ago.

2. This would be in keeping with other articles written recently such as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avdiivka_(2023%E2%80%932024)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bakhmut

If editors want to insert the stuff about lots of tanks being blow up a year ago they can do that per Battle of Bakhmuts "see Result" method

3. The paragraph word salad that currently fills the Status section is awful and not at all keeping in the "brief and to the point" needs of Wikipedia, particularly in the title heading.

I know I'm "jumping the gun" in terms of Ukrainians not technically being routed out of the city yet but you can see from Deep State War Map that it's all but over, so I just want to try to steer this article in a "non-bad" direction of splitting into two non-existant battles so that "Ukraine Wins Even When It Loses The City (And The Donbass)" TM

"Confirmed" Losses?

According to the website used as source for "confirmed" losses, this applies:

Can your data be trusted?

No it can't. Photos can be forged or misattributed. On top of that amount of photos available online nowhere near reflects actual losses. Even so, it might still be closer to reality than any claims being made by any official across the board.

Maybe the word "confirmed" is the wrong choice of wording here, when the source itself claims not to be all too trustworthy, and the source lists Ukrainian losses (in the entire war, all materiel) as "none". It's not exactly the type of source where one can assume neutrality or that there is no risk to list Ukrainian losses as Russian etc, since the two sides often operate the same type of vehicles.

Either way I think the phrase "confirmed losses" when using a source that itself states to be unreliable, is the wrong choice. 176.10.137.199 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

New article, anybody want to help?

Hello, I hope we can work on an article together about the Second Battle for Vuhledar, as it has restarted again. If somebody creates an article I'll fill in the basics while somebody can provide a timeline of the engagement. 85.229.111.139 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many who would object to having separate articles for the supposed "two battles for Vuhledar"; I will add more info on the progressions of the battle soon (eventually), though there is the issue of a lack of coverage of what is happening in the city assault itself rather than the oft-repeated "Vuhledar is being encircled and could fall soon". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The Battle of Vuhledar is over.

As per the sources provided by both sides, we can believe that the Battle of Vuhledar is finally over. Russian victory with capture of Vuhledar, Vodyane and the South Donbass Mines 1 and 3.

neutral source- https://t.me/Suriyak_maps/3907

ukrainian source- https://deepstatemap.live/#15/47.7814142/37.2455691

russian source(georeferenced)- https://t.me/creamy_caprice/6984 Kapitan Siddharth (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it has fallen, but we should wait for either a reputable news source and/or the ISW map/report to say it has been fully captured. Telegram is not a very reliable source to use (even if the content on it is correct), and DeepState does not show a complete capture. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2024

Russian Victory 51.174.118.181 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

See above discussion. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove Verbal Diarrhea From Result Heading and Change to "Russian Victory"

There is currently a gigantic blob of cancerous verbosity in the result section. This is a gross and overt violation of all editorial precedent in regards to this war Change result section to "Russian Victory" in keeping with the standard of every single article written on this war-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bakhmut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avdiivka_(2023%E2%80%932024)

If you wish to insert stuff about heavy Russian attrition do so via the Battle of Bakhmut "see results" method. I understand the pro Ukraine crowd are very, VERY upset about the state of the war these past few months but it is extremely frustrating for an unaligned observer to see every article about this war endlessly tarpitted by cope obfuscations - Russia won the battle of Vuhledar - totally and absolutely. There is no equivocation about this in any RS. Any attempt to "split the difference" by artificially dividing the battle of Vuhledar into two battles is the most transparent of copes and blantantly OR - OR not in any way supported by reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:1057:26A0:48E7:4908 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The difference between Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka and this is that those were all periods of sustained heavy fighting, and were thus clearly one "battle". As you likely know, with Vuhledar there was for much of the time between early 2023 and early August 2024 little fighting anywhere around Vuhledar at all; this is why some clarification of both the timespan and the result is necessary; it is not to delegitimize the Russian victory or because anyone's "upset" over the result of the battle, rather to clarify that, unlike the other battles you mentioned, this was not some sustained period of heavy fighting or siege in the town for two years, or that the events in early 2023 did result in a Russian victory. Assaulting a city, then being fully pushed out, and fighting subsequently ceasing is far different than gradually progressing through a settlement over that same period, with eventual victory through sustained fighting, like those other battles.

The main point of the "verbal diarrhea" is thus merely to clarify the lack of continuity in fighting. I would be fine with changing "ends in a Ukrainian victory" to "is unsuccessful" or something of the sort.

Pinging other editors for their opinions: @SaintPaulOfTarsus @Scu ba @RopeTricks Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What if we list the result as; "First phase; Ukrainian defensive victory, second phase: Russian victory"? NMEGG (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be clarified to readers that the battle had months-long periods with no notable front line changes or advances, and that the city's capture was the result of a recently (recent weeks and months) renewed Russian effort to successfully take the city. It is possible to do so in full context, without overly glorifying the ukrainian defenders or obfuscating/minimizing the fact of the Russian capture. I personally do not see the current divide in the article as an attempt to "split the difference" or make it appear as there were "two battles", just an attempt to clarify the passage of time between major ground assaults, which actually adds more emphasis to the final capture. But, if other editors agree something has to be changed, I advise maybe adding another "=" in the title to make it a subsection, at least keeping the "battle" section as just one unified section.

Also, no need for "phases" in the infobox - the overall result is a clear Russian victory, the ukrainians no longer control the city as of 1/10/2024. Adding "phases" implies there was some sort of official halt or pause in hostilities, which is dubious at best and incorrect at worst. "Russian victory" is simple and correct and avoids needless complication or equivocations.RopeTricks (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for ping. Your example of Avdiivka is particularly relevant – I was reminded of this talk page discussion where I argued to have the scope of the "battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024)" article reduced from II/2022–II/2024 to X/2023–II/2024, as the period of time before October 2023 did not involve sustained heavy fighting, to use your language, and was consequently not interpreted by reliable sources as part of the "battle" for the city. I am of the belief that a similar remedy should be applied to this article.

Most comments on this talk page seem to agree that the current portrayal of a continuous 2022–2024 "battle of Vuhledar" is an inappropriate framing which does not correspond with reality or patterns of coverage by reliable sources, and that there have been indeed been two distinct and separate engagements. I have not personally seen RS that support the notion of a continuous two-year "battle" here. I also think it would be difficult to find sources implying the existence an ongoing "battle of Vuhledar" during most of 2023 and 2024. During that period of time, the fact that this was listed as "ongoing" bothered me, and I came close to boldly shortening the article's scope a few times. I believe now would be an appropriate time to take an action like that given apparent editor consensus regarding "separate battles".

Thus I am not in agreement with my esteemed fellow editor @RopeTricks that the battle had months-long periods with no notable front line changes or advances and I think the consensus would also disagree with that way of framing things.

Whether or not the August-October 2024 events should constitute their own article or perhaps just a few sentences in the "eastern Ukraine campaign" article is a question I will leave to other editors, as I am not following the conflict as closely at the moment and cannot judge whether or not that period of combat reaches the level of notability that would cause it to have its own article.

Best regards to all SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Split the article in 2

IMO It would be best if "1st battle of Vuhledar" covering the first major assault in January-February 2023 which ended in a Ukrainian victory, and "2nd battle of Vuhledar" covering the September-October major assault which ended in a Russian victory were separate articles, since in-between the 2 main assaults frontlines changes in Vuhledar and it's surroundings were minimal. 80.102.106.180 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Only if there are RSs referring to them as such. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are no sources calling them the 1st and 2nd battle, the articles can be named "Battle of Vuhledar (2023)" and "Battle of Vuhledar (2024)". But in any case, a split may be needed since there was no actual fighting for the town between the 2 "main assaults" (March 2023-August 2024), for almost a year and a half. There were standard frontline skirmishes closer to Pavlivka (south of Vuhledar), but no actual large assaults on or battles for Vuhledar itself. EkoGraf (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not against that, if RSs are not calling it "a two years-long battle" or something exlusively. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Death of Commander of the 123rd Infantry Brigade Ukraine.

To my surprise the adition of the death of the Commander of the Ukrainian 123rd Infantry brigade is being reverted by a array of excuses like "not present at the body of the article", then, "not notable enough for mention". Take into account that during the last Ukrainian defence of Vuhledar(August-Oct) only two brigades were deployed the 72nd and the 123rd. I dont know why Cindirella tries to minimize that fact using multiple excuses. Mr.User200 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem is here. As commanders in battle infoboxes we include the top unit commanders involved on the ground. And this one seems to have been the lead (brigade) commander of one out of five Ukrainian units that were involved in the battle (at one time or another). Of course he should be included in the infobox and his faith (death) described in the article's main body. EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, however I must recognize that the cause of death is not officialy acknowledged as suicide since a investigation is underway. I will fix it.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• You persist in pejoratively describing this as an array of excuses where the edit summaries I have provided give reasons that are well based in P&G and the relevant P&G is cited. When the name "Ihor Hryb" was first added to the infobox, it was removed: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article. There was no mention of them in the article that would tell the reader why they should be considered a key or significant commander/leader. A passage was added to the body of the article that reported their death (not KIA). Their death (probably suicide) is not particularly germane to the subject and falls to WP:NOTNEWS (as indicated in the edit summary when I reverted the edit). Reporting their death does not of itself evidence that they were a particularly key or significant commander/leader and there is good reason (per WP:NOTNEWS) not to report their death in this article. Removing the passage leads us back to the first point, that the article does not support their inclusion in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This may be tangential but I have read some reports that the 123rd may have abandoned their posts or even failed to deploy, and that the 123rd Commander may have killed himself because of this. This all resulted in the 72nd getting shredded on the way out. No idea whatsoever if any of that is true but if it is maybe some sentences in the "aftermath" section referencing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:18E7:11F5:78B4:7E70 (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources substantiating any of what you just said would go a long way here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

https://archive.ph/7Njpw

"A highly respected Ukrainian commander took his own life after his fighters deserted their posts allowing Russia to grab a strategic city in the war, it has been revealed.

Lt-Col Ihor Gryb, 33, shot himself after his troops failed to defend their positions, leading to the loss of Vuhledar."

"Military journalist Yuliya Kiriyenko-Merinova said the commander’s brigade had defied an order take up defensive positions instead of the exhausted 72nd brigade amid a major Russian push.

His men - numbering around 100 - “simply refused to take up the positions “to support the 72nd in Vuhledar”.

“But the brigade ran away somewhere. And then the commander of the battalion shot himself,” Ms

Kiriyenko-Merinova explained."

I'm not sure how much this matters but maybe something to the effect of, "in the last stages of the battle, the 72nd Brigade did not receive reinforcements, with a small territorial brigade 123rd refusing to deploy amidst rumors of their commanders suicide. Unsupported and increasingly surrounded, the 72nd were forced to withdraw, with Russians taking the city soon after.

Or...something to that effect? 2605:A601:5553:B000:18E7:11F5:78B4:7E70 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)