Talk:Battle of Bakhmut

Casualties

In the paragraph "Casualties" I suggest, after the full stop of the sentence "...although casualties are presumed to be heavy", to insert the followings: "According to a former US Marine who is voluntary in the International Legion, the average life expectancy of a Ukraine soldier would be around 4 hours, mostly due to intense Russian shelling" (reference) (reference) https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/life-expectancy-on-frontline-in-ukraine-4-hours-soldier Hamilcar Barca (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, its clear that ukraine has suffered heavy casualties compared to Russia's relatively light ones, mostly due to 10 to 1 arty balace, where the russians have the superior firepower Mattia332 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not clear and is in fact highly unlikely given the still very slow progress/encirclement operation in Bahkmut, indicating the Russians sustaining heavier casualties. 82.24.169.40 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not an argument at all, Russians are much better equipped and trained, they have much strong fire power, the slow progress is intended not a condition. 105.235.131.111 (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

They clearly aren't "better trained" given the high death tolls sustained, combined with the low quality attrition replacements for both Wagner and Russian Armed Forces, mobiks in particular. We've seen similar at Vuhledar, whereby in Telegram videos chastising their commanders, Russian troops have helped give us a picture of the decimation of prestigious units, such as the 155th Separate Naval Infantry Brigade, in bloody assaults, only to be replaced by low-quality personnel which then grinds progress to a halt. At least in Bakhmut parts of the front are bolstered by the VDV.

And "the slow progress is intended"? Come on now, you know that's laughable. A slow, cautious advance of trying to minimise losses has precedent but this is an encirclement with massive losses sustained. It would've been far better for the Russians to surround and destroy/capture this last western "fortress" pocket sooner rather than later. 18:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 82.24.169.40 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the 4000 civilians killed is inaccurate. All other articles related to "4000 civilians" from the same time say that 4000 remain in the city, can't find anything else about 4000 deaths, seems pretty unlikely considering the cities size. Not sure how the Guardian would manage to mess that up. SuperDuperBoy (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really, considering the pre-war population of 70,000 and the town's near-total destruction, more so even than Mariupol which has suffered at least 20,000 civilians killed. 82.24.169.40 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Note on belligerents

The Republics of Luhansk & Donetsk are not internationally recognized & therefore do not exists. The belligerent are Russia and Ukraine onlt Doran.moreau (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

They exist as unrecognized Russian republics after the annexation in late September 2022 with their own military which has technically been a paramilitary of the Russian army since October. The battle started during when the then internationally "de facto" quasi-proxy states were unrecognized countries in the Donbas known as the LPR and DPR you can check out both articles to know more. So technically there has been involvement from both paramilitas and Russia itself. NYMan6 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The republics were under overall control of Russia from at least mid May 2014. Legally there was an international conflict (war) from that time, and no non-international conflict (civil war). The militias were Russian-controlled, and should not be listed in the infobox as if they were sovereign parties to the conflict.  —Michael Z. 06:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Legally the Ukraine claims to be recovering separatist-held territories and did not declare war officially against the Russian Federation at the time. 24.80.149.172 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Bakhmut-Soledar front

Would it be a good idea to make an article called the Bakhmut-Soledar front or 2023 Bakhmut offensive or something along the lines of that? They are closely related battles and the only offensive Russia has been able to launch in 2023. It has also gained lots of media attention. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, we definitely need one at least for 2023 Bakhmut Offensive. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:6DAB:67D3:4288:1B89 (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose those are all part of the Russian aim at encircling Bakhmut. They can easily be included here. Super Ψ Dro 11:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Units involved

Is there a specific reason that the infobox does not mention units, unlike the Battle of Soledar page? There is official confirmation of various units participating, for example Zelenskyi today said:

I am grateful to each and every one who is now in combat! Thank you to everyone who defends their positions and fights for Ukraine and brothers-in-arms! Thank you to everyone who never lets down those who are next to them on the frontline!
Today, I would like to commend the warriors of the 92nd separate mechanized brigade for their successful actions in the area of Bakhmut. Thank you, guys!

Other units involved have been named by official sources at times as well.

Daniel222potato (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Battle_of_Bakhmut/Archive_1#Removed_list_of_units_per_infobox_purpose LordLoko (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

Add on the start of the article: "As of March 2023, the Battle of Bakhmut is the deadliest battle of the entire Russo-Ukranian War." Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Provide citation with that, please. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/13/ukrainian-and-russian-casualties-mount-as-battle-for-central-bakhmut-rages

Also, it's the kost intense battle, and because of that it's the deadliest one. Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Name of Article

Wouldn’t the title be more accurate as “The Siege of Bakhmut”? 165.234.101.96 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a siege if the city’s not surrounded and cut off. The Russians tried to turn the northern flank and failed, and haven’t even got that far on the south.  —Michael Z. 20:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

While I made this comment a couple months ago, I see Russian claims that they have encircled Bakhmut. I’d appreciate if we began a second round of discussion about the title of said article. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This has never and will never be a siege. The Ukrainians have kept their supply lines open throughout the battle, albeit under artillery fire. If or when the Ukrainians choose to retreat, they will have avenues to withdraw, either through roads or farmlands. Will it be difficult? Yes, many will die, but still does not qualify as a siege. Mariupol is a better example. 2601:85:C100:46C0:1137:1453:7EBE:DD24 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed editors “may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.”

An uninvolved editor should close this discussion as unviable. —Michael Z. 21:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine, close it then. 165.234.101.99 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

On second through coming back after reading through one of your previous discussions, I have decided to stand my ground. We should change it to siege seeing as several top leading news outlets, New York Times for example, have begun reporting it as such. Also I strongly doubt a “battle” lasting to the point of people starving to death counts as a battle. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a requested move, it’s an informal discussion. The policy page you linked says “Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.” I don’t see the issue here. HappyWith (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Humanitarian situation

I'm thinking of taking material from the "Civilian casualties" section, plus various passages from the sections on the battle itself relating to destruction of infrastructure, and info from this article [1], and making a new section focused on the humanitarian impact and destruction of the city, since it's such a big focus in the media coverage of this battle. Thoughts on whether this would work? I don't want to accidentally move material that's needed for context in earlier sections. HappyWith (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

5 times less that russian casualities

Non-specific, unproductive discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this NATO trying to keep ukrainian morale high? Or is it just spreading one sided fake news? 217.132.227.177 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Nobody knows what the casualty rates are; we are dealing with two of the most secretive peoples on the planet. As for "Western estimates", these are guesses not based on anything concrete. 182.239.145.186 (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Not necessarily either, if you understand anything about Russian war tactics/philosophy. However, it still looks rather unfortunate having numbers by the same party on both sides. What's the difference between "Western estimates" and "NATO estimates" anyway? One and the same obviously, or what would "five times less" refer to? In fact I generally wonder what is NATO's place in those infoboxes? Clearly it's not a warring faction, as they won't grow tired to assert, yet neither some impartial arbiter. At the same time the article has at least this much: At the beginning of April, a DPR official claimed between 15,000 and 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed during the battle. At least these guys are on site, right? So why not include that for good measure? The question is not whether it's realistic, let alone trustworty, the question is what else we've got. If the Ukrainians don't provide anything, fine, let the DPR speak, we're citing them either way. If NATO wanted to count dead bodies they might better step in, do something that counts, and end the war. -178.11.152.113 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

" Majority of the town captured" - by whom?

In the info-box, it says "Majority of the town captured" - That may be obvious for those following the conflict closely, but it's not very encyclopedic to not have it say "Majority of the town captured by X" 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:959B:7627:75EE:E903 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

As you know Yevgeny Prigozhin is the head of the Wagner that takes most of the fighting in current Bakhmut. So he should be in the commander section of the russian side which he is. But recently Prigozhin revealed that Surovikin which took the full leadership of the russian forcers in Ukraine for awhile, has had a big responsibility on how they conduct their operations in Bakhmut. So he should be added in the commander section also i'd say. GeneralKerberos (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

POV-ed section

"On 14 April 2023, the Russian Ministry of Defense once again claimed that it surrounded Bakhmut, a claim they've made nearly weekly since the beginning of March. The Ukrainian general staff denied claims of encirclement but acknowledged a "difficult" situation in the city."

I do not see the cited source (Telegraph) says anything about the "nearly weekly" stuff. That part is also very un-professional and very non-neutral, unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. I suggest it should be deleted. Inuyasha2021 (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That may be a wee exaggeration.

• 2023-04-13: Russia claims Bakhmut surrounded, Kyiv says holding on.
• 2023-03-03: Ukraine updates: Russia's forces surround Bakhmut: “Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner mercenary group, said that his forces had all but surrounded the small town in Ukraine.”
• 2023-02-01: Ukraine updates: Russian forces claim to encircle Bakhmut

 —Michael Z. 22:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I know you are a generally disingenuous person, but in factuality what you said is a "wee exaggeration." The quote from OP refers to the Russian MOD. Of the sources you provided, one is from Prigozhin (not Russian MOD), one is from an aide to a separatist leader (not Russian MOD), and only the other, April source vaguely refers to the Russian army (I assume this is from the MOD itself). So you've only provided a single useful source from, what, mid-April? Maybe you have other sources, but you aren't showing them.

And before you claim they are all the same and connected, something something Russian propaganda, that would be akin to saying that any statement made by Azov or some other Ukrainian brigade can be directly attributed to Zelensky or the Ukrainian MOD, which is nonsensical. Please utilize your critical thinking skills before posting like this again. 2601:85:C100:46C0:1137:1453:7EBE:DD24 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

militaryland.net

Militaryland.net does not pass WP:BLPSPS, I will be removing all citations by them in this article, please do not re-add them. Scu ba (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we (at least partially) combine the US/Ukrainian casualty estimates?

Having looked at some of the sources, the dates for the Pentagon’s numbers 100,000 within the last five months, line up with some Ukrainian figures, 80,000 between 1 August and 7 January. And considering that the a Ukrainians haven’t made another “grand total” since then, should we just combine the two in order to shorten the length of the page? Let me know what you guys think. Edited to add that the information about specific dates and engagements should absolutely remain, and that this is just about the total number of casualties.Tomissonneil (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts. It is not the place to collate information from multiple sources. Such detail is not a summary and belongs in the body of the article and there is already a section of the article for this. Furthermore, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE makes it clear that the TOC works in conjunction with the infobox in such a case. Until there are good quality independent sources that would permit casualties to be simply summarised (ie a single estimate or perhaps a range) the casualty figures don't belong in the infobox. This was the consensus at Russian invasion of Ukraine after considering the WP:P&G. It should be applied here too. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

Remove US estimate of 20k deaths and 100k casualties as the White House has already clarified this is was for all Russian casualties since December 2022, major news networks have already corrected their previous articles and so has the ISW AnonApril2020 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 19:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The figure was clarified by NSC deputy spokesperson Sean Savett.

Washington Post had previously reported the same before correcting their article: Ukraine live briefing: Russia has suffered 100,000 casualties since December, U.S. says":

"The figures were first shared by Kirby on a call with reporters Monday; NSC deputy spokesman Sean Savett said later that the casualty count referred to Russia’s losses across Ukraine since December."

Russia Lost 100,000 Soldiers in Four Months amid Battle of Bakhmut: U.S.

Ukraine War: U.S. Estimates 100K Russian Casualties in 5 Months 186.132.3.115 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Specific Units

in the "units involved" section of the infobox should we have the specific units, or are there so many of them that it would make the infobox too cluttered? Scu ba (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

US casualty count

Should we add in the box that the US casualty count (20k KIA, 100k overall) is for the five months December -April only? Chaptagai (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin's comments on withdrawal

I think we should add the Info that Prigozhin announced that Wagner will withdraw. 2003:DD:4F35:3411:60C9:D42:FEDE:C1A7 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

He’s already about-faced and said the MoD has promised support (he’s previously said they reneged on other such promises). A bit on the public feuding would be in order, but more belongs in Wagner PMC.  —Michael Z. 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources about the withdrawal that aren't from Prigozhin. His track record leaves alot to be desire, especially with his fake withdrawal from the front "by May 10" just a week ago. We should probably hold off until a reliable independent source confirms it. Scu ba (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

the Ukrainian pravda claims there has been a retreat by russian forces by 2 kilometers on the Bkhmut front ( https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/10/7401577/ ). Of course, we will probably need that info from a neutral source to include. 1234567891011a (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

ISW said they couldn't verify the offensive actually happened but noted that people where saying it did in their March 10th assessment however, they did confirm successful counteroffensive actions around Khromove. Scu ba (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

What’s significant isn’t any withdrawal, it’s that Prigozhin is publicly threatening the Russian invasion effort to influence the Russian MoD and Putin in multiple announcements.  —Michael Z. 20:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin is perhaps the last person we should be turning to for any reliable information, whether battlefield or not. Everything he says is smoke and mirrors. No, he's not withdrawing, there is no feud between him and the Russian MoD, and there is no ammo shortage. It's all theatrics to enhance his image and/or to present a false sense of urgency. As it stands, the latter half of this article is filled with nothing but "Prigozhin says" or "[insert Ukrainian official] claims" and it just comes as two sides arguing with each other instead of detailing the course of the battle. ProjectHorizons (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

I think this mockery should be removed. Unfortunately, the current media no longer has credibility from all sides. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, do you have any other alternatives? It's surely possible, albeit unlikely that the casualties are actually that high, but it's an estimate for a reason, and since the alternative is: (according to Russian State Media) 5 Stubbed Toes and a few Headaches, it's probably the best we're going to get. XavierDelta (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The number is exaggeratedly large. Unfortunately, there are no alternatives because both belligerents do not announce their losses and prefer to announce the opponent's losses with high numbers as part of the psychological warfare. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

True, the most accurate numbers you'd find are probably the ones on Oryx, which are only documented vehicle losses, but it's pretty heavily sourced. I think a rule of thumb is generally to scale down government statistics by a 2:1 margin (Especially in these times). There probably will never be an answer to the actual numbers involved so the best we can stick with is estimation XavierDelta (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What is being said, is that there is nuance to casualty figures. The infobox is not suited to capturing such nuance - this is best left to the body of the article, where such figures can be incorporated with text. This was significant in the discussion to remove casualty figures from the infobox at Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think it would be appropriate to do so here too. See also my comment above (#Should we (at least partially) combine the US/Ukrainian casualty estimates?). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Alleged use of "white phosphorus"

Ukrainian resource "Ukrainska Pravda" is used as a single source for the use of allegedly white phosphorus in Bakhmut. You called UP a reliable source, but is there any evidence of the reliability of this source? The UP article itself relies only on the official Telegram of the SSO of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In the telegram itself, there is a video of dubious provability, which shows the use of incendiary ammunition, even without a signature that it is white phosphorus. User:Mzajac, I think that in order to prove such a brutal war crime as the use of white phosphorus in this case, more reliable secondary sources need to be provided, relying on more reliable primary sources, preferably from countries not involved in the conflict. I recommend doing something like ВП:УКР-СМИ in the Russian Wikipedia. PLATEL (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Most sources phrase it like "Ukraine accuses Russia of using white phosphorus munitions", not outright stating that that version of events is true. We shouldn’t jump ahead of the story when most RS are still saying it’s ambiguous. -HappyWith (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I would just add that visual characteristics appear to better match thermite incendiary cluster munitions, which Russia has been known to be usingRebell44 (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)