Talk:Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024)

Casualties

In the first sentence on that subsection it states that since the start of the invasion there have been 50 deaths. Is this still accurate? Is there a newer source, or any source at all? Der Overmind (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In the "quick facts" section it seemingly sites "BNN" on Russian casualties. It also says "per Ukraine" which is false since "BNN" is not the Ukrainian govt. BNN could be a reliable source but I think we should instead put the US estimate in that box. In the sub category "Western estimates of Ukrainian and Russian casualties" it says the US estimate for Russian casualties in Avdivka. It also seems very unlikely that Russia has suffered 30,000 killed in Avdivka alone. The latest US estimate from November said Russia had suffered ~315,000 casualties with ~120,000 killed. According to "BNN" estimate that would mean 25% of all Russian deaths happened in Avdivka. That seems impossible. 30,000 casualities would be a far fetched but much more reasonable estimate but I don't know if you could find a reliable source that says that. Hope someone wil make this edit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request to add Redut PMC to the infobox as involved unit

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is the same request as at Eastern Ukraine campaign, which is contested. Instead of issuing multiple requests across different articles, it would be nice if you could centralize this request in a single article and inform editors of all the pages you wish to make this change. Xan747 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add the private military company Redut (company) to the info box list of pro-Russian involved unit. The intelligence firm Grey Dynamics reported that the ISW designated Redut formation "Veterany" conducted offensive operations in the Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present). The same with the ISW designated Redut formation "Don and the Union of Donbas Volunteers"/"Don Brigade", which also operated in the battle. Zerbrxsler (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Russian Losses from US Intelligence

I think we should include the recent Russian losses around Avdiivka from US intelligence report to the article, since we already have a section about casualties, and it seems odd not to include it. Source: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4356154-russia-ukraine-declassified-us-assessment/ 72.229.242.36 (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any estimates on Ukrainian losses? It seems we do have a lot of verified sources now on how many losses Russia has taken though Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but it is still worth mentioning that Russia took around 13,000 casualties in their renewed attempts to take Avdiivka. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it is very important to add how many lifes of their servicemen Ukrainian leadership had to sacrifice to hold Avdiivka until now. It should be added ASAP. 92.78.102.74 (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Simplification of the units in the info box

Considering the fact that there are too many units of both the Ukrainian and Russian Armed Forces, similar to Bakhmut, fighting around Avdiivka - it would make more sense to list just the two armed forces rather than manually adding and trying to confirm every unit. Units such as the Polish and Russian Volunteer Corps are deployed to Avdiivka, as seen by combat footage assaulting Russian positions near the area, but are absent from the list. There are many other units such as the Abkhaz-Donetsk Battalion of the Russian Armed Forces which simply do not have a respective page and are still absent.

Therefore, I would like to begin discourse on whether this would be appropriate to do considering that many units are absent or do not have respective pages on Wikipedia, if people are interested in figuring out which units fought in the battle then would it make more sense to read more into those brigades or into the article itself where we list individual units or combat engagements between certain units? Davomme (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it has occurred to me that there are issues with populating the units parameter across almost all of the individual articles for the invasion. A big one is the use of individual insignia, which is contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS. The infobox is also not the place for intricate detail. I have been thinking that there probably needs to be a centralised discussion for this. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe some units can be detailed, however, it becomes clustered and unappealing for all the unit insignia to be displayed. It would make more sense if it were to encompass the entirety of the Armed Forces, and denote specific parts of the Armed Forces such as the Ground Forces of respective nation and then Territorial Defence for Ukraine etc. I think it should be left at that simply, and further individual brigades can be discussed in the article - which I previously mentioned. Overall I agree with you, it shouldn't be too detailed. Davomme (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Units in infoboxes for campaign and battle articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone archieved it. Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently nobody had any comment to offer. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Why no estimation of losses from Russian sources? Why no information or images of Ukrainian losses??

The purpose of the article is not to propagate the Western/Ukrainian narrative of "horrific Russian losses" while concealing any information on Ukrainian losses. The information from Russian sources about losses -- including Ukrainian losses -- should be added and images of Ukrainian losses should be shown, as it is shown for the Russians. 92.78.102.74 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources please. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Because there are no estimates of Ukrainian losses, at least not from the Russians, and Russia also doesn’t publish casualty figures. Tomissonneil (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

How is it that a published news source that is citing US intelligence estimates is suddenly being removed? Forbes has been used as a source since the beginning of the war, and unilaterally removing it for no reason other than that you think it’s "ridiculous" without providing any evidence or counter-sources is absurd. Tomissonneil (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

My thought process was pretty simple: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", unless it's from an official source, in which case it may be notable for inclusion. The removed text: By 30 January 2024, Forbes estimated that Russian losses had doubled, with "the battle over Avdiivka costing Russia perhaps 10,000 casualties this year". Based on vehicle losses, Russia wears allegedly suffering 13 casualties for each one they inflicted on Ukraine. does not pass that criterion as Forbes, especially David Axe, does not have enough know-how to be making such bold claims, thus making them inadequate for inclusion in this article. Furthermore, it's one thing to cite really high numbers of confirmed vehicle losses, but human losses are another story. For example, Ukraine is not using as many armored vehicles to defend the city, relying more on the powerful fortifications built over the years. Their low vehicle losses don't automatically mean their troop losses are low since it does not really account for the heavy artillery and aerial bombardment with cluster bombs they're suffering. Similar arguments could be made for Russia. There is a lot of nuance when trying to correlate vehicle and personnel losses and such speculation should be avoided.

By the way, quoting RadioactiveBoulevardier: the Forbes source is by David Axe. While as staff he technically passes wp:forbes, his articles on Ukraine tend to vary between POV and overly melodramatic clickbait. Therefore my request for better sources is mostly justified. If better sources are not found, though, for the kept text: By December 2023, the U.S. claimed that Russia had suffered over 13,000 casualties and 220 vehicles in the previous two months near Avdiivka, or 3,000 killed or wounded for every square mile captured. Five battalions were claimed to have been neutralized by U.S. Intelligence up to that point. Ukrainian losses were claimed to be much lower, at "a few thousand"., then I guess reinstating the specific/relevant Forbes links may be acceptable.

Finally, me showing concern with this specific citation does not automatically mean I'm fine with all other Forbes or, in general, bold claims. I, and I believe other observer editors, have given you a lot of liberty to really populate the casualty claims section. It was just that this specific claim I thought was crossing the line... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I get some of the points that you’re making. It’s not entirely accurate to base Ukrainian personnel losses on their vehicle losses, so I could cut that part out, but I will say that Russian personnel losses are mostly proportional to vehicular ones even if the Ukrainians’ aren’t. Back in early December when the US estimated 13,000 Russian casualties, 220 Russian vehicles were estimated to have been lost. However by the end of December, it was visually confirmed to have been 411 vehicles, which is much higher, when Forbes published this recent article, the number was 574, based on visual confirmations from independent analysts. Forbes is using mostly western estimates for their numbers, and the figure of 10,000 casualties comes from Ukrainian claims of “300-400 casualties per day”, which roughly lines up. And as for “giving me a lot of liberty with the casualties section”, I add information that has been published from various different sources, and this is one of the largest battles of the war to date, with new information constantly coming out. Someone needs to catalog it, at least until the battle ends and a “final tally” is released. There’s a lot of video and photographs of Russian casualties during this battle, including piles of vehicles and dead soldiers, and even pro-Russian milbloggers have been commenting on it. But as a compromise I can leave out extrapolating Ukrainian losses from their vehicles, and I’ll see if I can find any Russian claims of Ukrainian losses in the battle, which I agree are also needed. Tomissonneil (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, another user’s criticism of David Axe’s writing style isn’t really too relevant, as that’s subjective and isn’t really applicable to the actual information he provides. Tomissonneil (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, for starters, that user is much more experienced and knowledgeable than me. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Russian personnel losses are mostly proportional to vehicular ones I don't know man... I wouldn't be so sure. Do you have evidence in the form of multiple data points correlating confirmed vehicle and human losses? Forbes is using mostly western estimates for their numbers, and the figure of 10,000 casualties comes from Ukrainian claims of “300-400 casualties per day”, which roughly lines up. [...] There’s a lot of video and photographs of Russian casualties during this battle, including piles of vehicles and dead soldiers, and even pro-Russian milbloggers have been commenting on it. I would still prefer if you stuck to confirmed numbers or official estimates (or at least estimates from the most respected/trustworthy sources such as NYT, WSJ, BBC, etc). There seems to be enough coverage of this battle to do this much, do you agree? Someone needs to catalog it, at least until the battle ends and a “final tally” is released. Yeah, though I think this battle will still grind on for months. Oh, and also very important, I urge you to avoid using non neutral quotes and language in general (such as annihilated, completely destroyed, wiped, slaughtered, etc). This is an encyclopedia for all readers and we don't want to sow hate nor disrespect any future readers. So let's try our best to remain impartial, avoid subjective wording, and mostly stick to the facts. ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

A lot of these seems like conjecture to me. With such a high increase in Russian vehicles losses, it’s reasonable that their personnel losses would also be proportional, especially when there’s multiple published sources that say just that. British intelligence said that this battle resulted in a 90% increase in Russian casualties, and both the Ukrainians and Western analysts have said that the average daily casualty toll for Russia here is greater than at Bakhmut, which is currently the deadliest battle of the war. You haven’t provided any evidence or sources to the contrary. And as for the word “annihilated”, that’s the word US intelligence used, which is why I put it in quotations, as it was a direct quote. That’s not “sowing hate” in any way. As for video and photographs, I think that’s pretty solid evidence that Russia is suffering heavily. Piles of fallen soldiers and destroyed equipment speaks a lot. It’s more than they’ve provided when giving their casualty claims. I also don’t understand how Forbes is less reliable than the NYT or BBC, that seems more like a preference to me. So far, I haven’t seen any reason why this specific article should me removed. You haven’t provided any sources that contradict it, nor that Russian vehicle losses are disproportionate, when every source I’ve seen says the opposite. It might be your opinion, sure, but unless you have any data that backs it up, that shouldn’t be a factor here. Unless any other users have an issue with it, or you provide a source that proves your argument I’ll be putting it back. I can change up the language, and remove the alleged loss ratio between Russia and Ukraine, but the difference evidence currently shows that Russia has suffered huge losses in manpower, with both videos and photographs to back them up. But I do agree that there’s a lot of reporting done on this battle, so this and a report back in November comparing this battle to some others (such as Vuhledar) will probably be the last thing I’ll add, unless there’s a major change or spike, as it’s become pretty static as of late. Tomissonneil (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

And as for the word “annihilated”, that’s the word US intelligence used, which is why I put it in quotations, as it was a direct quote. Then you don't seem to fully understand a core pillar of Wikipedia. As for the rest, you seem to be either disregarding my previous reply or didn't understand it correctly. I'm not saying Russian casualties aren't heavy, I'm asking for better sourcing in general and official estimates are already "better sourcing". And again, it's not just me who shows concerns over David Axe. So far, this is a 2 vs 1, thus changing the "consensus" would be more on you then. Finally, remember casualties are a sensitive topic, therefore I would highly appreciate reporting it with care. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

And don't forget this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Reporting a direct quote is not me “not understanding the a core pillar of Wikipedia”, it’s accurately stating what was said by a US government source. There are numerous quotations of people insulting each other, including Russians and Ukrainians, and the quotes are provided in full, because that’s what was actually said. You insinuating that I’m unable to understand Wikipedia is not only insulting to me, but to the readers, who are probably smart enough to figure out that it’s the opinion of the source, not Wikipedia. And no, I didn’t misunderstand what you said. The other person who has an issue with David Axe isn’t part of this discussion, he’s not commented here, nor has he raised concerns with the information he provides, but rather how he provides it, so it’s not a “2 v 1” issue. Tomissonneil (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let's directly quote all the toxic comments from the US, Ukraine and Russia. This is going to make the articles so much better... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"completely annihilated" is not a direct quote of what was printed. The actual quote being quoted in the article is “complete annihilation of five battalions,” This was not said by a US government source. If something is being quoted, the quote must be attributed where it occurs and not at the end of a paragraph. They should also be cited in the correct format. WP is not an indiscriminant collection of information. These sections read like a news tickertape. WP summarises sources into a cogent story. We are not obliged to use every source, particularly when they fall to WP:NEWSORG. WP qualifies reliance on NEWSORG sources. An encyclopedic article summarises information about the subject. Therefore, when we have many sources saying similar things about the subject, we don't summarise every individual source but provide an overall summary. Per WP:VNOT verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. There is an onus to gain consensus before reinstating challenged material. Consensus is not a vote nor is silence consensus. There is also WP:NODEADLINE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m confused as to what you’re saying, as in if you’re arguing for or against it. The challenge to the information was that the source wasn’t accurate, fine, but then why are only some articles, all written by the same person, being used? Cherry picking what can and can’t be used from the same author doesn’t really make sense, especially when they don’t contradict each other (which is a sign of unreliability). And his issue wasn’t the semantics of who used the word “annihilated” (as re-reading the source, I realize that I was mistaken about who used it, it was the Ukrainians, not the Americans), but rather the word itself, which he finds offensive. I also don’t understand why this article in particular is being targeted, and not any other. What makes it unreliable? How do we know that it’s not reliable? Are there any sources that prove it’s unreliable? Also, this is an ongoing topic, and information rapidly changes, which is why it reads like a “news article”. The story isn’t complete, and claims and estimates come out all the time, and they differ from each other based on who’s giving them. I’ll also say that I don’t think that all information about casualties necessarily belongs in the “casualties” section”, as some of it could easily fit in the “analysis” section, mainly for the ones that compare and contrast it to other battles and wars, because those are just analyses with numbers. Tomissonneil (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I found another source, this time a Ukrainian one, that backs up the Forbes article. According to a claim made by Oleksandr Musienko, head of the Center for Military-Law Researches, Russian casualties in January had “significantly increased” during recent assaults from the 10,000 that they allegedly suffered in the first month of their offensive, meaning that they must number at least as heavy, which is the number given in Forbes.

Source: https://english.nv.ua/nation/avdiivka-situation-remains-difficult-ukraine-keeps-it-stable-musienko-50389690.html Tomissonneil (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've read the source and dispute your synthesis. It is unclear from when he's refering to when he says "significantly increased". It could very well be from December instead of the first month. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s not unclear at all, really. Here’s the full quote: “ Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence service’s chief, declared in January that Russian losses in recent attempts to capture Avdiivka have significantly increased.” It’s pretty clear that he’s referring to (claimed) Russian losses suffered in January. The December fighting isn’t even mentioned in the article. Tomissonneil (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The two statements are separated by a paragraph:

In the first month of active assaults on Avdiivka, the aggressor country lost around 10,000 military personnel, said Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, ValeriiZaluzhnyi.

Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence service’s chief, declared in January that Russian losses in recent attempts to capture Avdiivka have significantly increased.

I still don't see the content of both statements directly linked. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph was a claim of 10,000 casualties in the first month, which is followed immediately by another paragraph that says Ukrainian intelligence claims from January that Russian losses had increased. That is the direct correlation. Tomissonneil (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we fundamentally disagree on this. It could be both interpretations, but I see an inherent lack of clarity. Unless a new argument/source is used, we're just going to wp:bludgeon each other. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this has gone on for a while, and we need at least a third opinion. Tomissonneil (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

but then why are only some articles, all written by the same person, being used? Would you prefer if I added {{bsn}} next to every David Axe article (without deleting the original ref though)? Honestly, another reason why I latched onto this specific case is because I was mostly lazy to spend more time assessing the adequacy of the others... Cherry picking what can and can’t be used from the same author doesn’t really make sense, especially when they don’t contradict each other I view this as a risk you inherently faced (the risk of one day having a contestation) with your recent editing. I don't view my actions here particularly inadequate. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will try to put this another way then. A WP article is not/should not be an indiscriminant collection of news snippets. Just because WP:NEWSORG articles exist does not mean that we should/must add them to an article. Per WP:NOTNEWS, what may be news worthy/worthy of a news article is not necessarily worthy of incorporating into an encyclopedic article - particularly if there are multiple sources repeating the same sort of stuff (tripe). Please read WP:VNOT. "We don't really know what is going on so we'll just dump in everything we come across" is not a reasonable rationale for adding material. Encyclopedic style is not journalistic hyperbole. It is not just about who used the word "annihilated" but nobody said "completely annihilated". The quote is inaccurate. And should we use it at all, given we are not writing a newspaper. If there is good reason to add something then spend the time to get it right. Get the detail correct. Get the citations right with all the appropriate detail. This is not a competition to see who can add the most in the shortest time. Note though, I did not support the challenge of the material just because the citations weren't correct. This is just an observation. I was really waiting to see if other editors thought there is value in this content and consensus for its addition but chimed-in when you indicated I’ll be putting it back. I think that was a bit premature. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello just chiming in to say David Axe is extremely biased clickbait, bordering on pro Ukraine op-eds with some generic war facts sprinkled in for seasoning. I would remove all of his articles from wikipedia, just saying. It's frustrating i know because he IS prolific, the guy writes an article slamming Russia once per day, but its little more than propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5589:6E00:80CF:D046:B019:AFF0 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) -----Here's a much better article - it states russia is advancing and ukraine is in danger in avdiivka - but the battle is far from decided. That's the consensus from all ive read https://www.kyivpost.com/post/27639

Thanks for the source. Just thought the indentation of your comment was a bit strange/out of place. Seemed like you weren't replying to anyone in particular so I've moved it to base level. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That article was published after the Forbes one, which was written at the end of January, before the recent Russian breakthrough. There is no precedent to removing all of the articles written by a prolific analyst, especially one who’s been writing articles since long before the Russian Invasion, and even has his own Wikipedia page. In fact, the Kyiv Post, which you linked, uses him as a source.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/27704 Tomissonneil (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Casualties section is ridiculous

why is there a huge paragraph of unverified claims of russian casualties, and virtually nothing on Ukrainian ones? Even the "Western estimates of Ukrainian and Russian casualties" section just continues on about unverified claims of Russians being slaughtered. Do wiki mods even try hide their bias anymore? This is why everyone is calling Wikipedia a joke these days. Calebman127 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources have not been used? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And where is any evidence of the often claimed Russian human wave assaults? Ukraine supplies drone footage for literally everything on the battlefield but never one for the hundreds of human wave assaults. It would be great PR but is suspiciously absent… 101.115.180.213 (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure the battle is over yet

While i agree that a victory for Russia is all but inevitable due to the firepower and troop number disparity the Deep State War Map still shows a good deal of Avdiivka still under Ukraines control. Also there are not reliable but still present videos on twitter of Azov units dug into the various heavy factory buildings present in Avdiivka. Ukraine is withdrawing but they are not actually out yet?

Its not much but here is a source showing that fighting is still occuring in Avdiivka

https://unn.ua/en/news/the-situation-in-avdiivka-tarnavsky-reports-on-fire-at-koksokhim-evacuation-of-wounded-and-prisoners

Yeah, the latest I've seen from milbloggers is that there are still pockets of resistance and disorganized fighting. There's also the AKHZ which may continue being held by Ukraine. We need more confirmations. It's still too early to say that the city is cleared and the fighting over. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I would imagine they would've wanted to stay in the coke plant in the north, to hold a stronghold for a bit longer as happened in Soledar. Super Ψ Dro 10:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't turning into another Bakhmut, the battle is over, let it die. 92.40.202.42 (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

the Ukrainian war mapper deep state indicates that both the coke plant and the central citadel have been evacuated 62.4.44.220 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That's useful info. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ukrainian forces are not "completely" retreated yet, for one reason or another

Unlike what the page currently states, there are several confirmed footages of Russian soldiers capturing Ukrainian soldiers. This clearly shows that the announced "withdrawal," which is more likely an unplanned retreat, is happening in an unorganized manner, as the Ukrainian command clearly didn't predict a Russian breakthrough in the north. It's also worth noting that we shouldn't take whatever the Ukrainian generals say to be entirely the truth. Clearly, Syrsky's statement earlier this morning does not reflect a reality where the Ukrainian forces have completely retreated from the city. Moreover, stating in the infobox that it's a Russian victory because "Ukrainian forces withdrew" makes it seem as if it was a decision taken in good faith by Ukraine, when, in fact, they made this decision after the Russians made their situation untenable in the city for the UAF. Mattia332 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you bring any sources for this? Super Ψ Dro 10:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, its from open military sources, said sources have been proved before to be reliable https://t.me/remylind21/14473 https://t.me/remylind21/14450 https://t.me/ukr_leaks_eng/9915 https://t.me/ukr_leaks_eng/9918 https://t.me/stranaua/143925 Mattia332 (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Just found another one, an ukrainian prisoner stating that he had no idea where he was supposed to go https://t.me/remylind21/14477

I believe we should clearly state that many Ukrainian soldiers have been left behind, and this retreat was not coordinated well at all, given the overwhelming evidence. Mattia332 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Would videos count as evidence? There are many videos of Ukrainian soldiers fleeing the city on foot. 2A00:23C7:2006:C101:7D26:DE84:891B:5A8F (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not claiming that all of them got captured or surrendered, but there's widespread evidence that a significant part of them did. I think it would be most wise to include a statement such as, 'At the same time, several videos emerged displaying Ukrainian soldiers who had surrendered, been captured, or were left behind, pointing to an uncoordinated retreat.' After all, even Ukrainian General Tarnavskyi acknowledged that some Ukrainian troops had been captured during the retreat (source on the page itself). Mattia332 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Social media are not generally regarded as reliable sources. This includes Telegram or any other social media platform like Twitter or YouTube. Ideally we would cite articles from newspapers or credible institutions. Super Ψ Dro 16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

There is significant evidence among social media of a handful of wounded squad and platoon sized Ukranian elements being left to be captured or killed by Russians. I have not seen evidence of company or larger sized elements being captured or left to die. I think the bulk of Ukrainians did successful retreat from the city, albeit with Russians at their heels. Or at least, I have seen no evidence on social media that the bulk of ukranians did not escape to the NW. These are all videos on telegram, most of the mainstream, actually citable, sources seem to say that the city fell but most of the Ukrainians made it out, or at least make no mention of significant WIA captured.

https://www.newsweek.com/avdiivka-fallen-troops-withdraw-russia-ukraine-war-update-1870889 2605:A601:5589:6E00:6CC0:140A:B2B8:97F3 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wounded Ukrainian soldiers abandoned at Zenith

Here [1], at 1:52, a video is shown of a Ukrainian soldier allegedly not having been able to withdraw from the Zenith southern fortification due to being heavily wounded, claiming six other soldiers in similar situations stayed too. I tried to find newspapers or any kind of source I could cite for this but was not able to find any. Can anyone find some? If not, I guess this shouldn't mentioned. There is the possibility that the video is a hoax. Super Ψ Dro 11:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Source is the telegram footage of the six soldiers of 3rd company of 110th Mechanized Brigade dead in a pool of blood and water in a basement.

Sources here, obvious NSFW warning for closeups of six people who bled to death:

https://t.me/RVvoenkor/62210

https://twitter.com/MaimunkaNews/status/1758579159859683405 Franfran2424 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in Ukrainian news sources, and Tom Cooper also mentioned it in his newsletter, so I’m fairly sure it happened.

Sources:

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28161https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-17-february-2024-melee Tomissonneil (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Kyiv Post is a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. I see that someone already added this information into the article anyway. Super Ψ Dro 19:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

Hollowww (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC) add a line before the result line saying "•Ukranian retreat/withdrawal"

 Already done Already mentioned in "Territorial Changes" ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "pyrrhic victory"?

Considering the losses of Russian army and exhausted (for now) advancement potential, shouldn't be the result changed to a "pyrrhic victory" instead? 37.55.114.124 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

cope more (Redacted)

cope 2A02:E0:A50B:E900:2D5D:3657:43A3:85FE (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, per longstanding Wikipedia policy not to add such adjectives to results. Also, I don't think there are RSs that call it that. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

per definition a Pyrrhic Victory is one that inflicts a toll onto the Victor which is tantamount to defeat which clearly is not the case here. The Russians can and still are conducting offensive operations and the Ukrainians are still on the defensive, there was no real change except that Avdiivka has now been taken and the frontline moved. Alex.Wajoe (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Its ukraine, not russia getting attrited according to mainstream sources

“One of the key events from 2023 was that Russia was able to recruit a large number of volunteers,” said Rob Lee, a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, which is based in Philadelphia. :“The flip side is that this is happening right as Ukraine is facing mobilization problems.”

"Ukrainian leaders responded to the gathering pressure by rushing in a medley of special units and the Third Separate Assault Brigade, an experienced infantry unit with a far-right heritage, to plug the gap and eventually help the retreat. A soldier with the brigade said they had been taken off the front line around the eastern city of Bakhmut in recent months and had only a short time to recuperate before being sent to Avdiivka as firefighters."

"The exhausting of one of Ukraine’s best units during a time of crisis, military analysts said, points to a growing problem in Ukrainian ranks: There are simply not enough troops to go around on the front."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/world/europe/ukraine-russia-strategy-avdiivka.html

The idea that the side dropping dozens of FABS with 5x the artillery is getting attrited faster than the smaller force that isnt is absurd. Do ukrainais seriously believe their killing 10x the russians for every Ukranian KIA? How? With drones and snipers? Russia has more of those than Ukraine too.

Involvement of 133 mechanised brigade

The 133 mechanised brigade and azov brigades where also involved in the battle 78.19.191.244 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

missing units

47th Mechanized Brigade 3rd Assault Brigade both are missing and should be added Jack0jack504 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Small Change: Zaluzhnyi

Current article: (Military Casualties Section)

On 10 November, Ukrainian C-in-C Valerii Zaluzhnyi claimed that his troops had killed 10,000 Russians and destroyed 100 tanks, 250 armored vehicles, 50-100 artillery pieces and seven Su-25 planes. Colonel Shuptun, meanwhile, claimed that Russian casualties average between 400 and 600 casualties per day.

What it should be:

On 10 November, former Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi claimed that his troops had killed 10,000 Russians and destroyed 100 tanks, 250 armored vehicles, 50-100 artillery pieces and seven Su-25 planes. Colonel Shuptun, meanwhile, claimed that Russian casualties average between 400 and 600 casualties per day.

Don't have editing privileges but caught this. Would be great it someone with prilviges could fix it.

CyanCat8991 CyanCat8991 00:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)