Talk:Pokrovsk offensive

Objective?

Who has said the goal is to capture Pokrovsk? The Russian desire to secure the flanks of Donetsk has been a clear and stated objective since the start of the war. RadomirZinovyev 07:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It is aim. 83.23.165.246 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, a different page name might be appropriate. I saw no sources clearly referring to this as an distinctive offensive. Zerbrxsler (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What "different page name" do you suggest? I've explained this to you before that Pokrovsk is obviously a distinct effort, and the main one across all of Ukraine at that; a title change to "2024 Donbas offensive" would not make sense as we already have an article which covers advances in the region, and such a title change would be an unnecessary change in scope. If you agree that Toretsk is a distinct offensive, then Pokrovsk, with much larger-scale advances and a greater amount of forces, surely is as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If an objective is falsely named, it follows that if the attacking force does not achieve this claim, the opposing side will call it the attackers failure. Even if that was never their objective. If it cannot be verified that this is their objective as opposed to creating a buffer zone around Donetsk for example, then the title needs to also leave ambiguity to the attackers goal.

This applies for both sides in any given war. RadomirZinovyev 14:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zerbrxsler The scope of this article is everything the ISW (and news sources) refer to as the "Pokrovsk direction"/front/sector, which pertains to (mostly) everything between southwest of Niu-York (Toretsk) to (around) Hirnyk. The ISW report you cited from 5 September does not state that efforts to attack in the general direction of Kurakhove are part of the same offensive as Pokrovsk, rather that the seizure of these towns [Ukrainsk and Hirnyk] would allow Russian forces to assault Kurakhove; this is not saying that if those towns are captured that the Pokrovsk offensive would extend south to Kurakhove, or that an objective of the Pokrovsk offensive is the capture of Kurakhove, (which is rather a general objective of the Russian military) but rather that an assault on Kurakhove from an advance south from these towns would pertain to a "battle of Kurakhove" article, of which the southern advances in the Pokrovsk salient would be relevant background, but not the same offensive. Nowhere have I found corroboration for the claim that efforts to move towards Kurakhove form the east (which is (i.e. from Maksymilianivka, Kostiantynivka, etc.), ongoing well before any meaningful advances directly towards Pokrovsk, are covered in the scope of the Pokrovsk offensive; rather, some advances towards Kurakhove simply occurred at a similar time, as was the case with Vuhledar. Vuhledar and Kurakhove both mutually reinforce the efforts near Pokrovsk, but are distinct efforts. The own axe article used in the disputed edit rightly differentiates between the Pokrovsk direction and the Kurakhove/west of Donetsk direction.

I just want to clarify, as done previously, that the immediate goal of the Pokrovsk direction is not to capture "all of Donetsk Oblast"; that is a goal that Russia of course is pursuing and has been for years, but Donetsk as a whole is only a goal of the general offensive since December 2023, not of one of the individual offensives or battles that have taken place since then within Donetsk Oblast. It happens to be that the primary goal of both the general eastern offensive and the Pokrovsk offensive are to capture Pokrovsk, but this article, nor any other, covers the general 2024 offensive, and thus the Pokrovsk offensinve (as you have frequently done) should not be boiled down to a campaign to capture all of Donetsk Oblast. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche First of all thank you for all your contributions to this article. Regarding the direction of the Russian assaults last month, it can be noted that the direct advances towards Pokrovsk have slowed down while they remained steady to the southwest towards Kurakhove (around Ukrainsk & west of Krasnohorivka). I was wondering if you believe these advances should be included in this article, especially in the context of the renewed Russian efforts around Vuhledar, which could link up northwards approaching Kurakhove from the south. The Velyka Novosilka – Kurakhove line should be considered as a different objective from Pokrovsk. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

We need to divide this page into several additional pages.

In my opinion, this page is not sufficient to cover all the battles in the Pokrovsk Raion, such as the battles in Hrodivka, Novohrodivka, and Selydove. I believe these battle deserve their own pages, not only because these towns are crucial for Russia to launch attacks on Pokrovsk but also because they serve as administrative centers for their respective hromadas. As stated on the Pokrovsk Raion Wikipedia page, Pokrovsk Raion consists of 14 hromadas, with three of them (Avdiivka, Marinka, and Ocheretyne) already having their own pages. Bukansatya (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources typically talk of the advances near Pokrovsk as a whole rather than singling out specific cities or villages, unlike reporting that was speciifc to Avdiivka, Marinka or Ocheretyne for those engagements; there's also not a good reason to have five stubs on battles when these could just be compacted into an article on the advances east of Pokrovsk, which is what is covered in reliable sources; most of these small battle articles wouldn't have significant coverage to prove notability, and due to the interconnectedness of the conflicts within the salient would best serve within one article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Horrible name

It does not make sense. It's not an offensive, it's a battle. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:61E9:8A4B:FAA:59F5 (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A battle for what exactly? Pokrovsk itself has not yet been reached; sources tend to use "offensive" rather than "battle" when referring to this front, similar to the 2024 Kharkiv offensive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact, it is an offensive, but is it really a "Pokrovsk"? It may be Pokrovsk, but it may also be Kurahove or another city. This raises the question of what the actual goal is, it is not known. 2A01:113F:203:3D00:BD63:9301:726B:7CAE (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer if the Pokrovsk mentioned on this page refers to Pokrovsk as a whole or as a raion, rather than as a city. This preference is also indicated in the location section of the infobox, which lists 'Pokrovsk raion' and not 'Pokrovsk city satellite' or anything similar. Bukansatya (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not a scope supported by sources. The scope is around what the ISW right now considers the "Pokrovsk direction" ; notice how the "Kurakhove direction" (also in the raion) is not stated to be the same as or subordinate to the Pokrovsk sector. The fighting in the Hirnyk-Kurakhivka pocket area and east of Kurakhove (Ostrivske, Maksymilianivka) is part of the Kurakhove direction and should be covered at the new battle of Kurakhove article, while areas closer to Pokrovsk, such as Ukrainsk, Selydove are part of the Pokrovsk direction and are covered here. Pokrovsk Raion as a whole is a pretty arbitrary designation for an article's scope; similarly, despite "Kharkiv" in the title, the 2024 Kharkiv offensive covers only events in northern Kharkiv Oblast, and not the east, which is a separate effort. The location parameter in the infobox conveyed here that what is part of the Pokrovsk offensive/direction is entirely in Pokrovsk Raion, but not all hostilities within the raion are part of the offensive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Russian/Ukrainian Usage

A ton of Russian and to a lesser extent Ukrainian(mostly the ones pointing out the massive losses) sources basically use this term to refer to the October 2023 onward period of advances in this direction. The Battle of Avdiivka and the set of cascading fallbacks it triggered.

Sort of a Kursk style naming scheme, it's moreso the goal/what's at the end of the thrust direction rather than where the actual fighting is. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:6553:DC5C:A2C8:2CC1 (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

Change Russian Casualties to 150,000 (Ukrainian claim) https://tsn.ua/en/ato/the-enemy-has-amassed-enormous-forces-to-break-through-to-pokrovsk-details-from-the-ukrainian-armed-forces-2725422.html 91.224.178.94 (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Claims from both Russia and Ukraine have been greatly exaggerated in the past, in part due to disinformation campaigns and as propaganda. Until verified by an independent third party or corroborated by other evidence, I would not treat this as a WP:RS.  $Jayhawker6$【💬】 23:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@91.224.178.94^  $Jayhawker6$【💬】 23:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Move Start Date to October 2023

That aligns with the way Russian and Ukrainian sources use it. Basically the entire operation in Avdiivka and the subsequent ‘fast’(by this wars standards) advance in that direction, as apposed to the previous campaign in the Bakhmut direction which had been the main focus of the war from May 2022 to late 2023.

So the initial spike in frontline attacks and flanking assaults, (like the famous rubbish mountain) the Battle of Avdiivka, the tunnel breakthrough, the fall of Avdiivka and following advance in February 2024. the breakthrough in late April at ocheretyne and following rapid advance, the breakthrough at Prohes in July 2024 and following rapid advance, the flanking attacks towards the southern front this opened up leading to the fall of Vuhledar and the following advance which is about to unite the two pinsirs.

Its being used this way as unlike prior attacks in the war there has never really been a full stop, Russia fought in a spot unrelated to their previous offensives, eventually broke through, and since then have been continuously advancing forward with occasional small breakthroughs helping. Pokrovsk just happens to be at the end point of the tips and is seemingly the final goal 2001:56A:6FFF:C37C:241D:A004:6C05:96A6 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"C-in-C" written instead of "Commander-in-Chief" for the title of Oleksandr Syrskyi in the Casualties section

In the Casualties section, Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian army, is listed as "C-in-C" (abbreviation of commander-in-chief) of the Ukrainian army in the following sentence: "On 27 August, Ukrainian C-in-C Oleksandr Syrskyi [...]" - It is my belief that the abbreviation simply adds confusion and should instead be written in full, as such: "On 27 August, Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi [...]" as is the standard elsewhere in the article, e.g. in the Advance towards Hrodivka and Novohrodivka (1–23 August) section: "according to Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi [...]". I do not have permission to edit this page, so would appreciate it if someone else could fix this! SirDore (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, we only use the name in full (with link) and rank or position on first mention. This is not the first mention. Has been corrected accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you! SirDore (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

New article once urban warfare begins?

I think like the name "Pokrovsk offensive" works for the period between July 2024 - present, but I also think that once actual combat has begun in the outskirts that are clearly directed inwards we should create a new article named "Battle of Pokrovsk", or we can merge the articles and include this article under a "background" category. 85.229.111.139 (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Only if it meets notability guidelines for a standalone article. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering the length of this article, I would be in favor of this also, but for now it's still WP:CRYSTALBALL. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a real possibility the Russians will just push West into the Dnipro's province, cut Pokrovsk off and force the city to be evacuated without actually storming it in urban combat. Dunno... 2605:A601:5553:B000:0:0:0:3B6 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It a city the size of bahkmut there not just gonna cut it off 2607:FEA8:C3C0:30C0:C79:5380:B0A1:BB88 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, there is the potential (now that Russians are in the city) that the battle would be short enough for it to not really warrant it's own article. Rexisnox (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

To date, the term battle of Pokrovsk has seen limited use in reliable sources. An analysis of these sources reveals a lack of consistent interpretations of the timeframe and scope of what authors mean when they refer to such a battle.

• A December 2024 analysis by an "OSINT" user published in Euromaidan Press interprets the "Battle of Pokrovsk" as having begun in October 2023.
• In other pieces from December 2024, it is implied that the "battle of Pokrovsk" has yet to begin by a Ukrainian military expert quoted in the The New Voice of Ukraine and by an apparently authoritative "OSINT" Twitter user quoted in Newsweek.
• Also in December, a year-end analysis by Kyiv Independent refers to the "Battle of Pokrovsk" as "looming", also implying that it has not begun.
• An article published in January 2025 in The National Interest implies that the "Battle of Pokrovsk" has been ongoing for several months.
• The same month the Polish TVP World quotes Polish Radio claiming that the "battle of Pokrovsk" had already begun but simultaneously cites RBC Ukraine saying it had not yet started.
• In late April 2025 a representative of a Ukrainian think tank claimed that the "battle for Pokrovsk" had already been lost by the Russian side, leading to the headline "Ukrainians Declare Victory in Battle of Pokrovsk" in Newsweek.
• Recent journalism from the front line published in El Mundo in May 2025 uses the term "battle of Pokrovsk" in the headline in reference to the contemporary fighting.

If it is decided that a new article should be created, I would oppose naming it battle of Pokrovsk, as long as there is no consensus among sources regarding what this term is supposed to mean. A more descriptive title like 2025 Pokrovsk clashes might be more appropriate.

Sources

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 10:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You are so dishonest it is unreal. Fighting is going on in the city now. 149.62.206.45 (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion 149.62.206.45! SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 09:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Ecpiandy, regarding this edit to place flags in the infobox, this is contrary to MOS:MILFLAGS which states: In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended but the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) acknowledges that it may be appropriate to use flags when summarizing military conflicts in an infobox. Nonetheless, flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider: ... Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not.

In this case, they do not convey information in addition to the text. As there are only two parties, they do not differentiate among several parties. Their use here is redundant and primarily decorative. Accordingly, they should not be used here. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Possible future split

It's probably still WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it's been nearly two months since Russia captured a new settlement towards or around Pokrovsk. Considering the scope of the article already, if advance ever picks up speed, I think it should be considered a new offensive. Vauia Rex (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree. It may also be worth reconsidering the scope and notability of the article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. The article is best served as one complete overview. Jusdafax (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There must be a mistake in the date

> On July 22, 2015 Russian forces were reported to have entered the city what 2015 ? Lyrieek (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 08:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Dobropillia

First of all, thanks to everyone for the recent updates. The most recent push of Russian forces in the area seems to be aimed in the direction of Dobropillia: I’m not sure whether these advances fit into the scope of the Pokrovsk offensive. I would like to hear the thoughts of other editors on this matter and should we consider creating a Dobropillia offensive article in case this direction continues to develop and expand.
(Pinging a few recent contributors: @Johnson524, @SpaceRefugee, @Lazarbeem, @Mr.User200, @Smeagol 17 and @SaintPaulOfTarsus) I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@I Know I'm Not Alone: When I wrote that section yesterday, it was unclear at first if this assault was to aid in the Pokrovsk offensive, or if its goals were towards something entirely different. As the situation develops, its looking more like the latter, and is why I made the redirect Dobropillia offensive late yesterday. While Euromaidan Press just reported the breakthrough is not yet operational-level, I'm keeping an eye on the situation in case a separate article becomes necessary. Have a blessed rest of your day 🙂 Johnson524 15:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@I Know I'm Not Alone:  Done Split into its own article, will develop throughout the day, cheers! Johnson524 15:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Cheers to you as well @Johnson524, looks good! I will also help out at the page as soon as I can (hopefully tonight) to expand it and add more various sources. One more question regarding this article; should the paragraph about Dobropillia here be completely removed, trimmed down or leave it like this (for now)? Maybe you can take a look at this later also. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@I Know I'm Not Alone: I cut down the section and merged it into the one above, what do you think? Cheers! Johnson524 20:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Johnson524, this length seems good to me. Could have maybe kept the header. I do feel like things have accelerated since this month, but this is fine for now and we can always add it back later if these advances continue to expand. Coming back to the scope of this article, I believe this page should focus on the Rodynske area and all of the surroundings of Pokrovsk of course. Everything north of Rodynske can be included into your newly created Dobropillia offensive article.

On a side note: it was briefly discussed in some sections above regarding the creation of a Battle of Pokrovsk article, which would be limited to the urban warfare, but this discussion never really elaborated. Maybe I should post this above, but I’m curious what you think of this? I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@I Know I'm Not Alone: I like the idea of everything north of Rodynske going to the Dobropillia offensive article, I feel like that'll make this page more focused on the immediate Pokrovsk area as it should be. Oh, and I wouldn't create a Battle of Pokrovsk article just yet, as besides from a few already eliminated/captured sabotage groups, this seems more like WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thank you again for all of your recent contributions, cheers! Johnson524 12:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. Thank you for the ping. You have titled the article Dobropillia offensive, but going through the article's sources, I'm finding almost nothing that uses that word to describe these events. Terms like breakthrough, and even push or advance seem to be a lot more common. I can provide a more thorough analysis later, but just wanted to make people aware and hear some opinions. I would personally be opposed to using offensive in the title if that word doesn't tend to be used in sources. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 15:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @SaintPaulOfTarsus, and thank you for all of your recent contributions to these articles 🙂 I opted to name the article "offensive" to match the similarly named articles, but you are correct that it is not the WP:COMMONNAME. For this reason, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to changing the title to something like "Dobropilla breakthrough", but I do think "offensive" will fit better in the long run as this push drags on (as its becoming more like an offensive each day it continues without further major breakthroughs). Cheers! Johnson524 15:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Recent statements by Zelenskyy and Syrskyi regarding the Ukrainian counterattacks on this sector have resulted in the term "Dobropillia counteroffensive" widely appearing in English sources (1 2 3 4 5), so I would now propose a move to Dobropillia front or at least any alternative away from Dobropillia offensive, as long as this article covers both the Russian and Ukrainian offensives. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 09:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2025

Change "On 27 August, Syrskyi claimed" to "On 27 August 2024, Syrskyi claimed". Avessa (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC) Avessa (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done tony 16:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Doctored image

The image of the Russian Su-25 "shot down" is a manipulated image. The image of the plane is real, but the fire and smoke are added, they are also fake, not even real. It is easily visible.152.206.229.129 (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Update

According to the institute for the study of war Russia has advanced into the city of Pokrovsk. Here’s the link to their map: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 NASAfan575 (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Have that supported in text? TylerBurden (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, right here: https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-17-2025/ NASAfan575 (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Not what ISW wrote there. --Denniss (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

So what do mean? NASAfan575 (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This article indeed urgently needs an update. The last thing it says about the battle is that Ukrainians have successfully pushed the Russians out of Pokrovsk proper and let me not talk about that HIV-positive soldiers thing. Gorgedweller (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed NASAfan575 (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Then provide a source that isn't the kind of WP:SYNTH NASAfan575 did above, we need a source actually clearly supporting the content you want to add. TylerBurden (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I found a source just from a couple days ago, it mentions Russian infiltrators gunning down civilians in the city centre, dressing up as civilians to sneak into the city and gun down actual civilians is quite different from actually taking the city as some IP was raving about here. The imminent doom of Pokrovsk has been reported by Russian media for.. how long now? But the fact that the pressure is increasing and more infiltrators are getting into the city can probably be added, I will check for more sources later when I have time since no one is actually providing anything here other than demands and WP:SYNTH. TylerBurden (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, there is clear proof that I have provided you that’s shows that Russian forces have established and maintained positions in Pokrovsk as of October 25, 2025.them: NASAfan575 (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

You can talk about clear proof all you want, you need to learn how WP:CITE actually works, it should be quite doable by clicking and reading the link. TylerBurden (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I know and do cite sources frequently NASAfan575 (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Apparently not since the source you provided above didn't actually say they had advanced into the city, but areas around it.. claiming a source said something it didn't is WP:SYNTH. That's "what mean". TylerBurden (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If you bother to actually read the article it does say they advanced into part of the city NASAfan575 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead and quote that part then since you're the only one here seeing it apparently. TylerBurden (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Look here’s a new article that hopefully doesn’t disappear when you try to read it

https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-24-2025/ NASAfan575 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

So you're traveling in time now, since the article you initially provided was from September 17? Here it is if you need a link: https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-17-2025/ with your quote above "Yes, right here" in response to the claim being in text. TylerBurden (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I figured I would give a new article to be more up to date NASAfan575 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Or you figured you would provide a different source to try to avoid the fact that the first one you provided was WP:SYNTH, that you show up with a different one a month later doesn't stop that from being the case. It's quite rare to see someone double down so much on being wrong or refuse to admit a mistake. It seems you are willing to endlessly double down here so I'm just going to suggest to anyone reading that they very closely look at any sources this editor provides in the future before taking any action. TylerBurden (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is proof that you are wrong:

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Yuv9wyoIys0 NASAfan575 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice screen recording, so since I see you found your way back to the original source, where's the exact quote supporting your claim? TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

At the end I zoomed in on a section that said Russian forces had advanced into southern Pokrovsk NASAfan575 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE, just wait. Makes no sense to write updates for every street/building that changes control. If and when the city falls, the article can be updated, because ultimately that's what matters and what is relevant for these articles. Most readers don't care about the minutae. Adding too much information can bloat the article and make it hard to read. It's better to write a good summary after the dust settles, however long that takes. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

My question section was deleted on the grounds that it didn't deserve its own section so I'll post it here as its own little thread - "Will the Pokrovsk Offensive be Considered Over Once Pokrovsk Falls? Or are there other cities in towns critical to this, perhaps Rodynske as well?"~2025-31244-50 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please consider using my map :)

I have made a control map of the Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad direction according to the ISW. I think it would help readers visualize the situation if you added it somewhere :). The map is a .svg file, meaning anyone can edit it to update or fix mistake. I do not have extended editing access so I cannot do this myself. Please consider my humble proposal. Here it is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pokrovsk_and_Myrnohrad_Offensive.svg Brojiden69 (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Pokrovsk

Fighting is ongoing within the city of Pokrovsk, and it is likely to fall soon. We should update the page by either adding a new section "Battle of Pokrovsk", or we can create a new article for the urban combat part of the offensive. 85.228.123.158 (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Did Ukrainian sources confirm this? No. So shut up and stop repeating Russian propaganda. ~2025-32352-23 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Under heavy fog, Russia presses into Pokrovsk — Ukraine says 300 troops enter city It was confirmed? Genabab (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

So what? Almost all of them were eliminated. So it doesn't change anything. I'll warn you again: stop repeating Russian propaganda. ~2025-32352-23 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

LMAO ~2026-44261-87 (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree, it's urgent. Katholikos (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Myrnohrad

Street fighting has erupted within the neighboring city of Myrnohrad , , and . Can I include these advances into this article or is it time to start a Battle of Myrnohrad article? I’m open to creating this page but I wanted to gauge first if there is support for creating such an article. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Myrnohrad will either become a siege or be evacuated without much of a fight. So either nothing if they get out or Siege of Myrnohrad 2604:3D09:1F81:1200:1116:C9F2:528C:EB62 (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It's encircled. Siege of Myrnohrad article then. ~2025-31799-02 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The encirclement is more grey area than total, but given how Chernihiv was called a siege under similar conditions I'd say that's still the most accurate term for what's happening at Myrnohrad ~2025-31799-02 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Typo in page

In the top right box of the page, in the "Casualties and losses" section, it says "§ Ccasualties", which has two 'C's instead of one. Can somebody correct it (this page is protected)?

For your information, this is the sentence that the typo is located on: "Very heavy; estimates vary, see § Ccasualties" Bobz99 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Should we add "Russian forces enter Pokrovsk" into the infobox?

Under heavy fog, Russia presses into Pokrovsk — Ukraine says 300 troops enter city This Ukrainian source is reporting that Russian forces have entered Pokrovsk. Should we add that?

Note: Saying Russian forces enter the city is very different from saying they've won, so we shouldn't change it to Russian victory or anything. But just something to specify in the infobox that the fighting has now occured in the interior of Pokrovsk Genabab (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

How is that appropriate for the infobox, meant to summarize concrete information such as actual territorial changes, etc? The fact that Russian forces have entered Pokrovsk is already covered in the article body to the point that it borders on WP:NOTNEWS. TylerBurden (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

idk...... I saw other Ukraine war pages a while back say the same thing, that Russian forces enter this or that region :^P Genabab (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The topic has plenty of editors that are more than eager to promote Russian success stories, and many things go unnoticed, that doesn't mean that making edits contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE or WP:DUE is correct. If the floor's dirty it's better to clean it than go mess up another floor. TylerBurden (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Northern Pokrovsk

Since @Smeagol 17 is edit warring to restore their changes to the section title including "northern" in the "advances into central" title despite being reverted, I am opening a discussion thread here.

I am not sure what you mean by "it's your own citation", it was added by a different editor with the content "By 6 November, Russian advances were reported in multiple areas in the north of Pokrovsk", instead of correcting it, you gave it undue weight by including it in the section title, clearly solidifying an advance in northern Pokrovsk.

The source says this: "The commander noted that Russian forces are starting to bring in provisions and are trying to infiltrate further into northern Pokrovsk and into Ukrainian rear positions where mortar crews and drone pilots are located."

That's literally all, somehow you think this is enough to change the section title to now include not attempts, but actual advancements in northern Pokrovsk. Pretty clear WP:NPOV violation, not to mention WP:SYNTH. TylerBurden (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You added "are trying to infiltrate further into northern Pokrovsk" here, so I called it "your citation". If someone is trying to infiltrate further into something, that means they are already there. If they weren't, there would either be a comma - "further, into northern Pokrovsk" or no "further" - "are trying to infiltrate into northern Pokrovsk". So, my section title summarizes "your" citation. Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, instead of mental gymnastics about grammar, how about you provide some more sources that strengthen the statement, because right now all we have is that line of text, and even going along with your interpretation that's a single unconfirmed report by a single commander. You're not addressing the WP:NPOV situation at all. TylerBurden (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

If it is "a single unconfirmed report by a single commander", we should probably remove it entirely. If it deserves inclusion (and there are no contradicting sources that also deserve inclusion), then it deserves being summarised in the section title when appropriate. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all, have you even read WP:NPOV? Either way I'm taking this as you didn't find any sources other than the one cited. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy saying you should either exclude a source entirely or give it disproportionate weight by adding its claim to a section title. TylerBurden (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

You would be wrong (Geolocated footage published on November 12 indicates that Russian forces recently advanced in northern Pokrovsk), but that is not the point. Section titles must accuratly summarize section content. If the content is unsuitable for that, it should be removed. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

What? Of course it should be accurate, what does giving undue weight to a claim have to do with that, do you understand that adding it to the section title gives it more coverage (proportion)? TylerBurden (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. What are section titles for, in your option? Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Accurately summarizing a section in proportion to its content, including in proportion to WP:DUE. How is this not basic stuff? You should know this as someone who has been editing since 2008. TylerBurden (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Battle of kostiantynivka

we should also talk about russian actions against the ukrainian city of kostiantynivka as it is also quite important to this war. We should make separate article on that ~2025-33258-58 (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we also should make an article for the renewed fighting in eastern Zaporizhzhia, where Russia is possibly starting a new offensive. ~2025-33169-36 (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

so who is going to help make it as the russians have already entered the city ~2025-33380-92 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Pokrovsk has fallen

Deepstatemap update for November 12 shows Pokrovsk completely within the grey zone. The 'grey zone' in Deepstatemap is largery regarded as areas with presence of Russian troops, therefore we can conclude that Pokrovsk has fallen, or that it is at least mainly occupied by Russian forces, with possible small Ukrainian resistance. ~2025-33169-36 (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-video-shows-soldiers-walking-freely-through-ruins-ukraines-pokrovsk-2025-11-20/

Here ~2025-35265-15 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't pass muster.

Ukrainian maps show Pokrovsk as a grey zone under no side's control and Myrnohrad not fully surrounded.

We need several RSs to say "Ukraine has lost Pokrovsk" or "Russia has taken Pokrovsk" or a statement from Ukraine's government/armed forces/Zelenskyy to that effect. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Deteriorated

> It reportedly deteriorated during its transfer to Pokrovsk

I'm not a native speaker but I'm under the impression that this word isn't normally used in military context. The weather can deteriorate but can a brigade? Maybe some different phrasing using the word "attrition" would be correct? Can someone who is a native speaker chip in? AccessibleVelocity (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

"deteriorated" can be used in military context. It means the condition has worsened (referring to the brigade's manpower in this case). Chtonenamaidane (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it just sounded odd to me when referring to the brigade itself and not e.g. the conditions/battle strength etc. AccessibleVelocity (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Accuracy

"Forbes estimated on 2 August..." No, Forbes did not estimate. David Axe estimated in an article published by Forbes. WP needs to be accurate. ~2025-33586-84 (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Thats standard usage. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Russian defeat

Most of Pokrovsk has been cleared of russians. Those remaining are surrounded. This has been confirmed by independent sources and by Valentin Manko, commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This information needs to be added urgently. One of many sources confirming this https://www.unian.net/war/pokrovsk-v-centre-goroda-sohranyayutsya-pozicii-vsu-13204935.html ~2025-34356-75 (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of the city of Pokrovsk in Donetsk Oblast is under the control of Russian forces.

Quote: "Pokrovsk is largely lost. Ukrainian positions still remain on the northern outskirts of the city; however, most of Pokrovsk is under the occupiers' control. The entire part of the settlement below the railway line that 'cuts' the city in half is, according to UP, held by the Russians. Information available to Ukrainska Pravda indicates that the line of contact runs almost along the northern edge of the city. The General Staff map for the Pokrovsk front is at least a month behind reality."

A recent statement by the 7th Air Assault Corps claiming a clearance of Pokrovsk's centre does not reflect the actual situation on the ground, UP reports.

25 November 2025, Ukrainska Pravda TurboSuperA+_[talk] 20:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

New russian fake

Ukraine controls Pokrovsk. Soldiers from the 425th Separate Assault Regiment "Skala" have refuted a video released by the Russian Ministry of Defense. It has been proven that the Russians used a video of Ukrainian soldiers in central Pokrovsk and clumsily replaced the Ukrainian flag with a Russian one. ~2025-38022-08 (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. In the Ukraine flag video, you can clearly see a car on the right side changing both its model and color, from white to red. This is a typical AI hallucination. The authentic footage actually comes from the Russians.

~2025-37900-05 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to this, Ukrainian media has reported on the video the above user is referring to being a fake: Censor.net. A BBC article published yesterday quotes the commander of that same unit, 425 'Skala,' making another, similar claim, again using an uncorroborated video as evidence. ~2025-39976-18 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

nice job being wrong ~2025-37242-65 (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

liberation of pokrovsk

why dies this wiki still say ongoing when pokrovsk was liberated weeks ago? Chezzburger (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Because we go by what WP:RS say. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ it was posted on X weeks ago. Russian troops were in the city for weeks. Chezzburger (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

X is not a reputable source. Also please note that this topic area is under general sanctions: WP:GS/RUSUKR. One of these sanctions is that only extended-confirmed editors may edit and discuss in the topic area, with exceptions provided for constructive suggestions on the talk page. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reputable sources while gaining editing experience outside of contentious topics. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't we make separate articles for the Battle of Pokrovsk and Siege of Myrnohrad?

They're pretty major engagements ~2025-31799-02 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I'm confused, why is there an image of Mirnograd in the infobox if the article is meant to focus on Pokrovsk... and what are the criteria for determining a Russian victory in Pokrovsk? Does it have to include the encirclement of Mirnograd? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The criteria for determining a Russian victory in Pokrovsk is WP:RS determining a Russian victory in Pokrovsk, as with any other content on the site. TylerBurden (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting my point. I'm confused, there is an image of Mirnograd in the infobox, but the article is meant to focus on Pokrovsk. Would it be considered misleading to readers to think that it's Pokrovsk without noticing at the caption, such as the image for this article on Google Images. I'm assuming that determining a victory for Pokrovsk may only be added once the encirclement of Mirnograd will be completed or is that irrelevant to the primary focus of this article, which is Pokrovsk? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Context for Pokrovsk Offensive Description:

Objective: Edit the Pokrovsk offensive to better outline and summarize the objective of the current Russian offensive on Pokrovsk and Myrnograd. This edit concerns: (the following is the current text)

The Pokrovsk offensive is an ongoing military operation in the Russo-Ukrainian war by the Russian Armed Forces with the primary goal of capturing the strategic city of Pokrovsk in western Donetsk Oblast. Fighting increased with the Russian advance into and subsequent capture of Prohres on 18 and 19 July 2024, a turning point for the Russian offensive northwest of Avdiivka following the latter's capture in February 2024, and has taken place in numerous settlements east and south of Pokrovsk in Pokrovsk Raion.

After a protracted military campaign, in early November 2025, Russian forces were reported to have entered Pokrovsk, with fighting continuing in and around the otherwise deserted city.

Proposed change:

The Pokrovsk offensive is an ongoing military operation in the Russo-Ukrainian War by the Russian Armed Forces, with the primary goal of capturing the strategic cities of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad in western Donetsk Oblast. Fighting toward the city escalated originally with the seizure of the Ukrainian stronghold settlement of Avdiivka, a city 6km from Donetsk, in February 2024. At which point, Pokrovsk became the larger target not only due to its urban size but especially due to its positioning along numerous highways and railways. After the subsequent loss of Prohres on 18 and 19 July 2024 and Russia's subsequent crossing of the Vovcha River, Ukraine's defensive line became increasingly dependent on the cities as fighting reached settlements south of Pokrovsk. During the latter half of 2024, Russian forces seized urban settlements such as Ukrainsk, Novohrodivka, Selydove, and Hirnyk located south of Pokrovsk. Russian offensive strategy shifted around the spring after advances toward the southwest of the Pokrovsk slowed. Renewed offensive operations by the Russians in April 2025 brought fighting to the eastern flank, creating increasingly porous defensive lines, and allowed for a series of Russian infiltrations into Pokrovsk.

By early November 2025, permanent Russian forces established themselves in Pokrovsk, and the supply situation increasingly deteriorated for Ukrainian defenders, especially in Myrnohrad. ObamaCrockadile (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: You are requesting changes be made to the LEAD. The LEAD is meant to be a summary and high-level overview of the article, not a blow-by-blow of how the battle unfolded. Much of what you have requested is already mentioned later in the article. SI09 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I guess that's fair ObamaCrockadile (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Can we agree that if Myrnohrad gets an article, it should be 'Siege', not battle?

Chernihiv was counted as a siege despite it not being total ~2025-31799-02 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Articles in this topic vary vastly in quality and change all the time, if you want to make an argument, base it on what WP:RS say rather than another article. TylerBurden (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Operational value instead of strategic

The Analysis section starts by talking about Pokrovsk in terms of strategic value, but I think the correct military term is operational value, which has to do with logistics and deployment of troops and Pokrovsk is important for exactly that: as a logistics hub.

Barros of ISW even says: “the final capture of the town will provide Russia only marginal tactical benefits”.https://understandingwar.org/newsroom/washington-post-what-the-campaign-for-pokrovsk-means-for-the-future/

This is even less than operational importance, though maybe operational is a good middle-ground, but it’s not strategic value, imo.

I do understand that many articles refer to it as “strategic city” though (incorrectly imo). Interested in hearing your opinions. Wilk10 (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The ISW is just coping as usual, doing damage control for the Ukrainians. They did the same when Bakhmut fell. Then didn't explain why Syrsky burned more men in the 2023 counteroffensive trying to retake it.

Though you're about "operational" instead of "strategic".

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 03:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Myrnograd update

Myrnograd has fallen after a two month long siege. Its capture was announced in a meeting between President Putin and the Russian General Staff.

On Telegram, RU milbloggers have released a video of troopers dressed in Santa costumes raising Russian flags posing in various locations inside the city as well as footage of RU soldiers taking out the last defenders hiding in cellars. Some parts have already been geolocated: , ,

Further, the Ukrainian General Staff has released a statement denying the capture ahead of Zelensky's meeting with Trump, yet provided no proof or additional information.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 03:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The capture lines up pretty well. Last Ukrainian geolocations (atleast Russians attack a house) are from December 20th other than the one you showed. Also, geolocations from flags from the

5th and 1436th motor rifle shows Russian presence in central western part, which adds up with the fact that Russians likely had pushed the Ukrainians to the outskirts/northwestern parts by December 20th. There's also ones I believe that show Russia in the northern parts too.

https://t.me/mod_russia/59834

https://t.me/mod_russia/59634

north of Rivne, russian flag raise

https://t.me/creamy_caprice/10799

Svitne, a settlement just west of Myrnograd, russian flag raise

https://t.me/mir_perezagruzka/11634

But it is clear we should wait for more official sources. ISW still refutes it, as they explained this as a common infiltration tactic. I haven't seen any other mainstream medias claim it as Russian captured, but personally I think it's highly probable Russia controls almost all or all of Myrnograd.

https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-28-2025/

We could definitely put in the last section: Advances into central Pokrovsk (26 October 2025 – present): "On December 27, the capture of Myrnograd was claimed during a meeting between Russian president Putin and Russian General Staff."

https://tass.com/politics/2065749 ObamaCrockadile (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Bro why does this say ongoing pokrovsk and myrnohrad have been captured for a while now

update it ~2026-39300-9 (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Apparently Ukrainians hold the northern parts.

• The Defense Forces of Ukraine continue to control the northern part of the cities of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad in Donetsk region, Skhid (East) operational command said on Facebook on Wednesday. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Should be changed to be ended

It ended afaik and RS reported that pokrovsk is lost no? Stanjik (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

See the above or provide a source. TylerBurden (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

No, they don't control. It is claim by Ukrainian MOD which is lie. ~2025-31986-94 (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Northern parts are stilled controlled by ukraine Stanjik (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There haven't been any Ukrainians in the northern or any other part of Pokrovsk for over a month. They're not even in the vicinity of Pokrovsk. Look at any methodologically disciplined OSINT. For example, "Creamy Caprice" (www.creamy-caprice.net/). Or Lostarmour.

There's not a single up-to-date geolocation of Ukrainian troops in northern Pokrovsk or anywhere else. There haven't been any for over a month. This Wikipedia article is starting to "freeze in time." More and more of it is happening every day. ~2026-89702-6 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Creamy caprice, suriyak maps all list Russian propaganda I haven't checked lost armor but even if they are accurate they aren't RS but kyiv independent is RS and it says ukraine norther part is contested also deepstate does it and it is somewhat accurate Stanjik (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What is this logic… ~2026-87532-4 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedian logic Stanjik (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that Creamy Caprice is a Russian team is NOT EQUIVALENT to it being Russian propaganda. It's an independent project and the most methodologically rigorous OSINT project of all. I'd say it's purist. When compiling its maps, it uses exclusively geolocated and verified video footage. Nothing else—no inside information, no official statements from the parties, no proprietary analysis or reasoning, not even common sense. Geolocated points are connected on the map using a mathematical algorithm.

They adhere so strictly to this methodology that they still haven't painted over the infamous Krynki in favor of the Russian army because there is no geolocated video footage. Even though Krynki has been considered abandoned by the Ukrainian Armed Forces for almost two years now, a fact acknowledged by both sides and all international media. ~2026-89702-6 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

i don't know man but RS don't consist of OSINT so even if it's accurate ro the meter it's still not counted Stanjik (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This is off wiki but where can I learn more about caprice cream Stanjik (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to note that I agree there have been no verifiable geolocations of UAF in Pokrovsk in February, at least. Creamy Caprice is a good mapper and channel, in my opinion, but is not reliable enough to be considered a reliable source, as it is not published by a well-known milblogger like David Axe. You can determine for yourself that Pokrovsk was already taken by Russian forces simply through geolocations, Russian Telegram channels, and sources on the Pokrovsk front (which I have). However, WP follows what reliable secondary sources say, not Russian Telegram channels or niche mappers. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There's an extremely high likelyhood post-war a lot of dates on this war will be altered when better sources are declassified. It already sort of happened with the Bakhmut page, the article listed it as ongoing for months after it's current end date.

For now, we be cautious, Even the most Ukrainian-generous sources only show a few edge blocks still in their hands ~2026-97812-5 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Update should be added

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pokrovsk_offensive#c-Stanjik-20260125004100-Should_be_changed_to_be_ended Stanjik (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

sorry meant to link this https://kyivindependent.com/russia-continues-attempts-at-breakthrough-near-pokrovsk-brings-up-reserves-syrskyi-says/ Stanjik (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2026

In the Latest timeline section, after the ISW 4th February uodate, add that the latest update(21st of February) from the Ukrainian Source DeepState map has shown that Russian forces have taken control of 100% of Pokrovsk. If you need confirmation for this info go to deepstatemap.live and look at the latest update on february 21th ~2026-11749-50 (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 16:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

He did provide reliable sources ~2026-12008-35 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2026

American Angel1 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Pokrovsk has been captured since february 25th 2026 according to ISW. Source:https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Pokrovsk has been captured since february 25th 2026 according to ISW

(Change Result from Ongoing to Russian Victory)

Sources:https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 and https://malcontentnews.substack.com/p/the-battle-for-pokrovsk-and-myrnohrad (I redid it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by American Angel1 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Pokrovsk has been captured more than a year ago

ISW just confirmed that they haven't seen any ukrainian activity since January 2025. therefore the entire article should be rewritten. The article is full of misinformation about "ukrainians defending" pokrovsk. For example the part that talks about "ukraine still claiming to hold positions in the northern part" turned out to be fake news. part that reads "ukrainian tactic of making russia bleed for ground has been effective" is therefore a stone faced lie. "in 2026 russia's advance has been slower in pokrovsk" please take out all the fake news, these are just examples

source: https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-25-2026/ ~2026-12629-47 (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

⚠️This is misinformation don't believe this guy⚠️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by American Angel1 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Probably a typo. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that proves your claim?

they said 2025 on multiple platforms ~2026-12629-47 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

How about their reports on Ukrainian presence in Pokrovsk after January 2025 (like November?) Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

How about their latest and most up-to-date report, with the most data and experience they’ve had so far? ~2026-12629-47 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

So, they lied in November, but now you believe them? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

So all of a sudden, as of 26 February at 00:01 AM, you don’t believe them anymore? ~2026-12826-49 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you to open their report again. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Like bro did you even read it yourself 😂, It says there has been no activity by the Ukrainians since late January 2026 American Angel1 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Pokrovsk has been captured since february 25th 2026 according to ISW

(Change Result from Ongoing to Russian Victory)

Sources:https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-february-25-2026/ and https://malcontentnews.substack.com/p/the-battle-for-pokrovsk-and-myrnohrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by American Angel1 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

ISW summary

@Smeagol 17 It seems like you need to have WP:DUE quoted to you verbatim: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

Your initial edit: "On 25 February, ISW reported that Russian forces had captured Pokrovsk" obviously didn't do that, but more provided a WP:NOTNEWS style conclusion to an offensive that has been going on since 2024.

The ISW indeed reports that Russian forces likely captured the city, they also stress the fact that Russian forces failed to capitalize on the capture.

So I amended this edit by making it remotely encyclopedic and neutral with: "On 25 February, ISW reported that it had not observed evidence of Ukrainan forces in Pokrovsk since 28 January, indicating that Russia had fully captured Pokrovsk. ISW added that Russia had been unable to capitalize on the seizure of the city and make further operationally significant advances."

Your response is to split the paragragh, claiming that the second portion belongs in "tactics" (it would be great if you could explain how failing to capitalize on seizing a strategically important objective is a tactic), the only problem with this is that the ISW connects the two in its summary. Your edit violates WP:NPOV because it only focuses on the Russian success, while sidelining the content about the operational reality despite this "success".

I would hope that an editor who has been editing since 2008 would understand basic neutrality policy, but it seems instead you are willing to edit war to maintain a POV. TylerBurden (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Follow up: Now you're saying that the offensive section isn't for outcomes, then why are you adding the outcome to it? TylerBurden (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok. You want to discuss the sections? Then please explain: You added to the tactics section "In January 2026, the Center for Strategic and International Studies assessed that Russia's advance in Pokrovsk had been slower than the Allied forces during the battle of the Somme, known as one of the most grinding offensives of World War I"? So, is advancing at a particular speed (evidently not of your own volition) a tactic? Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Please address the points I raised instead of deflecting. Obviously slow advancement is a "battlefield challenge", how could it not be? You're not making any sense at this point. TylerBurden (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Then why is not advancing (operationally)(for a month?) not a "battlefield challenge"? Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Because a WP:RS, which by the way, you are basing your entire update and outcome on, included it in their conclusion and summary, I would say that the ISW is a better source than you are. TylerBurden (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I would be hurt, but I am not a source.) And where the ISW put this is irrelevant. They are not writing this article (nor is this article in any way eqivalent to a "Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, February 25, 2026" report. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Well you see that's where you're wrong, did you read the actual Wikipedia policy quoted to you above? It would be specifically "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

It would be one thing if you were arguing about the infobox, but you're arguing about the "offensive" section, which you are ironically arguing is not for outcomes.

You can't have the cake and eat it too, so either decide or we can bring this to other venues, because like I said, this isn't the first time you do this kind of thing. TylerBurden (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

And how that is relevant for choosing an appopriate section? Or are you finally going to cite research that shows that a "Tactics and battlefield challenges" section is inherently less prominent than some other? Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not a tactics or battlefield challenge, it's the operational outcome, and before you say that outcomes don't belong in the offensive section, please explain why you are contradicting yourself by adding the outcome (although selectively the portion that makes Russia look good) to the offensive section? TylerBurden (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you want: taking a city (or village) is not an "outcome", it is describing the notable territorial changes during the offensive. It doubles as "victory" in this case only because this is how the scope of this article is defined.

(More generally, this section is for what the belligerents did. Not for what they didn't do). (Also, don't want this style discussion to descend to facts, but looking on the ISW reports you may note that the claimed Russian advanced in Pokrovsk direction are no slower (or faster) now then in January, so the comment about "operational advances" sits right at home with the Somme comparison). Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

And can you cite a single guideline for any of this? I have already cited WP:DUE, you have yet to cite a single one other than your personal preferences, which is apparently endless sections of ″on x date, Russia captured x", same as you did on Kursk campaign. TylerBurden (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I can't (well, more like won't - haven't really read them). But as you like to bring up other editors history, note this: in all my years editing here, I haven't been suspended or sanctioned even once. So, you can probably trust my intuition. Or don't - your choice. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not everyday that you see someone actively engaging in content disputes in a WP:CTOP not only admit that they are not following Wikipedia guidelines, but do not even bother reading them. If you have been editing uncontroversially about anime and video games and whatever else for 15+ years without getting into trouble that's great, I can only go by what I see, which is repeated WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior in WP:RUSUKR.

I don't think you give much reason to trust your intuition when you start talking about facts but either don't understand or purposefully misrepresent the source you're talking about, the entire point the ISW makes is that despite capturing Pokrovsk, the Russian speed of advancement remains the same (AKA slow), despite Russian propagandists hyping up the capture of Pokrovsk being something that would lead to a Ukrainian collapse in Donbas.

Either way you had your chance to convince me I'm wrong and you're right, but instead of policy based arguments you just keep doing.. whatever you are doing. Think it's time for an RfC. TylerBurden (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I edit many things, as you may note. And guidelines are nothing more than crystallisation of common sense, are they not? I am not usually here to get someone or something banned, so I am not very intrested in citing guidelines at you (and you probaly have already read them, and still behave as you do, so what woud be the point, anyway?) (But one thing my intuition (and experience) tells me is that I wont get anywhere with you with any arguments I would care to make, so go ahead, if you want...) Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your repeated personal attacks, but we'll see if they outweigh policy based arguments or not. That's another policy by the way, WP:NPA, then again you just said you don't care about them, but for whoever does. TylerBurden (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I don't know you personally. Only as a fellow editor. And my "attacks", such as they are, are limited to your editing and discussion style. Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

"and you probaly have already read them, and still behave as you do, so what woud be the point, anyway"

I know you don't read policies, but that falls under NPA, namely accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. All the issues I have raised with your tendentious behaviour I have backed up with examples, you just keep claiming I'm not worth discussing with, I agree though, our discussions do not seem to lead anyhwhere. Because whenever I try to explain Wikipedia policy to you, you ignore it in favour of your "intuition" (which in reality just seems to be WP:TENDENTIOUS pro-Russian editing habit that gets in the way of policies no matter how many times they are explained), which is why I have formally asked for a third opinion and if that doesn't work I'll just start an RfC.

What I find ironic is that you ask above for me to "cite research", but you don't care to cite or even bother to read Wikipedia policies, then again it's not the only time you contradict your own statements in this thread. TylerBurden (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

What behavior had I accused you of? Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You keep talking about my behaviour and how much it makes me impossible to discuss with, so perhaps you would like to explain that yourself? Is it that I cite policies and revert your edits when they are disruptive to the encyclopedia? If you want to continue to insinuate that there is an issue with my behavior, you should provide evidence on what the issue is. TylerBurden (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, as you note, you do revert edits, which I consider perfectly constructive (of course, or I wouldn't have made them in the first place), and in all discussions that we had, we couldn't come to any compromise without a third-party intervention, something I can't say about many other editors. Whether this constitutes some "wrong" on your (or mine) part, I leave to others to consider. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: TylerBurden, I agree with Smeagol 17 here. I don't really understand the DUE argument, considering the dispute is over the information contained in a single source. The general NPOV issues, which are a valid point, can potentially be handled by mentioning this in the lead, as it's certainly important information.

I don't consider this split to be a misrepresentation of the source, either. The ISW didn't put that sentence right after the previous one with the intent to imply that Russia's hold of Pokrovsk is tenuous, or something to that effect. The paragraph that goes into detail about this issue doesn't say anything like that, it just questions the purpose of the offensive in the first place. That seems like "analysis" to me. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 01:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, the point is not about the hold being tenous, but the Kremlin claims of major advancement being refuted. I included this information while keeping the ISW summary split. TylerBurden (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Typo

there's a typo in the alst sentence of the offensive section (ukrainan instead of ukrainian) CarPodlasia (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Sophocrat (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are there no specific pages for the Battle of Pokrovsk or Siege of Myrnohrad?

They lasted for months each ~2026-19794-12 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only the main Battle of Pokrovsk and nearby battles should be separated, but we also have news and video of combat in the Pokrovsk area (and sometimes Pokrovsk itself) is still ongoing despite it being months after the offensive ending and the city being captured (such information would fit more in an specific page for the Battle of Pokrovsk instead of one about the offensive)

This article should remain, but there should be separate articles for the different major battles involved in the offensive. Not only Myrnohrad and Pokrovsk, Selydove needs its own article too KaoKacique (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)