Jump to content

Talk:Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it is not duplicating anything. it's about Ukraine air strikes, not Kyiv city --Joshko Vano (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

83 missiles in 15 regions --Mahadoc (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted, the page is under construction. Xx236 (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --50.86.38.163 (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC) After we memory hole this article how do we delete it from the wayback machine? https://web.archive.org/web/20221010100802/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_October_2022_massive_missile_strikes_on_Ukraine50.86.38.163 (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

I would like to add the Israeli Prime minister's condemnation of the rocket attacks in the Reactions Foreign section. The condemnation is here https://twitter.com/yairlapid/status/1579504217072730113 Wakamoly (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

The infobox image has a watermark so remove it. 213.233.110.47 (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done – Recoil (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Over enthusiastic?

This article appears somewhat over enthusiastic: a massive missile attack on the entire territory of Ukraine - it looks more like a few cities; critical infrastructure - well I'm sure the Russians would love to, but they look rather less well targetted than that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably a revenge, so the title may be changed.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Contextualization

Vladimir Putin is set to have a meeting with the Russian Security Council shortly, so it might help to use his statements as context for this massive strike. His statement on the consequences on attacking Russian territory might be relevant as well. 36.65.242.246 (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

Redundant link in the introduction should be removed as it just re-directs back to this article;

As of the morning of October 10, explosions were reported in dozens of regional centers of Ukraine and in Kyiv.

"in Kyiv" originally linked to the October 2022 Kyiv missile strikes article before it was merged into this one. AverageLogic (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Map

Please add a map. -- ZomBear (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Endwise (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I propose to add to the preamble:

The Crimean Bridge explosion, combined with the recent catastrophic failures of the Russian army on the battlefield, which led to the loss of a large part of the occupied territories, partial mobilization, the exchange of Putin's godparent for 200 Azovstal defenders and a number of other failures, undermined the confidence of the Russian leadership and led to a frenzy critics of the Kremlin in the middle of the country. Therefore, in order to compensate for the weakness of the Russian army and restore respect for the Ministry of Defense, the Kremlin replaced the head of the Ministry of Defense and conducted a campaign of atrocities against the civilian population of Ukraine. However, missile strikes directed by the Russian army against civilians, not military personnel, did not have a military strategy and did not help the front line in any way[1][2][3].

  1. ^ "Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, October 9".
  2. ^ "Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, October 11".
  3. ^ "Putin Unleashed Missile Hell On Ukraine (And More Is Coming)".

91.210.248.246 (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this prose would be best added in a few more weeks, if the situation does not change. The fact is, the Ukrainian counteroffensives have also slowed down. The Izyum Blitz was a very impressive campaign, but it is not the war winning maneuver we hoped it would be. Kherson's wow factor (and actual military gains) is nowhere near as good, if you were aware of the fact that it was rumored to happen since at least July. 36.65.242.246 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Expanded scope

The fact is, there are more missile strikes occurring today (11 October 2022). It might be best if the article also discussed these strikes as well. And the strikes also aim to destroy the energy infrastructure as well, which it has achieved to some degree. Perhaps the article will be more illuminating if it had that reasoning included. 36.65.242.246 (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

the question is, if we expand the scope, how far will we expand the scope? What will be covered by it? Russia could keep on throwing more missle strikes at Ukraine until they either had enough or their stockpile runs out. This could possible take some time. At what point would it shift from a singular event - the retribution for the attack on the Kerch Bridge - to describing another facett of what this war is like?
1234567891011a (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Support. October 11th is relevant as well. Russian missiles still in high gear. Yug (talk) 🐲 13:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Typo of the word damage

In the section 2.2 heading Mleeds12 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done NytharT.C 01:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Translation template

Joshko Vano (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten.

What is the problem with the lead? It does not look bad. Maybe it's time to remove it? Joshko Vano (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge

(non-admin closure) The result was: Merge -- NytharT.C 02:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


October 2022 Kyiv missile strikes can be perfectly integrated into this article. Why keep them separate? Super Ψ Dro 16:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose legitimate fork and Kyiv was much more targeted than others, as well as the fact it is the capital so different importance. Both articles are being rapidly expanded too. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Two articles about shelling that took place at the same time. It makes no sense to separate them, just as the Russian army did not separate them, bombing the whole of Ukraine, and not separately Kyiv and not separately the rest. PLATEL (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support my first reaction was, why are there two pages about the same attack that occurred in multiple cities. not just Kyiv. makes no sense whatsoever to have two separate pages about the exact same topic. the goal of the attack was to hit critical infrastructure and cultural infrastructure in Ukraine, which it did in multiple cities, including Kyiv. hence there's no need to have 2 separate pages. one page would suffice. that page could include a "target" paragraph of the cities that were hit. kyiv being one of them. CharlesViBritannia (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Support - the Kyiv attacks were just a part of the wider attacks. It makes no sense to separate them Jebiguess (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - the Kyiv attack was just a part of this larger attack. Given that background and reaction are inseperable, it makes IMO more sense to integrate the bits about the kyiv attack specifically into the paragraph about the Kyiv attack here. 1234567891011a (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Support No real reason to fork especially since the two articles aren't even that big. Onegreatjoke (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Systems used by russia

"Russia used Kh-101, Kh-555, Kalibr and Iskander missiles, and the S-300 and Tornado missile systems."

S-300s weren't used. Why weren't they used? Because they are AA missiles that can't be used against ground targets. However, AFRF used Geran-2 loitering munitions during the attack Shhssh (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia has repurposed S-300s for ground attack. See, for example, [1]. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The reports of S-300 and Buk missiles being used might be an attempt to assuage the population's concerns that their own air-defense missiles are failing due to improper maintenance. There are photos and videos of n shaped contrails and reports of telltale preformed shrapnel pieces in places like the Samsung building in Kyiv. I doubt that the Buk could reach Kyiv in a ballistic arc from anywhere other than Belarus. 36.65.251.205 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request on October 17 2022

I noticed a minor grammar issue in the German Embassy Damage subsection. Could someone change

Germany's consulate in Kyiv was also damaged by a Russian missile, although no officials were present, and the diplomatic building had been vacated for months

to

Germany's consulate in Kyiv was also damaged by a Russian missile, although no officials were present, since the diplomatic building had been vacated for months GreenSixSided (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Shuipzv3 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of air defense effectiveness?

Most days since October 10 I've seen reports of number of drones or missles launched and numbers shot down. The current article cites numbers for October 10. I wonder if a section on this aspect, perhaps with a daily table, might be a useful addition. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

"What air defense doing?" You are right. this is a very fast moving situation and there has been much activity about air defence for Ukraine including by NAFO. I'll have a look for sources. Thanks for raising it.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Strikes on 17 and 18 October

Shall we include the attacks on 17 and 18 October (Monday and Tuesday) in this article? Here are some sources - BBC and Deutsche Welle. Shuipzv3 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Briefly under 'Second Wave' - I edited to update with today's cruise missile strikes.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Strikes 22 October

I added a sentence to the lead for now, needs expanding. and agree with the above 17, 18 October. Perhaps a section needed 'continuation' - Putin made some comment about 'we are not destroying Ukraine' In between times. Today more of the same. I'll add some refs.Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC) I made a new heading to deal with the situation in the last few days 'second wave'. Also added air defence donations/more under 'reaction'.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Missile strikes are very common in wars.

This article should be folded with the Ukraine War or Invasion main article... a missile strike is a very common occurrence in war. Rwat128 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but this is about targets, and called 'unprecedented'. Many editors are noting that all these articles may/will be reshuffled and sorted for duplication and so-on, at some future date - perhaps when the war ends. For now I would agree in general that there are too many articles. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The grammar on this page is atrocious

If you are editing English wiki, please make sure to have some competence in English. - AH (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Not everyone has the language skills to match their enthusiasm for editing. Even among the ranks of established editors. 36.65.251.205 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Two true! Everyone is welcome. But I just must add, please DO NOT USE PRESENT TENSE. I'm correcting it everywhere. Thanks Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to edit COMPETENTLY. AH's point remains solid. 50.111.8.120 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

Move the USA's response to the attack into it's own subsection. It seems to have more content than two of the other subsections (UN and EU), and the USA is a major participant in the war by providing the most funding. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

2 days in a row

The missile strikes happened two days in a row, so I was thinking the dates should be 10–11 October. Unless if this is also an ongoing situation. StreamGamer (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Refer to my previous message "Expanded Scope". There were some today (12 October), so perhaps we should wait to see what this was. 36.65.242.246 (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It was just confirmed to be an ongoing situation. So is it a good idea for the page to be reedited? StreamGamer (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Also think so. Yug (talk) 🐲 13:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
While I agree with StreamGamer, this seems to be an ongoing event and should not be limited to a single day or even two days. I believe the current title of the article, October 2022 Missile Strikes on Ukraine, more accurately address the timeframe when the missile strikes occurred. If this continues into November, perhaps we can have continued discussion if the article title should be further edited. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems that today will be another day of massed strikes. The page could really use more active editing. 36.65.242.246 (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. And I have been updating under 'second wave'- which has been deleted from the lead. Meanwhile the article name reads 10 October - it was just 'October'. I don't know if I'll continue but the theme really is nothing to do with dates imo it's to do with attacks on energy infrastructure. So maybe a rename at some point? Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead warning

There's a warning about the lead - I think it's too detailed and lacks complete 'overview'. I may start trimming while checking duplication and sources. Comments welcome. Also I think this article is British English but there's no notice. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand: I made a revamp of the lead these past few days. Is it better ? There is a bit more on the way. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Yug: Thanks - good work but I've cleaned up a little. Please note that people reading any encyclopedia will not expect to find events 'happening now' - they could be reading in the year 2525! Please everyone: NO PRESENT TENSE!!! (it's not a blog) - on the other hand of course, all contributions are welcomed and English doesn't have to be precise. Some entries have been far from neutral - have a look here for guidelines Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@Thelisteninghand: thank you for those improvement ! It's getting better.
I renamed the article as well, to align the title with the content.
We have several (2) cited sources stating that targeting is assisted by power grid experts in terms bolder than my wording. It seems relevant, Russia knows exactly what they are doing, and this on civilian infrastructures. I can't add it myself without explicite sources making the link, but intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure is a clean war crime. So I encourage keeping this sourced statement. Yug (talk) 🐲 15:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
OK Sorry, but the sentence is not clear and it can't be understood clearly. 'likely' not a good term - and who are the 'advisors' - it's confusing. Russian advisors I guess. Needs to be absolutely neutral and clear and directly related to the source. Hope that helps. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@Thelisteninghand: hello, it reach a subtle language level for which as a non native speaker I'm not the best person. I will edit again but it may need help of a native for fine tuning. Yug (talk) 🐲
@Yug: It looks great now! Thanks and keep going!Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The lede contains: 

President Vladimir Putin claimed them to be retaliation measures following the 8 October 2022 attack on the Crimean Bridge.

I recall reading an article stating that preparation for the missile strikes began before the strikes on the bridge. If so, clarification in the lede would be appropriate. If such claims have not been born out by evidence, then this might be worth mentioning as well (but not in the lede).

Has anyone else seen this?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@CRGreathouse: We said that! Thanks for your concern. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

'Civilian attack' infobox

I'm not sure it's an appropriate infobox. If you look at similar articles like the London Blitz or the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the 'military conflict infobox' is used instead so there's a bit of incongruency there. Reflecktor (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope, none at all - both Japanese cities were also military bases. 50.111.8.120 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd imagine that the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians would beg to differ. Reflecktor (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

So only the bases were bombed, right. Right ? Yug (talk) 🐲 08:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether they were or were not is not relevant to the point being made. Reflecktor (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Moldova and 'third wave'

Thanks for the addition about the missile that fell 31/10. There's "violation of Moldovan airspace' section above - think maybe merge and re-title? Also I don't know if this warrants 'third wave' it's only days after list in 'second wave'. Any opinions? Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also incident in Moldova - blackout during the 4th wave of strikes on Ukraine [2] Imbirius (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
That may go to 2022 Moldovan energy crisis. Super Ψ Dro 18:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Rivne

Rivne was also hit in the first wave of strikes, so i suggest adding it to the "other regions" section.

(source:[1])

SnoopyBird (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) SnoopyBird (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Голови ОВА повідомили про збиття ракет і безпілотника на Черкащині і Рівненщині". Радіо Свобода (in Ukrainian). Retrieved 2022-10-28.

Russian "Retaliation" - lost

The first set of strikes were said by Russia to be for the Crimean Bridge - that has been removed from the lead here by an editor. It's cited elsewhere, not disputed. On the same theme -the 4th/5th wave follow the liberation of Kherson and I am certain that has been associated in the press. Needs a mention imo. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clear to us this is a larger pre-winter strategy. But naturally, Russia will claim it's retaliative against this, that and those. But we dont have source citing this theatrical play so it's hard to include. Yug (talk) 🐲 16:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@Yug:Yes, I know what you're saying but it's actually cited in the article lower down with a pic - I think mention should be in the lead as it was.

I added the European Parliament resolution under 'reaction' - now duplicated under 'sixth wave' - I prefer my entry with the bold heading - makes it listed in contents. And yes to comment below - too many waves - do you want to go ahead and merge? Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The main category forgotten

Category: Russian war crimes in Ukraine not added yet. Bodia1406 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about strikes on infrastructure. It details those events whatever they are considered to be. We haven't 'forgotten' anything. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Too many waves?

 Done, merged Nov. 15-17th together. Yug (talk) 🐲 10:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

17 and 15 Nov should be together as 4th wave I think. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand: Agree. The dominant pattern so far is monday 8:00 bombing starts. Then linger a bit in that day and following ones (Tuesday-Wednesday). Late week is calm. This is likely due to logistic and intelligence gathering constrains. 15-17th can be grouped in my opinion. Yug (talk) 🐲 19:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Have now regrouped as 4th wave, and deleted duplication. Somewhere I read that Russia is actually currently building at least some of the missiles they are firing which is why the pauses happen. Components dated 2022. Instagram. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thelisteninghand: Fixed. Yug (talk) 🐲 10:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. That's good imo.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Shelling?

The lead para mentions "waves of drone and missile strikes", but the caption of the photo in the infobox mentions "shelling". Do we add that to the phrase in the lead or should we seek a more specific photo of a drone/missile strike outcome? Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that despite the filename of the picture in the infobox including the term 'Kyiv after Russian shelling', it appears in the wikimedia 'Category:Rocket strikes on Kyiv, 10 October 2022' - I will therefore adjust the caption to reflect the distinction I expected to exist between 'shelling' and 'Rocket strikes'. Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2022 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure. Consensus arrived at 2022 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

October–November 2022 nationwide missile strikes on Ukraine → October–November 2022 Russian bombing campaign on Ukrainian infrastructure – This was a strategic, planned, mass bombing campaign of civilian and energy infrastructure with the objective of terrorizing the population of Ukraine and leaving Ukraine without power to break their resolve. They were not the usual aimless and irregular in time Russian attacks. The title should reflect that. Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought "bombing campaign" would be a precise way of referring to the organised mass of strikes. I did think as well that these bombings could extend into November but the solution to that could be adding "October–November 2022" to the title. Removing the month from the title may make it difficult for readers to find this article or find out what does it cover. After all, in general Russia has bombed Ukraine very intensively since the very start of the war, including its infrastructure (see for example 2022 bombing of Kryvyi Rih, russia bombed a dam in September). Removing the month in my opinion makes the title too vague. But I am not opposed to the rest of your suggestion. October 2022 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure is not that long. Super Ψ Dro 21:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, you were right. russia did it again on November after the G20 meeting. Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose i think the current title is ok as what it is. all mass bombing campaigns are strategic in some way, so changing the title just because "They were not the usual aimless and irregular in time Russian attacks" is a bit unnecessary. Durranistan (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The proposed title aims to point out that the strikes were not random but an organised mass event. The current title is more vague and just indicates that there were missile strikes all over Ukraine in October. Super Ψ Dro 14:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This page does not seem to be being updated anymore - re massive strikes today. The title could be slightly simpler '2022 Russian campaign against Ukrainian infrastructure. I think 'against' is better than 'on' in either case. But the emphasis on this as a campaign is undeniable, as today's events show. I wonder if there's a duplicate somewhere. I'm no longer contributing. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
There was a duplicate for the November strikes, but I merged it. I support your "against" proposal, but as I've argued above I don't think removing the months is a good idea. Before October, they were isolated separate events. Super Ψ Dro 14:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sources generally note that these attacks are against energy infrastructure. Example [3] In recent weeks, Russia has looked to target key Ukrainian energy infrastructure, following a series of battlefield setbacks. It does not call it "strategic bombing", so neither should we. Furthermore, "strategic bombing" is a bit misleading as these have been drone and missile strikes. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
But the proposed title mentions infrastructure and does not include "strategic campaign". The attacks also targeted random civilian infrastructure ([4] "In bombing Ukraine’s critical civilian infrastructure, including energy facilities", [5] see title), we don't have to include both "civilian" and "energy" or the title will become unnecessarily long. It is also undeniable this is a bombing campaign, and by saying so we point out the organized element of this operation. Super Ψ Dro 16:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I will say many targets were civilian occupied buildings (houses, apartments, etc) as well, so saying it's a bombing campaign against specifically against energy infrastructure doesn't reflect the true situation.
I do heavily agree with refraining from calling it "strategic". 174.92.103.19 (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure. "Strategic" hasn't been proposed to be included into the title. Super Ψ Dro 17:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, we are trying to title something really exceptional and that is why the ideas/title keep changing. This campaign may go on and on, and we should refrain really from constant title changes. Glad to see the November merge happened - but if this goes into December then what? Points about English: A campaign is 'against' something not 'on' something - can we get consensus on that? Calling it 'bombing' - doesn't quite sound right to me, because that is usually taken to mean aircraft, bombers, flying overhead dropping bombs. These are largely cruise missiles and drones I believe - we refer to that as 'missile strikes'. We might use the term 'targeted strikes against..'. Thanks.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe consensus has formed for "against" above. I agreed to it and no other users opposed it. And I do like your idea as well. The definitive title could be October–November 2022 Russian targeted strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure. Maybe "Russian" can be dropped, per articles like 2022 bombing of Odesa (not 2022 Russian bombing of Odesa). but if this goes into December then what? then we move it to "October–December 2022". Though this may indeed become some kind of general Russian strategy for the rest of the war, in that case we might remove the months, but we do not know whether this will happen so for now I think it's best to keep the months and change the title if there's need to. Super Ψ Dro 21:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Mzajac and Thelisteninghand, would you maintain your support for October–November 2022 targeted strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure? Durranistan and Adoring nanny, does this proposal look more adequate to you? Super Ψ Dro 21:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes that's good - except using a hyphen makes it look as if it ends in November. October/November? Then it's done I think.
I'm tweaking the lead here and there. There's a problem using present tense. duh.. I said I was finished! Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay. —Michael Z. 22:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Not opposed to including "Russian", though without it the title remains unambiguous still. They would hardly fire missiles randomly into the sky and hope they hit something. that's precisely what they had been doing prior to this. russia had been randomly bombing Ukrainian cities and hoping it would kill as many people as possible for terrorising the Ukrainian population [6]. It's how we've gotten such a huge list of articles of russian war crimes, going from schools (Bilohorivka school bombing) to malls (Kremenchuk shopping mall attack) to random residential buildings (Chasiv Yar missile strike, though there's far more examples) to literally no exact targets (3 March 2022 Chernihiv bombing). It indeed is a new thing in this war that russians have decided not to randomly throw things into Ukrainian cities to see what do they hit. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This changes the scope of this article however, as it would now require to include earlier strikes into Ukrainian infrastructue, such as the strike at the Kryvyi Rih dam. These strikes represent individual isolated single events, unlike the October-November strikes which are a wave of missiles part of an organised strategy by the Russian command, which was not being applied earlier. These events are different by virtue of their planning. Super Ψ Dro 14:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Um, sorry Yug, but I don't understand why you have moved a page currently under a RM discussion into a grammatically wrong title nobody even suggested in said discussion. May I ask you to revert back? Super Ψ Dro 14:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Super Dromaeosaurus, as per above explanation (5P5) while facing title predictably outdated before concensus reached anyway and observably imprecise, then let's move on asap rather than later. Revert is unnecessary backsliding. Grammar error can surely be fixed since you noticed it. Let the incremental wiki improvements go forward. Yug (talk) 🐲 09:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Yug: sadly I've just updated with today's strikes. We need to change the title as a matter of good sense. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The dominant proposal in the vote above is 2022 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure, let's close this vote on this name and move on. Yug (talk) 🐲 18:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background

Original text: « Following successful September 2022 Ukrainian eastern counteroffensive in Karkiv region, poor prospect in Kherson, North of the Dnieper river, and the September 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, Russia have been calling for negotiation in order to secure its annexed territories. Zelenski vowed to reject such negotiations. »

I just deleted a paragraph I could not understand. No citations. The rest of this section doesn't read that well. I think it should also include a brief summary about the earlier infrastructure targets. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Thelisteninghand. I authored that section but I'm not a native English speakers so it doesn't help. Feel free to edit and improve this text. The point is to first cite recent offensives won by Ukraine and the Russian referendum, those don't need citation as there are full wikipedia articles available. Then, there is the September Russian call to negotiate in order to secure its gains, and this needs reference. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Yug. It was mainly "poor prospect in Kherson" - not true anymore!! And I couldn't see what "north of Dnieper river" was referencing - still not sure. I agree that the background section should mention the 'annexations' but what was written was not clear how it relates to these missile strikes. The successful Kherson counteroffensive was said to be the cause of at least one wave of strikes, the Kharkiv counteroffensive wasn't particularly relevant as I understand it. I'll do a little re-wording and see what can be said, it shouldn't have a lot of detail, main point I think is to say that there were previous strikes on infrastructure before these 'massive' waves. No worries about English - I'm happy in this situation to tidy up. (others grumble I note) Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please fix

I was going to add a Wikilink to the "See also" section, but I was prevented from doing so because this page is apparently blocked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

User:173.88.246.138, what change should be done ? Yug (talk) 🐲 11:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead - 'warning' or 'warming' ?

 Done

A new paragraph inserted with French citations. I just did a tidy up of English but 'warming system' was wikilinked to Warning system. Impossible to tell whether this was about the cold or missiles. I guessed. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh gosh, i am sorry XD Yug (talk) 🐲 15:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Thelisteninghand: fixed. Yug (talk) 🐲 18:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
So I was wrong! Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Rule of war reference

This discussion is out of scope.

The section come across as biased:

"Contrary to the rule of war, most targets were civilian areas and critical energy"

The USA took out Iraq's energy infrastructure during the Gulf war and NATO targeted Serbia's in the 90's.

You take out a countries energy it clearly impacts it's ability to wage war and according to NATO members actions are legitimate military targets.

You can't claim your enemy is committing a war crime whilst also doing the exact same thing yourself lol 82.15.30.20 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello User:82.15.30.20, I added that statement, which is true. See War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Energy infrastructure.
USA also commited warcrimes in Iraq and else. You can go to those articles to discuss, add, source, document those crimes.
That's how Wikipedia and freedom of speech works : all evils can (and must) be exposed. Up do us to do a part. Yug (talk) 🐲 08:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Consistency of reporting is important.
If for some "unknown" reason, we don't have article with the similar altitude and language, which is describing what happened in Iraq and Yugoslavia, despite that it happened over 20 years ago, it says a lot about current credibility of wiki and it's bias.
Otherwise, all claims about freedom of speech is BS. 141.136.76.160 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
You are free to say that. Please also note the 'see also' section at the foot of the article, where WP does a reasonable job of balance on the whole question. But please also understand the WP is not a 'soapbox' it's an encyclopedia. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources for how many waves

The Kyiv Independent calls it the “seventh large-scale attack targeting energy infrastructure in Ukraine,” saying “Russia has repeatedly attacked Ukraine's energy infrastructure since Oct. 10.”[7]

The Ukrainian defence ministry calls this the “ninth massive terrorist missile attack on Ukraine”[8] New York Times concurs: “ninth large-scale wave of missiles to be aimed at Ukrainian infrastructure this fall.”[9]

Why do we call it the eighth? —Michael Z. 16:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Thank you, that's a valid point. Editors have been documenting the events with some discussion here - see above. Now we have hindsight, and if we wish to fall in line with official wave nomenclature, I could agree to nine waves. We have grouped two potentially separate waves together - the 15th and 17th November. Please feel free to edit, I can't see any objection. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I have noticed other news sources referring to this as the ninth too. I’ll make the edits now, but we should confirm with sources that our waves correspond to the nine mentioned in sources. —Michael Z. 23:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like we've foregone the wave headings! A huge improvement - the article was getting really unwieldy. Great tidy up! Thanks sent. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking it may be helpful to add a table with a summary of the waves, with dates, targeted cities, and number of drones and missiles launched and intercepted for each one.  —Michael Z. 19:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Table of missile waves

Here’s the start of a table of massive missile waves, based only on the article text. Worth checking whether numbers really refer to only missiles or missiles & drones combined. It should probably be filled out with more sourced data before inserting it in the article.

And should be noted that there were also attacks before and between these massive waves. —Michael Z. 20:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Major Russian drone and missile attacks
Wave Date Missiles Missiles intercepted Drones Drones intercepted Regions hit Killed Wounded
1 10–12 Oct 83+ 43 17 14
2 21–22 Oct 33 18
3 31 Oct
4 15 Nov ~100/96 70/77 10 17+
5 17 Nov
6 23 Nov 70 51
7 5 Dec 70+ 60
8 10 Dec 7
9 16 Dec 76 60
– 19 Dec[1] – – 35 20 3 – 3

 —Michael Z. 20:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a useful graphic but only if it is complete. Personally I'd say it doesn't add a great deal and runs the risk of being criticised for information it is not including (deaths, injuries etc.) But yeah, a complete schematic summary is helpful. I don't have time to add to it. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I put it here because I hope we can at least fill the empty cells before adding to the article. As it is, it’s a visual summary of the article information, and even helps us identify gaps in what’s there. Additional columns can be added now or later.  —Michael Z. 16:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead improvement

The lead has room for improvement. The last section with citations seems too detailed. I checked the Russian version, and their lead is pretty clean, a good comparison point. Let's move this way a bit. Yug (talk) 🐲 18:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit wordy but the lead warning template has been removed during the recent cleanup by @Mzajac: and others. I checked the French wiki and there's a separate section for denouncements and condemnation there. I wouldn't want to lose any of the information in that last para. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Thelisteninghand, I didn’t mean to remove any template, and I can’t actually find it in the history. Please restore, because I don’t know which template that is. —Michael Z. 17:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Mzajac: For clarity, I'm not blaming you for anything! The 'lead warning' template disappeared during a tidy up a few days ago - I don't know who took it down, may have been a bot. I'm just noting that it seems that the lead is acceptable now, not that it cannot be improved still. I wonder if you wanted to comment. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Triggerhippie4: A question about the lead above. Should it be condensed or otherwise changed? Your help appreciated. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
It's me who removed the notice, because the lead has changed completely since it was placed. And, in my opinion, the current lead is good as it is. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Understood. No offence was taken anyway. The lead could definitely be made shorter, but there’s a lot of important info to retain, and it’s a job I can’t take on at the moment. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 17:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: December 29 attack


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Now that more details are available, we can safely expand the subsection to provide more information about the attack.
  • Why it should be changed: We now have information about the amount of rockets and drones involved in the attack. The previous information about 100+ rockets involved in the attack was attributed to an Office of the President of Ukraine official and was not credible.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

1) [2]; [3] -- news articles referencing the attack, number of missiles and launch locations, as well as number of civilian casualties; 2) [4] - Kyiv Regional Military administration Telegram post detailing one of the rockets damaging a house in Darnyts'kyi district; 3) [5] - Mayor Klychko confirming at least 3 wounded civilians in the attack.

  • Proposed edit:

In early morning hours of December 29, Russia has launched a new wave of cruise missiles towards Ukrainian territories. 54 out of 69 missiles were intercepted, including 16 over Kyiv and 21 over Odesa. [6] [7] According to the Air Force Command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as well as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, missiles used in the attack included the Kh-101, Kh-555 and Kalibr cruise missiles. [8]

At least 3 civilians, as well as a civilian house in Darnyts'kyi district, had been wounded in Kyiv. [9] [10]

-- akmLaVx (t/c) 12:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 On hold this is not a clear X to Y. Could you use the format of X to Y? Lemonaka (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/18/world/europe/kyiv-ukraine-drone-attacks.html
  2. ^ Terajima, Asami (2022-12-29). "Update: Ukraine downs 54 out of 69 missiles amid Russia's 8th mass attack". The Kyiv Independent. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  3. ^ "Ukraine's Air Forces specify what weapons and areas Russia used to attack on 29 December". Ukrainska Pravda. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  4. ^ "КМВА (Київська міська військова адміністрація)". Telegram. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  5. ^ "Віталій Кличко". Telegram. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  6. ^ Terajima, Asami (2022-12-29). "Update: Ukraine downs 54 out of 69 missiles amid Russia's 8th mass attack". The Kyiv Independent. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  7. ^ "Ukraine's Air Forces specify what weapons and areas Russia used to attack on 29 December". Ukrainska Pravda. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  8. ^ Zaluzhnyi, Valerii (2022-12-29). "Update on December 29 rocket attack on Ukraine". Facebook. Retrieved 2022-12-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ^ "Віталій Кличко". Telegram. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
  10. ^ "КМВА (Київська міська військова адміністрація)". Telegram. Retrieved 2022-12-29.
Thank you Aklavx, your text was well sourced and spot on. Yug (talk) 🐲 13:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 Done Lemonaka (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
When adding info to this article please consider whether it falls under the heading of strikes against infrastructure. If the article were to include all attacks it would become very long and unfocused. Whilst absolutely awful, I'm not certain that the attack on Kherson should be here. Just a thought, cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Remedies" potential new section

I've been updating on the floating powerships Turkey is seeking to provide. There have been donations of generators and other general humanitarian aid - but help specifically in terms of providing energy assistance probably belongs in this article. I'll have a look for sources. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Qualitatively, Ukraine is adding dozens and likely hundreds large generators, as well as importing thousands smaller ones. It's described frequently by testimonies and anecdotes. It's replacing the traditional, centralized (for economy of scale) powerful power grid by a more resilient, decentralized one. For that conclusion i have no clear source yet. But it's what they do. Yug (talk) 🐲 10:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yug: I've been searching. Sources seem to be only trade press releases. There's a 'Ukraine Energy Support Fund' but I can't see who set it up.https://erranet.org/press-release-erra-provides-financial-support-for-ukraines-energy-sector/ UK have put in £10m but the only cite I can find is to the government website. Astonishing really.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2022

Under the "Spillover" section for Belarus, change the following paragraph:

Following the December 29th 2022 wave of missile, one missile crashed in Belarusian territories. The missile is believed to be an Ukrainian sol-air missile which failed to intercept its Russian target and eventually crashed in Belarus. (Has no citation)

To

On December 29th, 2022, it was reported that a Ukrainian S-300 air defense missile was shot down by Belorussian authorities after it strayed into Belarus. Both side have acknowledged that this incident was an accident.

While referencing this source:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-air-defence-missile-lands-belarus-belta-2022-12-29/ Hypoxine (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 On hold Seemingly reliable but I can't make sure whether this change is an improvement, waiting for editors who are familiar with this topic. Lemonaka (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 Done. With some slight alterations for protocols, language etc. And thanks very much for pointing this out.Thelisteninghand (talk)
No problem :) Hypoxine (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Protection status

I dont remember this article having ever been willfully vandalized and the topic is lowly maintained now. Past waves barely gathered 6 lines. Could we unprotect the page to let every interested party to contribute ? Yug (talk) 🐲 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree here. Hypoxine (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@User:Yug Hi, sorry, but this article is protected for arbcom enforcement, FYI wp:ARBEE. This may not unprotect until arbcom make a decision. Lemonaka (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
If it is unprotected the whole world comes in. Protection is an admin thing. Yug, I've been busy elsewhere and that's one editor not here for the last two weeks! Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

2023

Any further contributions after today will need a title change yet again. Suggest "2022-23 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure". Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Lemonaka (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

2022 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure → 2022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure – It is now 2023 in Ukraine. Airstrikes still maintain. Lemonaka (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand, @Hypoxine, @Yug, request for move as your request. Lemonaka (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1-2 Jan confusion

The line recently added states that all 80 drones were shot down while citing press that says the number is 39. Three people are reported killed in the line above so this is a very confusing statement for the reader. I've adjusted the 'shot down' number but this is now an incomplete statement. Please make your edits absolutely clear. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There were several waves within 2 days, one early wave involved 20 drones, one other 39 drones. The total for Jan. 1-2 have been claimed by UKR gov as "80 drones, all downed". The sources are there. But if we mix the chronology it seems absurd, yes. (I'm entering a wikipause, I can drop sources but can't write/monitor/get into the editing process much, my apologize) -- Yug 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Yug. You have two citations and I cannot see where it says that all 80 were shot down - although probable - that's why I removed it. I will have a search to see if I can find supporting cites. Cheers.Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC) DoneThelisteninghand (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Citations for Dnipro event 14 Jan

There's two cites to the same Pravda news item. (111, 111) In general it's possible have too many citations on wikipedia and five might be over the limit for one sentence. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

English

Please note when contributing that this article is written in British English. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Defence not defense, please. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-written 26 jan

@Pranesh Ravikumar: Hi - you've deleted quite a lot of other editor's contributions here, perhaps an oversight? Can you please fix it and make the passage read a bit better - 'stated' is repeated too often. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Right now editing accordingly, in case if you find too much repeating words you could rewrite from your end. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pranesh Ravikumar: Please revert your deletions. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Which edit are you talking about? Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikifying - please pause

Hello all. If a word is Wikified - linked to its Wikipedia page - it only needs to happen once. There is a big tidy up to be done deleting [[..]] where it occurs repeatedly throughout the text. Please check before you, for example, write Kyiv, that it isn't already Wikified in earlier text. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The title

Okay, @Super Dromaeosaurus, you’re right my chosen title was not the best.[10] In response to your edit summary, the theatre and certainly a railway station are infrastructure too.

I have a problem with the current title, because the waves of strikes are not just against infrastructure but have targeted apartment buildings while people sleep and busy streets while people commute. The current title implies the objective is inanimate objects and not the morale of the civilian population.

Infrastructure is not a defining element of the subject of this article, and the title can be improved. What’s defining is:

  • Mass coordinated strikes
  • Mainly by long-range missiles and drones
  • Targeting non-military, civilian targets
  • Results include killing and wounding civilians including infrastructure workers, outages in civilian power, heat, and water supply, and repeated risk of a nuclear power plant disaster.

Perhaps a suitable title might be one of:

 —Michael Z. 18:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, those are infrastructure strikes too, but they're individual, not part of a mass wave which is at the same time part of a wider strategy. I would add to your list that the attacks are performed through the air, so titles with "airstrikes" are suitable too. Of those you've suggested I think 2022–2023 Russian missile and drone campaign is the best option. "Campaign" appropriately establishes unity between all mass strikes that have taken place since October, as notable events prior had been individual strikes and therefore not part of a larger strategy/campaign. Such a differentiation is necessary considering the title is going to include "2022–2023". However, I think it'd be ideal if it included Ukraine in the title, and some kind of adjective like "bombing" is maybe needed for "campaign". I do not agree with titles only referring to civilians as Russia has also targeted actual infrastructure. As for the title using "waves", I think that's a quite informal word with better replacements available.
Personally, I suggest 2022–2023 Russian campaign against Ukrainian civilian and energetic infrastructure. Though that's quite long. Not sure if houses and apartments are defined as "civilian infrastructure", I think it's appropriate. We can also go with 2022–2023 Russian campaign against Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure. Probably one of the shortest proposals I will be able to come up with. "Campaign" could be replaced with "mass (air)strikes" so that it is not needed to specify it is a "bombing campaign". Campaign in military discussion can mean other things after all.
Honestly, there is not an easy, obvious option. Super Ψ Dro 19:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi. No this is not an easy one. I hope you're both aware of the protracted discussions that already took place about the title. You'll have to go to archived talk from November/December. Some of the words you mention were previously discussed. We wanted to emphasise 'infrastructure' here because there are other pages dealing with attacks in certain cities, counteroffensives and battles etc. I hear your argument about civilians being killed but I don't think that means it must be in the title. Isn't it implicit that if 'infrastructure' is bombed people will die and be injured. The word infrastructure can also include housing. It is difficult to use 'civilian' or 'non-military infrastructure' also as it is mixed - the army uses electricity. My problem with the title is the fact that it starts with the year - a reader using search gets no results unless they know that. It took a while to arrive at what we've got now. Not perfect.. CheersThelisteninghand (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
From the start of the invasion in February 2022, Russia has launched many, many attacks on both civilian and military targets with missiles, drones, airstrikes, and artillery. The article Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine covers all Russian attacks on civilians thruout the invasion, while the article Aerial warfare in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine mainly covers the missile and airstrikes on military targets. So renaming this article "Russian strikes on Ukraine" or "strikes on Ukrainian civilians" is too vague. We already have articles about that.
This article focuses (or should focus) on the waves of missile strikes targeting civilian energy infrastructure that began in October. Other civilian buildings have been hit in these waves too, but their main targets have been infrastructure, with the goal of freezing Ukrainians into submission. Strikes on other civilian buildings are covered at this article here.
Therfore I suggest the following:
I don't think we need to include the years, because (AFAIK) there were no Russian missile strikes on Ukraine before this invasion. – Asarlaí (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
An oversight I think, Ukraine had plenty of missile strikes since 2014. I am not supporting any of the proposed new titles. And just to add I believe this page had the objective of specifically dealing with the energy infrastructure and is why I authored the entire section on remedial action. It's not just about the attacks, it's about the problems caused as a result and Russia "using winter as a weapon". Maybe a new title could encapsulate that somehow. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
During the Donbas War there were Grad rocket attacks and aircraft shootdowns by the separatists, but (AFAIK) not missile strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure by Russia itself. – Asarlaí (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Some blanket responses:
The term air strikes always sounds like it means strikes from the air to me, from aviation or perhaps from a drone. I don’t know if this is technically correct, but I don’t think of a ground-launched missile or loitering munition (suicide drone) as an air strike. But to me just strikes includes air strikes, artillery strikes, drone strikes, and everything in between.
Saying just infrastructure misses the main point. Apartments are infrastructure with people in them, so hitting apartments is targeting, wounding, and killing people. Saying just infrastructure makes me think of power lines or bridges, implies that people aren’t being targeted, and can be inferred to mean that people are being avoided which is not in evidence.
I do not believe this page had the objective of specifically, exclusively dealing with energy infrastructure. There is no evidence that the waves of strikes is chiefly hitting energy infrastructure and not civilians, or that it is trying to avoid killing civilians. In fact many strikes have hit apartments while people sleep and transportation during rush hour, comprising evidence to the contrary.
“The army uses electricity” is irrelevant and its implication is wrong. All military elements are self-sufficient, typically with diesel or gas generators, and don’t require the grid. This campaign is exclusively meant to affect non-military targets.
Just a reminder, targeting civilian targets is a war crime. The subject of this article is 100% war crime, may also constitute crime against humanity, two categories of atrocity crime. Elements of Russia’s campaign of strikes, including “indiscriminate bombardment of residential areas,” “destruction of vital infrastructure,” and “attacks on health care,” have also been cited among evidence of “the existence of a serious risk of genocide in Ukraine.”[11]  —Michael Z. 16:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I only can imagine adding "civilian and energical" before infrastructure to the current title to address your concerns. Or in another way through a shorter proposal. I think the fact that critical energy infrastructure has been targeted should be stressed as much as civilian infrastructure. While morally speaking the latter is more terrible and it is worthy of mention, it is the former that has given Ukraine the biggest problems and costs. Super Ψ Dro 19:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I don’t see a point in trying to assess the relative significance of killing babies, causing countrywide blackouts, and risking nuclear meltdown. My argument is more semantic: “attacks against infrastructure” inadequately sums up all of the above.  —Michael Z. 19:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The fact that it seems hard to encapsulate what Russia is trying to do with this campaign into a short title makes me wonder if Russians themselves even have any concrete objective or are just bombing Ukrainian cities for the sake of terrorizing and killing the Ukrainian population. Just a commentary I wanted to add. Super Ψ Dro 19:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
    See ISW yesterday, three paragraphs starting with “Russian forces conducted the largest missile strike across Ukraine of 2023 so far on March 9, but the attack likely only served Russian state propaganda objectives.”[12] I believe that was the initial objective going into winter. Now it’s more momentum, wishful thinking, and propaganda.  —Michael Z. 09:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm grateful for all of this. I am just thinking that in the lead we have the brief outline of Russia's 'military doctrine' that is behind these specific attacks, SODCIT, and its intended effect. That's the subject of this page in military jargon. That could inform us partly perhaps. 'Critically Important Targets' ? We must bear in mind the other WP articles "Attacks on civilians.." and that while this campaign does cause direct civilian casualties, the greater effect could be argued to be the awful conditions and fear of freezing to death for many millions of Ukrainian civilians. That's the concern I would like to see emphasised. "winter as a weapon". Perhaps 'Campaign' should be part of the title, but please can we avoid 'energical'. We don't have any section on deaths and injury caused by the cold, although there's stuff elsewhere in the body. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Calendar winter is now over in Ukraine. March temperature in Kyiv is warmer than in the previous month and no longer below freezing (see Kyiv#Climate). But these attacks continue.  —Michael Z. 07:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe there is a need for deaths caused by the cold for the energical part to be notable enough to be part of the title. Attacks on energical facilities have cost Ukraine quite a lot of money. Super Ψ Dro 09:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Please! 'Energical' is completly the wrong word, it means - "vigorous, energetic, strenuous, lusty, nervous, having or showing great vitality and force". Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't trust Ukraine's claims of shot-down missiles.

They are most definitely propaganda. You cannot just take them at face value. You write that 71 were fired and, according to Ukrainian authorities, 61 were shot down. That is simply impossible because the number of cities struck that day is already over 10! And they were reported to have been struck multiple times. These are the towns reported as struck: Kiev, Khmelnitsky, Burshtynksa Tes, Vinnytsia, Odessa, Krivoy Rog, Zaporozhiya, Dnepropetrovsk, Kramatorsk, Kharkiv, Kremenchuk and Mykolaiv. And as I said, these cities were struck multiple times. Could you at least write this? Andrea e luca (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Where are the sources to compare? Obviously, the Russians could also have struck Ukrainian cities with drones, artillery, multiple rocket launchers, and air strikes, as they do on a daily basis. I presume missiles includes cruise, ballistic, and antiaircraft, but I would confirm before drawing any conclusions from the numbers.  —Michael Z. 16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
None of the cities mentioned are within artillery range, (only kharkiv might be, which is at around 37kms from the border with russia). And the only cities within rocket launchers are Kharkiv and Kramatorsk. Furthermore, no air strikes were reported. Thus it leaves me in disbelief that you trust such a source. Here are sources for some of the strikes that happened. And they were more than what I am reporting right now or reported earlier.
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69081 multiple explosions reported in Krivoy Rog, 8:38 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69082 at least one missile explosion reported in Mykolaiv, 8:42 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69090 several targets reported as struck across western, eastern and southern Ukraine, 8:59 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69095 multiple strikes reported in Kharkiv by the mayor of the city, 9:17 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69102 explosions reported in Ivano Frankivsk, 9:36 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69104 explosions reported in Khmelnitsky, 9:40 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69105 explosions reported in Vinnitsa, 9:42 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69106 mayor of Khmelnitsky confirms explosion, 9:45 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69107 mayor of Zaporozhye confirms two explosions in the city, 9:47 CET
https://t.me/truexanewsua/69114 more explosions reported in Kharkiv, 10:03 CET
These are just a few examples, must I publish all? I do not understand what the purpose of this is, this is all easily reliable information. I beliebe it is simply silly to take the claim of one of the participants in the war and take it as truth. It is obvious they did not shoot down 61 missiles out of 71, that's almost 90% of the missiles (they didn't even publish any evidence!). That's not only unlikely, but proposterous! If you do believe it, that's cool, but you cannot say it like this in an online aricle that is supposed to be unbiased. It would be like saying "Russia says they have destroyed 16 HIMAARS" without saying they have no evidence of it. Andrea e luca (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The cited source says “The figures included an earlier wave of 35 S-300 rockets fired on Thursday night. These landed in and around the cities of Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia.” Have you accounted for that?  —Michael Z. 17:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It says these landed. And both russian and ukrainian sources reported strikes on the two cities which were succesfull that night. I do not understand what you are trying to say. The argument is rather indifensible. furthermore S-300s are not cruise missiles. And you write that 61 CRUISE MISSILES were shot down. Andrea e luca (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can guess, a missile shot down typically lands immediately after that. I don’t know about these specifically.
I guess we can change it to “cruise and air-defence missiles,” or “cruise missiles and air-defence missiles used in the role of cruise missiles,” or just “missiles.”
I’m not trying to say anything. I’m asking if you accounted for all of the missile launches in your supposed debunking of the numbers.
I literally wrote “cruise, ballistic, and antiaircraft,” above. I don’t know what you’re responding to with “61 CRUISE MISSILES,” but there appears to be disconnect in our discussion. I may not continue responding if you don’t present a concise and clear argument as to what concrete improvement can be made to the article.  —Michael Z. 17:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The article says 61 cruise missiles, does it not? My argument is that the article's content in that instance should be modified into something like "Ukraine claims of having shot down 61 out of 71 missiles fired by Russian forces, but they have so far not shown any evidence of it." Quoting the Ukrainian government in this instance equals quoting an unreliable and unsourced claim made by a participant in the conflict. Is this claim backed by any form of evidence, or is it just propaganda that is being spread also by this article, which does not put the claim into doubt? Forgive the eventual errors in my English, which might make the argument less clear, but it is not my native language. Andrea e luca (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The one article says “the figures included an earlier wave of 35 S-300 rockets,” does it not?[13] Are you abandoning the argument that the numbers don’t add up, if we don’t ignore that?
When you wrote “they are most definitely propaganda” you ignored that we are presenting facts from Reuters, the Guardian, and other reliable sources, not directly referring to their primary sources. They are not propaganda.
The sources do not use expressions of doubt, like WP:CLAIM, or “without evidence.” To add that is to adopt a non-neutral WP:POV.
I am not in agreement with your suggestion.  —Michael Z. 18:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that the wikipedia article says 61 cruise missiles. that is what I was referring to. Also I am not abandoning that argument, as even on thursday night succesful strikes were reported. As such, it would mean that Friday's strikes and Thursday's strikes would add up only to 10, which makes it even harder to believe.
The source they are referring to is propagandist.
That would not be a non-neutral POV, but simply a factual addition. Is it not true the Ukrainian government claims such, without handing out evidence? If western media takes what the Ukrainian government says as factual because of their media bias, that shoudln't mean wikipedia should also act as biasedly. Is it false the ukrainian government presents zero evidence to back their claim? Andrea e luca (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I adjusted the text.[14]
I won’t take the other claims seriously because a majority of sources don’t support them.  —Michael Z. 19:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
What claims precisely? Taht the urkainians provide no evidence? That is simply factual. I guess it isn't weird how an "hero of Ukraine" such as you won't be willing to add such factual information.... Andrea e luca (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@User:Andrea e Luca You won’t get consensus by making personal remarks about other editors. Notice that I’m the only editor here that chose to take the time to listen and respond to your request. Please review the WP:Civility policy.  —Michael Z. 19:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
You have not answered me yet. What claims precisely? Have the ukrainians provided any form of evidence for all of this? Andrea e luca (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
And if the Ukrainians have not provided any form of evidence, then why should it not be written in the wikipedia article? Wikipedia should be as unbiased as possible, and by adding that you give important information to the reader regarding the credibility of such a claim. Andrea e luca (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
In the first place the article clearly states the missiles were reported shot down. Second, the source is Reuters who, if you actually read the article, state they cannot independently verify battlefield reports. Third, Telegram is not RS. So, nothing is amiss (except spelling and grammar as usual). Hope that helps. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the question at all...I ask, why is it impossible to add such a simple and factual sentence: "but the Ukrainian government provided no evidence for this" (or something on these lines)? Andrea e luca (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"Russia launched a total of 71 missiles of which 61 were reported shot down by Ukraine's air force (86%), however no evidence was shown to support this claim"
What is wrong about such a factual proposition? Is it perhaps false Ukraine did not provide any evidence? If it is true (and it is), then why would saying such crucial information for critical thinking be "non-neutral"? The facts are non-neutral and biased? That cannot be. Andrea e luca (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
As you seem very concerned about this issue I will try again to help. In the guidance for editors you will find a hell of a lot of stuff which might reassure you. The content of articles must be cited to reliable sources, we may not draw conclusions, make interpretations or insert our opinions. "but the Ukrainian government provided no evidence" is simply you saying that. If there was a reliable press article questioning the validity of Ukraine's claim's that could be cited. Hope that makes it clear now. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's simply a silly way to update things. This is no opinion, this is no form of conclusion nor an interpretation. This is a simple fact as "the sky is blue". Wouldnt adding this really be better for Wikipedia, which proposes itself as an unbiased encyclopedia that should help people have access to unbiased and factual human knowledge. Omitting such a fact is a damage and an insult to the reader, who will simply assume all of this as true. Andrea e luca (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A citation for you. https://www.ft.com/content/fbd6dc6e-4a41-4bfa-977b-8c3ef4482dcc Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you're trying to show me (as it is unaccessible to me, for it's behind a paywall) nor how it answers my argument. Andrea e luca (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I was able to read the article after a search so not sure why that is. What it talks about is the success rate for shooting down missiles using NASAMS which is around 100%. You should understand that an airborne missile is an easy target as it is in the sky for hours - plenty of time to get a track and take it out. That's why drones are launched in swarms - in order to overwhelm the radars in the hope that one will get through. Air defences in Ukraine are nearly all up-to-date western systems and almost failsafe - much like Israel's Iron Dome. I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise. Before you reply can I ask that you provide sources to back up your personal assertions? Thanks again. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Do not forget that Ukraine has stated that it has not shot down x-22 missiles, as well as other ballistic and hypersonic missiles. All the destruction of civilian object are the result of 100% shooting down of their air defense of Ukraine. In general, showing small destruction and saying that a rocket with 500-1000kg of explosives got there is a classic. Zovushch (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Quds Force's role

The following sources indicate that the Quds Force should be added to "Perpetrators". https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/18/us/politics/iran-drones-russia-ukraine.html

https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-8b085070758120c31d421f68a65e4b14?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_05

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-12 Parham wiki (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Anything new about today missile strikes in Ukraine

There has been missile strikes today in Ukraine, any new information about this event happened today (April 28th, 2023) Source:[1] this is the source about this event. 2A02:2F0E:C708:E700:452C:FDEA:2095:96C1 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This should be added to this article if there is enough sources as this event happened today. 2A02:2F0E:C708:E700:452C:FDEA:2095:96C1 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Today's strikes don't seem to have been aimed at any infrastructure. According to the BBC: "The Russian defence ministry said its military had targeted Ukrainian army reserve units with the strikes". So it shouldn't be added to this article, but should instead be added to Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/28/russia-launches-deadly-wave-of-missile-attacks-on-ukraine-cities

Requested move 29 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus on whether the title should have 2022-2023 or not. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 11:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure → Russian mass strikes against Ukrainian civilian and energy infrastructure – I believe this title more appropriately covers the scope of this article. The years are not necessary in the title as this kind of strategy from Russia against Ukraine has never taken place in history before. "mass" is necessary in my opinion to denote that this is a planned strategy and to distinguish it from the individual accidental (or rather careless but probably not deliberate like now) strikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. It is also necessary to mention the civilians on the title as a big part of this strategy is believed to have been the demoralization of the Ukrainian people during the winter. Also because for example yesterday's missile attacks only hit civilian infrastructure. Russia's Ministry of Genocide acknowledged this blatantly. Super Ψ Dro 11:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - The current title is fine. There's no problem with the present title. "Ukrainian infrastructure" is fine as is, adding "civilian and energy" is WP:Overprecise. The addition of "mass" carries almost no weight - "strikes" in and of itself implies planned strategy. If it were accidental or careless, the article title would be more in line with 2022 missile explosion in Poland.
However, I would support removing the years for consistency with Russian invasion of Ukraine. Estar8806 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as proposed (I am okay with removing years). As I understand it, the campaign against energy infrastructure failed decisively (Ukraine recently resumed exporting electricity), and appears to have been abandoned as the late April mass attack did not target energy, so targeting energy is not a defining characteristic of this campaign. The article includes a list of mass strike events, but IMO it is weird to restrict it to them: simply including background makes it an article about Russian missile and drone strike warfare during the war.  —Michael Z. 22:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Strange, you had expressed dissatisfaction with the current title two months ago. Super Ψ Dro 08:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed title is too long. It is implicit in the word 'infrastructure' that it includes civilian. The word 'mass' doesn't usually appear in references although 'massive' does - it's an adjective that does little to add meaning. Strikes against a country's infrastructure must be on a certain scale. We arrived at the current title through much discussion and leaving out certain words - 'energy' was one, means the title is more inclusive. So - if you put in 'energy' you start adding other words. The years must be part of the title, this is an encyclopedia after all. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
There are constant strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure. The mass strikes are the ones where tens or scores of missiles or drones are launched at once. Strictly speaking, it looks like an attributive use of the noun mass in the sense of “a large number of people or objects crowded together.”  —Michael Z. 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Return to military-targets and non-energy-infrastructures strikes ?

Hello everyone,
While not explicitely said in our sources, the focus of Russian operations has shifted away from energy infrastructures to return to military and civilian (terror) strikes. How should we integrate and announce this shift ? Is listing several major strikes as unrelated to energy targets enough to "prove therefore mention" this Spring shift ? [Edit: we have one tiny section mentioning this shif in April]

Yug (talk) 🐲 13:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed recently user:Asarlaí unilaterally re-scoped the article by rewriting the lead,[15] and removed some aerial mass attacks from the content.[16] I am opposed to this change. The article has been about mass aerial attacks by missiles and drones, and should remain that way. —Michael Z. 23:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The article has always been about the mass attacks on civilian infrastructure, particularly energy infrastructure during the colder months, hence the article's name "Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure". It's about Russia's campaign to freeze Ukraine into submission. If we broaden it to include every big missile strike on any targets, the article would lose its focus and become far too big. We already have an article for attacks on other civilian targets: Attacks on civilians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We also have the Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022 – present). – Asarlaí (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
You’re contradicting yourself. This article is on aerial mass attacks, which were mainly against civilian infrastructure. They included a campaign against the civilian energy grid, but they also included attacks on apartment buildings and shopping malls, and I have seen no indication that even a single mass attack was exclusively against the energy grid. Nor have I seen any indication that they didn’t include any military targets. The campaign against the electrical grid ended unsuccessfully with milder weather, but the attacks continued with shifting focus. Now apparently some are aimed at Kyiv and meant to defeat the air defence protecting it.
You rewrote the lead to say this is apparently exclusively about strikes against energy: something that no source asserts can be separated from everything else. You removed strikes on civilian infrastructure “that weren't part of strikes against the power grid,” as if this qualifier was something you had determined about other mass attacks.
Your changes are made is if you knew exactly how many strikes in each wave were aimed at precisely which targets, something no one except the Russian military knows and no source attests.
The previous version should be restored. Continuing mass aerial strikes against infrastructure are part of this article’s scope and should continue to be included.
The other articles you mention are broader, and are not about this subject.  —Michael Z. 14:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Currently, this article focuses on the "campaign against the civilian energy grid which ended unsuccessfully with milder weather". It focuses on Russia's "energy terrorism", it's attempt to freeze Ukrainians into submission. The "Reactions" and "Remedial action" sections are about the attacks on the energy grid. Apartment blocks got hit in the process during some of these strikes, but we have another article which focuses on those. If we broaden this article to include every big missile strike on any targets, including military targets, then Russia's "energy terrorism" would get lost among all the other strikes.
However, if you want to broaden this article to include military and other targets, then you'd need to request it be re-named. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Mzajac and Asarlaí:, since here you are discussing about the article historical scope, better to call over Yello231 (21.5% 1138655029) Thelisteninghand (21%), myself (Yug, 17.7%), Joshko Vano (8.8%), Abductive (8.6%) who authored ~75% of this article's content. Yug (talk) 🐲 21:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
From my POV, this article scope was first defined as about the civilian energy targets, a war crime. Otherwise, waves of bombing strategic enemies infrastructures such as military barracks, bridges, factories, railways, as it was done in 2022 Spring ans Summer, is just [dirty but] legal warfare. We tolerated and hosted some other synchroneous bombings information, but mostly because we did a poor job policing the initial scope. This may have confuse new comers. My apologize to you Michael for the confusion. Yug (talk) 🐲 21:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Aren’t they civilian bridges, factories, and railways? The apartment buildings and shopping malls certainly are.  —Michael Z. 22:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention the schools and hospitals.
I’ll also correct you: there is no “legal warfare” by Russia in Ukraine. It all violates Ukrainian law and the international prohibition against aggression. It’s just that much of it is also war crimes.  —Michael Z. 22:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Yug: Hi - I wrote a new section 'Resumption of exports' which could be expanded. Agree that the strikes have changed - there are pages dealing with these which could be 'see also' or otherwise linked. Also agree that many edits have lost crucial info from this page, others have been very helpful. C'est la vie. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
What bothers me is we are loosing and loosening the scope of this article. Michael's comment is explicitely showing the confusion we now have. This expanding scope means we may now have several wikipedia articles with scope being "strikes in Ukraines", we will confuse new editors and waste their time and editing power. Not good for any of us. Yug (talk) 🐲 07:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The subject is expanding.
Can you list the articles whose subject is “strikes in Ukraine”?
Here’s an example of a reliable source on this specific subject of mass aerial attacks, showing that it meets WP:GNG: Ukraine war: Russia launches ninth wave of missile attacks on Kyiv this month
So far in May, Russia has carried out four mass launches - two them between 16 and 18 May alone - compared to one each in April and March, and two in February.
 —Michael Z. 05:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

water

Please add a note about the effect on water:

"In October 2022, Russia launched 50 missiles on civilian infrastructure in Kyiv as an intrinsic part of its invasion plan. This attack left 40% of residents without access to water and 270,000 apartments without electricity. The inability to access clean drinking water increases susceptibility to water-borne illnesses and disease. Furthermore, attacks on the electrical grid disrupt civilian sanitation, risking disease outbreaks" source

--Nilsol2 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Another war crime done by russia

Russia is doing another war crime - abductuion. Russia is taking away children from occupied russian territories and sending them to russia for "reeducation". Because of that, putin was declared an international criminal in Hague court. Please mention that war crime because its serious 109.43.112.70 (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

2022–2023 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure → Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present) – Most pages regarding the current events in Ukraine use this format. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Support. It does seem like the page name is assuming the strikes will stop this year, which is anything but certain; and it can always be moved back if needed. - Relinus (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2023-24 winter

Sources are starting to consider a new wave of strikes. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/01/energy-war-ukraine-tries-to-protect-electricity-supply-before-winter Yug (talk) 🐲 21:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Increase in gamma radiation levels - hardly credible

The article says, "The series of explosions led to a significant increase in gamma radiation levels, suggesting the release of depleted uranium dust into the air which could pose severe risk to public health". However, the source is an Indian website that itself does not cite any of its information. Pretty much only Indian and some Russian POV articles cites talk about this, it was also heavily promoted by known disinfirmation accounts back when it happened.

If we look at the actual "spike", it happened two days before the strike and was statistically insignificant.

Krystos (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

tbe source for the above claim is twitter, which is nor considered a reliable source. However the person sounds authoritative and more importantly is pretty peripheral to the fact of tbe strike, so I removed the sentence. Appending the removed text below in case someone wants to nail down the facts here:"The series of explosions led to a significant increase in gamma radiation levels, suggesting the release of depleted uranium dust into the air which could pose severe risk to public health.[1]" ,Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Gamma radiation spikes as explosions rock munitions depot in Ukraine". The New Indian. Retrieved 14 May 2023.

Date in title

Do we even need the date range in the title? There aren’t any title conflicts with other articles that I know of HappyWith (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  • According to WP:NCWWW "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement." I would hope this is not a recurring event so we would not need to have the date in the title, I feel as it is not needed, especially as eventually it will need to be updated with the end date if it is kept. Dobblesteintalk 23:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

the death toll Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure is undercounted

there has been multiple waves of that have caused causalities since November 2022 Monochromemelo1 (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine into here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given that the attacks on the 29th are significant enough, and the article sufficiently well-developed, to warrant its own article. Klbrain (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

So far, 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine is the only strikes wave of dozens to have its own article. I think we should keep it all in one single article. We've previously merged such articles into here, see the redirects this article has [17]. I have a sense that users will be more than okay with breaking this consistency this time for some reason but I still think this discussion should take place. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

At 25k bytes I think this is too big to be merged. And if this is true that this is indeed the biggest airstrike of the war I would totally oppose a merger. Borgenland (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I oppose this because an incident on this scale should warrant its own article. MountainDew20 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
dear @Super Dromaeosaurus thanks for starting the discussion. i agree it should be had. i also agree with @Borgenland and @MountainDew20. many of the much smaller airstrikes have their own articles. in late december ukrainian officials claimed 11,100 missiles and drones (not counting december 29th's attack) had been launched 12 and so the 29th's countrywide attack upped the total number flown by russia since the full-scale invasion of ukraine on february 24th 2022 by more than 1%. it makes sense to have separate articles for attacks this big. ~Johnfreez (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
It is the biggest or one of the biggest attacks during all the war. It deserves own article. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agree. It was big and important enough to deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_strikes_against_Ukrainian_infrastructure_(2022–present)/Archive_1&oldid=1247560579"