Talk:Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign

From late 2022, a ridiculous 'Luhansk Oblast Campaign' page, whilst changing 'the 2nd Battle of Lyman' to 'The Lyman Front of the 2022 Kharkiv Counter-offensive'… where do you get off on this?

You make a mess and then don't bother to clean it up. Now google searches for 'Lyman front' doesn't direct you to anything on the second-busiest front for enemy assaults through 2023-26, it instead directs you to one singular battle and recapture of Lyman. And who the hell has ever referred to 'The North-East Donetsk Campaign?' It has been a sustained offensive on the Lyman front since the fall of Serebryansky Forest (also a stupid, foolish edit: 'Serebriansky'… muppet.

You are an absolute nuisance and a fool.

Legionnaire33 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Since the term 'Kupyansk-Lyman Axis' fell out of usage, and the (Battle of) 'Kupyansk Svatove Kreminna Line' term is outdated because both Svatove and Kreminna are nowhere near zero line, the only sensible thing to do is merge this absurdly named page and the 'Luhansk Campaign' page and call it what everyone actually involved in the war does, including those fighting on it: The Lyman Front. Just as the page with 'Lyman front' in its title should be reverted to '2nd Battle of Lyman (2022). Nobody has ever referenced the 'Luhansk Oblast Campaign' or the 'Northeast Donetsk Oblast Campaign', nor is the name change of the Second Battle of Lyman remotely helpful. Nobody uses the terms that Paul of Tarsus favours. His pedantic interference is imbecilic.

Whereas 'the Lyman front' is the second busiest front since 2022 regarding daily Russian assaults recorded, which is easily verifiable using ISW and all the other sources that generally just regurgitate ISW content. It is asinine to try to rewrite the war's history to your own dubious liking.

Searching for 'The Lyman Front' pulls up this misnomered page, rather than something that could refer to the history of this front since late 2022 and the long Russian offensive in the Lyman direction (including Siversk) and also the stupidly renamed 'Second Battle of Lyman' which now reads 'The Lyman Front of the 2022 Kharkiv Counter-offensive'… Paul of Tarsus, you are a nuisance: the Lyman front should pull up a page that combines everything on the 'Luhansk Campaign' and this 'Northeast Donetsk Oblast Campaign' page, rather than the fractured narrative you seem to be pushing.

Just do better. Fletch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24285-0 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Much less participating as humanitarian volunteers or combatants… ill-informed pedantry has always been a vexation. 'The Lyman front' should always have simply had its own page: take it from a veteran… since 2022 there was the 'Lyman-Sievierodonetsk front' (now 'Siverskodonetsk') and as of November 2022 to 2025, 'The Lyman front' or in the forests directly east of it, 2022-24: 'The Lyman-Kreminna front'… generally referred to as Serebryansky forest or Kreminna.

'Siversk front' was an irritating 2024 addition from the likes of UkrainskaPravda regurgitating ISW content, circa the time Zaluzhny was replaced by Syrskyi and the new SitReps changed. I've been in trenches on 'the Lyman front' that were only a few miles (an afternoon's walking distance) from Bilohorivka, which was absurdly named as being on an entirely different front ('Siversk') whilst ours named 'the Lyman front' was itself strange, given Lyman is back in Donetsk region and we were close to Kreminna, to the east of Dibrova, in Luhansk. So we were spitting distance from 'Siversk front' positions and trenches, whilst on the Lyman front and forty minutes' drive from Lyman——in an entirely different oblast to both.

'Northeast Donetsk front / campaign' is daft, as is 'Luhansk Oblast campaign' considering much of it included large areas outside of Luhansk, both in Kharkiv and Donetsk, and the informally used 'Kupyansk-Lyman Axis' and 'Kupyansk-Kreminna line' were both actually in use, but far more effective. And three years later, the former, and also the standalone 'Lyman front' remains perfectly adequate. Sadly, 'Kreminna' has little to do with any battlefield reality now…

'SaintPaulofTarsus', you are a nuisance on Russo-Ukrainian war-related wikipedia.

It is irritating seeing people pedantically obsess over details yet, in Dunning-Kruger fashion, fail to get anything right in the process. Changing 'The Second Battle of Lyman' page to 'The Lyman front of the Kharkiv Counteroffensive' was also an imbecilic and pointless amendment, considering I've literally spoken about the potential/upcoming '3rd Battle of Lyman' with men who fought in the prior two in '22… conversely, nobody has ever referred to a 'Siversk front' as I've heard it, or a Northeast Donetsk or Luhansk oblast campaign, etc.… and as for the maps, 'Serebryansky Lís' is the name of the forest, rendered 'Serebryansky forest', nullifying another of your dubious edits. Want to know what these theatres/AO's are called, by officers and soldiers? In no particular order, limited to this general sphere: Lyman front; Siversk; Serebryansky Lís/forest; Kreminna (now 'Torske', 'Yampil', 'Borova' etc.) Makiivka/Nevske; Terny; Kupyansk… and in general, since late 2022; 'Kupyansk', or if 30+km further south, 'Lyman'/'Lyman front', or the forest/Kreminna if you were specifically there… or 'Siversk', likewise. Some have their own nicknames. You've gotten enough though. You're welcome.

If you want to change history, there are surely better means of applying your energies, or striving to yoke yourself to its engine, rather than foisting your interjections on wiki pages of battlefield fronts and battalions.

~F

The Siversk front has essentially been at a stalemate, with no significant advances in recent months. In my opinion, this page is not particularly necessary. Bukansatya (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is necessary. According to ISW analysis, this front have seen more action and Russia is already ramping up for a Lyman-Borova Offensive. The Luhansk Oblast Campaign only convered areas in Western Kharkiv Oblast. Which included Kupiansk but not Siversk and Lyman. Russia have already seized Bilohorivka and this likely shows that Russia is in an offensive. The seizure of Bilhorivka does not prove your "Stalemate" and Russia advanced south, southeast, and northeast of Bilhorivka. But however, I would not mind changing this page's title to the "Borova-Sviatohirsk-Lyman-Siversk Line of Offensive." if you want. Even ISW made this a front or an direction meaning that Russians are currently in an offensive operation. I wonder if you have checked ISW and see Territorial Control Of the Russo-Ukraine War. Are you sure there are no significant advances? The seizure of Bilohorivka already means something. I am planning on making another page of the Borova Offensive, Lyman-Sviatohirsk Offensive. But if you want, in your own opinion, we can combine them and make it the title I mentioned above. Broskalitre (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Does the seizure of one town merit an offensive with four titles in two different oblasts? Much of this can go into, if it already isn't the eastern front page. Jebiguess (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is becoming a bit clearer that there’s a general consensus that this page isn’t ready to be in main space yet. As I previously stated in @Broskalitre’s talk page, this page is full of grammatical errors and has lots of issues with references. On top of that, the structure of this page doesn’t follow Wikipedia standards, with writing seemingly all over the place and lots of sentences that provide little to no input and aren’t necessary.

It has also been mentioned above that this page’s scope is effectively covered in its entirety in the Luhansk Oblast campaign and Eastern front of the Russian invasion of Ukraine pages. As @Jebiguess stated above, the capture of one town doesn’t mean that an offensive, especially of this scale, has begun. Almost all of these advances aren’t necessarily even part of offensive operations, but instead routine small operations which have been happening since 2022.

Whilst you are correct that offensive operations are ramping up in the Lyman and Borova directions, it is still relatively small and mostly speculative as to what will come with that. Should the Lyman—Borova direction see offensive operations become increasingly more active, then we can make an article for that direction. The rest of the front in this area is still widely at a stalemate, with only small, occasional advances taking place.

As well as that, the Borova-Sviatohirsk-Lyman-Sloviansk-Siversk line is roughly ~100km long, which is effectively half of the length of the entire eastern frontline. Offensives are typically localised as opposed to being across entire frontlines. If we are to keep this page rewrite it, it would need to be cut down heavily and refocused on only the area where offensive operations are actually taking place, being the Borova—Lyman direction.

I do highly recommend this page is taken back into the draft space sooner than later, as there’s a decently high chance that this page may get nominated for deletion due to all the issues it has. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the title first, then edit the paragraphs down in the timeline or background section and if Russia wins the two directions which is Lyman and Borova, then we can still edit this page by either Russian offensives towards sviatohirsk or siversk, and then Sloviansk through sviatohirsk . This is the most likely timeline it will go:

1) Russia seizes surrounding villages around Lyman and borova

2) Russia begins the battle of Lyman and Borova

3) If Russia wins the two battles , Russia will most likely start offensive towards Siversk and Svitohirsk

4) If Russia wins again, Russia will begin the offensive to Sloviansk, One of Russia’s main goals since the start of the invasion

That is why I suggest you keep the title of this page and then we can edit the background and the timeline section of this page. And if Russia goes on after winning and is according to my timeline above, then it might be worth keeping the title and then we can make separate sections of this title for each offensive against each city like the Pokrovsk offensive.What do you think? Liagdan (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Crystalball, we cannot create articles for events that aren’t confirmed to happen in the future. There is zero confirmation of what Russia’s war plans are in the case that they are victorious in their Borova/Lyman offensives, and there’s zero confirmation that they will even win as of now. As I said earlier, this page needs to be cut down and heavily reworked to focus on the events that are actually taking place, and not based on speculation about the future of Russia’s plans.

There are instances where you can write about analyised scenarios that are likely to take place after the offensive, such as under an Analysis heading, but you cannot write the article based almost entirely on said speculation.

Simply put, there is no “most likely timeline it will go”, and unless you have several sources and references to back up your claim, it shouldn’t even be in the page at all. Write the page on the events as they are happening, and only the events that have occurred. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok , understood. However , so far, I have not wrote anything under my own speculation but based on real life events based on official website ISW . You can make edits to the page to make it better but do not remove the title. Liagdan (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m aware, I was responding to your proposal above. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Basically, those two cities are in different oblasts. Even though ISW lumps them together with the Luhansk Front, I think the fights for these two cities should be separated. The goals and benefits of capturing them are different. Taking Lyman is about pushing toward Siversk, while capturing Borova is meant to let Russian troops move toward Izium. What do you think @IiSmxyzXX Bukansatya (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree and you are correct. That goes back into my point that this article needs to be effectively rewritten to focus on one of those fronts instead of the entire Borova-Sviatohirsk-Lyman-Sloviansk-Siversk line. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Basically Lyman and Borova are in Two different oblasts Bukansatya (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Guys, are you 2 friends in real life? Cause you two seem to be allies. Liagdan (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

No, we just happen to collaborate on the same Wikipedia topics together.

I apologise if you feel as though we are ganging up on you, that isn’t the intention. We’re just trying to give genuine feedback and advice to help your page grow and improve towards Wikipedia’s standards. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

So @Bukansatya and @IiSmxyzXX, I think that this page should be renamed for the cities in Donetsk oblast (suggested name: Lyman-Sviatohirsk-Siversk-Sloviansk Line Offensive) and for Kharkiv Oblast (Borova-Izium Line offensive) .I also think that Lyman is for taking both Sviatohirsk and Siversk, like what Russia did in 2022 when their Kharkiv flank didn’t get destroyed by the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive, and then Sviatohirsk is for the Russian flanking west of Sloviansk and then Siversk is for the Russian flanking east of Sloviansk , so they can envelope Sloviansk and force Ukraine to retreat. While in Kharkiv Oblast, Borova is meant to cross the Oskil River to capture Izium. So do you agree?And what do you two guys think? Liagdan (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be split into two, and those two titles could work for now. What I’d like to ask now what the plan for this current page moving forward is. Are you planning on rewriting this page to match one of the two pages you just proposed? IiSmxyzXX (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you repeat in simpler sentences? I don't quite understand what you mean. Broskalitre (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree to separate the two, but for now, I don’t really agree if you include Sviatohirsk, Siversk, Sloviansk for Lyman, and I also don’t agree with including Izium in the Borova page. If we follow that logic, then the Battle of Volnovakha, Battle of Vuhledar, and Velyka Novosilka Offensive would just become the ‘Volnovakha - Vuhledar - Velyka Novosilka Line’. Because the situation on this front is similar to what happened on those fronts before Russia launched their 2024 offensive (Vuhledar and Velyka Novosilka had long stagnation and deadlock). And for Izium, like I said before, we shouldn’t create a page for something that hasn’t really happened yet. Even if Russia might be aiming for Izium, they haven’t actually done it yet. Bukansatya (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion for this title and can I ask why is the Luhansk Oblast campaign can have the Svatove–Kreminna line or the Kupiansk–Svatove–Kreminna–Bilohorivka line name? And so, let's have a vote for each new title. My title for the Donetsk part is the Northern Donetsk Campaign like the Luhansk Oblast Campaign and for the title of the Kharkiv Oblast part is the Borova Offensive. Can I request that you two will help me in editing this page also so that there will be less mistakes and that I might take forever to complete this page alone and in return-if you want- I can help you with your Kupiansk Offensive draft page. Can I also ask if you two are extended confirmed users ? (Let me know if you want me to and what are your response) Who ever title have the most votes will be the title for this and the future page which I will create soon. Broskalitre (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Because when that page was made, Ukrainian forces were launching counterattacks in the cities of Svatove and Kreminna at the same time—heck, they even managed to retake half of both cities back then. On top of that, Ukrainian troops also attacked Bilohorivka and Kupyansk. Why’s that page called the ‘Svatove-Kreminna line’ or the ‘Kupiansk-Svatove-Kreminna-Bilohorivka line’? Well, that line was basically Russia’s defensive line to stop Ukrainian forces from pushing further. If you wanna help Kupyanks' offensive, go ahead. I got no right to stop youBukansatya (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Understood. So what are the 2 page titles (1 for donetsk oblast, 2nd is kharkov oblast) you two are suggesting for ? Mine is "Northern Donetsk Campaign and the Borova Offensive" Broskalitre (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes Bukansatya (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. So that will be the names then. Broskalitre (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok I'm done with moving the title. So can you two please help me with improving this page by editing this page? Thank you. Broskalitre (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Aku"I’ll help if I have free time, but right now I’m super busy with real-life stuff. I even had to stop managing a few pages because I’m swamped Bukansatya (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Its ok , I'm good with it. But what does Aku stand for? Broskalitre (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If you 2 want to move this page into draft space, you can continue to do it and please let me know if you think this page is ready for submission. Broskalitre (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I have moved the page back into draft space for the time being whilst it gets reworked.

One major thing I’d like to point out is that you claim that the events of the article began back in July 2022, however you have little to no information on any events prior to 2025. If we’re going to keep July 2022 as the start date, then you’re going to need to massively increase the amount of information spanning those years into the article, even if there has been little advances.

I’ll leave it up to you as to whether or not you keep the start date and decide to add information covering those years, or if you decide to change the start date to a more recent date, however if you do choose to change it, we may need to change the page name since Northern Donetsk Campaign is a very broad name and in most contexts refers to events in the area spanning the entire conflict so far.

On top of that, I also highly recommend making an Order of Battle section for the units involved, as the info box currently spans almost the entire page length purely because of the amount of units listed.

I am currently busy working on my own stuff, but when I get the chance I will help around with this page. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure! Thanks for your help. Which date do you suggest? Broskalitre (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I’d choose to keep the older date so that we can give this page a bit more value outside of the recent Russian military operations.

Again though, I’ll leave that choice for you to make. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok lets have a vote. I am neutral. Broskalitre (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a good starting date would be around December 28, 2024, to February 23, 2025. Because on December 28, Russian troops tried advancing again on the Lyman Axis by moving toward Terny village , and on February 23, they refocused on capturing Bilohorivka. What do you guys think@Broskalitre@IiSmxyzXX@Liagdan Bukansatya (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure! I am okay with it. Btw I am the same person as Liagdan, just on different accounts on different devices. I think December 28 2024 is okay. Broskalitre (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh okay, btw my advice, just use one account because you’ve already broken the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry rule or you might get banned by the admins Bukansatya (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I am about to change devices anyway since I am getting a new phone and giving my phone which have Liagdan to my little brother which is turning into college. Broskalitre (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok noted. Broskalitre (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, you can carry out the changes in this article. Broskalitre (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Aku is me or I or My in Indonesia language, sorry translation error Bukansatya (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Nah, we’re just Colleague, not friends IRL. Sorry if you felt like I was cornering you—me and @IiSmxyzXX were just working on the Kupyanks offensive draft together Bukansatya (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I join the party? And also do you agree and what do you think of my comment above? Broskalitre (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Broskalitre,

Just letting you know that I’ve helped edit the article slightly by fixing the lede paragraph, info box, and subheadings. As I find some spare time, I’ll help touch up this draft and help improve its quality. Feel free to ask me questions regarding editing, and I’ll attempt to answer/help when I’m next available. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. I am thankful for even the slightest edit you made. Thank you. Broskalitre (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @IiSmxyzXX and @Bukansatya, I think we are pretty much done with editing this page except for the Ukrainian Armed Forces order of Battle for the Siversk Axis, which I could not find any sources that mentioned the Ukrainian units participating in the Siversk Axis, however some sources did mention that the Ukrainian Khortytsia operational-strategic group was participating. Apart from the order of battle, I think the page is pretty much done. So what do you guys think about this page and is it done with editing?Broskalitre (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced that the operations north and south of the Siverskyi Donets river should be grouped together in the same article. Have you found that these areas are usually considered together in reliable sources?

Also: The Khortytsia operational-strategic group is a very high-level command structure for essentially every Ukrainian military unit in the Donbass. From south to north, I believe it approximately covers the entire front line from the southwestern Donetsk obl. all the way to the Kupiansk area.

If you cannot determine which Ukrainian units are involved in the Siversk area, it would be worth looking into which particular Ukrainian brigades were involved in the recent loss of Bilohorivka, and which ones are holding the defense in Verkhn'okam'yans'ke and Ivano-Dar'iivka. I seem to recall that most of the battalions (8th, 108th, 109th) of the 10th Mountain Assault Brigade were there for several years from at least mid-2022, but this may be outdated information now.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Then you can make changes to the page if you want and this page is about the Northeast Donetsk Campaign, not about the Oskil River Campaign or Siverskyi-Donetsk River Campaign. 119.234.34.241 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

But if you think you can add Ukrainian units to the Siversk Axis based on sources like ISW, then go ahead. Liagdan (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately ISW only tends to report on Russian military units and purposely neglects to specifically identify Ukrainian units. I am working on a project which scrapes the web in order to estimate where each Ukrainian and Russian military unit is deployed, but it is still in early stages of development. If I make some progress on that, I can help soon SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s ok. Liagdan (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not really follow the last part of your comment, but to be clear, when I refered to the Siverskyi Donets river, I meant that I was not sure that the "Lyman" area and "Siversk" area should be grouped together. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

For this, you can look at my older brother’s discussion with lilSmynx and Bukansatya and you’ll find out why. Liagdan (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

If I did not misread the discussion, this seems to be solely based on your own speculation regarding future events. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

No. The reason is to make the page more significant and if one direction is silent, then it is most likely that the other direction is still active so this will make the page more useful. Anyways, me, Broskalitre, Bukansatya and LilSmynx are already done with this discussion and we would not like to talk about it anymore. But like I said, if you think you can contribute to the Ukrainian order of battle, I will not stop you. Liagdan (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is out of our control whether or not the events in a particular place happen to become significant or not. And I do not see those other editors affirming that they agree with the decision to group Lyman and Siversk together. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, when I said the name “ Northern Donetsk Campaign and Borova Offensive”, one of the editors agreed and that is how we form the title but we changed it to Northeast Donetsk Campaign since if it was northern, then it would also include Chasiv Yar , Toretsk and more cities and the current name is more suitable. Liagdan (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey there,

Just noticed this convo between you and @SaintPaulOfTarsus and thought I’d chip in.

No, @Bukansatya and I have not explicitly agreed with the contents of this article. Our edits to this page have been purely to help flesh out the details and content based on the information that you have wrote into this article. Should there be a formal discussion, my opinion would be similar to SaintPaulOfTarsus’ statement above.

To also clarify, no where has Bukansatya and myself once stated that we were “done with discussion”. As with Wikipedia and its policies, unless it’s a formal topic discussion or such and has been closed, any discussion is open to all editors, and I’d also appreciate if you would not try and speak on my behalf, assuming you had good intentions.

For future reference, something as simple as editing a page is not an agreement or expression of support for an article’s topic and content, and shouldn’t be passed around as such.

To clarify as well, when I stated my support for moving this article to main space, that was not me saying that I support the article and believe that it’s contents are correct/necessary. I believe I said that the article is fine enough to be fixed up in main space, referring to the fact that it can be worked on and improved by other editors.

To finish off this comment, I’d like to also mention that you shouldn’t rely on other editors to fix articles for you. If there is something wrong with an article that you can identify, than instead of leaving it for other editors to fix, you can (and in most scenarios, should) go forward with the fix yourself. Other editors may be busy with other projects or stuff outside of Wikipedia, and typically shouldn’t be relied on to provide fixes for you.

I hope that you take this comment in good faith and use it to improve your viewpoint on Wikipedia. Kind regards, IiSmxyzXX (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok I understand. You can help but if you don’t, I am ok. I am saying that y’all could help me because my English is not really well developed. That is also the reason why there is a lot of grammatical errors and other stuff. If you all want to help, it’s up to you. If you all want me to scrap this page, I will, depending on y’all’s thoughts. If you want this page to be improved, then you can help. My meaning is that it would take me a lot of days to complete it. That was why I asked you to help me. If you could not see, I have already edited some of my mistakes and trying to find them. My English is not that strong . If you all want me to do anything with this page, then I will do it. If you did not remember , this page was for my gaming the system but after I changed, I used it for useful information for the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, not expecting you 3 to come in and join me . That was also why I took the opportunity to request help and to help me since my English was not good and I frequently made mistakes. Although I have only successfully created one page, this page was the page I hoped other editors including experienced ones could see my editing skills and for people to look even into the most silent fronts like the Siversk Axis and I also wanted to spread true information. If you guys want to scrap this work, feel free to let me know. If you want me to keep it, let me know to . If you would help me improve on this page, I would appreciate help. And the reason I said the discussion was closed was that when I suggested the name “ Borova offensive and Northern Donetsk Campaign”, @ Bukansatya said “ok” so that was how we came up with this name. If you guys want me to scrap this work, I will do so and it is your own choice . I will leave this page to you all from now on and focus on other pages talking about other things but sometimes if I see this page is still active, I will most likely edit it. But from now on, I will leave this page to your hands from mine . Anyways, I will still thank those for helping me and those who taught me how to edit this page. Thank you LilSmynx, SaintPaulofTarsus, Broskalitre and Bukansatya. Liagdan (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Also just to let you know, when I suggested the names Northern Donetsk Campaign, it included Siversk and Lyman. That was how we grouped it together. Like I said, my English is not strong and that was why I asked you to help me because even if there were errors, I may not be able to spot them but you may be able to. That was why I asked you all to help me. I have tried my best to fix the errors and try to find them and I hope you understand my intention is not to demand for y’all to help me but to ask y’all if you were able to help and not demanding it. Liagdan (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

By all means, please keep this article. It has lots of potential that I’d hate to see wasted. Your efforts are appreciated and I apologise if I came off as rather demeaning. Whilst I do believe this article needs lot of working on, that’s just how it is with every article on Wikipedia. It is nothing personal and many articles go through similar situations. Please take this as an opportunity to continue working on the project and to keep improving, rather than abandon it. You and your efforts to help are always welcome on Wikipedia. I can see your potential and I can see your weak points. Please do not feel as if we are against you. You are as equal of a collaborator to me as is every other editor on Wikipedia.

I have been helping with the editing of this page, and I will continue to help edit. If you wish, you may try and collect a consensus through discussion on what to do with this article, to try and understand its value and what needs working on, as well as what needs to be added/changed. It’s not uncommon for some articles to be completely flipped in terms of its content, and it shouldn’t be taken as a personal attack on your own efforts.

Your article here has a long way to go, but I am equally as committed as you and everyone else to help improve it and help towards the overall project. I am just a regular editor with no power over anyone else. My only intentions are to help the project through my own works and support other editors with their works too. If this article does get abandoned or scrapped, that’s just the way things go unfortunately. Some articles find a stronger purpose than others. There are many other topics in this particular area that have interest with the editors here that you could potentially help work on, and I encourage you to look into those to help increase your presence and reach on the project. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If they would not agree, then why would they help me edit this page anyway? And also if they would, they would’ve already asked me to delete this page anyways. They contributed a lot to this page and I must thank them. Liagdan (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

its okay, I can help look for it. Honestly, I’d prefer it if the ordo of battle for Siverks and Lyman were combined and posted here to save space. What do you guys think? @SaintPaulOfTarsus@IiSmxyzXX. I actually planned this from the start when I began editing this page, but I’ve been really busy in real life lately. I’ll help once things settle down. Bukansatya (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that we can move all the units and links from here to that page and for the Ukrainian units in the Siversk front, I absolutely have no idea what Ukrainian units are there. Overall, I think I support your idea , but I also think that we should make sure all the units that are here should be moved to that page except for the Ukrainian units which I unfortunately can’t find any proof to say what units are operating in the Siversk direction. But I am sure @SaintPaulofTarsus will figure it out as he is currently in a project to scrape the web in order to estimate the Ukrainian and Russian units on the front. Overall, I think I support your idea. Liagdan (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I said that based on my conclusions of what @SaintPaulOfTarsus said above during me and his discussion, so I hope you are not thinking I am saying on @SaintPaulOfTarsus’s behalf. Liagdan (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I can also help you put all these units on that page you mentioned about. @SaintPaulOfTarsus, I think I can help you find the Ukrainian units operating in each of the fronts. Me and my brother’s work in real life is getting busier since I am in secondary school but he is in high school but once school ends, I think we can continue editing more frequently and help progresss the page with more information. Liagdan (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll start working on it bit by bit from now on Bukansatya (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I have determined that the Ukrainian units on the Siversk front are certain battalions of the 81st Airmobile Brigade, the 54th Mechanized Brigade, and the 10th Mountain Assault Brigade, and I will be updating certain pages with this information shortly. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ok. I have made no progress so far but still working on finding the Ukrainian units. May I know how you find them? Liagdan (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

These are the exact units: 81st, 54th, and 10th, from north to south. There is no need to look any further. It is still a work in progress but I scrape certain websites which post Ukrainian military reports for key words such as village names and names of brigades. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I am also thinking if we can delete all these things we have spoken about after our discussion ended since this also frees up space for future editors to discuss about this page. Based on my earlier responses ( after I responded to @Bukansatya suggestion, what do you @Broskalitre, @Bukansatya, @IiSmxyzXX and @SaintPaulOfTarsus think? Liagdan (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Basically, the conversation doesn’t necessarily have to be like this it will likely be deleted by the admin. However, if it’s important, the admin may archive it. So, you don’t need to worry about space for discussion on this talk page for future discussions. Bukansatya (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok noted. Liagdan (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

But I agree in your suggestion but I am still not sure about the other editor’s own opinion. Liagdan (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this page already reviewed? Cause there is other pages links at the bottom of this page. Liagdan (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Those are categories which are added to every article to help with organisation and locating. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I am currently thinking of deleting the "Order of Battle" in this page since @Bukansatya already mentioned that he will put the units of the militaries participating in the siversk axis in the Luhansk oblast order of battle page. Do you guys think that we should remove the Order of Battle for this page? Broskalitre (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve just performed this edit as there has actually been a section on Luhansk Oblast campaign order of battle for this entire front for a while now. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on the fact that the Lyman and Siversk fronts do not seem to be grouped together and called the "northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign" on any website other than Wikipedia, and because they are taking place on opposite sides of a major river and seem to be almost entirely unrelated to one another, I am proposing the split of this article into two separate articles. I do not understand why this article starts in December 2024, but the new articles I am suggesting should probably cover their respective fronts dating back to late 2022. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia articles typically should not be grouped together in order to appear with more content. I’ve read @Liagdan’s most recent comments on your talk page and would like to point out that an article being silent due to its topic being silent isn’t necessarily a bad or “useless” thing. We already have instances of this on this exact topic area as well, for example Northern Kharkiv front of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Like you said, these fronts are simply just unrelated to each other with the only similarity being that they take place in northern Donetsk Oblast, and it’s never really sat well with me that they’re grouped into the same article. Assuming we start collecting data for these articles from when these fronts started to turn into what they are now (around late 2022 following the Kharkiv counteroffensive), there should be more than enough information to keep those proposed articles from being stub articles.

IiSmxyzXX (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagree The article if separated, could be useless or could have no updates in 2 weeks, making the page useless. With this page however, the page could be more useful and helpful in having more updates or information added. This increases the usefulness of this page. Overall, I disagree. 129.126.39.181 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

We could also make separate sections for each front in this page. That is my suggestion 129.126.39.181 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

An article isn’t determined to be “useful” or “useless” depending on how frequently it’s updated or by how much content it contains, but rather by how notable and valuable its content and scope is. A relevant example of this in the context of the Russo—Ukrainian war is the Northern Kharkiv front of the Russo-Ukrainian War article, which rarely sees update’s following the frontlines stall in that area.

Keeping these two seperate topic areas in one article fixes neither of these problems. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. When seperated, this could prompt other experienced editors to delete the page since it is not so significant. The Siversk Axis and the Lyman axis are practically neighbours and the capture of one city would result in the improvement of russian logistics as these cities are logistical hubs and so would help Russian forces capture Lyman or Siversk, if Lyman or Siversk is also captured. These two fronts are collaborative and connected in my opinion. Broskalitre (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Speculation on future events falls under WP:CRYSTAL. It would also help if you could provide sources which suggest that the fall of one of the cities would lead to the fall of the other, to show that this is not just your own personal analysis. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok Broskalitre (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You need to understand that these proposed new articles will have a larger date range (late 2022–present) for their scopes, which means they will have content spanning ~2.5 years of this conflict. This will provide more than enough details and information regarding these two fronts to keep these articles from being deleted for “insignificance”.

I would also like to say once again that an article isn’t determined to be “significant” based on its size, but rather by how notable its contents are. These proposed articles will be both notable and decent in size. Articles shouldn’t attempt to inflate its notability by combining multiple notable events into one, especially when said notable events would benefit from their own seperate articles.

”Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign” is also not a common name, in fact it is seemingly rarely used in media. This may make it difficult for readers who are trying to find information on these fronts, as they have no common terms to search up. Should this article end up being kept following this discussion, I would highly recommend a new title for it. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

What is your suggested title for this page should the page be kept Liagdan (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Except for the pravious page’s name “Sviatohirsk-Sloviansk-Lyman-Siversk Line of Offensive” which @Bukansatyawould likely oppose , I really have no idea what to rename the page again. Liagdan (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Disagree- The reason is that those 2 fronts are despite in a Russian offensive operation against the 2 fronts, those fronts are usually silent and it would be pointless to make those fronts if it were separated as this would make the page not useful as not much information is shared. Another advantage is that if one front is silent, the other could be active and there is a bigger chance that that the at least 1 of the front would be moving. This increases the usefulness of the page and this would attract people to read it more frequently as more updates could be shown. If there is seperate fronts, those pages will likely be silent for almost at least a month or 3 weeks and thus, this would question the readers about why even the page is there. Liagdan (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If any editor wish to delete any paragraph from this page, please talk to me first and we will discuss this together. Broskalitre (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You need to make yourself familiar with WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

I consider the following information, which I cut and you have since edit warred back into the article, to be totally vague and not notable:

On 1 May, Russian forces attacked Serebrianka and Verkhn'okam'yans'ke with no success.

Intense fighting continued near Siversk on the same day.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

My edits are based on sources not my own thinking. I also usually read through the articles sources posted before including them. Broskalitre (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The point is that if an editor removes something you have added, there should be a discussion on whether or not the disputed content is worth including in the article, instead of just immediately adding it back as you did. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok understood. Broskalitre (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@SaintPaulOfTarsus, May I know how my previous edit was in the wrong section? It is correct and based on sources, meaning that sources stated that this was in the Siversk Axis. And you missed out many villages the Russians advanced in March 2025. If you could not find any reason for this, I will undo the edit. (btw the way I am speaking is not offensive, but I am just trying to tell you) Broskalitre (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Within the section "Siversk front", I incorporated sub-sections for the Bilohorivka front and the front south of Siversk.

You added some information about events south of Siversk to the Bilohorivka front sub-section. That information was already present in the south of Siversk sub-section. Thus, the information appeared in the article twice.

I have no idea what you mean by you missed out many villages the Russians advanced in March 2025.

It appears to me that you may be displaying edit war and ownership tendencies. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel that way but I am not displaying an edit war but just trying to remind you. The villages you missed where the Russians advanced were Sakko i Vantsetti and Vasyukivka in March 2025 as ISW clearly states in one of their offensive assessments that Russian forces advanced in Sakko i Vantsetti and Vasyukivka. But for real, I dont know what you mean by ownership tendencies. If you think I am the king of this page, I am not thinking that way, but just trying to let you know and that those edits you deleted were based on real sources, not my own speculations. Broskalitre (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I included those villages in the section titled "South of Siversk". Nothing was deleted. Maybe you're the one missing something? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I apologise for the misunderstanding . So can we (including my little brother) finally collaborate together and end this conflict? I would love to work together. Once more, I apologise for the misunderstanding. Broskalitre (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Fighting has seemingly reached the town 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:8803:B5AD:49D7:D10A (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I have removed File:Lyman–Kreminna front of the Russia-Ukraine war (1 January 2025 – present).svg as it is unverifiable and uncited. The map claims Zelena Dolyna was captured by Russia on 27 August 2025. Source listed on the map is this constantly-updating map, which displays (as of this message) 23 September 2025 data. No way to go back in time it appears, so I cannot verify the source. Map date says it was created based on 27 August 2025 data, and ISW for that day says directly, "Russian forces continued offensive operations in the Lyman direction on August 27 but did not make confirmed advances....Russian forces attacked....Zelena Dolyna". Map is unverifable and uncited, so I have removed it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

To view historical ISW data, you can use their tool Interactive Time-lapse: Russia's War in Ukraine. Should I update the description of the file on Commons to include this link? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 21:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I am doubting the verifiability of the map. The ISW interactive tool does show Russia having captured the town on August 27. However, the ISW analysis for the day says Russia attack the town and they did not make any confirmed advances that day. Logically, Russia would not attack a town they controlled. So, I think you should provide a non-ISW source to confirm they captured the town on or before August 27, 2025. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You have misquoted the report.

Russian forces attacked northwest of Lyman near Shandryholove; north of Lyman near Novomykhailivka, Karpivka, Ridkodub and Zelena Dolyna.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 03:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

ISW 2025 07 09:

Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces advanced... within central Zelena Dolyna...

ISW 2025 07 10:

Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces... seized Zelena Dolyna...

ISW 2025 07 11:

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed on July 11 that Russian forces seized Zelena Dolyna.

Geolocated footage published on July 10 shows elements of the Russian 1428th Motorized Rifle Regiment (144th Motorized Rifle Division, 20th CAA, MMD) operating in western and central Zelena Dolyna (north of Lyman), indicating that Russian forces recently seized the settlement.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Now that Siversk has fallen, everything from 2022 to 2025 should be moved to its own Battle of Siversk or Siversk offensive article. While the current article becomes either the Lyman offensive or the Third Battle of Lyman.

~< Valentinianus I (talk) >~ 04:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Just giving my own insight here.

This article has, for the longest time, been a poor attempt at fluffing up said article by combining two unrelated sectors of the frontline into the same article. This article is also littered with inconsistencies, false claims, unsourced information, and is of incredibly poor quality. I believe that this article, in the most simple way possible, should not exist. Like you suggested, new articles for the battles of Siversk and Lyman should be created in its place instead, with this article being either partly split into said articles, or just deleted in its entirety. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Support - By this point there's no real justification for this outdated article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Support. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:30, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Support that the article should not exist in its current form. Aside from poor quality, I agree that the article feels like a forced merger of two frontline sectors which would fail notability guidelines if they had separate articles. This led to a title that violates no original research, since this name does not exist among sources. I am not active myself in XfD’s, but if any of you (@Valentinianus I, IiSmxyzXX, Onegreatjoke, Alexeyevitch, and SaintPaulOfTarsus: wants to nominate this article for deletion, I won’t object it.

We could consider a creation of Battle of Siversk (late 2025 events) if there are enough sources available + support from editors. As for Lyman I believe this will be questionable, at least for now. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This article is heavily outdated. ~2026-87532-4 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Any update on this article? ~2026-25084-63 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)