Talk:Kursk campaign

Source

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/48776

Overseas Experts Declare Ukraine Army Defeated at Kursk

"Observers outside Ukraine on Wednesday said Kyiv’s forces holding a salient in Russia’s Kursk region had been defeated and were retreating out of the country." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:ECEC:6201:6069:C16F (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, there is only two outcomes in INFOBOX, X Victory or Y Victory, no other results. Unless Stalemate, that is not the case. So I'm changing to Russian Victory.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Unknown00000000 as the editor who changed my addition of "Russian victory" to "Ukrainian defeat", please note the above conventions regarding Template:Infobox military conflict. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It says "Ukrainian Operational Failure" in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive infobox. NekawaH (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@SaintPaulOfTarsus Can we really speak of a Russian victory at the "Kursk front"? We could say this for the "Kursk operation/offensive" by Ukraine, but the battles around the Kursk front seem continue, as Russia seeks to cut the retreat off. It depends on what this page really describes.

Russia advances into Sumy^[1] and might pursue Ukrainian forces in Ukraine, continuing battles at the Kursk front.^[2]

To determine wether a belligerent is victorious at the Kursk front, I guess one belligerent would have to have a stronghold in the adversary area, otherwise it could be seen as a stalemate along the border. Zerbrxsler (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

"To determine wether a belligerent is victorious at the Kursk front, I guess one belligerent would have to have a stronghold in the adversary area, otherwise it could be seen as a stalemate along the border."

The Kursk offensive started with Ukraine crossing the Russian border into Russia's Kursk region. It is logical to consider the offensive over with a "Russian victory" once the Ukrainian soldiers leave Russia's Kursk region. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ "Kursk front" and "Kursk offensive [by Ukraine]" can mean different things. Hostilities might continue in this area ("Kursk front"), as Russia advances into Sumy. Hence, I'm wondering wether this page describes the Ukrainian Kursk offensive, or the broader Kursk front (border area). The infobox is named "Kursk front". Should we create a new page if Russia advances into Sumy, called "Sumy front/offensive"? Or continue using this page for all hostilities near the Kursk-Sumy border area. Zerbrxsler (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The article's title is Kursk offensive (2024–present) not "Kursk front". In the lede it says "the Armed Forces of Ukraine launched an incursion into Russia's Kursk Oblast and clashed with the Russian Armed Forces" suggesting the start of the offensive was when Ukraine launched an incursion into Russia. If the Ukrainian troops retreated back into Ukrainian territory, behind the line they crossed in their initial incursion, then it isn't a stalemate. I don't think we will find any WP:RS that will call the Kursk offensive a "stalemate".

"The infobox is named "Kursk front"."

That is probably because the Kursk offensive opened the Kursk front, the "Kursk front" did not exist before the Ukrainian Kursk offensive.

"Should we create a new page if Russia advances into Sumy, called "Sumy front/offensive"?"

If Russians actually start an offensive into Sumy in Ukraine, and it is a significant offensive designed to take and hold territory, and if enough WP:RS discuss it, then sure, we can have a "2025 Russian Sumy offensive" article. A temporary incursion into Sumy by Russia as part of their counter-offensive in Kursk can be discussed as part of this article.

"Or continue using this page for all hostilities near the Kursk-Sumy border area."

Have there been many hostilities in the Kursk-Sumy border area other than this Ukrainian Kursk offensive? If there have been, and if clashes continue to happen and these clashes are covered extensively by WP:RS, then there could be enough reason to start a "Kursk front of the Russia-Ukraine war" (or whatever the agreed-upon name happens to be at the time) that would talk about the Ukrainian Kursk offensive, the hypothetical Russian Sumy offensive and the hypothetical continuing clashes/incursions/offensives in the border region. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I feel this is a tad premature. The Russians won in Sudzha but (as of this writing) the Ukrainians have not withdrawn from Kursk entirely. Fighting elsewhere in Kursk is ongoing. The cited article mentions "overseas experts" but it seems there is only one neutral (non-Russian) expert, Tom Cooper, mentioned, and he is not definitively stating a Russian victory and in any case I don't think it's appropriate to make a conclusion on the opinion of only a single person. (Granted, this might be a moot point in 24-48 hours ... the situation on the ground is rapidly developing and the momentum is clearly on the Russian side) JDiala (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We're in no rush, WP:NODEADLINE and nobody is hitting F5 on Ukraine war articles to get updates on the war, Wikipedia is under no obligation to change as soon as a report is out WP:NOTNEWS.

I say we wait a day or two (or more), until the dust settles, figuratively and literally.

WP:RS are talking about "defeat" and "retreat", I think it can be considered over on 13 March 2025 (both the date when Russia claimed to recapture Sudzha and when WP:RS reported on the retreat) TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello I agree that there is "no rush" but I think strong consensus from RS is follows -

1. Ukraine launched this offensive to capture Russian territory for bargaining/tieing up Russian forces/protecting Sumy months ago

2. After six months or so Ukraine was defeated by Russia via attrition and forced to withdraw under duress.

3. The offensive is over - there will be no further Ukraine offensive into Kursk

4. Sumy is now in danger of Russian counteroffensive

5. Ukraine has no territory to bargain with and took a lot of causalties

Overall I think there is strong consensus that the offensive is over and Ukraine was defeated in all of its stated objectives. I haven't seen any RS saying "well Ukraine won anyway." Since "Ukranian Defeat" is not an option for result "Russian Victory" it is, though to be honest I think it makes more sense to frame this in terms of Ukraine failing rather than Russia succeeding, but w/e. 2605:A601:5553:B000:909:1C54:D107:12C5 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right. It seems there's lots of WP:RS saying it (rather than a few). I will change my answer. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

From daring invasion to rapid retreat: the end of Ukraine’s Kursk gambit ... Kofman said. “The operation proved a tactical success, but it did not change the overall dynamic in the war.” ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine still holds territories in kursk those they have not been defeated. They just withdrew form the north and central parts of kursk. The still hold the south. 2605:8D80:580:8029:2852:590F:77D7:3796 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I was on team Let's Wait, but it seems it is over.

BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q198zyppqo

Financial Times: https://archive.ph/MHjNS

NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/article/kursk-ukraine-russia-war.html

NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-kursk-retreat-russia.html

While Ukraine still controls a "small strip of land near the border" and despite Syrskiy saying they will "fight as long as they need to", all WP:RS agree that the offensive has stopped and that Ukraine retreated from Kursk. When they talk about areas in Kursk still under Ukrainian control they always say it is small and that the Ukrainians are holding them as defenses against a Russian offensive into Sumy.

We can surmise that the offensive is over with a Russian victory. A possible way forward here is stopping the addition of new events to the article and creating a new article for the Kursk front. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Certainly this seems to be the case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Imho the fall of Sudzha marks the end of the operation since that withdrawal was basically a default, as in the Ukranians didn't try to even hold the city, they just retreated. Once Sudzha fell there wasn't even the theoretical possibility of the offensive continuing. May not matter, but most of the "it's over" articles started coming out once Sudzha fell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5553:B000:6406:E7DB:C911:5844 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Well this is WP:OR, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE it's quite simple, once content in the article clearly establishes that it's over, we'll add the result to the infobox. At the moment, what we have established in terms of the latest events is a lot of Russian announcing and claiming.

If WP:RS can be found clearly stating it's over and done with, content based on them can be added and the problem would be solved. TylerBurden (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you even look at the sources in the OP?

BBC: "'Everything is finished': Ukrainian troops relive retreat from Kursk Ukrainian soldiers fighting in Russia's Kursk region have described scenes "like a horror movie" as they retreated from the front lines."

NYT: "Ukrainian troops have withdrawn from all but a sliver of land in Russia’s Kursk region, according to military analysts and soldiers, as their monthslong campaign to occupy Russian territory appears to be drawing to a close."

The Guardian: "The Ukrainian retreat from the Kursk region, carried out in stages over the past two weeks, appears to mark the end of one of the most audacious and surprising operations of the conflict" ^[1]

It can't get any more clear than "appear to mark the end of". TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There are few to no RS claiming that the Kursk offensive is ongoing. There are many RS claiming that the Kursk offensive is over. 2605:A601:5553:B000:6406:E7DB:C911:5844 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's more sources:

"Ukraine's army escapes from Kursk by the skin of its teeth The chaotic final weeks have certainly left a sour note, and many question why Mr Zelensky and General Syrsky left it so long to retreat." The Economist(paywall) [archive link]

"Ukraine's General Staff on March 16 confirmed Ukrainian troops' withdrawal from the logistics hub of Sudzha in Russia's Kursk Oblast, days after Moscow claimed its capture." ... "More than three years into the full-scale war, Ukraine is slowly withdrawing on multiple fronts amid a critical manpower shortage." Kyiv Independent

"KYIV, Ukraine—Ukraine's audacious military gambit inside Russia drew toward a close this week much as it started last summer: quickly." Wall Street Journal(paywall) archive link

"Ukraine only holds about 30% of the Russian land it had seized and its forces are in retreat after a rapid near-defeat in the city of Sudzha." AP news

"Superior numbers and attacks on supply lines slowly choked off the Ukrainian forces holding the town of Sudzha and forced their retreat. By Monday, Ukrainian troops had almost entirely withdrawn from Kursk, said a soldier familiar with drone operations in the region — who like the others interviewed for this story wasn't authorized to speak publicly — describing the parts of Kursk still under Ukrainian control as "a tiny patch, practically nothing. Just some border zones."" Washington Post

"Ukrainian troops are retreating from Kursk, Russia, facing overwhelming numbers and "huge swarms" of Russian drones." The Independent bulletin "Troops outnumbered by as much as six to one on the battlefield, the main supply route cut off and swarms of drones attacking vehicles and soldiers retreating across the border back into Ukraine. That is the picture painted by a senior Ukrainian army officer as Kyiv's forces are pushed back from their foothold in Russia's Kursk by Vladimir Putin's troops." The Independent full article

"Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from nearly all territories in Russia’s Kursk Oblast, except for a small strip of land, and are working to prevent Russian troops from advancing into Sumy Oblast, The New York Times reported on March 16, citing military analysts and service members." The New Voice of Ukraine choosing to quote NYT TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the end date being 16 March. If we truly want to title this article "offensive", the end date should be when the Ukrainian offensive stalled: September–October 2024. If we want to call it "front", then it is still ongoing. ISW does not record Russia as having made any advances in Kursk Oblast in the previous three days, so obviously Ukraine is holding onto the small fringe of Russian territory it has left. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

But the article has events happening after September-October 2024, and if that were an issue, why didn't you bring it up back then?

" If we want to call it "front", then it is still ongoing."

We don't call it front. The article is still called "Kursk Offensive". There's no reason to make edits or keep edits in anticipation of some possible change in the future.

Please look at the sources that say the "gambit ... drew to a close" and "end of one of the ... operations of the conflict" in the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian respectively. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, those articles clearly say there is still fighting in Kursk Oblast. The article's title is "offensive", but it talks about a front in the war. There is a conflict between the name and scope of this article. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

"those articles clearly say there is still fighting in Kursk Oblast."

OK, and? You're drawing your own conclusions, rather than going by what the sources say, which is WP:OR.

• Ukrainian General Staff ordered a retreat from Kursk
• It's confirmed Russia took Sudzha (the only settlement of value and Ukraine's stronghold in Kursk)
• Zelenskyy said the Kursk operation/offensive achieved its goal (implying it is over)
• Ukrainian retreat is well covered by sources
• some sources talk about the end of the operation directly

Now, unless you have WP:RS that say the Kursk Offensive hasn't ended despite Ukraine losing Sudzha and retreating from Kursk or have objections to the WP:RS please don't revert again. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

More sources:

"The seven-month battle for control of a slice of Russia's Kursk region is ending in a Ukrainian defeat." Meduza

"Ukraine driven out of Kursk Ukrainian troops have been forced into a hasty retreat..." The Telegraph

"Ukraine is pulling back from the Russian territory it captured in a surprise offensive last summer, but those forces have not been encircled. The Ukrainian command has sent reinforcements to secure the retreat to new positions, a process that has been under way for several days." Politico TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The absolute irony of you telling other people they are making their own conclusions, when even the sources you are citing is using wording like "appears to be ending" and "is ending". If these sources were saying it had actually ended, you would have a point. What we have instead is you trying to incorrectly say it is up to others to provide sources saying it hasn't ended, completely flipping Wikipedia policy (WP:ONUS) upside down, it is up to you to provide sources saying it's actually over. Not it "appears to be ending" "is ending" "implying" etc. Where are these "some sources"? TylerBurden (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a mainstream source saying something to the effect of "Ukraine has been routed out of Kursk, but this is only the beginning/first phase of the operation." There are hundreds of sources saying something to the effect of "Ukraine has been defeated in Kursk/driven out of Kursk/lost its territory in Kursk/pushed to the periphery in Kursk." Not just RS specializing in the Ukraine war but mainstream heavy hitting sources like the WSJ, the Guardian, the NYT. Even pro-Ukraine RS like Kyiv Post say Ukraine has been defeated. There is always room for debate but this is one of the most RS confirmed actions of the war - Ukraine launched an attack into Kursk and was defeated or at least confounded in their stated objectives. 136.55.29.134 (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Then you should have no trouble providing these sources saying in plain language it's over. TylerBurden (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

With forced withdrawal, Russia takes away Ukraine's Kursk cards

"https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-withdrawal-kursk/"

'Everything is finished': Ukrainian troops relive retreat from Kursk

"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q198zyppqo"

"How Ukraine’s Offensive in Russia’s Kursk Region Unraveled"

"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/world/europe/ukraine-kursk-retreat-russia.html"

Total research time...45 seconds..., in the most literal sense, it took more time to copy and paste the sources than find them. 136.55.29.134 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

See the message above:
saying in plain language it's over. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Why can we not just defer to the overwhelming consensus of the RS claiming Ukraine's defeat. If the Kursk Offensive's goals are a failure that means the operation by definition is over. The only counter to this is finding RS sources saying the goals of the Kursk Offensive are ongoing. There are...few ...perhaps none...almost every single one says that Ukraine has been defeated in kursk...there are some that equivocate and say that Ukraine attrited Russia and pulled Russian forces from the Donbass...but NONE state that the operation is ongoing. It...it's over!!! 136.55.29.134 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait and see if other editors agree with you or me. I'm not going to edit war about this. I linked all the WP:RS I could find, I'll keep adding them as I find them.

Regarding your edit summary: replying to comments and adding additional WP:RS links is not bludgeoning. I keep having to ask you to stop throwing WP:ASPERSIONS at me every chance you get. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

replying to comments and adding additional WP:RS links is not bludgeoning
You need to stop with posting massive amount of links which do not support your point.
even the sources you are citing is using wording like "appears to be ending" and "is ending" ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, the offensive was over once they started the retreat from Kursk.

"The seven-month battle for control of a slice of Russia's Kursk region is ending in a Ukrainian defeat."

"Ukraine's audacious military gambit inside Russia drew toward a close this week"

I think the day the retreat was ordered is a good day we can consider the offensive to be over, because that seems to be the consensus in WP:RS. Sure Ukraine is going to keep as much of a defensive buffer around their border. They're not going to move beyond the "border" (the line on the map) if they don't have to. If your criteria is that a WP:RS has to literally write "The Kursk offensive is over." then I don't think I am going to change your mind.

I've said plenty in this topic. I'm not going to comment for a while, I'll let others (including you, of course, as you've just come to the thread) give their opinion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@TylerBurden @Manyareasexpert Please see: "Ukraine's Kursk operation has ended." Euromaidan Press (published on March 17)

Bonus: Talking about the withdrawal as something that has been completed in the past:

"It became clear that Ukrainian troops had to be withdrawn from the Kursk Oblast" NV.UA

"That is why the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the Kursk region was carried out exclusively at night and with strict observance of all safety standards." ZN.UA

Financial Times: "From daring invasion to rapid retreat: the end of Ukraine’s Kursk gambit"

"After eight months of Ukrainian presence in Russian territory, it is currently unknown whether they intend to stay in any small fraction of land or if the withdrawal is total. The Kursk operation, which began by surprise and allowed hundreds of Russian prisoners in its early moments, has had a significant political message" El Mundo

"The Real Reason Ukraine Retreated From Kursk" Kyiv Post TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Would you agree with moving the page from offensive to operation based on what you quoted? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we'd need to do a WP:RS review to see how they refer to it the most often. "Kursk operation", "surprise offensive", "military gambit", "audacious and surprising operation", etc. they use all kinds of terms. If the plurality of WP:RS call it an operation I'd support the move. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Imho there is no reason to change anything in regards to offensive vs operation. While many sources call it an operation many others call it an offensive - furthermore an offensive is a subcategory of operation (a defensive operation vs an offensive operation).

The only thing that NEEDS doing, is putting an end date on the operation, which, having just looked, I see has been done, hopefully that doesn't immediately get reverted (again). 2605:A601:5553:B000:0:0:0:3B6 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@TylerBurden and @Slatersteven, your stated burden of proof has been met. A WP:RS has declared, in their own voice and in no uncertain terms that "Ukraine's Kursk operation has ended."

WP:IDHT: "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. This is disruptive."

You need to find enough WP:RS to say the operation isn't over to overcome the current consensus. Your opinion and feelings on the matter do not trump WP:RS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Smeagol 17, this edit is unsupported neither here neither by sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

We could write "Ukrainian defeat", but it is generally not allowed. Smeagol 17 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

We can't, as "Among Western observers, opinions differ with regard to the outcome of the Ukrainian military's Kursk operation" Russia: What's happening with the Ukrainian army in Kursk? – DW – 03/14/2025 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That is regarding the wider strategic influence of the operation. Regarding what call the events of March there is much less discussion, as you can see in this thread. Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding what call the events of March
This is not our subject. The article name is Kursk offensive (2024–2025). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

And if that offensive ended in March... Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Too much Ifs. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That is also claimed in RSs collected here. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

If you don't ignore the argument above, you see RS where it's contested. Among Western observers, opinions differ with regard to the outcome of the Ukrainian military's Kursk operation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said, the "outcome" that's contested is not the same as what we normally put in "results". Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You constructed your edit on some IFs which may or may not be true (they are not). This article is not limited with "events of March". The argument based on sources and actual article content should be preferred, and it is that the operation is assessed differently. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I will just note that if uou think something will change regarding prominent RSs if/when Russia fully retakes Kursk oblast, then that is very unlikely. What was written after the fall of Sudza is most likely the most we will get (see Bakhmut). If this is not enough for you, it is very unlikely there will be more.) Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This has little to nothing to do with your edit, nor the argument against it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As you may note, I was just restoring the consensus that emerged in this thread. (And that other sources have not sufficiently challenged, in my view.) Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

No consensus emerged for your edit in this thread. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I was restoring earlier edit that was deleted after being here for a week. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Russians have not won until ukraine withdraws from kursk. Just beacause they left sudza does mean they withdrew from kursk Chasiv 25 (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• The stated goals of the incursion, in theory, was to redivert Russian forces from the east to relieve the UAF and capture the nearby Kursk nuclear power plant as a bargaining chip. Both these goals failed dramatically, with the former goal - the diversion of Russian forces - backfiring given the rapid advancements of Russian forces in eastern Ukraine during that time period. So yes. It is a Russian victory based on the failed operational goals set by Ukraine herself. Otherwise, why would Ukraine send their strategically important manpower and armour assets to that region. Photoshoots? This is moving goalposts. 42Grunt (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Who said about KNPP? As far as I know, no Ukrainian official has stated that was a goal. It could be a bargaining chip even without KNPP. Why do you think they’re staying there if those goals “failed drammatically”? Waited2seconds (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@HELLAS1990, your revert is unexplained and is unjustified. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• They still control only 3 villages or so and a strip of land across the border. HELLAS1990 (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, another argument for the removal of "Russian victory" from the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Do the Russians need to liberate 100% of Kursk that Ukraine occupied, before it can be called a Russian victory? Ukraine has already lost like 95% of Kursk that it previously occupied. Holding out on declaring this battle a Russian victory because Ukraine still hold some of Kursk seems pretty stupid. 138.75.214.186 (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:V - all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Definitely, they do need to liberate all remaining areas. This article is about the whole incursion, not the battle of Sudzha. Waited2seconds (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  You know what seems pretty stupid, making updates like this when the article alleges the offensive is over. If the offensive is over, why are we making updates about villages being captured?

  Apparently it's preferred here by some editors to rush the result to favour Russia based on WP:OR over the article actually making sense from both a logical and WP:MOS standpoint. So since like EkoGraf said here, the status quo should be maintained until there is clear consensus to change the result. There is evidently no consensus that it's actually over and it hasn't been the status quo for "some time", so I'm reverting back to "ongoing" since that is how the article is being treated, and was the actual status quo before people started edit warring to insert Russian victory. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Actually it is likely better to omit the parameter until WP:ONUS is met and we actually know what to say. TylerBurden (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  If so, you also need to change the dates and the name of the article. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Dates sure, name not really, even though the move was also premature, as far as I can tell the current year is 2025. TylerBurden (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Do any RS actualy use the phrase Russian victory? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Stop that. It used to say "Ukrainian retreat" but per military conflict infobox rules you cannot say anything except "x victory". TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

ONly if RS say it was. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

They say Ukrainian defeat: "The seven-month battle for control of a slice of Russia’s Kursk region is ending in a Ukrainian defeat."^[1] TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

And there has been no consensus to say it is a vioroty since the 26th of last month. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS say Ukrainian defeat, but since the military infobox rules say it cannot say "x defeat", we cannot write that. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Provide one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I just did. Stop being WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:IDHT.

"The seven-month battle for control of a slice of Russia’s Kursk region is ending in a Ukrainian defeat."

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/03/17/a-costly-gamble TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure (given its tone) so have asked at RSN, do you have a better source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

That is your prerogative, but since you are doing it to "win" this dispute, it might be seen as WP:GAMING. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Which part of my sentence is confusing you? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The part where you say I will win (thus meaning you know policy is against you here), or the part where you accuse me of gaming the system because I am right. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:GAMING: "This may range from bad faith attempts to thwart the aims of Wikipedia, to simply engineering "victory" in a content dispute or an untoward result in an RfC or other community discussion. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view."

You said no WP:RS say it's over, I found WP:RS saying it's over. You said no WP:RS said Russian victory, I found WP:RS that said Ukrainian defeat. You then questioned the reliability of a source that has been used many times in this article and the Russian invasion of Ukraine article (and many more, I am sure) in an attempt to remove the "Result: Russian victory" from the infobox. You started a thread over on WP:RSN even though the two times Meduza was mentioned at RSN editors said it was reliable. You also left an edit war warning template on my talk page after I undid your edits removing sourced claims.

You are showing WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour and I hope now that all of your concerns have been addressed, you will finally WP:DROPTHESTICK. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Being right is not a reason for edit warring. This is why I asked. you are not in fact, not getting consensus so seem to be trying to bludgeon the process (even at RSN) as such I decided to ask for a fresh opinion, not an involved one. And when I see that I ask why, you could ahv e found another (and better soeriuces, after all wp:undue also comes into it. I did not revert you until you started to edit war. When you do not have consensus for your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ Instead of WP:WIKILAWYERING and making WP:ASPERSIONS towards other editors while violating WP:ONUS and edit warring, can you explain how the Meduza "is ending" source overrides this more recent source which clearly states Ukraine still holds "sizable chunk of the Kursk region in Russia"?

If something is WP:TENDENTIOUS, it would be making WP:SYNTH edits to edit war phrases like "Russian victory" into the article, not reverting editors that for one reason or another do not follow even basic standards like WP:VERIFY. If I were you, I would not be throwing stones in a glasshouse, because you're not the sheriff you seem to think you are. TylerBurden (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Time for an RFC, lets get fresh eyes. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

One source making a claim is wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Simple question, in the Info box can we say Russia won. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Bad RfC. The WP:RS consensus is not in dispute. WP:RS are clear, "Kursk operation is over" (Euromaidan Press) and it ended in "a Ukrainian defeat" (Meduza). Editors at RSN said Meduza is a reliable source. You have not found any WP:RS that say otherwise. This is a clear attempt to WP:GAME the system. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You have one source saying Ukraine lost m as such putting it in our words may violate wp:undue. As such we need a community consensus about this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"one source"

"The Ukrainian retreat from the Kursk region" The Guardian

"Ukrainian forces have pulled almost entirely out of the Kursk region of Russia, ending an offensive" NYT

"Ukraine's retreat from Kursk deepens public divide on incursion benefits | Russia's retaking of Kursk removes potential bargaining chip for Ukraine" Reuters

Please see also this thread. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

But as it seems this is going too far, fine, let's close it and explain above how this is not undue in the thread above about Russian victory. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"Russian victory in Kursk" Washington Post

"Russian Victory In Kursk" Forbes

"Russian forces recapture Kursk" Al Jazeera

"Ukrainian defeat" Meduza TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

That is more like it, but we did not need a new section. However, recapture and victory are not really the same (please read wp:v). Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I included that to show that even sources that don't use the words "victory" or "defeat" talk about "recapture"/"retaking" and "retreat". On their own they wouldn't mean much, but when added to the WP:RS that do use the words victory and defeat, we see a consensus among them: Ukraine has halted offensive operations and has retreated from Kursk, while Russia has pushed the Ukrainian troops out and retaken Kursk. There is no other way to characterise this except as Ukrainian defeat and/or Russian victory.

Then you have the Economist article about "Ukrainian troops escaping Kursk by the skin of their teeth" and BBC writing about "catastrophic and panicked retreat".

@TylerBurden the story you linked doesn't say Ukraine is continuing its Kursk operation/offensive and it is in fact reporting on the opinion/statement of "a top American general." It's a bit ironic you accuse me of WP:SYNTH and demand WP:RS say something verbatim, but you have no problem conflating "holding ground" with "continuing offensive operations". I have linked WP:RS that call the operation/offensive over in their own voice and I have linked sources that call it a Russian victory and Ukrainian defeat verbatim in their own voice.

This is the second time I am pinging you in this thread with sources that say exactly what you asked for. I hope that you will respond and engage with the provided sources. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

"Ukraine’s forced withdrawal from Kursk ... The defeat at Kursk" The Telegraph

"Ukraine’s Kursk Offensive Was a Miserable Failure" American Conservative (Republished here and here) I don't like using this source, but according to RSN the source publishes opinions. That article is an opinion of a foreign policy analyst.

"The failure of the Kursk offensive" Firstpost. Opinion piece by an Indian Maj. General.

"How Ukraine’s Kursk Offensive Failed" sofrep.com (RSN topic on the source here, considered generally reliable by an editor, no further comments) TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure where these sources are getting their information from, but Ukrainian troops are still in Kursk Oblast, so claims that it's over don't really make very much sense. It's the same situation now as it was 1 month ago. Besides, ISW has said that since August, Russian offensive tempo in eastern Ukraine has substantially decreased. Calling this a Russian victory is like calling all the Israeli operations in Gaza "Hamas victories" because Israel withdrew – the goal was not to stay in those areas. First of all, the Kursk campaign is very clearly ongoing, so the "Russian victory" thing has to be taken out, and if/when the last Ukrainian troops withdraw from Kursk Oblast, we can put an end date and point to the #Analysis section in the Result parameter, like many other articles do. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

"Not sure where these sources are getting their information from"

We don't require secondary sources to provide their sources.

"First of all, the Kursk campaign is very clearly ongoing"

Do you have a WP:RS to back that up?

"and if/when the last Ukrainian troops withdraw from Kursk Oblast"

That's WP:OR. WP:RS have said the Kursk operation is over. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

ISW has Ukraine controlling a strip along the border, the infobox photo has the same. As for RSs, , , I could find more if I felt like it. Very clearly ongoing. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

A map isn't a RS, if you're interpreting a map then that's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Your other two links do not say that the "Kursk campaign is very clearly ongoing", either.

Why the double standard? Editors demanded that WP:RS say verbatim that the operation is over (which they do), that Ukraine was defeated (which they do) and/or that Russia was victorious (which they do). But now suddenly "Ukraine holds a small piece of Kursk" = "Kursk operation is ongoing". I don't think so. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Aren't you the exact editor above that insisted the article should say Russian victory because you interpreted sources saying things like "is ending" "appears to be ending" and "retreated" to mean everything was all over? Perhaps you think changing your signature would make people not see how hypocritical you are.

If there are sources saying both that the offensive is over and that it is not, the responsible and policy abiding thing to do would be to follow WP:DUE and give both perspectives their weight on the article. What we have instead is you edit warring against anyone trying to address the issue of split information, resulting in the article being admin protected in a state where it says "Russian victory" on an article that not only does not make such a conclusion in the article body, but contains content from a high quality source (I wouldn't be surprised if you try to dismiss Cavoli because of his nationality, but he is obviously in a qualified position to speak on the matter and would have access to a lot more information than random journalists) saying that this supposedly already Russian-won offensive still has Ukrainians controlling a big chunk of land. How this is inline with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I suppose only you know and the others arguing the same point know.

This black and white attitude you have all of a sudden is bizarre, the job of Wikipedia is to summarize WP:RS based on WP:DUEWEIGHT, as it stands now, the "victory" is at least disputed. TylerBurden (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

"Perhaps you think changing your signature would make people not see how hypocritical you are."

WP:PA

"I wouldn't be surprised if you try to dismiss Cavoli because of his nationality"

WP:AGF

"the "victory" is at least disputed."

By whom, you? Your single source, an opinion piece, is not enough to override consensus. Besides, the fact that Ukraine holds a tiny strip of land around the border doesn't mean the Kursk operation isn't over and it doesn't mean Ukraine wasn't defeated in Kursk, WP:OR.

Do you have a WP:RS that states in their own voice that the Kursk operation is ongoing? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Carefull, Cavoli didn't say "big". Also, his nationality is besides the point, but his position very much isn't. More to the point, I don't see him in our list of RSs... Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello it is i, the anon editor from the very top of the page with the kyiv post article. I'm famous!!

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/48776

Overseas Experts Declare Ukraine Army Defeated at Kursk

Seems pretty cut and dry to me!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:5553:b000::3b6 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• I can see sources raised here that would assert or imply that this is over but I also see sources saying it is not. To a good extent, it depends on whether one considers it over because the Ukrainians have been (largely) pushed back or not totally pushed back. How does one (and the sources) define when It is over? There are multiple views and definitions. Herein lies the problem of writing about an event in real time and relying on NEWSORG sources that are more concerned with headlines and selling their product than trying to write an historical account. The biggest issue though, is that the body of the article is telling us that it is ongoing and this contradicts the infobox, which tells us it has ended. Yet the infobox is there to summarise the body of the article. First thing we need to do is determine if there is a consensus in the sources that this is over and when (about) this occurred. Then we need the body of the article to reflect this. Then and only then should the infobox be changed to reflect the body of the article. If we can't say (as a fact) that it is over, we can't begin to address the result.
  Before we even begin to think about what we put against the result parameter in the infobox, we need to discuss in prose what the sources have to say about the result - ie we need to write an aftermath section. Then and only then can we consider what we should put against the result parameter, keeping in mind the guidance at WP:RESULT.
  There are issues, particularly with modern wars/engagements, with trying to apply simplistic terms (X victory) to complicated and nuanced situations. Who won or lost (victory or defeat) is not synonymous with operational success or failure. The example of different engagements in the Gaza war is pertinent. An Israeli withdrawal because they believed they had done sufficient to achieve their operational objectives is not an Hamas victory. Not following WP:RESULT and labeling the result as an Israeli withdrawal implies that they were forced to withdraw. The extent to which Israel achieved their operational objectives before withdrawing is detailed and nuanced. Furthermore, it cannot be transposed as victory or defeat. As a side-note, when the Russians withdrew from the Kyiv oblast in the opening stages to pursue a different strategy, most everyone was quick to label this a Ukrainian victory. If good quality sources tell us that the situation here is similar to Gaza, then calling this a Russian victory is probably inappropriate and the see Aftermath the best option. It is unfortunate that many editors leap to the infobox like it were a clitoris (see John Cleese in The Meaning of Life here) rather than doing things in the correct order. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Russia’s military Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov made the declaration during a video conference with President Vladimir Putin Saturday, saying Russian troops had “liberated” the last village in Kursk under Ukrainian control: Gornal."
  This same interview is used to confirm North Korean troops fighting in Kursk: “I want specially to note the participation of servicemen of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in liberating border areas of the Kursk Region who in accordance with the Treaty on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between our countries rendered considerable assistance in crushing the Ukrainian army’s combat group that had launched an incursion,” Gerasimov said, according to TASS. diff of edit on the invasion article
  If we're going to use that sentence to say presence of North Koreans is confirmed, we cannot dismiss the second part of the sentence just because we don't like it. Either we trust his statement, or we don't. Picking and choosing which parts of the statement to trust is WP:OR.
  with trying to apply simplistic terms (X victory) to complicated and nuanced situations
  That's a limitation of the infobox parameter.
  calling this a Russian victory is probably inappropriate and the see Aftermath the best option
  What kind of result could it possibly be if the result of an offensive was the complete retreat of the attacking forces?
  An Israeli withdrawal because they believed they had done sufficient to achieve their operational objectives is not an Hamas victory.
  The two situations are not comparable. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  This doesn't follow. We can use the parts of his statement that don't contradict sources wikipedia deems more reliable and ignore those that do. (And in any case, this article treats the presence of NK troops as a given using Western RSs, not Ukrainian and Russian ones. The "confirmation" is a statement about the official Russian stance, not reality.) Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am not talking about the North Korean troops, I have accepted the community's consensus on that a long time ago. I am talking about Gerasimov's claim that that Ukrainians have been completely pushed out of Kursk. The ISW reports on Gerasimov's statements and doesn't mention Ukraine denying them. They also updated their map to show that Ukraine does not hold any settlements, just a strip along the border. Which is to be expected, it's not like borders are actual lines on the ground. The Telegraph reported 5 days ago that Russians have taken "one of Ukraine's last strongholds", a church near the Ukrainian border (ISW map reflects this also).

  This is my last comment until the (inevitable) RFC on the issue. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Well, yeah. Don't think we will likely get more from the ISW on the issue in the near term without significant advances in Sumy Oblast (although they only labeled this as "advanced to central Gornal" on their report map). Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  If we follow the previous consensus, we can just label the following sections as "aftermatch". Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  Was "aftermatch" deliberate or a Freudian slip? Seriously though, TurboSuperA+, you have not addressed what is the key issue at this point in the article's development. When we resolve the end of this engagement (as represented by the prose of the article) then and only then can we consider the result (as represented in the body of the article). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  The later. But I am not TurboSuperA+. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  I know you are not TurboSuperA+. ;) Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Just a short comment. In my opinion, TurboSuperA+ has provided enough multiple RS citations verifying that the end result of this offensive is generally considered a Russian victory and/or Ukrainian defeat. EkoGraf (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I've seen some sources describe it as such and using common sense it sure seems like it. It took 7 months to recapture this small area and the fact it happened at was unpredictable. They also apparently lost roughly 20k men which is a lot and although Ukraine also lost a lot the odds were highly stacked against them. I don't want the article to become bias or anything but in my honest opinion it seems like it. Therefore, I propose changing the result to that or at least describing it in a note as a possible Pyrrhic victory. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It would be much more helpful if you could share the sources you have seen with us. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep, we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How is this a pyrrhic victory exactly? Ukraine launched an offensive using a fairly large force and only managed to capture a single major city before being driven out with major casualties D1d2d3d29 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the result parameter still disputed?—Alalch E. 12:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I am noting that the result param is pointing to the analysis section now. Whereas my involvement in this section was of a technical nature up to this point (making sure that the same thing is not simultaneously discussed in parallel threads; and making sure that a discussion that went dormant is marked as such in connection to WP:WTRMT#8), I am now expressing my opinion on the merits: I support the slink to "Analysis" for the time being. Pinging TylerBurden who might be interested in this comment. —Alalch E. 17:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense and lines up with how the WP template for military conflicts handles more complex cases like this, so if we are going to stop pretending that the previously inserted infobox was appropriate, we might be green for now. TylerBurden (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Surprised to see that it is not a Russian Victory in the results. The Ukrainians were massacred and routed here and accomplished none of their stated goals other than capturing some people for a prisoner exchange. Now we see across the front Ukraine is getting torn to shreds and routing again, I imagine all the tens of thousands of Ukrainian infantry that died in Kursk would have been useful to plug these gaps that the Russians are punching through like wet paper. Ultimately I have no dog in this fight, but I can pull a double dozen sources from mainstream sources saying Ukraine routed/massacred/destroyed/expelled from Kursk, it isn't hard. Am I missing something here? I am sorry if my tone is flippant but I am genuinely raising my eyebrows at a lack of "Russian Victory" in the header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:55AF:3200:967C:4298:D4BD:BBFE (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

They say Russian Victory, overwhelmingly and unambiguously, with the vast majority of mainstream sources in total agreement. Even Pro-Ukraine sources are in agreement. It makes sense doesn't it, Ukraine was completely destroyed in Kursk, with Sumy invaded immediately afterword and the front collapsing from a lack of infantry (a huge number of Ukrainian infantry died in Kursk - for nothing). 2605:A601:55AF:3200:967C:4298:D4BD:BBFE (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

They do, we seem to have a few here that disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)