Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk

Siege

There is no need to bring in value-laden language here that will confuse the reader. The sources I used say "encirclement", and "siege" makes little sense in this instance. I do not understand your insistence on "siege", but it is certainly not appropriate. As far as that blurb you added about "break the siege", I believe that is unverifiable and outdated information. The Kyiv Post article from the day after says that such pronouncement were just "bluster", and had no bearing on reality. I can't find any sources confirming such a thing, other than that one government announcement. RGloucester — ☎ 12:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

CNN (highly reliable) and Kyivpost sources have been provided calling it a siege. Also, it was established long before that the Ukrainian military captured the town and than got trapped in it (came under siege). So I would again ask that you do not remove sourced information. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm referring to. You are using value-laden language when it is not necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You may see it as value-laden language but I don't, just like CNN and Kyivpost don't seen it as such. I'm not seeing what is so non-neutral about the term siege. I would refer you to the meaning of the term Siege. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Cities can be "sieged", but people cannot. Such a usage is extremely confusing to the reader. It isn't a matter of neutrality, but of bombasticity. Regardless, I've implemented a compromise to provide clarity. Do keep in mind that we do not follow journalistic sensationalist word usage here. We have a Manual of Style. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revert your changes now. I implemented a compromise, and you tread all over it? That section header makes absolutely no sense now. No sense whatsoever. It has no clarity. I cannot even understand what it purports to mean. Why do you do such things? What is your problem with clarity and good language? Can you please stop degenerating the prose and clarity of this encyclopaedia? RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I tread all over your compromise? I put two possible compromise versions and you revert both of them back to the wording you like. How is that a compromise? Rebels besieged Ilovaisk. That's my final compromise wording and its pretty simple. What other reason would they have to besiege a town unless it was government-held? Its not my problem you don't understand or like simple wording. And its not journalistic sensationalist word usage if you simply don't like the word they use. I refer you once again to the meaning of the word siege. I made the edit now back to my last compromise proposition. You are using the word encirclement which was not widely used in comparison to siege. If you do not accept again my second compromise proposal wording that's your problem. I tried to compromise, you didn't. EkoGraf (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are being dense, uncompromising, and rather tendentious. Your "sources" have been provided? I've provided them too, but apparently they are not any good. I implemented a compromise that allowed the word "siege" to coexist with "encirclement". You've repeatedly reverted this compromise in bad faith. I will not allow this to stand, let that be known. I will not allow a nonsense section heading that makes no sense ruin this article. I will used the word used in the sources I added to this article when I rewrote most of it. Clarity must rule the day, and your opposition is clearly political, rather than in the interest of the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Scope of article?

I have seen many Western sources (Foreign Policy) refer to the rout of the Ukrainian army on and after August 24 as the "Battle of Ilovaisk", but the scope of event was much larger, reaching all the way to Novoazovsk and Mariupol. Using Soviet terminology this might be describes as something like the Mariupol Strategic Offensive Operation (стратегическая наступательная операция). The offensive covered the whole southern front from Saur Mogila to Donetsk and formed two larger and a number of smaller "cauldrons" or pockets containing some 10,000 Ukrainian troops total – in addition to the previously formed "Southern Cauldron 2.0" to the east. The first one was formed around Amvrosievka trapping large parts of the 28th, 30th and 95th Brigades. The second one was formed west of Starobechevo, with a separate smaller pocket forming around Yelenovka. The Ilovaisk pocket was a separate pocket north of the larger Amvrosievka cauldron.

The proposal by Putin and the offer by the Novorossiyan Army was for Ukrainian forces in the larger pockets to leave with their personal weapons and flags leaving all armor and equipment behind, intact. I do not know if this offer was ever extended to the hated Praviy Sector battalions in the small Ilovaisk pocket. It is a misreading of the sources and event to assume that Putin ever made any proposals related specifically to the Ilovaisk pocket.

If anyone has problems seeing and understanding the real events from behind the dismissive Western media coverage and the Novorossiyan secrecy it is worth having a look at the Lost armour database, especially the list of destroyed armor, now standing at 293 units. For realist estimates of the size of the rout one might multiply the number of destroyed tanks and armor by four and the number of trophies by two. Tim Judah for the New York Review of Books spots 68 tanks and military vehicles on a sixteen-mile stretch of road from the village of Novokaterinivka to Ilovaysk. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this nonsense about "cauldrons"? What does "cauldron" even mean, in this context? As far as I'm aware, a cauldron is a pot. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, the source cited in that phrase says that Putin was referring to the Ilovaisk troops. You've provide no sources for this "cauldron" business, meaning that it is inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good description of these events... My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

this is official site of russian president, not a simple word about Ilovaisk http://www.kremlin.ru/news/46506 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.231.245 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This agreement was not honored-correct, but it was no honored by Kiev's forces not by resistance fighters

This agreement was not honored-correct, but it was no honored by Kiev's forces not by resistance fighters. They agreed to leave their military equipment and retreat without weapons but violated the terms of agreement when nationalist battalions moved armed into corridors provided. In return resistance opened fire. Regular soldiers that moved without weapons were let go unharmed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what this reliable source says. RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since US has (through sanctions, propaganda, and other actions) joined the Ukrainian side of the conflict, you can't simply use sources (usually reliable in their usual reporting) when referring to the conflict. WSJ is an economic paper, they aren't known for their military expertise. What they do here is writing what their (overwhelmingly pro-Ukrainian) editorial staff believes. It would not be safe to write pro-DNR articles in NATO countries at the moment (hence their lack), but that doesn't mean that this point of view doesn't exist... IDiO (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reliable, and the idea that the "US has joined the Ukrainian side" is bollocks. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

IDiO, please read WP:RS. Reliable sources have nothing to do with your WP:POV opinion of which sources are reliable and which aren't. Note, also, that talk pages are not to be used as a soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the article should contain an alternative version of events. Otherwise, it looks lopsided. Reliable russian sources (RIA Novosti is one of the largest news agencies in Russia) claim that according to resistance fighters, Kiev's forces agreed to leave their military equipment and retreat without weapons but violated the terms of agreement.

I think that explanation for the attack on a convoy of retreating government troops should be given - as it is helpful in creating the overall picture of events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.196.166 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

References

If you can find a reliable source that verifies what the RIA report says, then we can include it. At present, reliable sources cited in this article, such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, all contradict the RIA report. Unless we can verify it, it cannot be included. Please provide a cross-reference in a reliable source. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Conditions for granting a humanitarian corridor for Ukrainian troops were announced by Zaharchenko: "Ukrainian forces must abandon their armoured vehicles and ammunition to be allowed to leave the battlefield”. I think it is necessary to include this statement in the text of the article