This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Russia: Military Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Ukraine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: Sabbagh, Dan (29 August 2023). "'I couldn't take it any more': holdouts quit Kupiansk after renewed Russian shelling". Retrieved 29 August 2023.

US halts key weapons shipments to Ukraine

in this source it is reported that all of Luhansk has now been captured by Russia. Genabab (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a few days I will be splitting this article into about three or four separate articles, based on many previous talk page discussions, and we can forget about the imaginary "Luhansk Oblast campaign" once and for all. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I think that would be best. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what are the articles that you plan on creating with this split? IiSmxyzXX (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siversk front, Lyman front, Kupiansk front, and possibly Borova front if the term appears frequently enough in sources SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon re-reading this article it looks more like a timeline article than a descriptive campaign article. I’m not exactly sure what this page adds compared to the eastern front article and the monthly timeline articles. Besides that, some sections of this article are weakly sourced or entirely based on daily ISW reports. Therefore it is in my opinion questionable if this article passes WP:GNG, especially if it is split into separate articles which include relative low intensity sectors (e.g. Kreminna–Lyman and Siversk). I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus we already have Kupiansk offensive and Northeast Donetsk Oblast campaign which covers everything you mentioned except Borova (maybe). I think now is the time you should start moving relevant things from this to the respective articles bcoz some recent OSINT reports regarding Serebryanskyi Forest & Northern Bank of Siverskyi Donets shows that pocket might be closed soon. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still planning to change this article? ~2026-87532-4 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @SaintPaulOfTarsus, just wondering about what will be happening with this article? You mentioned that you planned on splitting the article over a month ago, however nothing major has been done to this article as of now. Do you still have these plans or are you taking a different approach? IiSmxyzXX (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative would be changing this to Russian Victory. I don’t think I’d have to provide a source for this one.. 2A01:599:315:ADE0:ACFE:2CBE:5BB8:9CDD (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's something of a whiplash that this article gives in the casualties and losses section. Ukrainian figures are rightly given a little bit of a suspicious framing, but the final paragraph includes a citation of far more realistic combat casualty statistics, which are significantly lower than what the accumulated Russian combat casualty figures would be if you summed all the Ukrainian claims together. This isn't really remarked on, either. Official propaganda is practically treated as a neutral source, in a way it wouldn't be if we were dealing with Russian-purported casualties.

I would recommend that anything that smells of war propaganda be removed from the article, and that includes the bulk of the claims from the Ukrainian government of casualties inflicted on Russian forces. These are obviously figures intended for propaganda purposes and do not need to be chronicled here. Situwannabe (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you compared the last sentence to the rest of the section, you may have overlooked that the final claim purports to be the figure of Russian casualties taken over the course of nine months for one village. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed that this article would be split. Another alternative would be to just mark the status from ongoing to Russian Victory. ~2026-13165-72 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]