Talk:Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022 – 7 June 2023)/Archive 1

Russia losing troops 5 to 1 false info

Source says the claim is unverified. Direct quote from the article: 'These numbers are impossible to verify.'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.209.188 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added the disclaimer. John Sauter (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Espionage

Uncertain as to whether this is relevant but an unidentified spy satellite has been detected flying over Canada and the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

References

6 February is irrelevant

Its content has nothing to do with the war, that is Russian internal politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSpectre (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Potential phase 5 article as of the 9th of february

The next major offensive by Russia has reportedly began, so it makes sense for this to be the next "phase".

I suppose at this time it's still too early to be sure if this attack will live up to its hype. If it stalls as usual, then there's no need for the next phase just yet, but... just saying, the russian media hypes it to the point where it would be worthy of being counted as a potential phase. We'll probably know better in a week or two. GMRE (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should wait until a Reliable Source defines five phases, then reorganize our phases around that. John Sauter (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is too soon to make a phase 5 article, but perhaps this article should be renamed, as Russia is making progress similarly as they did in the summer of 2022, in the so-called 'Battle of Donbas', so this phase isn't really a stalemate, it is more of a grinding advance by Russia. GramCanMineAway (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Or rather than rename the article itself, the links and its mention in lists on other articles documenting the timeline of the invasion. GramCanMineAway (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Phase 3 to Phase 4 transition: Was this an isolated report by one writer?

There is a discussion at the Talk page for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article concerning the terminology of 'Phase 4' in the invasion and whether it is general usage or isolated usage? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Rename Phase 4?

As it suggests, I was wondering if it’s possible to rename Phase 4 into something else. There hasn’t really been a stalemate for a couple months at least with Russia’s resumed offensive in the Donbas and claimed gains in Zaporizhzhia and NE Kharkiv oblasts. Agartha358 (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked into using the names that Tim Judah uses for his chapters, but they seemed too partisan for Wikipedia. If you have a better name for phase 4, by all means do the edit. John Sauter (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It is more of a grinding advance for Russia than it is a stalemate GramCanMineAway (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No info in over 2 days??

Why?? 63.146.82.250 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What information are you looking for? There is a Talk page for phases 1 to 3, and a Talk page for 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that might have the activity you seek. John Sauter (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested fix of article names

The article moves and name changes I'm suggesting to address this is to change Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 to "Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 (later operations)", and, similarly, Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 to "Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 (early operations)", or something like that in wording. That would be the most straightforward fix at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I would have no objection to these name changes. John Sauter (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 → Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 (later operations) – The proposed new name is a compromise for editors who object to having a numbered phase 4 article. There is a similar proposal to rename the phase 3 article. John Sauter (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't understand the logic in that proposed name. There has indeed been a few months of next to no changes in the front - All quiet on the eastern front. - so the current name is somewhat fitting. Making it a "phase 3 (later operations)" would turn it into like a sub-page of the "phase 3" page, or like a "phase 3 part 2". That doesn't seem like an elegant solution. It wouldn't even be factually fitting, because at this time the situation at the front does not at all resemble any sort of a ukranian counterattack. According to all sources, the current situation is about Russia making their attempted big attacks (which have so far been unsuccessful). Ukraine will continue attacking in another 2 months or so, once the western tanks and Patriot missile systems have arrived. Assuming that the russians will not manage to accomplish a breakthrough until then, it makes perfect sense to call this time in between a "stalemate" and then the next phase something like "second wave of ukrainian counterattacks" (or something like that). I'm sure there will be much discussion over what to call it once the time is right. GMRE (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is a good idea for the renaming. The subordinate sibling articles like this one are currently inconsistent with the naming conventions in the main article, and this name change puts it all strait. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. As the proposer of this name change, of course I support it. I proposed it in the hope of gaining general agreement on the organization of the timeline pages, and the consequent changes to the articles that refer to them. I do not feel strongly about the name, but I do think that the dates of each phase should be based on a Reliable Source. John Sauter (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As I doubt the objection is the title, if they are saying the article should not even exist. This thus does not address the issue. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You have a preference for the conflict of naming conventions in the Phase 3 of the main article, which currently links to the Phase 4 Timeline because there is no Phase 4 section in the main article? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - The title is so long and specific. If this article is just "later operations" of Phase 3 and not a distinct Phase 4, why don't we merge this article into Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3? phrogge 'sup? edits 16:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  The phase 3 page was divided into phases 3 and 4 based on a Reliable Source. See the phase 3 talk page for details. John Sauter (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a genuinely moronic idea. Can we please just let this article (which is still my child) be? Not only a month ago we were debating this article's very existence and this is no better than a merge proposal. I don't know how many times I have to keep reiterating that we are in a 4th phase, and the sources seem to back this up. Great Mercian (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Phase 3 is during Ukrainian counteroffensives. Phase 4 is during a stalemate. "Later operations" does not communicate "stalemate"; "later operations" sounds like Ukrainian counteroffensives are continuing which is not the case. Avenare (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

How about instead of bickering about irrelevent meaningless crap like what the page should be called, you actually add information to the article for once? Do you really think any casual reader cares this much about what an article is called? Sslaptnhablhat (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't add information, if there's nothing happening there. And why wouldn't we argue over what the page should optimally be called? History is written in these exact words. GMRE (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a mention of the exact title name in the FAQ section at the top of the Talk page for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I support to rename but as cited by User:Mzajac we could better go with months in the article title. Since the after operations could be then questioned about their WP:RS. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

There is a typo in "February 2023" tab, below "21 February", "the west" written in lower-case, should be capitalized "the West", please fix it. Thank you in advance. PorazonyCreeper (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The typographical error is fixed. Thank you for the precise instructions on where to find it. John Sauter (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Question

Has Putin ever mentioned the deployment of ekranoplanes in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2023

Requesting adding that the A-50 on February 26 2023 attack seems barely damaged with satellite observations and sources, as done on other Wikipedia articles

However, satellite imagery of the Machulishchy air base from 28 February showed no significant damage to the sole A-50 located there. 178.23.152.132 (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added the reference, though I have modified the suggested text to be closer to the language in the source. John Sauter (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Withdrawal from Bakhmut

I think the paragraph on March 4th should be rephrased, as this report has not yet been confirmed for certain. Ukraine will likely withdraw from Bakhmut soon, but we cannot be sure they started withdrawal on March 4th. I can't edit the article because of the protection, so I put this here. GramCanMineAway (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is quoting a reliable source, and it is not our job as editors to second-guess a reliable source, unless we feel that the source is not reliable or that the article is misrepresenting what the source is saying. John Sauter (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

But even the article does not say with certainty this is happening yet. I just think it should be phrased as 'Ukrainian forces seemingly began to withdraw from Bakhmut' although I admit the current phrasing is probably fine since Ukraine has been shifting troops to the flanks, rapidly rotating units, and blowing bridges in such ways that would suggest a withdrawal is coming. GramCanMineAway (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

And in the past few days we have seen that Ukraine's high command and President Zelensky have said they will continue the defense of the city. While it's possible they are just playing an information campaign and are still going to withdraw from the city. Perhaps the new reinforcements are just supposed to secure the flanks while the troops in the salient withdraw. But there is no solid proof they are already withdrawing or that they started withdrawing three days ago. So it should still say something like they 'began laying the groundwork for a withdrawal' or they 'seemingly were in the early phases of a withdrawal' or something like that rather than they 'began to withdraw from Bakhmut'. GramCanMineAway (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a Reliable Source which supports your wording? John Sauter (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

My exact wording? No. But, here I will provide a few sources on the official withdrawal not yet beginning. PBS has an article called "Civilians flee Bakhmut as possible Ukrainian troop withdrawal looms" which uses wording like 'as Kyiv's forces tried to help residents flee amid what Western analysts say may be preparations for a Ukrainian withdrawal from the eastern city that Russian forces have spent months trying to capture.' And, citing the ISW, 'Kyiv's actions may point to a looming Ukrainian pullout from parts of the city.' But I have yet to find a single reliable source that outright says Ukraine is certainly withdrawing. Plus, Zelensky has directly stated Ukrainian troops will continue to defend the city. So, I'm fine with that paragraph staying, however it should be made clear that it cannot be said with 100% certainty that Ukraine actually began withdrawing on that day, which is why I proposed the wording examples I did. GramCanMineAway (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's been 16 days since March 4th, there are no signs of a Ukrainian withdrawal from the entire Bakhmut salient, and Ukrainian officials have continued to press for reinforcing the sector to hold it. Ukraine did not begin a withdrawal from Bakhmut on March 4th. GramCanMineAway (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The article cites a reliable source saying that the withdrawal from Bakhmut started March 4, and another to say that fighting was fierce on March 11. There is nothing in the article saying that the withdrawal is complete. Do you have a Reliable Source which states that the withdrawal has not begun, or that it has been reversed? John Sauter (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The edit I'm proposing could be as simple as adding the word 'reportedly', which is a good compromise between our two positions.

Here's just one example, from March 7th, Zelensky stated Ukraine would reinforce the sector and would not withdraw from Bakhmut. A New York Times article called "Zelensky says Ukrainian troops won't withdraw from Bakhmut" is a reliable source supporting this.

I'm not asking for that entire paragraph to be removed, just change the wording to make it more clear that it was not certain that the withdrawal from Bakhmut began on that day or even that any withdrawal would take place at all. GramCanMineAway (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not have access to the New York Times web site, so I cannot verify your reference. If you could be more explicit in your reference, perhaps some other editor could add suitable language to the March 4 story, using your reference as its source. John Sauter (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wagner

The founder of the Wagner group complained that they were not receiving from Putin the necessary weapons and ammunition for them to occupy Bakhmut and that they were no longer allowed to recruit imprisoned criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to a Reliable Source for this story? A citation to the BBC isn't enough: the citation must be to the story, not the institution that reported the story. John Sauter (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Start date

Why would phase 4 start on 10 November? The Liberation of Kherson occurred on 11 November, and this says it started when Ukrainian counteroffensives end. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The dates of the phases are based on a Reliable Source. See the Talk page for Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for details. Note that dates for an event can differ by a day depending on where on the planet you are. John Sauter (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

US releases drone crash video

Should this potentially be included in 2023-03-16 section? Russia crashed into a US drone over international waters and the US released footage showing that the aircraft was attempting to drop fuel on it? source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64975766 167.98.27.226 (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Since this incident does not appear to be directly connected to the invasion, as of now, I don't think there is a need to mention it in the article. (Note: The incident has its own article - 2023 Black Sea drone incident) — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

In the section on 21 March, it should be clarified that "The power grid was damaged and several buildings caught fire" is only Ihor Ivin's claim, not a fact. The paragraph about Fumio Kishida should also be re-written in past tense. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing the text you quoted in the reference you cited. It may have been rewritten since you requested this edit. I made the correction to the second paragraph. John Sauter (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2023

Add to 20 March:

The United States approved a $350 million military aid package for Ukraine. The package includes ammunition for HIMARS rocket launchers, ammunition for Bradley Fighting Vehicles, HARM missiles, anti-tank weapons, riverine boats, and other equipment. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I usually respond to these requests but I am unable to respond to this particular request because I do not have access to the New York Times web site. I ask that some other editor, who can verify the source, respond. John Sauter (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a press release from the US Dept of State (cited in the NYTimes article): [1]. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added the story, with a reference to the State Department web site. John Sauter (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Arrival of AMX 10

Since the Leopard and challenger arrival have been mentionned on the article, I suggest adding the arrival of the first AMX 10 (without knowing the exact variant nor number, though unreliable source speaks of 14 RCR variants) and that some are "already on the frontline" by Sébastien Lecornu (Minister of the Armed Forces) in front of the "Commission de Défense de l'Assemblée nationale" on march 15 Here is a source on it https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/guerre-en-ukraine-les-premiers-blindes-francais-sur-une-ligne-de-front-20230316

The AMX were notable to be the first western design tank, though that definition of "tank" is debatable. I'm just pointing that the sentence "first western design tank" was repeatly used. AMX 10 announcement is already on the article on January 4th 178.23.152.132 (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the full video of the commission on march 15, in French, as primary source

https://videos.assemblee-nationale.fr/video.13084742_6411e94349022.commission-de-la-defense-nationale-et-des-forces-armees--m-sebastien-lecornu-ministre-des-armees-15-mars-2023

AMX are mentionned at 21:43 ("c'est vrai des AMX RC qui viennent d'arriver", "It's true of the AMX RC that just arrived") and are talked later too 178.23.152.132 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added the story, though my addition is based only on the first source. John Sauter (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

The second source is just the actual full interview of the minister in front of the Commission, which the first one referes t. 178.23.152.132 (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Need to create the april section

The april section is Missing despite the 1st april the intelligence officialy stated that the Russian Winter offensive had failed Zkhere (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There is now an April 2023 section. If you have a reliable source for the official statement, please list it. John Sauter (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What's a "steelmate"?

The navigation box at the top right has said this for a couple of days now. GMRE (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be fine as of today. GMRE (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2023

Add to 15 April: Poland and Hungary banned imports of grain and other food from Ukraine "to protect the local agricultural sector", due to Ukrainian supplies lowering the price of food. The bans were criticized by the Ukrainian Ministry of Agrarian Policy as contradicting bilateral agreements on exports, while the European Commission said that "unilateral actions are not acceptable". Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of the Polish Law and Justice party, said that Poland will continue supporting Ukraine and that it is ready to start talks to settle the issue.

Add to 16 April: The Chinese defense minister Li Shangfu met the President of Russia Vladimir Putin. The meeting occurred amid reports of Ukrainian forces finding an increasing number of Chinese components in Russian weapons, and leaked classified documents from the United States about China's alleged plans to covertly supply Russia with weapons.

Add to 17 April: Slovakia banned the import of food from Ukraine, following a similar decision by Poland and Hungary on 15 April. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Added. GMRE (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Web Site about Russian Losses

ukriniform is not a reliable source lol. i think that there should be more sources that verify this website. plus, i checked the website, and it doesn't exist, maybe not yet, but still. SPPoonsQwert (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Does the database mentioned on this date include those "missing presumed dead" and "missing in action" or are there separate statistics for those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I was able to locate the web site. The story names the web site as Losses.NET, but that is a transliteration of Потерь.НЕТ in their source. However, if you attempt to open the link from the Telegram source you get to https://poternet.site/, which appears to be the cited web site but still under construction. Its HTML title is Потерь.НЕТ. John Sauter (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2023

In the 17th April section, change:

Russian President Vladimir Putin visited military commanders in [[Kherson]] and troops in [[Luhansk]].

To:

Russian President Vladimir Putin visited military commanders in [[Kherson Oblast|Russian-occupied Kherson Oblast]] and troops in [[Luhansk]].

Reason: Right now, Kherson is a link to the city of Kherson, which is currently under Ukrainian control. Putin did not visit the city. Instead, he visited the parts of Kherson Oblast that are under Russian control. The wikilink should be modified to instead link to the article on the oblast rather than the city, and the text should note that he visited the oblast (and not the city). JasonMacker (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I have expanded the language a little for clarity. John Sauter (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

New Phase?

There are reports that the highly anticipated spring counteroffensive has begun. I'm not saying we should split immediately, but perhaps we should discuss this beforehand. I'll be referring to it as Phase 5, even though phase is a highly illegal word on Wikipedia now. Great Mercian (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering about this as well, after effecting the page moves to the current series. Ping me when there is a definitive end date to the current phase, that's if you are unable to move the article. – robertsky (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's good to have a plan for that - whether it's happening now or later, it's always better to be sure beforehand of our plans/threshold for splitting. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

Add to 17 April: Slovakia finished its delivery of 13 MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine.

Update 14 April: An apartment block in Sloviansk was shelled by Russian forces, killing 15 people, including a two-year-old boy, and injuring 24 more.

93.72.49.123 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added the requested April 17 story, and updated the April 14 story, as requested. I used different language in the April 14 story to avoid repeating facts already in the text. John Sauter (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

Add to 26 April: President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy holds the first phone call with Xi Jinping since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. After the call, Zelenskyy has appointed a new ambassador to China, Pavlo Riabikin. Xi Jinping pledged to send a peace talks delegation to Ukraine. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I have added the requested story. However, I had to eliminate the first reference because I couldn't make it work with the Wikipedia Cite command, perhaps because of the complex URL. In addition, the second reference is likely fragile since it refers to current news. Perhaps an editor can improve the references for this story. John Sauter (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Amendment of subsection heading

The most recent subsection detailing the events of May 2023 is simply entitled “May” it should be changed to “May 2023” to ensure continuity with the other subheadings. 2A00:23C8:905:2701:2089:F187:47FB:EA81 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this; the fix is in place. John Sauter (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

For the 19th of may 2023, the part about the pentagon accounting error, billion is spelled as billiob Penguincannon8000 (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Callmemirela 🍁 14:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Penguincannon8000

...and Yevgeniy Roizman has been fined 260,000 roubles ($3,245), not 6,000 roubles. Tosha Langue (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you. John Sauter (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden 100k russian casualties in Bakhmut

Sources https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-biden-announces-new-arms-support-for-kyiv/a-65689066 31.47.96.132 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The text in the article is “The White House has estimated that Russia has suffered 100,000 casualties in the fight for the city, including the deaths of more than 20,000 soldiers.” Of the 80,000 casualties that are not the deaths of soldiers, it is not clear how many are soldiers. In any case, this doesn't seem like good material for a timeline since it isn't describing an event.