Talk:Zapad 2009

Military history: 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 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Russia: History / Military Low‑importance

	Russia portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Belarus

	Belarus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus 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.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

A fact from Zapad 2009 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Russian and Belarussian military exercise Zapad 2009 (pictured) involved nuclear-capable ballistic missiles?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zapad 2009.

Nuclear strike on Warsaw?

While a number of sources confirm that use of nuclear weapons was a part of this excercise, I cannot find a RS source about nuclear strike on Warsaw. Well, I did find The Times from 2021, which is reliable, but I worry about circular reporting - it is possible the writer of that article took that claim from Wikipedia at face value.

So far, most sources seem to trace the origin of the information about the use of nuclear weapons to an article in (reliable) Polish magazine Wprost here. The related part of the article reads: "According to PiS MP Karol Karski, the Russians also practiced launching missiles that could carry nuclear warheads. – No one confirmed it officially, but it was talked about behind the scenes of the last defense committee... "The use of separate aircraft from the air component of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation was also demonstrated," we also read in the government note." That report seems to be criticized in this academic source, but I don't have full access: [1]/GB page blanked" It is often claimed that Zapad 2009 included a nuclear strike against Europe, but this claim comes from a single source, a report by the Polish magazine Wprost. A cable reporting on a NATO debriefing of the exercise shows how the frequent confusion between ‘nuclear’ and ‘nuclear-capable’ permits speculation to be reported as fact. " _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) PS. That claim (about hitting Warsaw) was added in 2022: diff by User:Wiki-psyc citing (Daily Signal - not flagged as unreliable by the script I am using, but hardly an expert source); the source was removed by User:David Gerard but the claim remained, no longer supported by any source, sigh. PPS. Ru wiki does not say anything about the use of nuclear anything. I am looking for more reliable sources, but I am not seeing much outside media reports; the oldest include the claim in 2015 article in Polish newsportal onet.pl [2] by journalist pl:Witold Jurasz (ur. 1975). Overall, the entire claim of nuclear strike on Poland seems to be treacable to a single news report, reliable but the article may want to clarify this. As for strike on Warsaw, that is even more dubious (I could not locate anything older then the 2015 mention in onet.pl), although in theory, all sources, including onet.pl, are reliable. I wonder if anyone can locate the offcial note mention by Polish politician in 2009 (Wprost)? I don't see anything relevant in the source that Gerard added recently as an external link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Found a reliable English-language source for the strike on Warsaw from 2013: https://jamestown.org/program/what-do-the-zapad-2013-exercises-reveal-part-one/ Presumably there should be something older than this - I doubt this is the origin of that story. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 22:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Landing craft Mordowija 782 during Zapad 2009

... that Russian and Belarussian Zapad 2009 military exercise about repelling a NATO attack might have included simulation of nuclear strikes? Source: http://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/articles/article.html/109702 or https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/6480227/Russia-simulates-nuclear-attack-on-Poland.html
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2

5x expanded by Piotrus (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 507 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

PS. I forgot to mention - there are plenty of images available for this hook. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Zapad_2009 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to add one of these to the nom for consideration.--Laun chba ller 19:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I am not sure how to do it post-nom. But I'd suggest File:Zapad-2009 military exercises.jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By finding another nom that does it successfully and adapting it. I'll leave it to you to add a caption and will call for a reviewer.--Laun chba ller 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Caption: "Landing craft Mordowija 782 during Zapad 2009". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added.--Laun chba ller 23:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New enough (5x expansion), long enough, well-written. Image is appropriately licensed as far as I can determine. QPQ is done. The hook is interesting and supported by an inline citation but not supported in its current format by what is written in the article. The article is a bit ambiguous on this point. On the one hand it asserts that "[...] it also simulated an amphibious landing in Poland, as well as - and most controversially - a nuclear attack against Poland (hitting Warsaw)." In my reading, this is a claim that the exercise did in fact contain such a simulation. Later, however, it is stated that "Other sources noted that the exercise involved nuclear-capable ballistic missiles (Iskander), but not necessarily a simulation of a nuclear attack on another country." I think this could be easily solved by re-phrasing the first sentence, but it should be resolved before I give the green light. Otherwise all criteria are fulfilled. Yakikaki (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yakikaki: Can I trouble you to suggest an alt hook with a revised wording that I can then review and adopt? I am not sure what exact minor wording change you suggest, but I am pretty sure I'd be fine with it and I'd propose it myself if I wasn't too tired to figure it out myself now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1a ... that Russian and Belarussian Zapad 2009 military exercise about repelling a NATO attack might have included simulated nuclear strikes on another country?

@Piotrus and Yakikaki: thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the original hook, and Alt 1a doesn't solve the problem. The issue, which I think is very easily fixed, is that the article isn't clear on the point whether it might have included a simulated nuclear strikes on another country, or whether it in fact did. That needs to be clarified. I can then greenlight it. Yakikaki (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki, The article cites the sources; some of which say this happened and some which are more cautious. Not sure how to word it better than what we already have, both in the hook and in the article. If you think you have a better wording, be bold. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it for you. You'll need another reviewer to do the review again, though. Yakikaki (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe User:Evrik would like to do this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will approve the original hook. I can't approve my hook, but will leave that for the promoter. User:Evrik 15:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With sources disagreeing, I don't think we should be front paging one or the other. I'd like to see a completely different hook.--Laun chba ller 11:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, Yakikaki, and Evrik: see the above comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, what is needed of me? --evrik ^(talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in the nomination... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what is wrong with the hook. The wording "might have" explicitly reflects the fact that sources are not agreeing on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Piotrus. The hook is neutral, and good. Yakikaki (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw my objection then, but I note that of the six sources next to that claim, all four of the English-language sources are unequivocal that it did happen.--Laun chba ller 12:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, @Launchballer: did you have a suggested tweak to the hook? --evrik ^(talk) 14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the tick. --evrik ^(talk) 14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War Paranoia

Given the present level of anti-Russian hate being pushed online, can anyone be sure that the nuclear weapons information within this article can be trusted? 95.147.153.2 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]