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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
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
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Distinctive Russian-ness
What the article fails to do is demonstrate any difference of Russian military deception from military deception employed by any other nation. Okay, the Soviets tried to conceal their troop movements, hide their reserves, feed the enemy false information, and mask their positions - is that not what the Germans did as a part of blitzkrieg, or what the Allies did before the Normandy landing (see Operation Fortitude)? Okay, Russian economy can be mobilized, with tanks produced at an automobile (more likely a tractor or a railway car) factory. How is that different from economic mobilization in other nations? Russian politics lie about their goals, intentions, and troop deployments - what's the difference between what they are doing and, say, the preparations for the Iraq war, or any of the alphabet agencies' black ops? Danvolodar (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks. Let's assume for a moment that you may be right. But consider: an article on the history of Russian wheat production (say), is not obliged to say what is incredibly rare and special about how that worthwhile grain is grown in that country; its task is simply to describe what the situation is and has been, with reliable sources. Sometimes the country's production techniques will resemble those of other countries; sometimes, perhaps, these will lag behind; in some areas, maybe, they will be unusual, advanced, or specially ingenious. Most likely there will be some combination of all of these. So it is, I think, with the way Russia has undertaken military deception in the past century. It is for other articles to talk about Fortitude; and it is not for Wikipedia editors to venture their own opinions. Where people have stated opinions in books and the press, these have been quoted and cited; indeed, we have the word of a German general that the Russians did the job well, in one case. But that there is a history to tell, as briefly summarized in the article, with the sources given, there is no doubt whatsoever. On comparisons with other nations, that would properly be the role of an (international) overview article such as Military deception, not the article on any one nation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you rightly point out, if a specialized article is to be branched out from a more general one, it has to demonstrate the peculiarity of its subject (take Federalism in Germany as an example) and/or focus on its history (see Elections in the United States for instance). Meanwhile, the notable examples of Russian military deception are already covered in the general article on Military deception, and nothing of substance that'd demonstrate the qualitative difference between the Russian approach and that of any other great military power has been provided.
Thank you, but the article does exactly that. It demonstrates its unique history, which is distinct from that of any other nation, and which the general article only (rightly) touches on briefly, mentioning a couple of points, so your "nothing of substance" is factually incorrect. One might also note what cited Western sources identify as the exceptional willingness to extend deception into peacetime: whether they are right or wrong about this, it is the documented perception, and unique to this article's subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what is in the article that is not in the general one? Claims by the Western media that the Crimean operation was "maskirovka", because... really, it just was? Truly a claim deserving an article of its own. Why not coin an article for every claim the North Korean press makes, I mean, WP:NEWSORG doesn't exist. Danvolodar (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, an article on grain production will not introduce a local term for grain harvesting (say, "Getreideernte") and present it as something uniquely local, as did this article in its very title. Danvolodar (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't now, so it's not an issue. The term in question is however not only a local term, but has for better or worse been picked up by Western journalists and military specialists and used as an English word, sometimes indeed with meanings that might not be recognised as correct in Russia, demonstrating that the concept has been assimilated into the English language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not. That's why this article is a detailed history of a complex topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article Image
In the opening of the article, there is an image with the caption: "Secret troop movements: Russian IS-2 heavy tank waiting concealed in forest in the Battle of Kursk, 1943"
The description for this image must be incorrect. You can see that is this an IS-2 tank due to the long barreled 122mm gun. According to all the sources I could find, the IS-2 tank was not deployed until October 1943 at the very earliest. The battle of Kursk was over by August of that year. What should we do about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:845:C000:1500:28B6:3765:3ABE:EF06 (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It certainly seems to be an IS-2 and we know the dates. Either a few were deployed early or the image is wrongly labelled on Commons. I've removed the Kursk claim from the caption and said simply World War II. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not battle of Kursk, this is 27th Guards Tank Regiment in Karelia1, 2. The regiment had IS-2 tanks since May of 1944 3. The larger image you can see there (just image). It's not an example of "maskirovka", this is a tank on marching through marshy and forested terrain. Please, help me to remove mistakes in picture attribution. --Gintaras8182 (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undue treatment of Ukraine?
Both IP and named editors have suddenly started adding quantities of material about Ukraine. This is unbalancing the treatment of this historical topic, introducing elements of WP:Recentism and possibly WP:POV editing. We need to be very clear about the need for reliable, independent, non-partisan sources on such topics, and to keep the coverage of recent events within tight bounds. If there is ample material on Russian deception in Ukraine (etc) then I'd suggest making separate articles on those topics, leaving a concise (say, one paragraph) summary here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. The content about Ukraine seems to be more about the political deception rather than Maskirovka as a military concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
Syria
Any thoughts on expanding the article by adding a section on Russian deception tactics in Syria.[1]Koonter (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Syria is a possible topic, if it can be shown that Russian military deception is involved from reliable sources. A caution: this is an article on a topic with 100 years of history, and it should not become recentist. It may be difficult to get a good perspective on recent events for some years yet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be more about Putin's political moves, rather than the military deception. It appears that the word "deception" is used in the article literally: "Putin seems to have turned a reasonable military move to cut forward air force deployment in response to a cessation of hostilities into a major strategic deception ploy by making the global community believe he is actually withdrawing from Syria." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article as a whole certainly isn't about recent politics, and the mention of Putin in the article is in fact inside an attributed quotation - it is not any editor's opinion. I have cut down the Ukraine section, and it is probably about the right length now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
