Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings

Perpetrators

The perpetrators of this were the FSB and other Russian Government agencies. The infobox should say so. The second paragraph makes this clear:

A suspicious device resembling those used in the bombings was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September. On 23 September, Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War. Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police. The next day, FSB director Nikolay Patrushev announced that the incident in Ryazan had been an anti-terror drill and the device found there contained only sugar.

This is contradicted only by Russian Government "investigations". But the Russian Government is not a remotely credible source. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not true, as the Russian_apartment_bombings#Criticism section shows. Also, recently Aimen Dean wrote that Ibn Khattab told him he had done it. Personally, I find the government involvement version plausible and even likely but it's still disputed and should be described as such. Alaexis_¿question? 11:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing the infobox so that only the accused Islamists are named or only the FSB is quite obviously pushing a POV. The paragraph does not say the FSB were in fact behind the bombings. Mellk (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

These recent POV edits are also unhelpful. Mellk (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Russian apartment bombings → 1999 Russian apartment bombings – This article has a way too general title. Yesterday Russia bombed itself at Belgorod and while doing a Google search I ended up in a Second Chechen War article. That should say something. Super Ψ Dro 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The main title header, Russian apartment bombings, is indeed incomplete. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Rename there have been many such inccidents over the centuries -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom—blindlynx 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 25 April 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.

Sources check

Let's have a look at sources supporting Others disagree with such theories or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks in the lead. Because I see for example Ware, Robert Bruce (2005). "Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. and he is a philosopher. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking further, there is 2002 book by Strobe Talbott. Not sure of his reliability - what is his academic degree in a field? His book discusses the matter in only 3 paragraphs and he concludes There was no evidence to support this conspiracy theory, although Russian public opinion did indeed solidify behind Putin in his determination to carry out a swift, decisive counteroffensive. He provides no explanation and does not mentions Ryazan incident at all. His book has been finished late January 2002 which means just a little bit more than 2 years has passed after the event. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Going further, Pope, Ronald R. (2004). "Feature review. Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State".
The best he says against the FSS bombing is "Pankratov argues that if the alleged attempted bombing in Ryazan was masterminded by the FSS, we should assume they have been able to keep the lid on the cover-up..." so Pope don't disagree but quotes Pankratov (who is Pankratov?) doubting the "alleged attempted [FSS] bombing" version, so Pope's position is to not to disagree but to doubt. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. What are you suggesting to do about this? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Newer sources should be preferred.

Developments in Russian Politics 10 - Google Books
The 1999 Moscow Bombings Reconsidered in: Russian Politics Volume 8 Issue 3 (2023) (brill.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It was previously discussed here. Yes, according to the book by Pete Earley (based on interviews with Sergei Tretyakov (intelligence officer)), one should not cite Talbot as an authority on this subject. At best, he knew nothing of substance and just provided his personal opinion. There are so many sources on this subject that one must be selective. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there is an overall consensus of best sources right now that the bombings were almost certainly conducted by Russian secret services. Some controversy is related to the existence or lack of "direct evidence". But would not someone caught red-handed while planting a bomb be a direct evidence? That is what had happen with FSB agents in the city of Ryazan. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think the language should be switched up. As of now it sounds like there is a 50/50 split between the two opinions. Most sources I have seen as of late definitely attributes the attacks to FSB, albeit not conclusively. This line "The attacks were widely attributed to Chechen terrorists, although their guilt has never been conclusively proven.", also needs a change. It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations. I'm interested in seeing what changes you have in mind so feel free to make them and we can discuss it here further if there is anything. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Let me think about it. Or you can just fix it yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As a double check for "due weight", I am making Google books search for "Russian apartment bombings", and first 5 books in the list (Satter, Goldfarb, Dunlop, Felshtinsky) strongly assert that the bombings were conducted by the FSB/GRU. These books are specifically on the subject of these bombings or dedicate them at least a big chapter. 6th book (Soldatov) mentions the bombings mostly in passing and expresses a concern that they were work by the "services". Next book (by Amy Knight) also says it was conducted by Russian services. And so on. I do not have much time for fixing this page, so will do it quickly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that using top 5 books from the google books search results is a good method. For all we know, they could generate different results for different users to confirm their beliefs.

Andrei Soldatov is definitely a subject matter expert, so his opinion should stay in the article even if it contradicts other viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sure, and I did not remove his opinion, just shortened it. As of note though [1]. I shortened a big paragraph with their views for a few reasons. It says: "and claims by Trepashkin were highly dubious." Which claims by Trepashin? He made a lot of claims. As about the ""Muslim Society", they say according to Russian state security services, .... Yes, exactly. Everything we supposedly know about the role of Gochiyaev in this "Society" is according to Russian state security services, and they lied a lot regarding these bombings. But OK, we can keep it, just rephrase. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the sentence starting from "According to Russian state security services" can be removed or rephrased if more sources can be found. Alaexis_¿question? 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the claim that Gochiyaev was a leader of this "Muslim Society" was a lie and a part of his framing by the FSB - according to the book by Dunlop. Actually, the only book saying he was indeed a leader of this "Society" ("according to the FSB") is the "Nobility" by Soldatov. No doubts, he had excellent connections with FSB people who fed him various info. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations. This is precisely what the source says, and the quote is there. We are not going to rely on WP:OR. Mellk (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Which source? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Last edit by Mellk provides this link, but the quote is not there. However, this is the lead, a summary of the content on the page. I just removed this phrase for now, simply because it does not to fit the rest of the text. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory and you have made a lot of edits since then, so I have not checked what was removed. Mellk (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A revert

• [2]. Well, several participants suggested to change this (see above), and that is exactly what I did. Moreover, the content is sourced to this link, and the quotation is simply not there. This ref should be either fixed or removed, together with text. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  [3]. And I see one editor who suggested to change this based on OR. But I guess you do have objections now despite the edit summary? Mellk (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly @Manyareasexpert: and @Ola Tønningsberg: wanted to fix, so would rather wait for their comments. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is not really possible to have a discussion with you when you go ahead with several changes between each comment, including repeated changes to text being actively discussed. Mellk (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with my edits, please explain why or suggest a new/compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you (twice) and responded to the discussion. In the edit summary you said you had no objections to this being restored "somewhere", then started a new section here and said you would rather wait for others' comments, and despite all this, still continued making changes to the text in question and restoring some of the previous changes. So I am not sure, is a 3RR warning needed instead? Mellk (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it was you (not me) who made two reverts. Moreover, you did not really explain here why you did these reverts. Yes, after saying "I have no objections to this being restored somewhere" in edit summary, I did not revert your edit, but rather modified text to improve it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I just said I reverted you twice, and you continued with partial reverts. You put "per talk" as the reason for this. I gave my reason for reverting you above. But I am not going to play these games anymore. Mellk (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I am OK with your last revert. What exactly my edit you disagree with (a diff) and what reason did you give? I have no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I already said the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory, therefore your initials changes were not accurate summaries. Anything else I should repeat? Mellk (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory". Yes, of course. I agree and always agreed with it, and it is reflected in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As found above, the lead sentence "Some others disagree with this or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks.[24][25][26][27][28]" contain sources which weakly support the statement, their support is questionable or arguable, are old, are not on subject, are not an expert on a subject, or vice versa. This should be reworked, newer sources preferred. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is just a summary of the page and does not require referencing directly in the lead. You are welcome to rewrite or whatever. I am more concerned about first phrase in the same para: "The attacks were attributed... ". Attributed by whom? And this is definitely not a correct summary of content on the page (as already noted in discussion above). This phrase should be removed, rewritten or moved somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is just a summary of the page
— User:My very best wishes 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article doesn't have many active editors/edits so if we would wait for article body to be changed we may never improve. In our situation, let's say it is possible to edit the lead directly.

Agree regarding "were attributed". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. So, I fixed accordingly. As about the phrase you talked about, I thought just removing it would be OK because we do not say that everyone agrees with the claim in the previous phrase (which perhaps would be a proper balance), but this apparently caused objection by Mellk, hence I kept it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Split of criticism to official and non-official

@Manyareasexpert, what's wrong with splitting the criticism section into two. Official denials aren't worth much in my view and it would be easier for the reader if they were not mixed with the criticism from uninvolved sources. Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the abovementioned. But let's base the article on an academic sources in a field, not journalists [4] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I just tried to find a name that would work for all the sources in that section. Let's just split the official criticism then. Alaexis_¿question? 12:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, there is an interesting recent article with a new viewpoint The 1999 Moscow Bombings Reconsidered in: Russian Politics Volume 8 Issue 3 (2023) (brill.com) , available via wikilibrary. These academic views should be the prevailing POV. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is fascinating, I haven't heard about this new version. I wouldn't be too surprised if this turned out to be true.

Note that he, like Short, is rather skeptical about Litninenko's "FSB did it" version. Perhaps we should reassess the consensus. Alaexis_¿question? 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, I've removed Short since there is no consensus to include it. We are pretty much can concentrate on gathering academic sources since there are plenty. Short's book is journalism and I haven't seen academic reviews praising his 1999 bombings arguments. [5] I haven't removed other non-academic works since they were there before. But we can reach the consensus and remove them as well. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. WP:ONUS works this way whether the material is new or old.

Short's book is has been called impressive, meticulous and exhaustively researched (by the same Edward Lucas who has a different opinion and whose opinion is mentioned in the article] so it might be journalism but it's not a random newspaper article.

The inclusion of non-scholars' opinions doesn't change the overall weight we give to different viewpoints as they are also divided, but keeping only those who support a certain opinion would certainly violate WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Weight of different viewpoints

Current text

“ Although the bombings were widely blamed on Chechen terrorists, their guilt was never conclusively proven.[14] A number of historians and investigative journalists have instead called the bombings a false flag attack perpetrated by Russian state security services to win public support for a new war in Chechnya and to boost the popularity of Vladimir Putin prior to the upcoming presidential elections.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] ... Others argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks. ”

Sources

I've created a table with the viewpoints currently mentioned in the article, adding the article by Robert Otto brought up by u:ManyAreasExpert in the previous thread.

FSB Involvement in the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings

Original source
Source	Year	Position on FSB involvement	Notes
Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, and Vladimir Pribylovsky	2002	Strongly asserts FSB involvement	Litvinenko, a former FSB officer, along with Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky, accused the FSB of orchestrating the bombings to justify the Second Chechen War.
Academic sources
Source	Year	Position on FSB involvement	Notes
David Satter	2003	Believes in FSB involvement	Satter argued that the bombings were a political provocation by the Russian secret services similar to the burning of the Reichstag. He believes the evidence strongly supports FSB involvement.
Amy Knight	2012	Strongly asserts FSB involvement	Historian of the KGB, Knight wrote that it was "abundantly clear" that the FSB was responsible and that Putin's "guilt seems clear."
Karen Dawisha	2014	Strongly asserts FSB involvement	In Putin's Kleptocracy, Dawisha concluded that the evidence of FSB involvement, particularly in the Ryazan incident, is "incontrovertible."
Timothy Snyder	2018	Considers FSB involvement possible	Historian Snyder wrote that it "seemed possible" the perpetrators of the bombings were FSB officers.
Robert Bruce Ware	2012	Dismisses FSB involvement	Ware argued that Islamist extremists from the North Caucasus were responsible for the attacks as retribution for federal actions in Dagestan.
Brian Taylor	2018	Skeptical of FSB involvement	Taylor cited multiple reasons to doubt FSB involvement, noting a lack of conclusive evidence and suggesting the Ryazan incident could have been a failed FSB "training exercise."
Max Abrahms	2013	Skeptical of FSB involvement	Abrahms suggested the bombings were counterproductive for Chechen independence, but argued the conspiracy theories arose because of the clear benefit to the Russian government.
John B. Dunlop	2014	Supports FSB involvement theory	The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule
Robert Otto	2023	Skeptical of FSB involvement	Otto argued that there is no conclusive evidence that the FSB or Putin were responsible for the bombings, although he concedes that Putin failed to conduct a proper investigation, which makes him complicit in them. He also suggests an alternative explanation involving Berezovsky and Rushailo.
Other sources
Source	Year	Position on FSB involvement	Notes
Edward Lucas	2008	Strongly supports FSB involvement theory	In The New Cold War, Lucas concluded that the weight of evidence supports the view that the bombings were a planned stunt to solidify Putin's rise to power.
Scott Anderson	2009	Suggests FSB involvement	Anderson wrote in GQ about Putin's role in the bombings, drawing on interviews with Mikhail Trepashkin, a former FSB agent.
Philip Short	2022	Skeptical of FSB involvement	Short argued that while it cannot be conclusively proved that no one from the FSB was involved, there is no factual evidence of Russian state involvement.
Christopher Steele	2022	Supports FSB involvement theory	Christopher Steele voiced support for the idea that the bombings were a false flag operation conducted by Russian security services.

Alaexis_¿question? 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Please let me know if you notice inaccuracies or believe that an important source is missing. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

John B. Dunlop in "The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule" also makes a strong case for FSB involvement. He's a good source. Overall most sources certainly believe FSB involvement Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 19:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, please remove non-academic sources like Short from the comparison, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken we have 4 non-scholars in the list (Steele, Lucas, Short and Litvinenko himself). I'm not sure about removing them, Steele's account in particular is quite thorough (he interviewed several experts for that chapter) and his book has been praised for its meticulousness.

But even if give less weight to all non-scholars, it doesn't really change the calculus. Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Short's book is not published by academic publishers so it's a journalism and should be omitted. Litvinenko's work is pretty much a primary source by today and should be assessed by academic works, whose opinion should be presented instead. Please check others from your list above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've moved all non-scholarly sources to a separate section in the table. Alaexis_¿question? 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Assessment

If we simply count "support" and "skeptical" sources we'd have 8 (or 10 if we count Litvinenko, Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky separately) sources ranging from strong support to "seems possible" and 5 that are generally skeptical.

Please note that the "skeptical" ones are generally newer. If we take only post-2010 or post-2020 sources, the supporting ones would be a minority.

It seems like the current text does not give due weight to the two main viewpoints. I would suggest something along the lines of The identity of the perpetrators is disputed. The official investigation blamed the Chechens. Some scholars believe that it was a false flag attack by the Russian security services while others consider it unlikely. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

First thing the reader would know is if sources support or disprove the official version. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"The official investigation blamed the Chechens."

Is this the correct way to word it? Since the official investigation only produced non-chechen perpetrators. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's say we were to consider the "official investigation" to be an at-face-value-equally-valid historical analysis, dated 2001--2002 (and possibly also consider the court in 2004 and 09 reviewed some more stuff in their limited scope). That's quite old compared to the rest of the sources we have (and counters the noted trend in argument, although the sample is small of self-selecting scholars who chose to study this). Is there any significant evidence that emerged since 2002 that weighed scholarship one way or another? (I don't see any indicated in the article, but I haven't read good amounts of any of the books above?

Example: if the evidence has been mostly unchanged since 2002 (and depending on what is identified as the change in tone of the scholarship), then the sources probably have about equal weight, with slight preference to both the official version (more access to secret info, inherent notability) and the best-most-recent version. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ola Tønningsberg, that's a good point, we should say "Islamic terrorists from Caucasus" or smth like that. Alaexis_¿question? 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)