Back in 2000, Popov called the collision his main version of the incident. Photo by Semyon Maisterman TASS).
Former commander of the Northern Fleet, Admiral Vyacheslav Popov, and 21 years after the death of the nuclear submarine boats “Kursk” in the Barents Sea reiterated his version of what was the real cause of the disaster of the Russian submarine “Kursk”. In his opinion, the Kursk collided with a NATO submarine in August 2000. Here are his words:
“The submarine that collided with the Kursk was following him, apparently. But in those conditions of the sea and all other conditions, she failed to ensure safety, she got too close, or the maneuver of the Kursk led to the loss of contact. I know the name of it with a 90% probability, but in order to name it publicly, you need to have evidence and lay it out. I can’t put them out. “
Moreover, back in 2000, in the documentary film “August” by Arkady Mamontov, dedicated to the tragedy, Popov called the collision his main version of the incident. In his opinion, “an unidentified submarine hit the Kursk in the most vulnerable spot, of course, unconsciously.” “I am deeply convinced that these are not intentional actions,” Popov stressed.
And in another film “Kursk”. Ten days that shook the world, ”Popov said that at that time 3 NATO submarines were operating in the Barents Sea.
By strict account, the admiral does not add anything new. His version was circulated a thousand times in the Russian and foreign press. Therefore, this is just a guess, an assumption, a version.
In 2000, this tragic story shocked the whole world.
But then questions immediately arise: why did the admiral decide to remember and confess right now about his confidence in the reason for the death of the Kursk? Maybe he actually knows a lot more than he can say? And holds some trump cards up his sleeve?
Why exactly now the question of the true reasons for the death of the Kursk has arisen again? Is it because relations between Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO have sunk to a critically low point and Moscow, through the lips of the admiral, finally decided to remind the world about the unpaid “favor” of those who drowned our submarine and its 118 sailors? Moreover, the United States did not deny the presence of its submarine in the area of the tragedy, which, by the way, on the same day rushed to one of the ports of Norway for repairs (even space images of this American submarine were published in Russian and foreign media).
And all the naval experts who adhere to the version of an involuntary ramming (and some even talk about torpedoing) the Kursk by the Americans agree on one thing: in August 2000, the world miraculously avoided a conflict between two nuclear superpowers – Russia and the United States – and the beginning of the Third World War. Allegedly, Moscow on the same day was ready to order the Northern Fleet to destroy all NATO ships in the Barents Sea, and only “unprecedented Russian-American high-level consultations” stopped this decision. After urgent negotiations with the White House, George Tenet, the then CIA director, rushed to Moscow “unofficially”.
But these are again versions, cleverly woven with facts. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that Admiral Popov knows more than he can say (and, it seems, he would like to say, but “within the limits of the permissible”).
Hole in the boat hull
Another fact speaks in favor of the admiral’s version – the round entrance hole in the side of the Kursk. At first we were told that it was “just a dent” received during an unsuccessful mooring ”, then they began to say that this was a“ technological cut-out ”that was needed by the investigators when“ unwinding the criminal case. And now the version is being discussed with might and main that “the round entrance hole is a hole from an American submarine or torpedo.”
So maybe Admiral Popov is right in his cautious guesses?
Here only the inevitable question arises here: how, then, to evaluate the official conclusions of our Themis about the reasons the sinking of a nuclear submarine? These conclusions were outlined in the book of the then Prosecutor General of Russia Vladimir Ustinov
“The truth about the Kursk.” We read: “at 11 hours 28 minutes 26 seconds Moscow time, a torpedo 65-76A (“ Kit ”) exploded in torpedo tube No. 4. The cause of the explosion was a leak of torpedo fuel components (hydrogen peroxide). After 2 minutes, the fire that broke out after the first explosion led to the detonation of the torpedoes in the first compartment of the boat. The second explosion led to the destruction of several compartments of the submarine. “
No American torpedo attack. Or an accidental collision.
Whom to believe – Popov or Ustinov?
Ustinov seems to have concrete facts based on the investigation. Popov has only a version.
But some versions also have one feature – sometimes they become true. The whole question is when it can happen. And will it happen at all.
MORE ON THE TOPIC
20 years since the tragedy of the submarine “Kursk”: A drop of water led to the death of sailors
“Komsomolskaya Pravda” spoke with the author of the book “Kursk” and analyzed the main versions of the largest underwater disaster (the details)