The Kursk was lost in a collision with a NATO submarine. Why was this only announced now?

The cause of the death of the nuclear submarine Kursk in 2000 was a collision with a submarine of one of the NATO member countries.

The former commander of the Northern Fleet, Admiral Vyacheslav Popov, stated this in an interview with RIA Novosti, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

“The submarine that collided with the Kursk was apparently following the Kursk, but was unable to ensure safety in those sea conditions and all other conditions, got too close, or the Kursk’s maneuver led to a loss of contact. I have a 90% chance that I know its name, but in order to name it publicly, you need to have evidence and post it. I can't post them. NATO submarine. And she was there, in the area where she collided with the Kursk,” Popov said.

According to him, the SOS signals on August 12, 2000 were not sent by the Kursk, but by a NATO submarine. Later, Russian anti-submarine aircraft discovered this foreign submarine off the coast of Norway.

An officer of the Russian Navy, on condition of anonymity, told PolitNavigator that the ex-commander from the very beginning adhered to the version of the collision with a foreign submarine, but apparently he did not have enough evidence, so they did not bring formal charges.

_{“We acted like decent partners, and “Highly Likes” was not in fashion even among the British at that time, and it is still not in fashion here. We do not make unfounded accusations.}

_{Why did Admiral Popov say this now? Apparently, America and NATO have violated the gentlemanly agreements they had with us or crossed yet another notorious “red line.” In this context, a parallel arises with the published correspondence of our Foreign Ministry with French and German. Apparently they got it too.}

_{Potential partners view our silence as weakness, believing that we have nothing to say or bring to the table. Obviously, a decision has been made that Russia’s voice must now be heard,” the officer said.}

Meanwhile, liberals questioned Popov's words.

“21 years later, Admiral Vyacheslav Popov came to his senses and came to an understanding: already in 2000, the aggressive NATO bloc wanted war with the Russian Federation and the overthrow (at a minimum - discredit) of President Vladimir Putin. It turns out that it is NATO forces that are to blame for the Kursk nuclear submarine disaster. A very timely book (c). We will soon hear from different sources: the US and NATO are planning something similar right now in the Black / Azov Seas. With the assistance of Ukraine, of course,” political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky sneers in his Telegram channel.

However, military correspondent Alexander Kots took Popov’s words seriously.

“He, of course, means the American nuclear submarine Memphis, which was in the Barents Sea during the exercises, and a few days after the disaster, it called at the Norwegian port of Bergen. 20 years ago, aerial photos were even published at the pier of this port. They are easy to find, but I am not sure that this is the same submarine, and that the photo was taken a few days after the tragedy. At the same time, Russian specialists were not allowed to inspect the American boat for damage,” Kots wrote.

At the same time, he recalled other circumstances of the case that were included in the official report, testifying to the mistakes of the fleet personnel, as a result of which a torpedo exploded on board the Kursk.

“I’m not saying that Vyacheslav Alekseevich is misleading us against the backdrop of, to put it mildly, a cooling of the geopolitical climate. But if you said “a”, then you must also say “b”. Is Ustinov's report a fiction? They lied to us about the weak welds of the “thick” torpedo? Was there any oxidation? The officers were fired for no reason as scapegoats? Or was it a complex that led to the tragedy? And if there had been no collision, would this torpedo still have exploded sooner or later? These are, after all, issues that need to be discussed when making such statements. I would like to hear the answers to them,” Kots wrote.

Military observer Vladimir Orlov talks about rumors about the pursuit of an American submarine.

“And I heard this story from my colleagues from the Northern Fleet. And I had enough of them there. Including among those who then took part in those ill-fated exercises. So here it is. When the ships recorded the explosion of the Kursk nuclear submarine and the noise of the propellers of an unknown submarine, which was moving away from the site of the explosion of our boat, then this unknown boat was bombarded with rocket launchers along the course for about 20 minutes, until some admiral who had shit his pants ordered to abandon its pursuit. And of course, there will be no proofs. To believe, not to believe. True, not true. Decide for yourself,” writes Orlov.

Political scientist Maxim Zharov is inclined to believe Popov’s version, but he is interested in the reasons why it was kept silent for 21 years.

The “emergence” of the Kursk tragedy in this form is obviously the implementation of the strategy of “keeping the West in suspense.” The only question is that if there was a “deal” between the Kremlin and the Americans regarding Kursk, what did the Kremlin then receive in return and is what it received really no longer valuable? This circumstance is all the more important because “Kursk” has been used repeatedly over the years against Putin by the non-systemic opposition, and therefore new “turns” in this plot can be very unexpected and painful,” Zharov wrote.