> > > 6. http://www.rednews.ru/text/2000/22_08/22_08_0.htm > > > The Bell in the deep ocean (the truth and the lies about the tragedy of > > > Kursk) (Sovietskaya Rossiya) > > (shorter version) > > ... All the versions of the disaster's roots can be divided into 3 groups: > > a) The damage was done by a collision with an outside object; > > b) the damage is caused by the explosion of torpedoes on board; > > c) the disaster is a result of the mistakes of the crew. > > The first version was developed by the Govermenent's Special Commission > > for investigation of the reasons of the crash, under the leading of Vice > > Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov. According to the Commission, "the reasons of > > the disaster are the dynamical hits from the outside of the vessel". > > Russian press has even named the submarines of the certain countries that > > most probably were involved. Newspaper Moskovsky Komsomoletz even suggests > > that it was a planned attack by a NATO submarine on Kursk. The leadership > of > > the Russian Navy has therefore asked not to publish the details of the > > nationality of the submarine involved until the investigation will be > > completed. > > > > The second version is purely the version on which the Western sources > > insist, including British, American and Norwegian. Their "source" is the > > seysmoresults received by their own troops in the area - which only > > underlines the very fact that the NATO was following Russian internal Navy > > exercises very closely. > > They write that in the area of the disaster there were 2 explosions: on > > 12/08 > > at 11:30 a.m, with the power of 1,5 ball, . and then - 2 minutes later, a > > much stronger one, on 3,5 bal. (that equals the explosion of 2 tons of > > dynamite under water). > > The leadership of the Russian NAVY has excluded the torpedo version - > > because there were NO REAL TORPEDOES ON BOARD - and also has declined the > > version about "mistakes" of the crew. > > > > What do the facts say? > > > > There are some facts that are obvious. The most detailed and logically > > reasonable list of facts was given on Russian TV on the 19th of August by > > vice > > admiral Mikhail Motsak.According to him, the front part of Kursk was > > destroyed and flooded almost immediately, and from the back part the sighs > > of life were coming as according the rules of behavior on submarines > > prescribe to do. There are reasons to believe that water started coming > > there very quickly too, together with the diminishing of the air and the > > rising of the air pressure in the cabins. > It was impossible for the > > earlier rescue attempts to enter the submarine because of the deformation > of > > its body. > > > > Why did the foreign help come so late? > > > > > > Russia's mass media that belong to the "tycoons" have blamed Putin for not > > asking the foreign help earlier tan 4 days after the crash. Western media > > write that the Russian president has "Soviet"mentality of secrecy that > > prioritized for him the state secrets above the lives of the sailors. By > > the way, there was never such mentality on the Soviet Union - the State > > always did its very best to save its citizens, doesn't matter at what > cost, > > just as it was in the 30s during the Arctic expedition of Chelyuskin. > > Yes, the president has delayed asking for help, but even if he would ask > for > > it immediately, would it change anything? It is very doubtful that the > > British or the Norwegian rescuers could have done any more than what their > > Russian colleagues did - under that weather conditions. And remember that > > the > > British LR 5 was only tested during the exercises and was never used to > save > > anybody in real life. The Norwegian deep water divers have the experience > > only of working on construction and repairs of the oil platforms in the > > Northern Sea, even though they have taken part in exercises on how to > rescue > > to submarinists. > > Speaking about "Russian secrecy" is also foolish: NATO knows enough about > > our nuclear submarines and even has its on standards for them. > > > > > Vassily Safronchuk. > > > > > 7. http://www.rednews.ru/text/2000/22_08/22_08_1.htm > > > Who is guilty and what to do? (Sovietskaya Rossiya) (short version) > > > > > > In the light of the Kursk tragedy Western massmedia are trying to answer > > these really Russian questions. > > Speaking about the real reason of the crash, mass media is working on 2 > > versions: collision with a foreign submarine and self-started explosion on > > board of the Kursk itself. > > It is obvious that the Western officials insists on their total innocence > in > > this incident, and in the Western press they are working actively on the > > version about "new type of torpedoes" or "fuel" on board of the submarine. > > > > It is very typical that the question about possible hand of the West in > this > > tragedy is being largely avoided by the Russian NTV television station of > > Gusinsky that exists largely on Western money. .. > > > > But at the same time, some Western media are writing remarkable things. > > on 20/08 Daily Telegraph has written about the joke of the submarinists > > "under the Arctic ice Cold War never melts". And the smallest mistake in > > those water there the rival submarines meet, can cost lives. > > According to the writer, "the British submarinists do not wish to give the > > press the details of its contacts with the Russian fleet. All movements of > > the Royal submarines are remaining secret information even now, more than > 10 > > years since the end of the Cold War..." > > > > One of the reasons of such secrecy is that the West, just as it was during > > the Cold War, is continuing to monitor closely the Russian Navy. The > article > > claims that when last week Kursk was taking part in the biggest Russian > > exercises on sea in recent years, Russian sailors knew - "NATO is > following > > all their movements and each of those movements was met with fear". One of > > the retired British submarinists Charles Robinson has told the > > correspondent: > > "The problem is that the condition s (of the following of the Russian > > submarines for the NATO) are very limited. The main danger is the > collision. > > Several submarines are moving around each other in a very limited space. > > That's how collisions happen." > > The goal is not only search for information but also to see the > > possibilities of the opponent to respond. > > The article claims that many years after the end of the Cold War British > > submarines are still staying in the region to the North of Norway "because > > of the suspicion between NATO and Russia, no longer enemies, but far from > > the allies also. > > > > In other words, Daily Telegraph is openly admitting the possibility of > > collision of Kursk with a British submarine. > > > > On the 20/08 about the same The Washington Post is writing. It underlines > > that the Pentagon until now hasn't given free the photos of its submarines > > that were in the area at the time of the crash, that could prove that they > > are not damaged and is even declining to say where they are at present.> > > > > > > Leonid Nikolayev. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
