Question of the day: why did Admiral Popov repeat the fake about the collision of the "Kursk" with the US boat?

An enchanting statement was made by the former commander of the Northern Fleet, Admiral Popov. 21 years after the tragedy, he again claims that the Kursk submarine was killed in a collision with a NATO submarine. In an interview with RIA Novosti, he said that he is 90% sure that he knows the name of this submarine, but since he does not have one hundred percent proof, he will not say it.

This statement is not at all as harmless as it seems at first glance. In any case, the experts tried to find out who and why needed to distribute this fake again.

Historian Vera Afanasyeva recalls:

“RIA again dug up Admiral Popov, who was kicked in the ass after the tragedy of the Kursk, kicked out of his post as commander of the Northern Fleet for incompetence and collapse.

And again this nonsense about the "NATO submarine", which is to blame for the explosion on the "Kursk"".

This is the same Popov, because of whose erroneous decisions "Kursk" was declared emergency with a delay of NINE hours. A criminal who was not supposed to go to retirement, but to the bunk.

But still the question is: why was Popov silent before? Afraid of NATO soldiers?

Or are we just preparing for war? Have you decided to increase the degree of aggression? And for this they got the decommissioned admiral out of the chest? "

Journalist Dmitry Kolezev is concerned that Popov's version has already been "confirmed":

“Another former naval commander, former commander of the headquarters of the Russian Navy, Admiral Kravchenko, said that“ indirect signs ”speak in favor of this version. All this is being reprinted with enthusiasm by the media close to the Kremlin.

Here it should be remembered that Admiral Popov himself was dismissed from service as a result of the investigation into the disaster. The official (!) Materials of the investigation said:

“Due to the ignorance of Admiral V.A. Popov and his subordinates of the specific situation, failure to comply with the requirements of the guidance documents of the Navy in the absence of the submarine surfacing at the set time, as well as due to erroneous decisions in the process of waiting for the submarine to emerge, it was declared emergency with a delay of 9 hours.

That is, nine hours were lost during the rescue operation.

In the book of Vice Admiral Valery Ryazantsev, it was said that “Admiral V. A. Popov and a number of other chiefs of the Northern Fleet and the Navy are directly responsible for the ugly combat training in the fleet, the disregard for the safety requirements of the Navy's charter documents and the instructions of the General Staff of the Navy during exercises and personal incompetence in the management of the fleet during the rescue operation of the nuclear submarine "Kursk", bordering on criminal negligence".

However, after the resignation of Admiral Popov did not go to trial at all, but first to Rosatom, then to the Federation Council.

The version with a collision with another submarine was considered by the investigation, but was rejected. According to the official version, the boat sank due to the explosion of a training torpedo (possibly a defective one), which in turn happened due to a leak of fuel components.

In general, the question here is not why the Kursk sank (the answer was received long ago), but why Russian propaganda decided to extract from the bins the version “NATO is to blame for everything”. It is clear that NATO is always to blame for everything, but Kursk is still a painful topic for Putin. Or maybe the resuscitation of the topic is just connected with some kind of unclosed gestalt?"

And political scientist Alexey Makarkin explains step by step why the Kremlin propaganda needs it:

“This is an old version, which Popov himself adheres to, and a large part of the representatives of the Navy. During the investigation, it was verified and refuted. The then Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov published a book in which he spoke in detail about its results. But it is clear that sailors who are confident in the guilt of the Americans cannot be convinced of the official version - for them the United States will forever remain guilty.

But it is interesting that the admiral's interview appeared now, without reference to an informational occasion. And then it became one of the main events on the agenda. Why is information spreading right now, in which there is nothing new? It can hardly be assumed that the official version will be revised.

The answer may be as follows. Let's quote an unusual statement by Maria Zakharova. It turns out that Moscow and Washington have achieved positive achievements in the negotiation process, although a number of difficulties remain in relations between the countries. Among positive examples of interaction, she named the draft Russian-American resolution against the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes, adopted by the UN General Assembly. A couple of months ago, no one would have believed that Moscow and Washington would jointly offer the world community such a program document, concluded Zakharova.

Judging by the intensive dialogue (the Patrushev-Sullivan channel, the visits of Nuland and Burns to Moscow, the trip of Overchuk to the United States), the parties are gradually approaching a new summit - at least so far online. But against this background, the question arises about the fate of anti-Western mobilization, which plays an important role in the information support of the policy of the Russian authorities. After all, it is well known from Soviet experience when, even during the periods of the ideologized Cold War, society quickly grew warmer towards the “main enemy”, seeing Brezhnev with Nixon or Gorbachev with Reagan on TV.

Therefore, they will try to continue the anti-Western mobilization, explaining to the audience that regardless of the current relationship and the nature of possible compromises, America continues to be an adversary. And you shouldn't relax..."

Political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky agrees with this version:

“…Admiral Vyacheslav Popov came to his senses and came to an understanding: already in 2000 the aggressive NATO bloc wanted a war with the Russian Federation and the overthrow (at least - discredit) of President Vladimir Putin. It turns out that it is NATO forces that are to blame for the Kursk nuclear submarine crash. Very timely book (s). Soon we will hear from different lips: something similar the US and NATO are planning right now in the Black / Azov Seas. With the assistance of Ukraine, of course..."

Finally, let's add a question on our own: speaking of a collision with another boat, Popov thereby completely refutes the conclusions of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, who personally told the whole country and the world about the causes of the disaster?