To understand how Americans succeeded what succeeded, it is necessary to understand by what command structures all these events were controlled.
For this we turn to the sixties. On May 5, 1968, near the island of Oahu, which is part of the Hawaiian archipelago, a diesel submarine - a carrier of K-129 ballistic missiles - died.
The US Navy, interested in getting the sunken submarine for itself, created a special department to coordinate with the CIA. It was this, at that time, unstable structure that coordinated the covert operation to lift the K-129, which was carried out by the Americans. Over time, this department has developed into a full-fledged member of the American intelligence community. The structure was named NURO - National Underwater Reconnaissance Office, translated as "Office of National Underwater Reconnaissance".
NURO is the oldest and most respected branch of the American military intelligence community, and at the same time, the most secret. It is enough that the existence of this structure was not officially recognized until 1998! NURO existed perfectly well by that time for more than thirty years, and conducted military operations. According to the accepted procedure, the Minister of the Navy should be the head of NURO.
In 1981, this post was taken over by John Francis Lehman.
Lehman is the person with whom the success of the American Navy in their confrontation with the Soviet Navy in the 1980s is inextricably linked. And I must say that the main successes in this confrontation were not played by aircraft carriers or surface ships. They were submarines.
In those years, the US Navy conducted intensive activities to exert powerful military pressure on the USSR Navy, and, among other things, carried out massive special and reconnaissance operations against the Soviet Union. The guiding will of Lehman and his henchmen, the admirals, turned these operations into a real Crusade. Even before Lehman, in the 70s, under the leadership of NURO, the Americans carried out reconnaissance operations in the waters that the USSR declared closed, for example, in the northern part of the Sea of Okhotsk, by the forces of the Habibut specially equipped for intelligence activities. The Americans, for example, systematically "combed" the seabed at the training grounds of the Pacific Fleet, in order to search for the wreckage of Soviet anti-ship missiles.
For example, they managed to collect more than two million fragments of the P-500 "Basalt" anti-ship missile system, which allowed the Americans to completely reconstruct the missile, carry out its "reverse engineering", and develop effective means of electronic warfare. In the event of a war with the United States, these missiles would be largely useless.
It is worth noting that the Americans carried out such operations in the post-Soviet era, for example, in the Northern Fleet in 1995 there was an episode when a couple of PDSS fighters, who had the task of preventing such actions, were killed - someone quietly crept up to them and cut the rebreather hoses with a knife. Such operations are being carried out now (and the Navy should worry about this, as well as about how effective our anti-ship missiles will be against not only US ships, but also against ships of friendly countries).
Under the leadership of NURO, Operation Ivy Bells (ivy flowers) was carried out to install listening equipment on the communication cables of the Pacific Fleet, passing along the bottom of the Sea of Okhotsk. Then another series of similar operations was carried out with more sophisticated spy equipment.
Actions against the USSR intensified sharply with the arrival of the Minister of the Navy Lehman as the chief of NURO.
Lehman, being a staunch Catholic, hated the atheistic USSR. The fight against the Soviet Union was for him a personal crusade (as for any American Catholic). As a "real" American, he absolutely did not consider it necessary to be careful in the choice of means, and proceeded from the postulates "Winners are not judged" and "America is always right." Under Lehman, SEAL special forces began raids on Soviet territory, and they were so frequent that American mini-submarines were sometimes discovered even by accident, even during the day. True, sloppiness in the Navy and Naval Aviation did not allow the sinking or capture of any of them. American nuclear submarines received missions that had to be performed directly in Soviet territorial waters, and special forces carried out force seizures of Soviet military equipment right at sea.
For example, during the search anti-submarine operation of the Soviet Navy "Whiskered Tit" in 1985, the Americans, by an unidentified method, cut off a flexible extended sonar antenna at the GISU "Sever". The antenna cable turned out to be bitten, while no acoustic signature was detected at the previous moment by the ship's hydroacoustics - the antenna simply disappeared, and with it the flow of data on the hydroacoustic situation was interrupted.
Sometimes the military or border guards found bookmarks and caches made by foreign special groups.
Those were hot times. And it is not surprising that the incident with the Soviet submarine in Swedish territorial waters was used, as they say, "to the fullest."
The details of these operations are still classified, and with the exception of what Weinberger let slip in 2000, there is no and there was no information from the Americans. This is understandable, they are silent about such things forever.
But we can make some guesses. Firstly, the fact that the operations were coordinated by NURO and Lehman can be considered a reliable fact - it was their responsibility, and they did it. Moreover, one of the CIA officers confirmed this fact to Tunander in a private conversation.
Second, the example of the Dutch submarine in 2014 shows that non-US submarines could be used in these operations. The latter fact also confirms the information collected by Tunander. So, it is known about the British participation in these operations, which was interrupted only during the Falklands conflict.
Thirdly, we can roughly guess what types of submarines were used in these provocations.
In his work " Some Remarks on the US / UK Submarine Deception In Swedish Waters in the 1980s"(" Some Notes on Deception of US and British Subs in Swedish Waters in the 1980s ") Thunander cites the assessment of one Swedish intelligence officer who claims that British Oberon-class diesel-electric submarines were used in these operations. First of all, we are talking about the submarine "Orpheus" ("Orpheus"), which was equipped with an airlock for five combat swimmers. According to this officer, the submarines passed through the Danish straits underwater a couple of times a year (although this is prohibited by international norms), and the Danes kept silent about this fact. Then they carried out various operations in the Baltic, including in the territorial waters of Sweden.
Thunander later tracked down two Royal Navy officers who had participated in such raids in the early eighties, commanding Oberon-class submarines. One of them reported that during the landing operations on Soviet territory of the Special Forces from the Special Boat Service, and its evacuation, in the early eighties, he retreated back to the Danish straits along the Swedish coast. The officer refused to disclose any information about actions near or inside Swedish territorial waters.
The second in a private conversation admitted that operations in the Gulf of Bothnia took place, but refused to explain anything.
On American submarines, Tunander has collected a fairly large amount of evidence that may indicate the ultra-small nuclear submarine NR-1, which was in service with the US Navy for a long time. This submarine, officially classified as a "rescue" submarine, in fact could not be used in this capacity, due to a variety of factors, such as the lack of space on board for the rescued or equipment for resuscitation, but it had manipulators for remote work on the bottom and retractable wheels for hidden movement under the bottom, without the use of a propeller (which guarantees near-zero noise). So some of the recordings of the acoustic signature made by the Swedish Navy during the chase of submarines are most similar to the signature of the NR-1.
Actually, covert operations are exactly what the NR-1 was created for, and it is not surprising if the Americans used it. The only question is that the NR-1 needed a support vessel, but secretly re-equipping any transport for this task was not a problem for the Americans.
Regarding more serious submarines, Thunander casts suspicion on the nuclear submarine "Seawolf" SSN-575 and the nuclear submarine "Cavalla" SSN-684, which in the early eighties was equipped with an airlock for the landing of combat swimmers.
In fact, the idea of hidden passages of nuclear submarines into the cramped and shallow Baltic Sea looks strange and distrustful.
However, there is one fact that indirectly can serve as a confirmation of Thunander's version.
As mentioned in the previous part, in 1982, a foreign submarine found in Swedish territorial waters was damaged by depth charges. Tunander gives a lot of details of this event, including a signal spot released by a damaged submarine to the surface, which absolutely uniquely characterizes this submarine as an American submarine, details as to who gave this submarine to leave, testimonies of Swedish naval officers who heard sounds that are unequivocally classified as an ongoing battle for survivability and much more.
And at the same time, we know that the Seawulf nuclear submarine mentioned by Tunander was seriously damaged during the covert operations of the 80s and was really fighting for survivability. We know that this boat was awarded the Damage Control Medal for her successes in the fight for survivability. And then this boat received the "Battle Excellence" medal, which is given to ships that distinguished themselves in the course of hostilities. We know that in 1983 the boat was at the shipyard and was undergoing repairs, officially due to damage sustained in the Pacific Ocean after a storm. Unofficially - due to damage received during a secret operation somewhere in Soviet territorial waters. But who said that secret operations can only be in Soviet territorial waters?
There is one more evidence, unfortunately, all references to it have been removed from the Internet.
In 1988, during the last incident that took place before the collapse of the USSR, the following happened. During tests of one of the Swedish submarines of the "Westerjotland" type, a Swedish anti-submarine helicopter tracking its movement detected a submarine target "hanging on the tail" of a Swedish boat. For verification, the Swedish boat was ordered to surface immediately, which was done. And then, the unknown object, sharply picking up speed, slipped under the Swedish submarine and went into neutral waters with "huge", as it was then indicated, speed.
Such a maneuver (separation) unambiguously indicates that the unknown object had a nuclear power plant, and the instantaneous gain in power and speed is just a distinctive feature of American nuclear power plants.
So it should be admitted that the version about the penetration of American nuclear submarines into the Baltic Sea and their secret operations there, at least has a right to exist.
In 1998, the book "Blind man's bluff" was published by Sherry Sontag, Christopher Drew and Annette Lawrence Drew. The book focuses on American covert operations during the Cold War, which used nuclear submarines. It cannot be said that this book would cover the topic completely, but at the end of this book there is a list of awards for American nuclear submarines, broken down by year. Some of the submarines mentioned there do not appear in any known military operations, but their awards correlate up to date with incidents in Swedish territorial waters.
And, as Thunander mentioned in his book, German submarines also participated in these operations. And recently we have all seen a Dutch submarine posing as "Varshavyanka" or "Lada".
All this should be a very serious lesson for us. The influence of a small Swedish "fifth column" led by the activist of the American terrorist network "Gladio" Karl Bildt, and the systematic demonstration of someone's periscopes to ordinary Swedes led to the fact that a large and important country began to actively drift towards the hostile NATO bloc. This has undoubtedly weakened - already weakened - our defenses, and caused enormous political damage.
And the root cause of this enormous process was the stupidity and incompetence of a single crew of an old submarine in a secondary theater of operations.
But the main thing is our inability to realize with what level of cynicism the West can act, how disregard the United States, Britain and their NATO allies can treat both international norms and the sovereignty of formally friendly nations for the sake of damage to our country.
And also - our inability to understand at what professional level our opponent can play if he is "pressed".
Unfortunately, we still have to grow and grow to this level.
It is also an example of what a professionally trained, well-equipped and well-managed fleet can do. This whole story is a reason to ponder for those who, in their wretched understanding of the issue, understand by the word "fleet" just a set of ships - even small ones (especially to them), even big ones.
We can only hope that someday we will rise in our intellectual development to a level that allows us to counteract such strategies, and at the same time we finally realize that the Anglo-Saxons and their assistants need to be put outside the framework of ordinary human morality a long time ago.
Let's ask questions:
1. Is there still a network of "Gladio", from which the Swedish "fifth column", the very "Military Sweden" of Ole Tunander, grew?
2. If not, what exists instead of it?
3. Does the RF have agents inside?
4. Have the details of US-British operations in Swedish territorial waters been revealed at least at the intelligence level?
5. Have countermeasures been thought out to prevent these operations from continuing in the future (and they will continue - the Anglo-Saxons are not abandoning the working "tools")?
As the example of 2014 shows, there were no countermeasures, except for Konashenkov's statement ignored by all foreign media without exception. And even getting into the press of the photo of the Dutch submarine did not change anything, absolutely. The power of the Western media machine makes it possible to ignore reality.
What should be done in the right way when the US and its hangers-on again try to play the Russian submarine card in Swedish waters?
The theoretically correct answer is: it needs to be sunk … Yes, to kill a bunch of Americans or Dutch or Germans or whoever will be there for the sake of a picture in the news - there is nothing “like that” about it.
How to do it?
This question is already very interesting, and, probably, it is not worth discussing it openly. Naturally, the participation of the Baltic Fleet in such an operation should be reduced to zero. But this does not mean at all that it does not need to be performed, or that it is impossible.
And in such a situation, no media resources will be able to ignore the simple fact of whose submarine was eventually found in Swedish territorial waters (with all the ensuing consequences). Here the map will trample all Swedish Tunanders - and there are a lot of them in reality.
And it would also be nice to learn how to arrange such provocations ourselves. There are many countries in the world whose destruction of relations with the United States and Britain would benefit us. We should also think about carrying out "Operations under a false flag" somewhere and not necessarily with submarines.
We live in a very cruel world. It is high time for us to understand this simple fact and start acting accordingly.
