Deceive Putin. How the domestic and Western press are used to misinform
From the report of the RAND Corporation (USA): “... wear out Russia and throw it off balance ... the expansion of the presence of the US Navy and its allies in the Russian zones of responsibility could force Russia to increase its naval investments, pulling funding from potentially more important directions.
Vyacheslav Molotov is credited with formulating the rule: "If our enemies praise us, then we are doing something wrong."
Alas, this wise rule has been forgotten today. Today it is customary for us to rejoice that our enemies are writing laudatory odes about us, painting in colors our huge successes in military construction.
However, V. Molotov was right. The laudatory materials of the Western press and the statements of Western military leaders and politicians about how great and terrible we are are made not at all because this is so in reality.
In addition, often our press is simply banal, due to the ignorance of the translators and the inability to read between the lines of the editors, it finds in the words of foreign military personnel not at all the meaning that they really put into them. And then he broadcasts this "crooked" translation to the domestic reader.
It is worth separating one from the other, and at the same time figuring out what we are dealing with, who, whom and in what is actually trying to deceive, and what does Putin have to do with it.
Lost in translation and the distorting mirror of the media
First news from the domestic "media" (we put it in quotes, because, in our opinion, they are mass media, but often not information at all, but disinformation).
The Pentagon announced the loss of the "inaccessibility" of the United States due to Russian submarines.
MOSCOW, October 2 - RIA Novosti. The United States has ceased to be "out of reach" due to the modernization of the Russian submarine fleet... This, as reported by Business Insider, said the commander of the submarine forces of the US Navy, Vice Admiral Daryl Caudle.
“Our country is no longer out of reach, so we should be prepared to conduct high-level operations in local waters,” he said.
As the newspaper writes, despite the fact that now the Russian fleet has fewer submarines than during the Soviet era, they are more modern, silent, have greater autonomy and are capable of striking ground targets.
During the conflict in Syria, Moscow has already demonstrated its Kalibr cruise missiles, striking targets on land from submarines. Because of this, the United States needs to prepare for submarine war as soon as possible, said Michael Petersen, director of the Institute for the Study of Russian Naval Forces at the US Naval War College.
“Our country is no longer out of reach, so we should be prepared to conduct high-level operations in local waters,” he said.
As the newspaper writes, despite the fact that now the Russian fleet has fewer submarines than during the Soviet era, they are more modern, silent, have greater autonomy and are capable of striking ground targets.
During the conflict in Syria, Moscow has already demonstrated its Kalibr cruise missiles, striking targets on land from submarines. Because of this, the United States needs to prepare for submarine war as soon as possible, said Michael Petersen, director of the Institute for the Study of Russian Naval Forces at the US Naval War College.
Rђ RІRѕS, what Business Insider actually wrote with quotes from Vice Admiral Caudle (Vice Admiral's direct speech is highlighted):
The Decline of the Russian Navy in the Ten Years After the Cold War "Let some guys think that the Motherland is a safe reserve from the Russian forces"Vice Admiral Daryl Caudle, commander of the US Navy's submarine forces, said on September 16.
“But it is well known that the Motherland is not really a safe reserve, and we must be ready to conduct extremely complex operations in the waters nearby [to the US territory],” Caudle added.
“But it is well known that the Motherland is not really a safe reserve, and we must be ready to conduct extremely complex operations in the waters nearby [to the US territory],” Caudle added.
It remains to add to this only that Caudle spoke during the Black Widow anti-submarine exercises, which took place from 12 to 18 September, and to a large extent his speech was motivational for the personnel.
As they say, feel the difference. Caudle did not say anything about the superpowers of the Russian Navy, he simply insisted that the personnel not relax and prepare for war in earnest.
For some reason, about these exercises, about the interaction between surface and submarine forces and the base patrol aviationwhich were worked out on them, our press did not write anything. Moreover, she did not write anything about the fact that the recent voyages of American and British ships in the Barents Sea were also exactly the same anti-submarine exercises several hundred kilometers from our bases. The only article where things were called by their proper names was an article by one of the authors in business newspaper "Vzglyad": "The United States is preparing to sink Russian submarines right off the coast".
And here is what Petersen, mentioned to RIA Novosti, said according to the same edition:
"In terms of numbers, the Russian fleet is not the threat it was during the Cold War, but in terms of capabilities, it remains a significant challenge."
Further, Petersen deciphers what exactly the challenge is: "Caliber". He is not worried that Russian submarines can (according to statements by our media) find and track American SSBNs, he is not worried that, having neutralized American multipurpose submarines, our boats will pose a threat to American warships (according to our media). No. This is not considered.
He only cares that they (that is, we) have long-range missiles, everything else is not particularly interesting to him, but phrases describing the fact that Russian submarines have become "more perfect" or "quieter" and in the statements of the Americans , and in the text of the articles written by the journalists are interpreted absolutely unambiguously: they have become quieter IN COMPARISON WITH THE SAME RUSSIAN OLD FRAMES.
Nobody in the US today even stutters that Ash is superior to Virginia, or at least equal to it in any way. It is postulated that for RUSSIA this is a step forward. Well, yes, against the background of Project 949A, to replace which the Ash was created, this is a step forward in terms of stealth. But he will resist completely different submarines ...
It is our journalists who create an extremely blissful unctuous background in the press, convincing readers that everything is so good with us that it simply cannot be bad. We have already defeated almost everyone, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
And about the search anti-submarine operation of the NATO OVMS near the bases of the Northern Fleet (including the NSNF), one can simply not write, so as not to spoil the blissful picture.
Americans really care about our cruise missiles. But they don't have to worry too much: these missiles have not yet hit the Shchuka-B and Batons, the rearmament of the third-generation domestic submarines on the Caliber KRO has been disrupted (and deliberately), and now the Caliber is ready to use either new "Varshavyanka", which obviously will not be in the Atlantic, or SSGN "Severodvinsk" of project 3. A little later "Kazan" and "Novosibirsk" of project 855M. The rest of "Ash-M" is still far from delivery.
And that's all.
The question arises: why does our press create such a false idea of how a potential enemy sees us? The reason is that, through the efforts of the press itself, chasing a patriotic reader, and the efforts of the Ministry of Defense, instead of a real picture of the combat capability of the domestic Armed Forces with their advantages (and there are many in fact) and shortcomings (of which there are also a lot), a simulacrum was created in the domestic information space, a false idea of an almighty Russia, which can absolutely everything and has already achieved everything that is possible. Where there are not only no problems, but they simply cannot be.
This simulacrum is very pleasant for the layman. It brings joy to the narrow-minded reader and raises the ratings of newspapers and media resources. And those who are especially zealous in servicing the "media" receive various preferences from the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the Ministry of Defense (DIMK MO). As a result, society has become absolutely intolerant of real information if it does not indulge its pride here and now. The picture that the media create in the pursuit of ratings and "buns" from DIMK MO has the same relation to reality as a reflection in a distorted mirror to whoever looks in this mirror.
The problem here is that there are shortcomings in the country's defense capability, but in such an information environment they cannot even be discussed. You cannot discuss it with ordinary people in the street, you cannot discuss it with politicians who get information in the same place as ordinary people. Not to discuss with officials who report to the top what the press writes about, and arouse an enthusiastic smug look at things even in the highest echelons of power. And now a responsible official or officer who is not influenced by the simulacrum, who has information of critical importance regarding the country's defense capability, does not know how to report this: after all, everyone at the top is also sure that everything is insanely good with us and it simply cannot be better.
The question arises: what is the supreme commander in chief? It is understandable that an ordinary person or a low-ranking official is fed from TV with “general welfare” and “unparalleled” superweapons ... And what is reported to the supreme leader in such conditions?
And here we have the main problem: the supreme commander-in-chief is reported the same thing that is told to the layman, just in a slightly different form.
WHAT they report to him, a little less than a year ago, everyone could observe. When at an exhibition in Sevastopol, in the form of a "promising" submarine of the 5th generation, the president was shown a model with an antique propulsion system (low-speed propeller) and obsolete "Physicist-1" torpedoes (GOSs were passed back in 2008).
A mock-up of the allegedly fifth generation submarine, project 585, designed within the Laika R&D project. In reality, this is just a shortened Ash with new components and the ability to carry the Zircon. A boat conceptually outdated in the early nineties
And no one will raise the question: how so - weapons We do not yet have a new generation, and we do not even have an idea of what it will be like, but a submarine "for it" is already being made and a budget is being developed on this?
Obviously, VGKs do not report "inconvenient information". There are a lot of examples. Here is a typical response from the Ministry of Defense to "inconvenient" information:
No. 312/4/4421 dated 15.05.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX
The handling of information on the state of the submarine forces of the Navy and the Northern Fleet, received by the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, by the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation has been considered. This situation is not true.
I. Dylevsky, Deputy Head of the General Staff School.
The handling of information on the state of the submarine forces of the Navy and the Northern Fleet, received by the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, by the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation has been considered. This situation is not true.
I. Dylevsky, Deputy Head of the General Staff School.
Those. in accordance with the "answer" at the request of the presidential administration, and GOU GSh (!), we allegedly have:
- ice shooting is carried out;
- our submarines have effective anti-torpedo protection and are armed with modern torpedoes;
- our submarines and NSNF are provided with effective anti-submarine and anti-mine defense.
And so on. All this is a lie (which is confirmed, among other things, by photographs of the Boreyev torpedo decks and materials of arbitration courts), and this lie is reported by the General Staff's Main Operations Directorate to the presidential administration!
True, "Military Acceptance" cannot show any of this. Neither telecontrolled torpedo shooting, under the ice, nor the selection of a torpedo from the ice hole, nor the work of anti-torpedoes, nor themselves, nor the new "Physicists" on nuclear submarines older than "Prince Vladimir" (normally in ammunition with modified BIUS boats) - nothing.
Because all this is a lie (which is confirmed, among other things, by photographs of Boreyev torpedo decks with USET-80 "firewood" on the shelves and materials of arbitration courts concerning anti-torpedoes), and this lie, we repeat, is reported by the General Staff's Main Operations Directorate the presidential administration!
The realities, of course, are different.
At the end of the 90th century (in the 1943s), there was actually a new technical revolution in the means of searching for and combating submarines, which raised the question of the survival of submarines in new combat conditions extremely sharply. This has happened before, for example, the defeat of German submarines in the Atlantic in May XNUMX.
However, if the events of 1943 had immediate consequences on the part of submarines in the form of changes in their weapons, appearance and tactics of use, now our valiant Navy is demonstrating virtually complete “ignore” of the new conditions of submarine warfare.
The main tactical property of submarines is stealth. The situation in this matter today in terms of hydroacoustic means is best shown by the following diagram.
Low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination makes even an absolutely silent object a source of secondary long-wave oscillations and reduces its secrecy to zero
Especially creative supporters of submarines propose to "shoot" the carriers of the low-frequency "illumination" LFA "Onyx".
Only now the question arises: will we also shoot "Onyxes" at aviation active low-frequency buoys? By the way, there is nothing close to our naval aviation, despite the fact that they have been used in NATO since the beginning of the 90s.
There are experiments. Chudikov from our "theoretical science". Very successful, but which "for some reason" are absolutely uninteresting to the Navy and the defense industry.
The last deputy chief in shipbuilding and armament of the USSR Navy F. Novoselov spoke about the new "unconventional means" of detection:
“At the meeting, he did not give the floor to the head of the institute, who was eager to talk about experiments to detect the surfaced trace of a submarine using the radar. Much later, at the end of 1989, I asked him why he dismissed this question. Fyodor Ivanovich answered as follows: "I know about this effect, it is impossible to defend against such detection, so why upset our submariners."
(A. Vasiliev, Head of the Advanced Design Department, Krylov Central Research Institute.)
The question arises: does the principle "no need to upset" apply to the country's military-political leadership? The question is very topical given the huge material and financial investments in the submarine.
Today, it is the new submarines that are collectively the largest expenditure item in the military budget. At the same time, their combat services are not provided in any way and they do not have the ability to fight against their own kind because of failures in torpedo weapons, anti-torpedoes and hydroacoustic countermeasures.
The enemy, constantly hanging on the tail of our submarines, including on training grounds, is well aware of this.
This is how, for example, the situation with our capabilities in underwater combat still looks like:
Problematic issues of the appearance of promising submarines of the Russian Navy.
Shooting at sea and bases. The latest submarines of the Russian Navy are armed with outdated weapons and self-defense means.
But in what form the much-praised "Ash" was passed:
"APKR" Severodvinsk "handed over to the fleet with critical shortcomings".
There is an opinion that what is happening today with our submarine forces (and weapons) is not just a grandiose "cut" of budget funds. Everything is much worse: this is actually a deliberately prepared military defeat (a new "Tsushima pogrom"). And this is fraught with complete extermination of the population of the Russian Federation. If the enemy succeeds in inflicting a disarming strike on the strategic nuclear forces and at the same time neutralizing the SSBNs in combat services, then almost all of us will simply die. If this military defeat simply leads to revolutionary chaos, as happened in 1905, then, alas, it will still result in a nuclear attack - just at the peak of "revolutionary" chaos, when our control systems of the Strategic Missile Forces, the Aerospace Forces and the Navy will be disorganized. Nobody will let us rise anymore. The next error will be the last one in our stories, and this must be understood clearly.
A special example is the threat to our submarine posed by the US Navy Basic Patrol Aviation (BPA).
Here is what Admiral V. Vysotsky said, former commander-in-chief of the Navy before V. Chirkov:
"If we do not have an AB in the North, then the combat stability of the PKK SN will be reduced to zero already on the second day, because the main enemy of boats is aviation."
Has anyone re-voiced this to the manual? For example, when you surrender Severodvinsk?
Of course not. Despite the sharply increased capabilities of Western anti-submarine aviation, what the Navy has in this part (naval aviation) can be immediately taken to the museum (including the "newest" "Novella" and "Kasatka"). New anti-submarine warfare technologies are simply ignored by our naval aviation. At the same time, not only is there no interest in Western experience, but it comes to the direct destruction of the most valuable intelligence (with a sledgehammer on a hard disk with data) that does not fit into the "official blissful picture."
Do we have the aircraft carrier about which Vysotsky spoke? We “didn’t have it” even before being put in for repairs, if we call things by their proper names, and it’s good that at least this became apparent in Syria, and not when the country's existence was at stake.
By the way, insufficient preparation of naval aviation, an aircraft carrier and, more broadly, of the entire fleet for the usual and routine operations for other navies was revealed IN WAR.
Before that, we had "everything is fine." The question arises: in what war and in what form will the lack of modern combat-ready torpedoes be revealed? Will it not be such a war when nothing can be fixed? For the real situation with naval underwater weapons is a direct "invitation" to covertly shooting our strategic nuclear-powered ships. And this is the first step towards victory in a nuclear war with acceptable losses or no losses at all.
In the meantime, we continue to report to the top that everything is fine, and the domestic "media" continue to stir up this point of view.
It would be naive to think that the enemy will not use this for different purposes. And he uses it.
Disinformation through the media
Americans have a long tradition of misleading our statesmen, scientists, and military leaders using the press and various kinds of public information, dating back to Soviet times.
However, not only ours. They make a fool of their Congress just as well. For example, we can recall the statements of the famous Norman Polmar that the Soviet submarines of project 971 are supposedly superior to American boats of the Los Angeles type in their stealth.
Only now it was in the middle in 1989, when it was clear that the "cold war" was over and military shipbuilding was awaiting reduction. The information disseminated by Polmar was deliberately unreliable and its purpose was to knock out money from Congress for new submarines, despite the fact that at the time of the events described, we could not do anything with the old submarines of the US Navy.
Later, already in the 90s, when the American submarine building literally held the American submarine building by the throat, the cuts in military spending under Clinton, American admirals picked up the baton from Polmar - and achieved the renewal of the US Navy submarine in conditions when they no longer had an enemy.
Let's take another example from history.
In 2005, the Drofa publishing house published a major work by a team of authors, employees of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems (GosNII AS) under the leadership of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences E. A. Fedosov: “Aviation of the Russian Navy and scientific and technological progress. Creation concepts, development paths, research methodology ”. The team of authors: V.M. Alkhovikov, V.M. Denisov, A.V. Zarubin, V.D. Oblyapin, V.V. Orlov, E.A. Fedosov. The reviewer was the commander of the naval aviation of the Russian Navy, Lieutenant General I.D. Fedin.
The voluminous work examines a lot of theoretical issues related to naval aviation, up to the mathematical modeling of the use of "Kuznetsov" in the Falklands "for the British". Historical issues are also considered.
Among them is one interesting example:
“At the stage of working out the draft design of the ANK project 1143.5 on the basis of the experience gained over 10 years, it became possible to study the influence on the decisions made by another factor - information about the work being carried out in the same direction abroad.
A priori, it was clear that our foreign colleagues were not very eager to see a large Soviet aircraft carrier in the ocean accompanied by ships with ship-to-ship missile weapons (of which, we note, they were very, very much afraid of) and effective air defense systems.
It was noticed that when discussions began in our country on the concept of naval aviation, on the choice of the size of the ANC and the national path of development of the aircraft carrier fleet, in the United States, judging by the technical and military literature, a problem arose opposite to ours: the search for the possibility of reducing the size of the ANC when arming them shortened takeoff aircraft. In this regard, in the periodicals in 1971-1980, the issue of vertical / short takeoff and landing (SV / UVP) aircraft (XVF-12, etc.) of small ANK (SCS, VSS, etc.) and technical problems associated with their creation.
Naturally, doubts arose about this: studies conducted by domestic research institutes showed (except for "custom" ones) the inefficiency of small ANCs, and abroad they returned to these studies again and again.
... on the part of the leadership of our research organizations, there were regular accusations that the results of their research did not coincide with foreign ones.
...
To clarify the issue, an analysis was carried out of the reliability of the hypothesis of a deliberate (directed against the opponents of the domestic aircraft carrier fleet) distortion of the relative importance of the problem of small ANC and SV / UVP towards its overestimation in the periods preceding the adoption (or non-adoption) of decisions on the construction of ejection ANC in the USSR.
The analysis showed:
1. The hypothesis that in the periods preceding the consideration in the USSR of the question of the beginning of the construction of ANCs armed with conventional takeoff aircraft, the number of publications concerning the problems of small ANCs and ground forces / UVP does not contradict the statistics. This made it possible to draw a conclusion about possible misinformation ...
2. The most intensive increase in the number of publications began, on average, one to two years before the question of building an ejection ANC in the USSR was considered. This, in turn, could indicate that our foreign colleagues had information about the time of consideration of the issue for at least one or two years.
A priori, it was clear that our foreign colleagues were not very eager to see a large Soviet aircraft carrier in the ocean accompanied by ships with ship-to-ship missile weapons (of which, we note, they were very, very much afraid of) and effective air defense systems.
It was noticed that when discussions began in our country on the concept of naval aviation, on the choice of the size of the ANC and the national path of development of the aircraft carrier fleet, in the United States, judging by the technical and military literature, a problem arose opposite to ours: the search for the possibility of reducing the size of the ANC when arming them shortened takeoff aircraft. In this regard, in the periodicals in 1971-1980, the issue of vertical / short takeoff and landing (SV / UVP) aircraft (XVF-12, etc.) of small ANK (SCS, VSS, etc.) and technical problems associated with their creation.
Naturally, doubts arose about this: studies conducted by domestic research institutes showed (except for "custom" ones) the inefficiency of small ANCs, and abroad they returned to these studies again and again.
... on the part of the leadership of our research organizations, there were regular accusations that the results of their research did not coincide with foreign ones.
...
To clarify the issue, an analysis was carried out of the reliability of the hypothesis of a deliberate (directed against the opponents of the domestic aircraft carrier fleet) distortion of the relative importance of the problem of small ANC and SV / UVP towards its overestimation in the periods preceding the adoption (or non-adoption) of decisions on the construction of ejection ANC in the USSR.
The analysis showed:
1. The hypothesis that in the periods preceding the consideration in the USSR of the question of the beginning of the construction of ANCs armed with conventional takeoff aircraft, the number of publications concerning the problems of small ANCs and ground forces / UVP does not contradict the statistics. This made it possible to draw a conclusion about possible misinformation ...
2. The most intensive increase in the number of publications began, on average, one to two years before the question of building an ejection ANC in the USSR was considered. This, in turn, could indicate that our foreign colleagues had information about the time of consideration of the issue for at least one or two years.
A few more examples can be added from today's perspective.
In 2014, Rear Admiral of the US Navy Dave Johnson, then the executive director of the US Naval Systems Command, told the media that he was impressed by the Russian submarine Severodvinsk: he even has a scale model in his office. He also said that the United States will face a tough adversary in the form of modified Yasen submarines.
The same model ...
Admiral James Foggo, Commander of the US Navy Europe, also took part in this ash-tree flash mob and expressed his impression of this submarine. “This is a great submarine,” Foggo told The National Interest in 2016.
If you look at the development of the Russian Navy and how resources were spent, it becomes clear that the main research and development efforts were primarily aimed at strengthening the submarine fleet.
However, later, when Foggo no longer needed to lie, he honestly said that in Russian submarines he only cares about "Caliber". Translated into Russian: they will have to be destroyed before reaching the launch line. What the Americans, as we see, are preparing for.
By 2015, a lot of bad questions arose at the top (on the open ignorance of the issues of the Navy's combat effectiveness and the readiness to solve tasks according to their intended purpose) to the then chief of the Navy V.V. Chirkov, and the chair swayed under him.
Suddenly, a series of publications appears in the West, where the "Chirkovsky Navy" underscores to a superlative degree.
Financial Times: Russian navy poses new challenge to US.
The admiral told the Financial Times that the US Navy is reassessing its global doctrine and operational-strategic plans in the face of Russian activism that rages from the Black and Mediterranean Seas to the Pacific Ocean.
“Their submarines and surface ships are showing unprecedented activity in the last 20 years,” Richardson said in an interview. - How do we place our forces and resources in order to maintain the necessary balance and appropriate capabilities?
According to Admiral Richardson, the Navy is currently considering whether or not to increase its presence in Europe and the Pacific. “We are currently having these discussions,” he said.
The increase in this activity is partly due to the actions of the Russians in Syria, but its navy is also increasingly active in other areas, from the east coast of the United States to the Pacific Ocean. Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov recently announced that patrolling by the Russian submarine fleet has grown by 2013% since 50.
“Their submarines and surface ships are showing unprecedented activity in the last 20 years,” Richardson said in an interview. - How do we place our forces and resources in order to maintain the necessary balance and appropriate capabilities?
According to Admiral Richardson, the Navy is currently considering whether or not to increase its presence in Europe and the Pacific. “We are currently having these discussions,” he said.
The increase in this activity is partly due to the actions of the Russians in Syria, but its navy is also increasingly active in other areas, from the east coast of the United States to the Pacific Ocean. Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov recently announced that patrolling by the Russian submarine fleet has grown by 2013% since 50.
Or another example from the same year.
Il Giornale, Italy: US Secret Services sound the alarm: Russian fleet is intimidating.
Much has changed over the past 15 years that the US Navy's secret services have published a hefty 68-page dossier that, as reported by Difesa Online, speaks of the dangers posed by the Russian fleet: to defend a country with impressive power, limited only by the endless expansion of its borders. In the XNUMXst century, the Russian fleet will be one of the most modern in the world and will be operated by a new generation of professional military personnel. "
The Americans noted that “since 2000, thanks to the stability of the government, the country's economy has stabilized. Purposeful efforts were made and funding was allocated for the restoration of the Russian fleet. Many programs, suspended due to lack of funds, have been restarted. Money was invested in the development of new concepts, thanks to which submarine and surface vessels have already been launched. In 2000, the Russians owned several ships capable of participating in hostilities. Today, the Kremlin has at its disposal 186 vessels (warships and submarines) that carry out operations in the waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, from the Black to the Baltic Seas, from the Caspian to the Mediterranean and to the Arctic itself. "
The Americans noted that “since 2000, thanks to the stability of the government, the country's economy has stabilized. Purposeful efforts were made and funding was allocated for the restoration of the Russian fleet. Many programs, suspended due to lack of funds, have been restarted. Money was invested in the development of new concepts, thanks to which submarine and surface vessels have already been launched. In 2000, the Russians owned several ships capable of participating in hostilities. Today, the Kremlin has at its disposal 186 vessels (warships and submarines) that carry out operations in the waters from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, from the Black to the Baltic Seas, from the Caspian to the Mediterranean and to the Arctic itself. "
Both the British and the Italians - all were in awe of the great naval commander Chirkov. And the Americans were shocked: a 68-page dossier and Richardson's confusion clearly hints at which titan was at the head of our Navy. It is not at all every day that the "US Navy intelligence report" on the Russian Navy with fresh data (and it is possible to calculate the sources of their receipt from them, if they are real), is published in free access!
This is not a splint from DIMK MO, this is a deliberate "misinformation" from the Americans
After Viktor Viktorovich left, advertising of his legacy continued. For example, at the end of March 2018 The Drive writes an ode to patrol ship 22160. Chirkov was no longer in office, and the Western press called the Navy such epithets as it deserved, but this project was praised, its "design" was called "brilliant".
Here's what I wrote about it funny guy Tyler Rogoway:
“Russia is building half a dozen patrol boats (as in the text. - Ed.) Of Project 22160, which have an innovative compact design, capable of much and have powerful strike capabilities with a small hull. This concept is innovative enough for Western navies to study it as an inspiration for their own future multipurpose vessels. "
Not ships, no. Ships. An amazing admiration from a person, in whose culture one of the pillars of identity is a nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 100 kilotons.
We will not consider this as a hidden advertisement of V. Chirkov, who, as you know, is the father of this wonderful ship. After all, Tyler could have just been joking. We cannot hint at the Americans' interest in V. Chirkov's well-being in the USC.
However, this article was most likely also translated into Russian and entered into a tall office in a neat daddy as a demonstration of how they rate us. In all seriousness.
Not the first time, as they say. For example, we can recall the "active advertising" in the US Navy of our submarine "Severodvinsk" and the signing by Chirkov of the acceptance certificate for it with a huge set of critical shortcomings, in fact, in a state of incapacity.
We can safely state that the Western press is actively used to deceive us. After all, when our sycophants report to the top military-political leadership about how wonderful everything is with us, digests of Western publications of the desired direction are added to such cheap reports.
And the fact that the enemy has learned to use this phenomenon is very dangerous.
At the same time, you need to understand that the enemy is working in different directions, an example of which is the frenzied activity of one Russian-speaking American citizen, who at the turn of 2006-2008 literally spammed a lot of paramilitary Runet forums with brightly and emotionally written articles about the confrontation between the USSR Navy and the US Navy in the 70s. x, "Project 60" by Elmo Zumwalt and the supposed strategies of war at sea (incorrect, but "similar to the real ones"), from which it directly followed that the Russian Federation should not even think about aircraft carriers with normal aircraft, but "verticals" are the very ... The citizen “tore the vest” for Russia, while working (according to him) in the Boeing (not bad for a guy from the subordinates of the KGB of the USSR border troops, right? And he got into the Boeing).
So what? And the fact that since 2018, R&D has been launched on an aircraft with a short takeoff and vertical landing, which is absolutely unnecessary for either the Aerospace Forces or the Navy. Some of the current "second persons" in the highest echelons of power in his youth clearly imbued with the ideas of a distant patriot from America.
A little later, it turned out that the remote patriot of Russia was actively collecting information about the Zircon anti-ship missile system from open sources, trying to obtain closed data on its predicted effectiveness and the type of guidance system, trying to establish contacts with officers of the Navy (including senior officers), and having operational cover (the phone is tied to an address in a house in Seattle, which does not exist in nature, the number itself is issued to another person "without a biography", to "virtual") and in America he writes book after book about what Russia has already laid with its weapons USA on both shoulder blades, and maintains a bunch of thematic blogs, and at a pace that precludes work for Boeing. Then, apparently, the American military carry these books to sessions of knocking money out of Congress.
He's not alone. For example, at one of the military history forums, a similar work (only smarter and more subtle) is carried out (allegedly from Belarus) by another ex-officer-emigrant.
That is, the work is in progress.
Hack and predictor Aviator
The current situation in the Navy is hidden and varnished by the official structures of the Russian Federation. Upstairs (including the President - the Supreme Commander-in-Chief) only "good" information is reported through official channels. Real problems are hushed up.
At the same time, there is an obvious fact of active work of the Western media (and not only American ones, we are talking about NATO as a whole) for the "PR" of openly erroneous and harmful decisions for our country. Taking into account the timing and synchronization of the actions of the Western media in this work, questions about its spontaneity simply cannot arise.
Obviously, the Western press is working to misinform the Russian leadership and, apparently, is not unsuccessful. They are quite successful in deceiving Putin, at least sometimes.
This collective work on disinformation looks especially dangerous against the background of the situation with the domestic submarine fleet, which does not solve a single important problem either with weapons or with the forces and means necessary to ensure combat stability, but on which huge money is spent.
Along the way, the US Congress often becomes the object of misinformation by Western media when it is necessary to knock out money for military spending. For Russia, this, to put it mildly, is not useful, as it increases the level of military threat to our country.
But even more dangerous is the fact that our fleet, which is extremely limited in its combat capability, will pose tasks in a real war as real. With all the ensuing consequences.
And here the only way to turn the tide is the reaction of society and the media. Russian media. Just write the truth. Including on frankly ordered publications of foreign media and officials. With relevant comments. And, of course, there is no need to blindly broadcast the enemy's praise with aspirations and embellishments. We must remember that if the enemies praise us, then we are doing something wrong.
The bitter truth is much more useful than the sweetest lie, especially in matters of life and death.
Unfortunately, in our country, lies are still winning with a devastating score. But maybe we can change it?
Information