By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amid escalating tensions between Russia and NATO, a Russian submarine surfaced off the coast of France, prompting surveillance by a French frigate. While an unverified Telegram channel reported the submarine suffered technical issues, Russia denied any malfunction, stating the vessel was undergoing a routine inter-fleet transfer and complying with international maritime rules. NATO’s Maritime Command confirmed the monitoring on social media, emphasizing the alliance’s readiness to defend against threats. This incident coincides with NATO’s annual nuclear exercise, “Steadfast Noon,” aimed at testing procedures for safeguarding and deploying nuclear weapons, further highlighting the heightened security concerns in Europe.
Read the original article here
Russia Responds After Stealth Submarine Surfaces in NATO Waters
The initial reports, and the subsequent denials, really do paint a vivid picture, don’t they? “Reports by some media outlets of an alleged malfunction that caused the Novorossiysk diesel-electric submarine to make an emergency surface off the coast of France are false,” – that’s the official line, according to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, as relayed by TASS, the state news agency. But the internet has a way of translating official statements, doesn’t it? When Russia denies a malfunction, it often feels like a confirmation.
And then there’s the follow-up – the statement about the submarine crew conducting a routine inter-fleet transfer after performing missions in the Mediterranean. Translation: the crew is likely being evacuated from a vessel that has suffered a malfunction. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s a sign that they are actually looking after the crew, and that the submarine is just going to be sent back for repairs. It’s a good thing, given the conditions under which they are operating.
The narrative seems to focus on the “stealth” aspect, the idea that these submarines are supposed to operate undetected. But are they really stealthy? Submarines are supposed to be stealthy, but this is more in reference to their construction and engine profiles. Also, diesel-electric subs are generally considered “stealthier” than their nuclear counterparts, as they don’t require noisy cooling pumps. The world should focus on environmental disaster response, considering how many Russian Navy vessels leave oil slicks in their wake.
However, one needs to keep in mind, there is something important in the rule of international waters. Submarines are required to surface when transiting through the English Channel, for example, due to international navigation laws. It is also possible that the submarine surfacing could have been a deliberate action, since it also passed through the Strait of Gibraltar on the surface.
Then there’s the question of the submarine’s condition. “Fresh details have surfaced about the incident in the Strait of Gibraltar, where the 74-metre missile-carrying Novorossiysk became an ‘explosive hazard’ after experiencing a severe leak in its fuel system,” according to MSN. Some Telegram channels paint a catastrophic picture, with the hull flooding with diesel. This, of course, is not great news. The Russian navy has had many problems, and there is a long history of them.
The other consideration is, if this is a test, how are the European countries supposed to respond? The whole thing is a strange situation. The sub is not in enemy waters, it is obeying the law of the sea. But if it is not obeying the law, what is NATO supposed to do? Send the submarine to the bottom of the sea? They should focus on ensuring their own safety, and ensure the Russians are following the correct procedures.
Of course, there’s always the element of speculation. Is this a test? Are they probing NATO’s defenses? Is it a signal of something larger? All of these things may come into question. But at the end of the day, Russia’s relationship with the world is not great, and they are definitely keeping an eye on everything.