RUSSIA'S KURSK DISASTER: REACTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

• Document Type: SPECIALCOLLECTION
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 06288246
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: March 16, 2022
• Document Release Date: June 28, 2016
• Case Number: F-2015-00122
• Publication Date: December 7, 2000

Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Secret
(b)(3)
Intelligence Report
Office of Russian and European Analysis
Office of Transnational Issues
Russia's Kursk Disaster: Reactions and Implications
7 December 2000
An internal weapons malfunction is most likely to have been the trigger for the
sinking of the Russian Oscar-H nuclear submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea on 12
August.
Russian officials almost certainly do not yet know what sank the Kursk. Continued
claims that the triggering event was a collision with a US or British submarine
probably result from a combination of genuine suspicion, bureaucratic blame-
shifting, and the lack of irrefutable disconfirming evidence. Conseqently, these
views will be hard to dislodge.
� We assess that the Russians have enough seismic and acoustic data
to conclude that the Kursk was lost due to two explosions, but they
lack the quantity and quality of data to point to a triggering event or
to rule out the presence of another submarine in the vicinity of the
Kursk. Consequently, they are unable to completely rule out a
collision as the initiating event.
� The commission charged with determining the cause of the accident�
headed by Deputy Premier Klebanov�stopped short at its meeting on
8 November of claiming a collision with a US or British submarine,
but the theory that the Kursk collided with an "underwater object"
nonetheless remains "first among equals" with the Russians.
� In a press conference after the meeting, Klebanov said the collision
theory "received very serious confirmation" from expert testimony and
video showing a "very serious dent" and scrapes in the rubber hull
coating. We assess that the damage probably is the result of the
second explosion or bottom impact.
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Government officials, in response to US officials, have refused to put a "national
origin" to the "object," but this is a small fig leaf given pointed reminders by
Klebanov and others that two US submarines were reported to be in the area.
� Senior political officials are reluctant "officially" to charge foreign
complicity�because of the lack of positive evidence and the political
repercussions for Russia's relations with the US and the West more
broadly. Claims by senior officials, however, already have
engendered Western suspicions and distrust that could complicate
and hinder future efforts to resolve bilateral problems.
� Putin and his team probably hope to put the issue on hold for now,
having concluded that no proof of the cause will be available until�
and unless�they are able to raise the Kursk next summer.
Despite press charges, Russian rescue efforts were rapid and fairly robust, but
ultimately doomed. Based on a note found on a recovered body from the Kursk,
according to Russian media, it appears that all crewmen likely died within hours of
the explosion, far too quickly for foreign assistance to have changed the outcome.
� In contrast, inept public relations and obfuscation by senior officials
smacked of Soviet-style secrecy and mendacity, and turned a
national tragedy into a national disgrace as well.
While the public disapproved of Putin's initial response, his support remains
enviable�his job approval ratings fell only marginally to about two-thirds before
recovering. His later, more visible, profile on the Kursk crisis and his response to
subsequent disasters�such as the Ostankino tower fire and a military air crash in
Georgia�demonstrate some learning and responsiveness to public concerns.
Press criticism�spurred in part by oligarchs attempting to turn the
public relations fiasco into apolitical liability for Putin�reinforced
Putin's desire to rein in the media.
The accident also has strengthened trends in military reform�pointing toward
increased defense resources and further cuts in forces aimed at building a more
capable military as an instrument of Russian national security policy. Military
leadership changes are possible if Putin sees himself as ill-served by his
commanders; some of those prominent in the crisis�such as Klebanov, De ense
Minister Sergeyev, and Navy, chief Kuroyedov�may have been tarnished.
(b)(3)
2
--Seeret�
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Sccrct
(b)(3)
This report was prepared by the Offices of Russian and European Analysis and Transnational
Issues. Analysis is indicated in bold italics. Comments and queries are welcome and may be
directed to the Russia Issue Manager, OREA
Russian Claims of Foreign Complicity
(b)(3)
The Russian Oscar-II nuclear submarine Kursk sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea
on 12 August while participating in Northern Fleet exercises. The accident most
likely was triggered by an internal weapons malfunction (see inset).
The commission charged with determining the cause of the accident�headed by
Deputy Premier Klebanov�stopped short at its 8 November meeting of endorsing a
collision with a US or British submarine as the culprit, but the theory that the Kursk
collided with an "underwater object" nonetheless remains `first among equals"
with the Russians. The commission's other two potential explanations remain an
internal explosion and contact with a WWII mine.
� In a press conference following the commission session, Klebanov said
the collision theory "received very serious confirmation" from video
taken by submersibles and divers. He characterized the video as
showing a "very serious dent"�a "deep hollow which must have been
caused by an impact and nothing else." He also referred to streaks
indicating something slid along the submarine after impact, "tearing
the rubber of its outer hull."
� In a television appearance on 19 November, Klebanov said that the
commission also has acoustic evidence�a mechanical tapping�from
13 August, that it is now certain could not have come from the Kursk
and therefore must have come from a foreign submarine.
� Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov and Defense Minister Sergeyev, in
response to comments from US officials, refused to put a "national
origin" to the !`object," but this is a small fig leaf given pointed
reminders by Klebanov and others that two US submarines were
reported to be in the area. Russian officials also continue to maintain
publicly that a British submarine, HMS Splendid, was in the area as
well�a claim that London just as consistently denies.
Naval commander Kuroyedov and Northern Fleet commander Popov now are the
most vocal�and highly public�proponents of the theory, a marked change from the
immediate aftermath of the accident during which they were more reticent and
senior officials such as Klebanov and Defense Minister Sergeyev were more vocal.
(b)(3)
Sccrct
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
3
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Secret
(b)(3)
� Senior political officials are reluctant "officially" to charge foreign
complicity�because of the lack of positive evidence and the political
repercussions for Russia's relations with the US and the West more
broadly. President Putin has not publicly espoused any one theory as
the most likely cause.
� Officially, the government commission's bottom line, according to
Klebanov on 19 November, is that it has "a great amount of indirect
evidence proving that the Russian submarine sank as a result of a
collision with a foreign one." He would not disavow Kuroyedov's
previous statement that there is an 80 percent chance the disaster was
the result of a collision, but nonetheless stressed that without direct
proof they would remain unable to claim 100 percent certainty.
� Such proof, he said, would not be available until�and unless�they
are able to raise the Kursk next summer.
(b)(3)
Secret
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
What Do They Know?
Russian officials almost certainly still do not know what sank the Kursk, and
continued claims of a potential collision with a US submarine probably result from
a combination of bureaucratic blame-shifting and genuine suspicion.
Against a backdrop of strong distrust of the West in Russia and a history of similar
collisions�most recently in 1992 and 1993�and given the collision theory's
attractiveness for personal and professional reasons in shifting the blame, Russian
military and civilian leaders are likely to resist abandoning the theory.
In this context, Russian officials�spearheaded now by the navy�have put together a
body of circumstantial "evidence" to support the contention that a collision occurred.
� The video to which Klebanov and others have referred�first aired
publicly on 25 October�appears to show concave damage and
discoloration that superficially supports their claim. Russian naval
officers watching described the apparent dent as "the point of contact
(b)(3)
Sccrct
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
5
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Sec". e
(b)(3)
and the scrape marks as they [submarines] rubbed against each other."1
We assess that the damage probably is the result of the second
explosion or bottom impact.
A Russian Delta-IV SSBN after a collision with USS Grayling in the Barents Sea on 20 March 1993
� According to Russian media in early December, the Navy has cut out a
hull segment containing the alleged dent, as well as one of the torpedo
tubes, and brought them to the surface for further analysis.
� Russian officials also point to what they say was a sonar contact with a
foreign submarine near Kursk after the explosion and a US
submarine's stop in a Norwegian port, which they suspect could have
been for emergency repairs. They also cite the US refusal of
Moscow's official request to view the two US submarines identified in
the press as monitoring the Russian naval exercises in the Barents at
the time of the Kursk disaster
1 They speculated that the collision breached the outer hull at the juncture between the first
and second compartments, causing compressed air tanks just inside between the outer and
pressure hulls to detonate, and ultimately leading to the massive explosion
(b)(3)
Sccrct
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
6
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Nonetheless, defense attach�diplomatic, and Russian media reporting indicate that
many officers and engineers in the Russian naval community have dismissed collision
as a cause and believe a weapons-related malfunction triggered the accident.
�
(b)(1)
A deputy chief of the Navy Main Staff, Vice Admiral Pobozhiy, told
US officials in both Moscow and Washington during September that
the cause of the sinking almost certainly was an internal explosion, and (b)(1)
dismissed a collision with another submarine as "simply nonsense,"
which no one in the senior naval leadership believes
(b)(3)
Secret
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
7
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Sccret
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
By late on 15 August, conditions reportedly had moderated enough to allow
submersibles to set down on top of the escape hatch, but the Russians were unable to
achieve a seal despite multiple attempts through 17 August�they say because of
damage to the docking ring around the hatch. Opening the hatch without first
establishing an airlock�as eventually occurred with Norwe ian divers�would
have been a death sentence for any crew left alive.
Whatever the case with the rescue effort, the public information campaign that
surrounded it was extremely poor.
� Early on 14 August, statements from Northern Fleet spokesmen
clearly were intended to minimize the disaster in the face of their
own uncertainty, and officials continued to be tightlipped about
details until late that week. A Northern Fleet spokesman, for
example, claimed early on 14 August that the Kursk had experienced
an equipment malfunction and been forced to descend to the seabed.
� Navy chief Kuroyedov later on 14 August, however, admitted publicly
that the chances for successful rescue were slim, and the minimal
statements by naval officials from that point appear to accurately
reflect what was known at the time.
_ _ A number of statements by Klebanov, in contrast, suffered the dual
defect of being both politically motivated and, frequently, easily
falsifiable. Saying that the entire crew died instantly with the
explosion and impact with the seabed, for example, almost certainly
was intended to deflect criticism for the unsuccessful rescue efforts.
The claim was proved an exaggeration: a note retrieved from the body
of a Kursk crewman on 24 October from one of the bodies indicates
that 23 crewmen survived for at least a few hours in the aft
compartment.2
2 The note does suggest, however, that the larger point probably is correct, because the last
entry reportedly was only a few hours after the explosion and well before rescue assets could
have arrived. For most of the week immediately following the accident, Russian officials
maintained�probably sincerely�that some crew members could have survived in aft
compartments. Only later did they say that the crew had died almost instantly.
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
8
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
In In this information near-vacuum, Russian media reported vaguely sourced claims�
many probably nothing more than rumors�that became part of the perceived
"record" of official mendacity. Government and military officials did almost no
rumor control until late in the crisis, when the press was castigating them for earlier
"lies"�in part because the oligarchs who control media outlets attempted to turn
the public relations fiasco into apolitical liability for Putin.
The charge that more effective rescue efforts and early acceptance of Western
assistance could have saved lives almost certainly was wrong. The fate of the
crewmen probably was sealed in the first minutes by the massive explosion and the
failure of watertight seals that subsequently led to the flooding of the entire
submarine.
Although Russian officials did not reject Western assistance when
initially offered on 14 August, they did not accept it until two days
later, saying publicly that Russia's own assets were sufficient�which
they probably judged to be true until concluding, probably by 17
August, that the docking platform (which surrounds the aft escape
hatch and to which rescue submersibles would dock) was damaged
beyond use by Russian or foreign submersibles.
� Had British and Norwegian aid been offered and accepted on 13
August, their specialists would not have arrived to begin operations
until 17 August, long after any survivors, it appears in retrospect, had
expired.
(b)(3)
� Finally, while security concerns were in evidence�Norwegian divers
were confined to the area immediately surrounding the aft escape
hatch�Moscow did allow them to train on another Oscar-II-class
submarine, and to open the Kursk's hatch and videotape inside, when
it was apparent that there were no survivors and the only benefit was to
Russia's image domestically and internationally. (b)(3)
Implications of the Disaster
(b)(3)
Putin's initial response to the disaster�staying in Sochi and not speaking publicly
until 16 August�was more characteristic of a bureaucrat than of an elected
national leader, as the Russian media was quick to point out. Even though half of the
public viewed his performance during the crisis negatively, Russian polls indicate that
the fallout for Putin personally was short lived, with a modest fall in his job approval
rating to a still-enviable two-thirds before recovering. His belated public visibility
and especially his four-hour meeting with the families probably blunted some of
the criticism.
(b)(3)
9
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
C
(b)(3)
� The Kursk fiasco does point up the need for Putin to revamp his
public relations capability to deal with fast-breaking issues, in
contrast to the Kremlin's relative success in scripting the debate on
longer-term issues, such as Chechnya and the effort to rein in
regional leaders.
� His more visible reaction to the Ostankino tower fire later in August
and to a Russian military air crash in Georgia in October suggests
that he has learned from the Kursk gaffe.
�
More important, Putin's visceral personal reaction to media attacks
against him, the military, and Russia's "dignity"�highlighted by his
comments to families of the Kursk crew�is likely to reinforce
existine tendencies to strengthen government control over the media.
We have no evidence to date that Putin feels ill-served by his military leaders, and
he has ruled out knee-jerk firings until all the facts are in�a stance that polls indicate
the public approves, if only because of the explicit contrast with Putin's predecessors.
In his televised interview on the disaster on 23 August, he aggressively defended the
military's performance in the rescue effort and defended Defense Minister Sergeyev
personally. Sergeyev and others reciprocated, defending Putin's decision to stay in
Sochi.
� More broadly, although many in the military probably share public
disapproval of Putin's personal response to the crisis, the officer
corps�like the public thus far�is likely to remain supportive of
Putin.
The Kursk episode probably will affect Putin's decisions about military leadership
over the longer term, however, and he may conclude that mistakes or lies by
military chiefs require the ax to fall. By next April3 at the latest, Putin will have to
decide whether to extend Sergeyev's tenure for another year after the formal
retirement age. Even before the Kursk accident, Sergeyev's image was damaged by
the vitriolic debate with General Staff chief Kvashnin over military reform, and
some of Sergeyev 's potential successors�Klebanov and Kuroyedov�also may
have been tarnished, if only in the public eye, by the Kursk episode.
As with the Kremlin's stance on the media, the Kursk disaster is likely to strengthen
existing trends with regard to military reform and defense resources. Whatever
3 Sergeyev's birtl1dav is in Anril and by Russian law he must retire unless granted a
presidential extensio
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Secret
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
10
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
747 (b)(3)
Putin judges are the true causes of the Kursk disaster, he has chosen to highlight the
cumulative impact of a decade of funding cuts for the military. His statement to the
families suggests that one of the lessons he has drawn from the tragedy is that Russia
no longer can afford to support the current size of the military�a point he made three
times during the meeting�even with the increased resources he plans
� Putin's preference for further downsizing has been publicly confirmed
by Security Council decisions to cut the armed forces from 1.2 million
men to about 850,000, although many details of the plan remain
contentious.
On the other side of the equation, Putin and the government already had taken steps
prior to the Kursk to boost military finances, and legislative leaders succeeded in
gaining a small further increase. The Kremlin for now appears committed to
generally holding the line to preexisting budget increases, while building sufficient
flexibility into the 2001 budget to add more if revenues remain strong.
� This strategy would be consistent with Putin's claimed personal
practice of limiting his promises to those he knows he can keep, and
then adding more if feasible�a pattern seen already with regard to
military pay increases and the 2000 defense budget.
The impact of the Kursk disaster�and the Putin administration's reaction�on
Russia's relations with other countries will depend in part on the extent to which
Russian officials continue to maintain that a foreign submarine caused the
accident, and in particular on whether the investigatory commission formally finds
a collision as the most likely cause.
Russian officials who claim that a foreign submarine was involved
have been careful to characterize the incident as unintentional,
suggesting that Moscow would seek to compartmentalize this event
from the broader relationship�as was the case in previous US-
Russian submarine collisions in the Barents Sea in 1992 and 1993.
� The impact from the other direction�foreign leaders' views of Putin
and their policies toward Russia�is likely to be more significant,
especially to the extent that they judge that the collision claim is
purely for internal propaganda.
� Claims by senior officials already have engendered Western
suspicions and distrust that could com licate and hinder future
efforts to resolve bilateral problems
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
11
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
Secret
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Sccret
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
12
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246 Surd
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
13
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2015/03/19 006288246