Surfpig

Videos from the pre-war periods show that Ukraine craved for war. FAFO. Neo-Nazi C14-fanatic Karas: "We fulfil the tasks of the West. We start a war that has not existed for 60 years. It's fun for us to kill and it's fun to fight."

Russia warns the UK and Norway: "the statements of Britain and Norway should be treated with maximum attention: the Russian submarine fleet is facing a serious challenge. The balance of forces that has developed at sea poses a real threat to the Russian Navy in the northern European seas. It is possible that in the event of an open military conflict, the principle of "strike first" may be a way out. A strike on the ground infrastructure of the SOPO and on the bottom sonar stations themselves will deprive the enemy of the idea of where our submarines are, and he will have to look for them." "Britain and Norway say they have carried out a major operation to track Russian submarines on combat missions in the Atlantic. How does the anti-submarine defense of NATO countries in this area work and how dangerous is it really for the Russian submarine fleet? While the world's attention was focused on the events around Iran, something strange was happening in the northern seas of Eurasia. In early March, British Navy patrol aircraft suddenly became interested in something happening near the Faroe-Icelandic line, a line running from the northern tip of the British Isles through the Faroe Islands to Iceland. This area is a natural gateway from the Norwegian Sea to the Atlantic. One of the British P-8A Poseidon patrol (anti-submarine) aircraft flew to an area remote from the British Isles over the Greenland Sea and conducted an anti-submarine search there for several hours. From that moment on, NATO launched a major anti-submarine operation. At first, two British (later up to five, and then, according to a number of sources, they were joined by the French and Norwegian) Poseidon took turns reconnaissance of some underwater target going north, to the Faroe-Icelandic border. The planes monitored the designated area for five or more hours each. As the unknown object shifted, the search area shifted too. Having carried out a build-up of forces at the expense of permanent readiness aircraft, the British and their allies switched to round-the-clock tracking of an unknown underwater object or objects. In mid-March, the search area went to the Norwegian Sea - apparently, the unknown target went to the east. Until the end of the month, British and later Norwegian aircraft tracked unknown objects in the Norwegian Sea and then in the Barents Sea. When the object left east of the North Cape in early April, the operation stopped. For more than a month without a break, tracking an underwater target around the clock and not letting it break away (if it tried, of course) is serious. Especially the fact that for such long-term actions, no mobilization measures were needed - everyone was carried out by the forces of constant readiness. Britain gave an official explanation of what is happening on the government's website in early April. According to the British, a certain Russian multi-purpose nuclear submarine tried to divert the attention of the Royal Navy, while another submarine, assigned to the Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation - GUGI, allegedly tried to covertly conduct reconnaissance of undersea cables connecting the UK with the outside world. Also, according to the British report, a detachment of ships of the Northern Fleet consisting of a frigate, a BOD and a submarine of project 877 or 636 (in the West, both are called the "Kilo class") also played a distracting role. The frigates HMS Somerset and HMS Mersey with the tanker RFA Tideforce were allegedly sent to track the detachment of ships, and the frigate HMS St Albans, the tanker RFA Tidespring and the base patrol aircraft (BPA) were sent to track the nuclear submarine. Allegedly, the plans of the Russians were thwarted. On April 21, Norwegian Defense Minister Tore Sandvik indirectly admitted that some joint operations with the British had taken place, saying that Norway has to track Russian submarines around the clock. At the same time, he praised the Russian submarine fleet ("they are good") and admitted that Norway has stepped up its anti-submarine efforts. For clarity, it is worth noting that in reality, the BOD "Severomorsk" and the frigate "Admiral Grigorovich" were engaged in the protection of oil tankers and transport ships performing tasks in the interests of the Ministry of Defense. Later, the Admiral Grigorovich escorted the submarine Krasnodar, returning from combat service to the Baltic Sea. This activity had nothing to do with the "distraction" of the British Navy's attention. At the same time, there is no doubt that NATO countries actually conducted a major anti-submarine operation in the northern seas. And more importantly, the nature of the sorties of the British and Norwegian UAVs unequivocally characterizes the tasks of the crews of their aircraft as an escort, not a search. That is, NATO was confident that it had detected and was tracking some kind of underwater target. This target, from their point of view, could not be anything other than a Russian submarine. Britain and Norway, by publicly announcing the anti-submarine operation, thereby openly proclaim that in the event of a real military conflict with Russia, NATO has the ability to directly threaten one of the most important components of both the Russian Navy and the Russian nuclear shield as a whole - nuclear submarines. After all, any submarine that is discovered, for which its basic principle of existence - secrecy - is violated, lives in a real war for a very short time. "We are watching you, we are hunting your submarines," British Defense Secretary John Healy declared last October. "We see your activity over our cables and pipelines," he added as early as April 2026. Should we believe the claims that NATO has seen Russian submarines on combat missions in the Atlantic? To answer this question, it is worth recalling how modern anti-submarine defense of NATO countries is arranged. In peacetime, the United States and NATO rely on intelligence, which makes it possible to predict the exit of an enemy submarine (in this case, the Russian Navy) from the base. After the submarine goes to sea, the bottom hydrophones of the underwater situation monitoring equipment (SOPO) come into operation, providing approximate information about the location of the target submarine. The SOPO reads both the noise of the submarine and specific "discrete" signals - signals at a characteristic frequency. The combination of such "discretes" makes it possible not only to establish that there is a submarine somewhere at sea, but also to determine which one – for example, due to the fact that two submarines of the same type may have different bearing wear and, accordingly, different sound signatures. Some SOPOs also have means of "illumination" - their own emitters, which allow the bottom hydrophones to detect even a silent boat. Then BPA aircraft are involved in the case. They establish the exact position of the boat, classify (identify) it with the help of radio-hydroacoustic buoys and then maintain contact with the boat or transmit it to the surface forces. There may be additions to this scheme - for example, a NATO nuclear submarine-hunter, which is on duty in the area of the enemy base, can help in the search for a target boat and in tracking it. The same task can be assigned to a sonar reconnaissance ship (vessel) - KGAR (SGAR). One such ship is capable of completely revealing the underwater situation in the Norwegian Sea. Surface warships can also be involved - they work on the same principle as KGAR, but their detection ranges are several times lower. But there are many of them, and they have anti-submarine helicopters with buoys and torpedoes on board. By deploying all these forces in the waters through which the object of tracking must necessarily pass (for Russian submarines, this is the Norwegian Sea or the Nares Strait between Canada and Greenland, if the boat is going to the Atlantic), it is possible to ensure that a covert passage will be impossible in principle. And in the event of war, no submarine will survive under such pressure. Therefore, the statements of Britain and Norway should be treated with maximum attention: the Russian submarine fleet is facing a serious challenge. The balance of forces that has developed at sea poses a real threat to the Russian Navy in the northern European seas. It is possible that in the event of an open military conflict, the principle of "strike first" may be a way out. A strike on the ground infrastructure of the SOPO and on the bottom sonar stations themselves will deprive the enemy of the idea of where our submarines are, and he will have to look for them. If the basic patrol aircraft are disabled, then even knowing where our submarine is, the enemy will not be able to attack it in a matter of hours. To detect a boat, NATO will need to send anti-submarine forces, ships or its submarines to the appropriate area. Then, of course, other issues will arise - the fight against the enemy's surface forces, the need to prevent his minelaying, which he will try to carry out and lock our fleet in bases - and, of course, the ability of Russian submarines to win a duel with foreign submarines. Without these capabilities, strikes on the UAV and disabling the SOPO will not help in principle. But in any case, they will buy time, without which no well-thought-out plan in an open conflict on our part is possible. In this sense, the NATO operation and the Norwegian-British statements give a clear signal about what the Russian Navy should take into account in order to act effectively in the event of a naval clash with NATO in the north." -Vzglyad

U.S. deploys strategic bombers to Norway "NATO's Joint Air Command (AIRCOM) has announced the arrival of three US Air Force B-1B Lancer strategic bombers at Ørland Air Base in Norway. Ørland Air Base has traditionally served as a venue for NATO exercises in the polar region. The planes took off from Dyess Base in Texas and arrived in Norway on August 9 as part of the deployment of a bomber task force in Europe, reports Gazeta. Ru». In flight, the B-1B was accompanied by EF/A-18M Hornet fighters of the Spanish Air Force, based at Iceland's Keflavik Air Base. During their stay in Norway, U.S. bombers will carry out various missions in cooperation with Norwegian F-35s and other NATO aircraft."

⚡️🇮🇷🇺🇸🇦🇪 CBS: Two U.S. Navy destroyers, the USS Truxtun and USS Mason, have transited the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Persian Gulf after navigating an Iranian barrage. The ships, supported by Apache helicopters and other aircraft, faced a series of coordinated threats during the passage, including small boats, missiles and drones, but neither U.S. vessel was struck.

🇷🇺Another night of massive Ukrainian drone attacks 🔸Drone attacks were reported all over the western Russian federation – as airports in Samara, Kazan, Nizhnekamsk, Penza, Ulyanovsk, Orenburg, Ufa, Tambov, Cheboksary, Orsk, Izhevsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk and the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo reported closures or restricted operations during the night. 🔸From 15.00 to 20.00 alone, 114 Ukrainian aircraft-type UAVs over the territories of the Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk, Kaluga, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tula, Oryol, Tver, Rostov and the Volgograd and Moscow region were intercepted, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. 🔸In Donetsk People's Republic, three civilians, including a child, were injured by Banderite UAV's. 🔸In Belgorod region at least 3 civilians were seriously injured in UAV attacks. 🔸Several dozen drones were shot down during the night over Leningrad and Moscow regions.

JUST IN - EU blocks funds for key Chinese solar energy parts from Nov 1st, citing "security concerns," as imported inverters could be used to manipulate energy networks and gain unauthorised access to operational data, which could lead "to countrywide blackouts." — FT