I don't get the Kursk comparison!
One is a nuclear submarine with armed weapons, navy secrets and in proximity to Nato warships, sunk in a chain of unclear explosions. The other one is small research submersible (13m long), that got into a dangerous situation on the seabed, with 7 sailors and posses no real threat to national security if picked up by the US/UK or Japan. It's a no brainer there will be a request for help, because not only will it actually HELP, but also would make others say 'hey look at them, how brave that they asked for help, that's the spirit of partnership'. It's also not a 'fault' of the Russian Navy and in that sense, they don't look so bad as with Kursk.
To me, the only similarity between the Kursk tragedy and this one is that both are underwater vessels. But that's about it.
Probably such discussions took place many times before, but if a Nato sub was in same position as Kursk, there is no way they'd ask the Russians to help - it's just the whole thing would be handled much more gently PR-wise, but the outcome will be the same - only Nato would act and won't let the Russians near it.
|