Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMOSCOW - Russia was today considering the use of bases in Cuba for its nuclear bombers, in a move that revives memories of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and which is likely to profoundly annoy the United States.
Russian military sources said that Moscow is contemplating using Cuba as a refuelling base for its nuclear-bomb carrying aircraft. The move is in retaliation for the Bush administration's plan to site a missile defence shield in Europe.
Russia objects vehemently to the Pentagon's plan. It says the US's proposed system in Poland and the Czech republic - which formally agreed a deal with Washington last week - poses a direct threat to Russia and its security.
According to a report in Monday's Izvestiya, the Kremlin now wants to use Cuba as a base for its long-range Tu-160 and Tu-95 strategic nuclear bombers. Citing a "highly-placed military source", the paper said discussions had taken place.
"While they are deploying the anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech republic, our long-range strategic aircraft already will be landing in Cuba," the source told the paper. No final decision on landing bombers in Cuba had been taken, it added.
Today defence analysts told the Guardian there was little strategic point in using Cuba as a nuclear base - adding that the idea appeared to have been floated simply as a way of irritating the US and underscoring Russia's anger.
Russia's ageing nuclear aircraft have a range of 2,000-3,000kms - allowing them comfortably to fire a nuclear missile at the US from much further away, defence expert Pavel Felgenhauer said. "Frankly in Cuba they would be sitting ducks," he added.
Additionally, there were other places were the planes could refuel, he said. "Any deployment in Cuba would be highly provocative and very costly. There would be no military advantage. Cuba would want compensation," Felgenhauer said.
He added: "They [the Russians] are trying to tell the guys [in America] that if they don't back out of their missile defence shield in Europe, we can make mischief in different places."
It was not immediately clear whether Cuba had agreed to Russia's proposal. In a brief, cryptic note posted on a government website, Fidel Castro said his brother Raul - Cuba's president - was wise not to respond to the report.
Castro said that Cuba was not obliged to offer the US an explanation for the story, "nor ask for excuses or forgiveness." Most observers believe that Raul - who took over from his brother in February - would be unlikely to agree to any request from Moscow.
But today's apparent discussion is reminiscent of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when Khrushchev attempted to site nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island. His aim was to lesson the then strategic nuclear gap with the US.
Khrushchev eventually backed down and withdrew the missiles. The US secretly removed its missiles from Turkey. It also agreed not to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro's communist regime.
During the Cold War, Cuba remained an important military ally for the Soviet Union. In 2002, however, Russia's then president Vladimir Putin decided to close Russia's Soviet-era radar and listening station in Cuba on the grounds of cost.
Last summer Putin ordered the resumption of worldwide bomber patrols by Russia's nuclear aircraft. Although some experts have dismissed the flights as mere "willy waving", Nato jets including from Britain have scrambled in response.
The US state department today said it had not had official confirmation from the Russian government about the report. "We continue to work with the Russians on this issue," Gonzalo Gallegos told the Associated Press, referring to the US's missile defence shield.
He added: "We have consistently made it clear to them that our proposed deployment of a limited missile defence system in Europe poses no threat to them or their nuclear deterrent."
Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev, has disappointed western observers who had hoped he might take a more conciliatory foreign policy line. During an address to ambassadors in Moscow this month, he explicitly criticised the US's missile defence shield, promising Russia would respond 'appropriately'.
Russia's approach has recently hardened on several key international issues, experts say.
"It's become much more rigid," Felgenhauer said, adding that hardline officials inside Russia's foreign and defence ministries appeared to be responsible. "There is uncertainty over who is really in charge of Russian foreign policy," he said.
He added: "We are returning to policy positions agreed last autumn. There is no series attempt at compromise. Right now there is zero purpose in compromise until there is a new administration in Washington."
"We are just spitting at each other," he observed.
© 2008 The Guardian
34 Comments so far
Show AllAD July 26th, 2008 11:19 am
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely†as Lord Acton said"
How right he was just ask the ex-KGB agent Vladimir Putin, almost every one in Putin's government circle are ex- KGB except Dmitry Medvedev and he is a lawyer. Before Putin DEMOCRACY was starting to grow in Russia now it is a totalitarian state, YOU think the bushie boy is bad, go live in Russia under Putin, in less than a month you'll be begging to come back
Moscow now has a first strike policy on nuclear weapons which it didn't have in the Cold War, and this will put the such war mongers as Johnny "Crooked Talk" McCain and Barak Obama on notice that they can get themselves a nuclear mushroom cloud in a Manhattan minute if Russia sees its national interests threatened. By getting a solid presence in Cuba before the US election, Moscow can stand up for democracy and put some containment on the US nut case neo con bastards for the good of all. We should be thankful if Cuba and Moscow will act soon to obtain a better balance of power in this world which has been missing for far too long. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" as Lord Acton said, and as the elites in US capital have shown all all too clearly. A balance of power and a Moscow first strike policy should sober up those neo con bastards drunk on their own power craziness. They should know that with one wrong move, Strontium 90 wouldn't just be for breakfast anymore.
peaceman July 24th, 2008 12:22 pm
"I hope they haven’t forgotten how the United States double-crossed them after World War Two."
Well I don't know if they have forgotten how the US supposedly double crossed the USSR but I know Romania, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia all know how the USSR double crossed them and ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED them for over 40 years.
But then again the USSR was communist and as such CAN get away with ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING other countries that the Yalta conference specifically stated would have free and impartial democratic elections when WW2 was over. Fortunately for the USSR how long after was not specified.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/yalta.htm
II. DECLARATION OF LIBERATED EUROPE
Sorry for my confusion. I heard there were something like 3 near launches during the first crisis. Hadn't heard the submarine story before though, thanks for that.
miftin- good points indeed.
hmmm.. found an interesting article in response to this one.
http://www.kommersant.com/p-12905/r_500/Russian-U.S._relations_Cuba_miss...
miftin,
Good points. The MiG fighters accommodate the bombers anyway. And it would be nice to see Russian-Cuban economic cooperation again. Russian military bases in Venezuela and Bolivia would give those nations security from the world's super-bully. You might be right.
If the Ruskies put bombers on Cuba they'll be bringing in MiG fighter aircraft too. this situation is not as innocuous as the article tries to make it appear. Cuba would love to reestablish its economic client-state relationship with Moscow. Perhaps in another 5-10 years Moscow will have military installations in Bolivia and Venezuela also.
Nope, I wasn't denying anything you said ~FAKEDEMOCRACY~, not at all. I said this deal reminds ME of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which came within ten minutes of "On The Beach" or Doomsday.
It really did come that close. We had so many "Cocked", or fully armed B-52s flying over Spain and the Arctic, the refuel calls coming in were mind boggling. Those last few minutes prior to the Russian ships stopping and then turning around was very terse, __ very. Thatt top secret deal Kennedy made to take our missiles out of Turkey was the key.
And a Russian Commander of three atomic submarines, armed with atomic wweapons, disobayed his firing orders and surfaced to ask for conformation, he'd lost submerged radio contct with his home base.
We were very very lucky the man had good sense and was as scared as we were. It was a decision I still wonder that he ever made it. They just do not disobay orders. He did, and we owe our asses to him.
We've been in Afganastan for several years. When Russia deployed atomic weapons to Cuba, the spark to an "almost" nuclear war, was ignited within 30 days. I see that could easily re-occur. I also see a vast difference between the two issues of Cuba and Afganstan, that's all. If it reminds you of the situation in Afganistan, that's perfectly alright with me.
@ Kem Patrick:
A short distance from our shores? You mean the 90 miles between Cuba and Florida?
Ok, well go pull out a map of Afghanistan and tell me how many miles there are between Afghanistan and Russia.
And then considering that we have a whole freaking army in Afghanistan... including whatever modern missile defense is necessary to protect that army... can you honestly tell me that the Russian's aren't pissed off at the possibility that we have reverse engineered the whole Cuban Missile Crisis right into their backyard this time around?
~Fakedemocracy~ The reason this possible deal reminds me of the "Cuban Mssile Crisis", is because an almost identical situation may arise within a short distance from our shores with atomic carrying bombers instead of atomic armed missiles.
The Cuban Missile Crisis began because Russia placed atomic warheads and the means to launch them in CUBA. So this reminds ME of that situation. It does not have not have to remind anyone else of it if they don't wish it to.
wolf123,
Thanks for the link. I know what happened when the Russians occupied the countries you mentioned above. As I said on my Jul 24, 9:41pm post, "The Ruskies are no angels by any means."
Stalin knew the US and our allies were going to turn against the USSR after the Nazis were defeated, Capitalism verses Communism, two extremes, in my opinion, and he took over these countries for a variety of reasons, a buffer zone being one of them. Besides, what country built bases in western Europe with nuclear missiles aimed at Soviet cities and other targets within that country? Wasn't Romania and Hungary pro-Nazi in WW2?
As for free and impartial elections after WW2 was over, the Socialists and Communist Parties of France and Italy were strong, and the US government spent millions of dollars with operatives and capitalist propaganda campaigns against any kind of egalitarian philosophy for working people. This is all documented, and if I had the links for this information now, it would be posted.
The whole point of my premise, Wolf, is a balance of power. I don't like Russian bullies, Japanese bullies (WW2 imperialists), Germany bullies, Italian bullies, Israeli bullies, or American bullies.
The United States and Israel can threaten and attack whatever weaker country they want while the world stands by and does zilch. The United Nations is a farce. It and NATO are there to protect western capitalists and the international money manipulators. Why shouldn't weaker nations negotiate military security alliances with Russia, or China, for that matter. Who gave
the United States the authority to dictate to the world what "it" wants to impose on weaker nations?
fakedemocracy July 25th, 2008 8:38 am:
"But they assure us that they’re going after the Saudi master mind of the Saudi hijackers in sunny Afghanistan."
First they should have tried sending in three or four Navy SEAL teams if the objective was truly to extract bin Laden. There was no need to attack an entire country, especially since the US had been SUPPORTING The Taliban to the tune of several hundred million dollars prior to 911. But then I'm assuming that oil (the Soviets left behind well over 300 operating wells when they finally got outta Dodge -- how come we never see those wells on the boob toob?), suspected large deposits of uranium and gold, and of course oil pipelines would never enter the picture. I'm sure none of this has ever occurred to Karzai, President of Afghanistan and former UNOCAL executive.
Reminds us of the cuban missile crisis?
Actually, Afghanistan reminds me of the cuban missile crisis. The military says that missile defense will be deployed to 'protect american forces in their theater of operation'. I bet protection against nuclear weapons counts. So you can add Afghanistan and Iraq to the list of missile defense locations (for the next 100 McYears or so depending on who you ask).. the missile defense locations which are currently only elaborated as Poland and Czech.
And yes, it is a first strike weapon. The MADD doctrine prohibits the development of a missile defense system because of that, regrettably formerly, agreed fact.
But they assure us that they're going after the Saudi master mind of the Saudi hijackers in sunny Afghanistan. If you believe everything that the repugs tell you... then you have no need to worry. Return to your regularly scheduled programming.
But if you start to examine Afghanistan as Cuban Missile Crisis Reverse Engineering... you might come to a different understanding of this Terror Cold War. Maybe you'll start to wish longly for a charming 1960's bungalow with a-bomb shelter in the backyard. Just incase the repugs get caught with their pants down in the commies backyard, and things go way south.
Fellow Common Dreamers Think Positive:
A Tupelov-160 in Cuba could bomb Gitmo to rubble, then bomb the rubble back into The Inquisition, where it belongs.
Plus there is a Starbucks at Gitmo; Hurry Russia.
This has to be just to pull Dubya's schwanz to get even with the proposed missiles in Poland or Czechoslovakia. Cuba seems a really dumb place to park those planes. They would have armed, maybe weapons locked, US fighter escorts every time they took off. Might as well park 'em in Colorado Springs.
skippyagogo41,
There were all sorts of alliances between the European nations before and during WW1. Government officials do strange things and WW1 was no exception, which helped start the Russian Revolution. and end the Romanov Dynasty. All sides in 'The Great War' took heavy casualties, and some Europeans think it would have resulted in a stalemate if Wilson stayed out of it, but he was pressured by the bankers to declare war on Germany, insuring a victory, and of course securing the loans they made to England, France, Russia, et al. As you know, Skippy, speculation isn't worth two cents, but it's just a thought on the matter.The Ruskies are no angels by any means. But the statement I made had to do with their effort to defeat the German Army. And then we turned on the Soviets, whose country was devastated by the "superman" and we glorified the scientists, engineers, psycop propagandists, etc,from Germany and brought them here to work in our military machine. Again speculation by me. What if we offered to help rebuild the Soviet Union (I know they were Commies and did some bad things) but maybe the future arms race could have been avoided. Who knows?
KEM PATRICK: I was in school during the 'Cuban Missile Crisis'and remember the drills we teenagers practiced under our wooden desk, covering our heads with our arms in case Nikita became trigger happy. What was left out of the media hype about Kennedy backing down Kruschev and the Reds withdrawing their missiles from Cuba, was the agreement with Moscow that we would withdraw our Nike-Hercules missiles in Turkey, as well. It did happen.
Personally, I'm sick of all militarism and violent behavior by thugs in any country, including my own. But I do despise bullies!
Galen: 7:40 pm comments~Last sentence, spot on! Listen or read any of Dr. Helen Caldicott's books or tapes about nuclear war, fallout and DU. KEM is sharp on this subject and I thank him for taking the time to explain the effects of DU.
When are grown men going to stop acting like schoolyard bullies?
Home To Roost
by Kay Ryan
US Poet Laureat Designate (term begins 10/08)
The chickens
are circling and
blotting out the
day. The sun is
bright, but the
chickens are in
the way. Yes,
the sky is dark
with chickens,
dense with them.
They turn and
then they turn
again. These
are the chickens
you let loose
one at a time
and small—
various breeds.
Now they have
come home
to roost—all
the same kind
at the same speed.
George W. Bush: 'BOOGA-BOOGA!'
(sigh)
What next? A return to some bloated US commissar bellowing 'Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?!'
Cuba is too busy just staying fed, and doesn't need the agro this would cause. And if Putin is actually stupid enough to try this gag, he must be sharing Dubya's morning bowl of stupid for breakfast.
Alright everybody. One more time...NUCLEAR WAR HAS NO WINNERS!
If the Russians do this and the aricraft are armed with nuclear weapons, we may very likely be subject to another Cuban Crisis.
The last time we came within ten minutes of WW-3. We were just plain ass lucky that it didn't ignite.
Now those Russian bombers may be maintenance hogs but they are the largest and fastest bombers in the world, a mach 2.5 top speed with a 10,000 mile unrefueled range and they can can carry eight powerful atomic cruise missiles. Their latest models and all of the older ones have been updated and are equipped with the most sophisticated electronics, navigation systems, targeting systems and radars.
They are a distinct tactical threat and it would only require two or three out of 20 getting through our defenses to wipe out 20 plus of our major metro areas if an atomic war did come about.
The problem is, if they just park one or two in Cuba on full alert, it would be a big bone of contention, or they could deploy some of their other bombers to Cuba and have the Blackjacks based in Russia on full alert as a distinct nuclear threat.
Well, if it should come about, we asked for it with the Bush policies and as I recall, Bush and Putin were buddy buddy at one time. Of course I believe Putin was just checking Bush out to see if what he'd heard about the guy was true, as it must have been unbelieveable that we'd ever elect Bush to the presidency. ___It was, and with some help of the Supreme Court and then voter fraud, we did it twice.
God must be mad at us.
You have to first understand the missile defense is really a first strike weapon. The first strike comes from subs and aircraft or space base weapon systems. Now your so called missile defense system is on full alert and has the most likely hood of disabling its target. Next you can then launch your second strike on any first failed targets and newly acquired targets from there launch. I know it sounds insane, but that is really how this people think.
This is why the Russians are so upset, besides our lame excuse of stopping Iran.
And the beat goes on.......and the beat goes on.
That was a good song!
Well, it's an amusing story. Sort of like putting a bell on a cat's tail, harmless but amusing, if done right.
peaceman July 24th, 2008 12:22 pm
I hope they haven’t forgotten how the United States double-crossed them after World War Two.
There are some who've not forgotten how the ruskies double crossed us when they negotiated a peace with Kaiser Bill in 1917. That led to an awful lot of casualties in 1918 when the Krauts launched their spring offensive.
After I read, "Russian military sources said that Moscow is contemplating using Cuba as a refuelling base for its nuclear-bomb carrying aircraft." I knew the next sentence would be, "The move is in retaliation for the Bush administration’s plan to site a missile defence shield in Europe."
The Bush administration, as usual, will probably say, "Who would have thought [this would happen]?"
This is crap. We the people of the world should stand up and demand that these military psychos build an arena where they can fight it out with their expensive death machines and not threaten to bomb the crap out of innocent civilians any more.
For Bush, a Cold War is more profitable than no war.
Oh what a shame, new homes for Katrina victims will have to wait so that you can pay defence companies to meet this threat.
Sigh . . . What's next in this crazy political world that surrounds us?
Heck of a job, George!
The Russians may indeed see a need to counter the US missile strategy in Europe.
It's also likely that they realize the extent to which neocon adventurism has exhausted our military-industrial complex.
jj
Right on Arvy (12:01) And we wonder why countries around the world are forming coalitions. NEW AMERICAN CENTURY ????
I may be the only American citizen who likes high oil prices, because they generate excess profits for Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. All of these countries represent, to one degree or another, a counterbalance to destructive US power.
The Russian Bear may yet save the world from the American Bully.
I hope they haven't forgotten how the United States double-crossed them after World War Two.
Russian vodka and orange juice after work (I know they drink it straight) for me in celebration of "the Bears Return" to counter the "world's only super power."
"Only" will be past tense soon enough. The Bush Crime Family has done a fine job of destroying the United States from within.
I'm surprised that Russia has any air-worthy Bears and Blackjacks that they can spare to ply the Atlantic.
Russia started only to pull Bears from mothballs 2 months ago, and the Blackjacks are maintenance nightmares. The Russians will be lucky if they ever have more than a handful ready for duty.
The Russian Bear has replenished its fat reserves with excess oil profits.
Russia’s approach has recently hardened on several key international issues, experts say.
Gee, I wonder why. I don't suppose it might have anything to do with U.S. actions to surround them with hostile bases in former Soviet-bloc countries.
Sometimes the hypocrisy is almost too much even for my extreme cynicism to handle.