The media has been abuzz today at the prospect of Russian nuclear bombers being stationed in Cuba if the US goes ahead with plans for missile defence bases in Eastern Europe.
The story has riled the US enough that a US general has been wheeled out to tell the world’s press that any Russian attempt to build another nuclear base in Cuba would cross US “red line”.
The story broke earlier this week, when Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted an un-named source from within the Russian military. He told the Russian daily:
“While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba.”
The quote hasn’t been independently confirmed, but the Russian Defence Ministry added fuel to the fire when they refused to comment on the story.
The prospect of Russian nuclear forces being stationed in Cuba – which is, after all, only 90 miles from the US coast – would bring back some rather unpleasant memories for the US of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, where the Soviet Union under Nikita Kruschev launched an audacious and foolhardy bid to station nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island.
And so, not surprisingly, the US Air Force has wheeled out a top general to warn Russia off. General Norton Schwartz, who will soon be appointed as the US Air Force’s chief of staff told reporters that:
“If they did I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America.”
So, will Russia actually station nuclear bombers in Cuba?
In all likelihood, this is just another episode in the war of words between Russia and the US over the proposed US missile shield. Russia’s dual leadership of Putin and Medvedev are pragmatic, cautious men, and won’t fancy the chance to repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union’s most unpredicatble leader.
This is especially true when we consider that the proposed US missile shield doesn’t actually bother Russia all that much – it’s much more important to the Kremlin as an opportunity for Russia to give the US a bit of a verbal bashing every now and then.
Having said that, Russia’s military is in a much more expansive mood these days – witness the first naval patrols in the Arctic since the fall of the Soviet Union, and recent Tu-95 bomber flights near British airspace. It would be no surpise if it is considering how and where on the globe it could place military bases in the longer term.
Russia had a permanent military base in Cuba until quite recently – it was closed in 2002, partly because it was difficult to justify the $200 million per year running costs. But thanks to Russia’s booming economy, the military is much better resourced than it used to be. Perhaps $200 million per year doesn’t seem all that expensive these days for an ambitious country that aspires to global influence but which has fewer international military bases than snaller powers such as France, or the United Kingdon.
One thought that occurs is that, if Cuba’s history makes the prospect of a base there too much of a hot potato, perhaps a base somewhere else in the region would be a better long term bet.
Anyone want to take a bet on a Russian military base being created in Venezuela sometime over the next decade?
UPDATE 25/7: Hugo Chavez is certainly up for it. Asked if Venezuela would host Russian bases, he told reporters:
“Russia has enough resources to secure its presence in different parts of the world. If Russian armed forces would like to be present in Venezuela, they will be welcomed warmly.
“We will raise flags, beat drums and sing songs, because our allies will come, with whom we have a common worldview.”
No comment yet from the slightly embarrassed Russian government, though…
{ 65 comments }
← Previous Comments
“I guess away from the main action it was all down to individuals, in particular the decency of the commanding officer.”
***
Friend’s Hungarian Jewish mother experienced the same with the Red Army.
Plenty of other such experiences.
When discussing WW II, I try to make it a point to say Nazi or Nazi German as opposed to just German.
I don’t accept that Nazism was a natural outgrowth of traditional German patriotism. Rather, it was an unfortunate aberration.
This is consistent with not making the Russia automatically equals Soviet claim.
Fact of the matter is that Nazi Germany had much help from many non-Germans. Ditto the USSR with many non-Russians. This leads to why I think Russians and Germans can bury the hatchet with each other.
During WW II, the Croat Ustasha, Galician Ukrainian nationalists and Austrians had elements every bit as brutal if not more so than many of the Germans stationed in the same area.
”When discussing WW II, I try to make it a point to say Nazi or Nazi German as opposed to just German”
yes, I am aware that its better to refer to the Nazis as, well, Nazis.
How’s your Russian coming along?:-)
”This leads to why I think Russians and Germans can bury the hatchet with each other.”
They already have. A long time ago, actually.
??????.
****
Why don’t you ask that question of Guillory, Johnson, Straus and a number of others, who know considerably less than yours truly on a good number of FSU topics?
I’ll once again remind all that it’s only within recent times that Peter Lavelle became fluent in the Russian language (so I’ve been told). I understand that his RTTV employer staffs people who aren’t fluent in the Russian language. Meantime, I get high marks from Russian born Russians (as well as others) for my spot on analysis. So, you can go **** yourself with your fellow trolls.
Meantime, how has your grasp of Russia’s history, foreign policy and sports improved (rhetorical question and one that I don’t care to know the answer)?
Andy, no need for me to take such repeated horsehit from a proven troll, who has incessantly lied about me at this and other threads.
I don’t think I’ll check back at this thread. I prefer subject related conversation, as opposed to the kind of trolling that others initiate.
As a follow-up to the very beginning of my last set of comments, it could (more precisely be better).
I’m managing a number of other things at the moment.
It includes projects like a very well received last bullshit free AC article of mine, which took Kiselyov, Lourie and Bovt to task.
”??????.
****
Why don’t you ask that question of Guillory, Johnson, Straus and a number of others, who know considerably less than yours truly on a good number of FSU topics?”
Ah Mike – no. I was genuinely asking! You’d said ages ago that you were indeed learning, hence the question. For once I wasnt actually trying to piss you off.
Shit man, take it easy!
For the past week, a series of stories and denials have been published in the Russian media surrounding a possible plan for Russia to relocate a refueling base in Cuba and resume flights of Russia’s Tu-160 “Blackjack” and Tu-95 “Bear” nuclear-capable strategic bombers back into the Western Hemisphere. All the noise reached a crescendo when another piece of information — true or not — was leaked to the Russian press that a crew of the Russian bombers had gone to Cuba on Thursday to conduct preliminary surveys.
Thus far, there is no confirmation that Russia is indeed returning militarily to Cuba. It is, however, a signal of what could happen if the United Stated does not heed Russian demands for Washington to back off from Moscow’s turf. This would be, in Moscow’s eyes, an equal response to the United States’ signing ballistic missile defense system treaties with the Czech Republic and Poland — right on Russia’s doorstep — as well as discussing NATO membership with the former Soviet states of Ukraine and Georgia.
Russia did, in fact, respond to the West’s encroachment: cutting energy supplies to Europe and sending more military into Georgia’s secessionist regions. But the problem was that Moscow simply hadn’t gotten Washington’s attention.
Washington has been too wrapped up in other issues — such as the upcoming presidential election, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, negotiations with Iran and simply not believing Russia had any real tools with which to threaten it –- that it airily dismissed all of Moscow’s provocations. This has made Russia’s reprisals Europe’s problem at a time when Moscow wants to prove it once again is a global power and can stand up against its traditional foe: the United States. So Russia sent a signal of something that the United States simply cannot ignore — the moving of the Russian-U.S. tug-of-war from Russia’s doorstep to the U.S. doorstep. This is a serious threat and one with which Washington is quite familiar.
The Cuba option would be a powerful move against the United States — just as it was during the 1950s and 1960s — because it directly penetrates the United States’ immediate periphery. Combine the Cuba rumors with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s trip to Moscow this past week — which held its own flurry of rumored deals over Russian bases and defense deals — and Moscow is reminding the Americans of a prior miscalculation. In the 1950s, Washington assumed that it could threaten the Soviet Union along its borders in Europe, South Asia and East Asia. And the United States believed it could not be threatened in its homeland, in the Western Hemisphere — America assumed no foreign power would dare violate the Monroe Doctrine. Washington bet that Moscow did not have an equivalent threat, and it was wrong.
The Soviet Union’s move into Cuba back then changed the entire dynamic of the Cold War. The Soviet presence threatened the sea lanes out of the Gulf of Mexico, major facilities in Florida, all of the Caribbean airspace and some of the Eastern Seaboard. It forced the U.S. Navy and Air Force to shift resources and account for Soviet units there. It diverted the CIA into Latin America, forcing the conflicts in Central American and Grenada. Despite its inherent military vulnerability, Cuba was one of the most strategic Soviet assets. Nothing was the same after Cuba.
The Russians are reminding the Americans of their prior miscalculations on how Russians respond to perceived threats. The United States has shifted its focus from its periphery and once again moved to responding to threats that could never truly physically hit the homeland — such as an Iranian missile threat. In the nearly 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has returned to and enjoyed a world where any potential military threat is an ocean and half a world away.
For now, this is just a signal and no real movement on the ground has been made. Russia is serious, however, about its ability to follow through if the United States does not release the pressure elsewhere. The moves over Cuba are not an indicator of the Russians’ global intentions, but are meant to signal an increase in Moscow’s assertiveness. It is a gutsy and interesting move by the Russians. We have yet to see whether the Americans have really noticed (or want to admit that they noticed) and can divert attention from the Middle East and domestic politics to address the Russian threat — either by backing down or by escalating the situation, which would bring back a Cold War standoff.
Of course, if Washington and Moscow do get serious about things such as Cuba, then the U.S. escalation would go far beyond what Russia currently feels threatened over.
Toss the former KGB agent and current Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin into the mix and let him get back to his old drinking buddys from the “good ole’” days of smuggling arms in Latin America and heck who needs a Jihad to keep the military machine rolling were back to 1962, except now the Russians have a little bit of money to work with and the US is in Afganistan. Will Czar Vlady start banging his shoe on the podium?? I watch with curisoity
In the 1950s, Washington assumed that it could threaten the Soviet Union along its borders in Europe, South Asia and East Asia.
There isn’t much evidence Washington wanted to threaten the USSR in the 1950s. Contain yes, threaten no. The Korean War and Berlin Airlift – the two most significant Cold War events in the 1950s – were unprovoked acts of aggression carried out at the behest of Stalin.
It’s a game that the U.S. and Russia play. You do this, I will do this. You propose a missile shield, I will propose a bomber base near your shores. The missile shield is clearly a weapon, because it doesnt pose solely defensive capabilities, or else Russia wouldnt be making a big stink about it. When I listen to Condoleeza Rice say the the missile shield is aimed to prevent attacks from rogue threats, I buckle in pity because I can’t believe she has such the character to lie about anything and everything. I sometimes model myself behind Condoleeza Rice, a black American youth seeking to learn Russian and go into a career field catering to U.S./Russian affairs. But, I can’t model myslef behind a liar. Who are the rogue threats. Iran, who has missiles that can reach Europe, but has no reason to attack Europe. And North Korea, who is in the stages of disarming themselves of their minuscule nuclear armament. And out intelligence sources here in the U.S. have already stated that Iran is using their nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes, such as France, and many other nations that have nuclear power plants. Why can France produce nuclear energy but not Iran? The missile shield is clearly aimed at Russia, no matter how it gets twisted. A threat can be a nuclear launch from one of the breakaway republics, or maybe the Islamic extremist could get their hand on a weapon and reak havoc on that side of the world. I think it’s better to tell the truth. If Russia wants to build the base, let them. As long as we continue to push their buttons, so will they. Can’t you see the coalitions forming. Russia talking cordially to our enemies, but blasting us. The U.S. is definely in need of some policy changing. Hopefully we will get that in November.
I seem to remember from the history books that General MacArthur was a proponent of using the atomic bomb in Korea and also using it against Russia whilst the US still had the advantage. Considering his strength and influence within the US military, the pols were forced to remove him from his command as they also feared he would launch an unilateral nuclear attack…
Back to the Cubans, would they actually want Russian bombers on their soil? At the moment the US has no EU support for sanctions on Cuba, so logically wouldn’t a Cuban/Russian love-in push the EU and those with better relations with Cuba, closer to the Americans? Fidel’s brother is already implenting reforms such as allowing mobile phones and leasing land to private farmers – ratcheting up the pressure could well be something the Cuban economy might not cope to well with.
I don’t think Russia has the will nor capacity to fight a war with the U.S. Maybe back then in the Soviet days, but not today. Alot of what goes on today is saber rattling, then much speculation and interpretation, and crazy twists by the American media. Wars today are also more difficult to initiate. Russia’s main goal right now is to continue to improve their economy, fight corruption, and improve their defenses. We may get into disagreements with them, but ultimately I believe the bombers won’t go to Cuba, and this is why. I for one believe that Barrack Obama will be the next president of the U.S., and the polls show it, the world likes him, and McCain gets nothing but negative attention. McCain’s stand on Russia is eliminate them from the G8. He also once can to the assumption that president ex-president and now prime minister Putin was the president of Germany http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ENwej0fpc> . But Obama will do what is necessary to halt the missile shield program. He wants strong ties with Russia, and I’m not sure if Russia wants the same. But I’m sure that Russia doesn’t want conflict with us. So if the missile shield doesn’t get built, then bombers wont go to Cuba. Trade is essential for us, it’s the only way for the U.S. and Russia to settle their differences. The U.S. really doesn’t like the way China is ran, but middle class Americans sure do like cheap goods at WalMart. And I also here that Russians like the few McDonald’s sparsely spread out in Moscow. So hopefully this conflict bolds over. Sooner or later the U.S. won’t be led by complete idiots, and Russia won’t be led by authoritarian ex-KGB operatives and maybe we can all get along. Pointing to the KGB deal-there’s nothing bad about these operatives, they are just harsh and cold spirited, they do push the country in the right direction, at a fast pace, but these people, does anyone want to start a separate thread on how Russia is ran but mostly KGB?
you death ,you aggressor- NATO!
LOLLOLO
Humanitarian help for ?uba ,damaged from winds.But they think that this bombs….. ha ha ha
Two Russian Tu-160 “Blackjack” strategic bombers reportedly landed in Venezuela on Sept. 10. If this is a Russian military foray into the Caribbean. After suffering NATO in its own backyard for years, Russia is now on the verge of playing hardball with the United States in its front yard. Events thus far may be more of a signal to Washington to back off of Russia’s periphery — in exchange, Moscow may leave the United States’ sphere of interest alone. But given Washington’s distraction in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia may never have a better chance to attempt to consolidate a foothold in the Caribbean. It may not necessarily be possible, and it may not necessarily succeed in the long run. But neither precludes Moscow from making the attempt — and in so doing, potentially significantly altering the global geopolitical landscape.
So my friends it begins again. May Putin, Medvedev and Sechin find a warm glass of Pulonium in their vodka. The masters of the dark arts return.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }