Report: Russia mulls sending bombers to Cuba

07/22/2008 @ 10:20 am

Filed by Agence France-Presse

Russia may start regular flights by long-range bombers to Cuba in response to US plans to build missile defence sites in Eastern Europe, the newspaper Izvestia reported Monday, quoting an official.

"Such discussions exist," the unidentified senior Russian air force official was quoted as saying, adding that the measure would be a response to the United States "deploying missile defence systems in Poland and the Czech Republic."

It was not clear whether he meant permanently basing the bombers in Cuba or using the island as a refuelling stop, but former top defence ministry official Leonid Ivashov told the newspaper that Cuba was best used for brief stopovers.

Cuba should be used "not as a permanent base -- this is unnecessary -- but as a stopover airfield, a refuelling stop," Ivashov was quoted as saying.

Spokesmen for the air force and the defence ministry declined to comment about the report to AFP.

Starting long-range bomber flights to Cuba would signal a reawakening of military cooperation by former Cold War allies Moscow and Havana. In 2002 Russia closed its last military base on the island, a radar base at Lourdes.

Plans to fly long-range bombers to Cuba "would be a good answer to attempts to place NATO bases new Russia's borders," former top air force commander Pyotr Deinekin told the RIA Novosti news agency in response to the Izvestia report.

In a speech last year, then president Vladimir Putin likened the US missile defence dispute to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, though he added that relations between Moscow and Washington "have changed a lot" since then.

The discovery in 1962 that Moscow was secretly building nuclear missile launchpads in Cuba pushed the world close to nuclear war in a terrifying two-week brinkmanship between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Last week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned Moscow would take countermeasures against US plans to build an anti-missile radar facility in the Czech Republic and site interceptor missiles in Poland.

Russia argues that the installations threaten its national security despite US assurances that they are directed against "rogue states" like Iran.

"Surrender life to motherland, soul to God, and honor to nobody!"


RUSSIAN IMPERIAL FORUM

Does it seem to anyone else that the solution to the missile shield crisis
for Europe, China, Russia and the US would be to co-operate in preventing
Iran or any other so-called rogue state from producing nuclear warheads in the first
place? Then there would be no need for the shield (Right? unless it IS for something else)
No let's threaten/have another war.
Monkey see, monkey do

You already missed the picture.This is ablout pipelines and seperating Russia from outlets to deliver it.




"Surrender life to motherland, soul to God, and honor to nobody!"


RUSSIAN IMPERIAL FORUM

That might be your picture.

Please explain, cause I am not sure what exactly Russia truly objects to.
Publicly they say they fear another Arms race, that China may become involved.
That they don't believe the shield is aimed at Iran, they want to be included
They want the base to be in Azebajan, but are worried about Nato seeing past the Urals.
That they are being expelled from Europe

I have read all manner of different reasons, not just in the western press,
but I haven't seen that one publicly stated.
Not saying you are wrong, but could you explain how you reached that conclusion.
Based on what?

(Cause actually I believe Bush and Cronies are yanking our chains yet again,
and most Europeans don't know what Russia is thinking. threatening to aim nukes at us is making us
too damned nervous to work it out.)

*

This missile shield has absolutely nothing to do with Iran's nuclear or missile program--this is just a laughable excuse for it--just like Iraq's so-called possesssion of WMD's (none of which were found) was the purported reason for launching the Iraq war. Iran's missile program is the anti-missile shield's alibi, but in reality it is aimed at Russia, and it doesn't take a military genious to realize this.

For one thing, if the missile shield was truly aimed at Iran, the US would be interested in cooperating on this issue with Russia, and placing the shield in Azerbaijan, as Russia suggested, from where it could only be used on Iran, but not against Russia. But the US has baselessly rejected all Russian calls for cooperation. Basing the radar in the Czech Republic and missiles in Poland or Lithuania, is perfect for intercepting Russian missiles, but makes it very difficult, if not impossible to intercept Iranian long-rang missiles, which in fact don't exist.

Russia has absolutely every right to respond to this hostile act by the US, and to persuade or pressure the Europeans not to cooperate with the US on this issue in any way it can short of armed conflict, since Russia's own security is at stake here. Flying nuclear bombers to Cuba would be an excellent response, that will make not regular Americans, but the Junta in charge of the White House (which talks democracy and human rights, but understands and respects only military force) to understand the full extent of Russia's opposition to their project.

I agree with you both to a large extent.

A) Iran has a right to peaceful use of Nuclear technology - So why continiously turn down Russian, Chinese, European offers
To piss off Bush? I understand, but is this wise? Confrontation is a great game, but from my point of view I don't
want to see another war led by Bush, so am beginning to wonder how far Ahmedinejad is willing to go.


B) Russia does have a right to retalliate for what would be an aggresive act- but Europeans are not sure about the shield
either, rather than threatening us with nuclear warheads, why not state your case and work with us.
Re cuba- this creates a flashpoint, brings us all closer to war. I was always of the opinion that Putin
was alot smarter than Bush. (Who incidently will soon be confined to the history books, along with the Neo-con's I hope.)


I'm still not quite sure how the missile shield is connected to pipelines and supply as Chorny said.
And am still wondering what the true purpose of the misile shield is.
I believe it may be to give the US a first strike advantage over Russia.
The idiot neo-cons are thinking they can win a nuclear war.

You are right, the US wants to gain a first strike advantage over Russia--the missile shield even if it is not 100% effective will greatly increase American nuclear power viz-a-viz Russia. Crazy neocons, who may believe their own propaganda about the missile shield's infallibility, may be tempted to launch a first strike against Russia. Why would they do that? Here is the reason, that Chyorny also mentioned--Russian oil. The US wants to control the entire world's supply of oil and gas, but they can't do this while Russia controls a large portion of the world's oil and gas. So this is the real reason for the aggressive posture--the US Empire's thirst for oil. It is also the same reason the US invaded Iraq and is harassing Iran and Venezuala.

Unfortunately Europe has only itself to blame for placing itself in the middle of this confrontation. After all the missile shield isn't being placed in Japan or Central Asia, but in Europe, and in fact on EU soil. Clearly the EU probably has the means to dissuade Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic from doing this. If it doesn't have the means to do this, then it should expel them from the EU immediately--because in this case the EU is not in control of its own territory--and these countries are in fact American trojan horses on its soil.

But Europe has aligned itself with the US, and will not take any steps that may hurt that "special" relationship. That's why Russia has to resort to the steps it is taking. Dialogue is important, but it won't change the minds of the EU, and especially the British political elite, which has squarely aligned themselves with America and are keeping all of Europe under the American boot.

Michail, like I have said, I no longer live in Britain, and have little or no
loyalty to that country. I don't like the current government, but unfortunately
you may find the next lot even worse ( remember Thatcher/Reagan?)
So there is little point in continiously bringing England into this.
Everyone from The Poles(people not government) to Angela Merkle have expressed
disquiet about this Shield. Nato is a different matter, but Nato is not democratic.
Majority of Europeans are against the Neo-cons and Bush.
We have simular interests, are trading partners, no need for antagonism.
We are being lied to as well, remember.