• 📚 A new project from the admin: Check out PictureBooks.io, an AI storyteller that lets you build custom picture books for kids in seconds. Let me know what you think here!

Cuba, Venezuela may host Russian Bombers

Ecofarm

Deity
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
15,370
Location
Univ. Florida
I'm surprised noone posted this yet. Part of me wants to respond with aggressive moves geopolitically and another part says 'meh, no biggie'.

What do you think about having Russian bombers (capable of carrying nukes) in (/with) this kind of range?

Russia could use bases for its strategic bombers on the doorstep of the United States in Cuba and Venezuela to underpin long-distance patrols in the region, a senior air force officer said Saturday.
"This is possible in Cuba," General Anatoly Zhikharev, chief of the Russian air force's strategic aviation staff, told the Interfax-AVN military news agency.

The comments were the latest signal that Moscow intends to project its military capability in far-flung corners of the globe despite a tight defence budget and hardware that experts consider in many respects outdated.

Zhikharev indicated that Russia was looking only at occasional use of the facilities -- not setting up permanent bases in the region.

He noted that the Venezuelan constitution prohibited establishment of military bases of foreign states on Venezuelan territory and described the Russian possibile use of the facility there as "we land, we complete the flight, we take off."

Zhikharev said Cuba had a several air bases equipped with the long runways needed by the heavy bombers and said the facilities there were "entirely acceptable" for use by the Russian aircraft during long-distance patrols.

"If the will of the two states is there, the political will, then we are prepared to fly there" to the bases in Cuba, the agency quoted Zhikharev as saying.

The general also said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had offered to let Russian strategic bombers use a military airfield on La Orchila island, a military base off the west coast of the country.

"Yes, there has been such a proposal from the Venezuelan president," Zhikharev said.

"If a relevant political decision is made, this is possible," he added.

Russia resumed patrols by its long-distance strategic bombers in August 2007 after a 15-year hiatus, noting at the time that it was mirroring the United States which never suspended its global bomber patrols after the Cold War.

Last year, Russia temporarily based a pair of Tu-160 bombers at an airbase in Venezuela in a carefully-choreographed display of force regarded by as a warning message to the United States.

A Russian flotilla led by the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great also joined Venezuelan navy vessels for manoeuvres in the Caribbean late last year, timed to coincide with a visit to the region by President Dmitry Medvedev.

The previous US administration of George W. Bush officially shrugged off the Russian aviation and naval moves in Latin America, characterising them as more for show than anything representing a military worry for the United States.

Last July however, a top US air force officer warned that Russia would cross "a red line" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba.

"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," said General Norton Schwartz said on July 23.

The Interfax report said there were three types of Russian aircraft capable of long-distance bomber patrols: The Tu-95MS, the Tu-160 and the Tu-22.

It was Tu-160 strategic bombers that were sent to Venezuela for temporary basing last year. Each aircraft of this type is capable of carrying 12 cruise missiles that can be fitted with nuclear warheads.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9776268a25e75ad5b44b4d87e8a32a02.4a1&show_article=1

Ignore it? Respond? In what way.
 
Yeah, I think Mexico should make it clear that they won't feel threatened by this.

Wait...You were talking about Mexico, weren't you?
 
Then you thnk ignoring it completely is the best course of action? Or maybe Obama says "We ain't skeered"?

I think there should be some action(s), not just words in response. I'm not sure what though. Invade Iran? :mischief:
 
Well, I think America should be about as worried as Mexico. I mean, this is no Cuban Missile Crisis. The Cold War is over. Whilst there is still a small chance of war, it would be in neither parties best interest.

America saying nothing would be the best course of action. It shows that it trusts Russia, which would further help to improve relations.
 
I'm not talking about a threat of war. I'm talking about geopolitics and not laying down to the expansion of influence by governments who take freedom of the press and other things lightly.

Of course we trust Russia not to start nuclear war, but should we trust them to guide and support other nation's political development? Especially nations that are already backsliding towards (or downright are) a totalitarian state?
 
They have just as much right to meddle in external affairs as does America. Actually, even more so, as Russia has only invaded one country in recent years.
 
It's not about who "has the right" to meddle. It's about who should. I don't think Russia should. If you think killing and imprisoning members of the press is the way to go, then sure... put Russia in charge. Personally, I think their influence should be opposed and if they make such an aggessive geopolitical move, it should be countered - for the good of others.
 
It's not about who "has the right" to meddle. It's about who should. I don't think Russia should. If you think killing and imprisoning members of the press is the way to go, then sure... put Russia in charge. Personally, I think their influence should be opposed and if they make such an aggessive geopolitical move, it should be countered.

And I'm sure the average right-wing Russian wouldn't want you meddling in Georgia and Ukraine. There is absolutely no way America can rightfully say anything about this whilst it still dabbles in what Russia sees as its backyard.

Besides, America is being countered with this. This could be Russia's response to American aggression, rather than their own belligerent move.
 
Russia can respond to such moves, but we have no such right? Then Russia should not say anything about our increased influence in Ukraine or Georgia? Funny, but I don't remember the Russian supporters saying anything like "OH, Russia has no right to say anything!!" Heck, I don't even remember the Russia haters saying anything like that. Maybe they said "tough crap" but not "Russia has no right to say anything". I think everyone pretty much accepted the fact that Russia "has the right" to be concerned about geopolitics. Maybe not the right to invade, but the right to say something. Maybe anti-freedom-of-press/voice people think someone/some nation doesn't have the right to express concerns.
 
Russia can respond to such moves, but we have no such right? Then Russia should not say anything about our increased influence in the Ukraine or Georgia?

No, I not saying that what Russia is doing is right. I'm saying that America doing anything about it would be wrong. Your argument was that America should respond to this aggressive act. I was pointing out the fact that it is Russia that is doing the responding in this situation.
 
You should sanction Cuba!

Seriously tough, you could either in the case that Russian bombers get placed in Cuba or Venezuela have fighters shadowing everywhere they go just to let them know they were being closely watched.

Or, i wouldnt personally get upset if you where allowed to place american bombers in Norway, however i don't runt the country and those who do would probably not allow it.
 
The Joint Warfare Centre (JWC) is a NATO establishment headquartered in Stavanger, Norway.
wiki

The United States Air Force 426th Air Base Squadron provides support to 220 U.S. service members and their families working in support of NATO’s Joint Warfare Center. The squadron also supports “Operating Location-A” in Oslo, Norway, shipping for $50 million war readiness material and $900 million U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_Air_Station

Stavanger: The small base with a big heart
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/09/mil-030904-usafe01.htm

It's not Bombers...

No, I not saying that what Russia is doing is right. I'm saying that America doing anything about it would be wrong. Your argument was that America should respond to this aggressive act. I was pointing out the fact that it is Russia that is doing the responding in this situation.

Of course it is the guy we support who is "only responding". Who responded first, the chicken or the egg?

If someone is doing something wrong, how can not responding be right? And if Russia is not doing anything wrong, then what wrong are they responding to? I don't think telling the opposition "you have no right to say anything" is the way to go... unless you're looking for totalitarianism.
 
Of course it is the guy we support who is "only responding". Who responded first, the chicken or the egg?

If someone is doing something wrong, how can not responding be right?

If you are analogising it to chicken and egg, then it is clear that the repetitive cycle of response after response must be stopped. And the US, being the righteous and freedom-loving country that they are, would be the better of the two nations to discontinue that cycle, wouldn't you agree?
 
But I think what Russia is doing is wrong; therefore, not responding would be as well. I think they should not influece other country's politics while they have a press that is not free and are not a liberal democracy. Personally, I think only liberal democracies should be meddling in other's affairs. I'm not cool with quasi-dictators meddling; thus, I don't think the US should be cool with it.
 
With all due respect towards our allies, I think that US even raising an eyebrow over some planes refueling at Cuba/Venezuela would be at least 10 times as paranoid/pathetic as Russia getting panic attacks and throwing temper tantrums over "NATO encroachment". :rolleyes:
 
If America doesn't respond, the worst Russia can do is influence Cuba. Yes, Cuba. I don't think they would have an overly detrimental influence on that nation. Especially when compared to the fact that if America responds, Russia will re-respond, continuing the cycle, and causing Russia to be able to meddle in more countries.

And thinking that only liberal democracies should be meddling in other's affairs is quite ironic. It is not a liberal democratic principle to enforce your will onto others.
 
With all due respect towards our allies, I think that US even raising an eyebrow over some planes refueling at Cuba/Venezuela would be at least 10 times as paranoid/pathetic as Russia getting panic attacks and throwing temper tantrums over "NATO encroachment". :rolleyes:
It's not "some planes". It's long-range nuclear bombers. It represents a move forward in military relations between the countries. One is already a flat-out dictatorship and the other is on its way. Letting such a thing go unnoticed is an injustice to people everywhere.
And thinking that only liberal democracies should be meddling in other's affairs is quite ironic.
No, that's politics.
It is not a liberal democratic principle to enforce your will onto others.
You say tomato, I say liberation. And it's not a principle... it's a moral obligation.
 
No, that's politics.

You say tomato, I say liberation. And it's not a principle... it's a moral obligation.

I would respond with, 'you're wrong', but it would serve little purpose.

And in what way is it a moral obligation to force others to comply with what you have determined is best?
 
Are you going to claim that the US and allies did not make the political atmosphere of Iraq more liberal? I know that's not hard given a genocidal dictator... but still.

And in what way is it a moral obligation to force others to comply with what you have determined is best?
Because forcing genocidal dictators to allow representation is a moral obligation. Because we know that genocidal dictatorship is not best. Do you think that maybe genocidal dictatorship could be superior to representation? I'm entirely sure it's inferior to representation and human rights; there's no doubt in my mind.
 
Are you going to claim that the US and allies did not make the political atmosphere of Iraq more liberal? I know that's not hard given a genocidal dictator... but still.

I'm going to b presumptuous and guess you voted for McCain. If you really wanted to make the atmosphere of the world more 'liberal', wouldn't Obama have ben a better option?

And please don't try and tell me invading Iraq was justified. No matter how you dress it up, the US clearly breached, no, raped, a country's sovereignty. Same with Afghanistan.
 
Back
Top Bottom