US wary of Russia restoring Cuba ties

Moscow seems to want relationship

By Paul Richter
Los Angeles Times / September 7, 2008
  • Email|
  • Print|
  • Single Page|
  • |
Text size +

WASHINGTON - Amid rising tensions over Georgia, US officials are increasingly concerned that Russia is moving to rebuild one of the most dangerous features of the old Soviet Union's security structure - its alliance with Cuba.

Moscow has been signaling that it wants to restore a relationship with Havana that included not only economic ties, but military and intelligence cooperation. The relationship brought the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when Russia secretly installed nuclear missiles on the island.

US officials believe that Russian statements are partly bluster, intended to dissuade the United States and its allies from moving the NATO alliance and military equipment, including missile defense sites, closer to the Russian border. And some analysts question how interested Cuba is in rebuilding close ties with Russia.

But at a time when Russia has intervened forcefully in Georgia and is extending the global reach of its rebuilt military, some senior officials fear it may not be only bluster.

Russia "has strategic ties to Cuba again, or, at least, that's where they're going," a senior US official said recently, speaking, like others, on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive implications of the assessments.

The officials said they doubt the Russians would risk stationing nuclear bombers on Cuba. But some believe that Moscow might seek to restore its once-energetic intelligence cooperation with Havana, and to resume limited military cooperation, possibly including refueling stops for aircraft and warships.

In the current environment, such contacts would make US officials uneasy, serving as a reminder of a military relationship between Havana and Moscow that stretched from the Cuban revolution in 1959 until a weakened, post-Soviet Russia finally closed a massive electronic intelligence complex in Lourdes near Havana in 2001.

One senior military officer said a return of Russian ships or planes could force additional US deployments in the region. But the administration and Pentagon declined to comment publicly.

"It is very Cold War-retro," said a government official. "The topic could be reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis, and that is a chapter that people don't want to revisit."

The Russian Defense Ministry dismissed a report in the newspaper Izvestia in July that quoted an unidentified Russian official saying the government intended to begin basing Tupolev Tu-160 "Blackjack" and Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" nuclear bombers in Cuba.

However, the report was taken seriously enough in Washington that General Norton A. Schwartz, the new Air Force chief of staff, said during his Senate confirmation hearing at the time that sending the bombers would cross a "red line in the sand."

Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained about Russia's increasing reliance on its military to remind the world of its power. She criticized the Russian military advance into Georgia, a former Soviet republic, and its increasingly frequent patrols of long-range nuclear bombers in US and NATO-patrolled ocean lanes near northern Europe, Alaska, and elsewhere.

As it rebuilds forces that withered during the impoverished 1990s, Russia also has been looking for new air and naval bases far from home. It is negotiating with Syria to resume use of naval bases in Tartus and Latakiya, Russian officials have said. There has also been talk in Moscow of approaching Vietnam about using Cam Ranh Bay.

Russian officials "understand that the restoration of even an intelligence-gathering base in Lourdes would be a declaration of a new Cold War on the part of Russia," said Alexander Golts, defense analyst with the online publication Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "The Kremlin will never do it, because they cannot afford it."

  • Email
  • Email
  • Print
  • Print
  • Single page
  • Single page
  • Reprints
  • Reprints
  • Share
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Comment
  • Share on DiggShare on Digg
  • Tag with Save this article
  • powered by
Your Name Your e-mail address (for return address purposes) E-mail address of recipients (separate multiple addresses with commas) Name and both e-mail fields are required.
Message (optional)
Disclaimer: does not share this information or keep it permanently, as it is for the sole purpose of sending this one time e-mail.