The Associated Press is reporting that Russia is planning on placing bombers in Cuba & Venezuela
So, peer into your crystal ball:
-
What will Obama’s response be?
-
If you think a different response is in order, what should he do instead?
Well, for one, the story says that Chavez has offered an island to Russia, not that they’ve accepted, so I think you’re letting yourself get a little carried away.
For two, other than some sort of publicity score for internal points for Chavez there’s not much angle for anyone in this. For all of me the best answer to this would be to ignore it and Venezuela as a whole, make a good neighbor policy with the other Latin American states, and wait for the inevitable revolution in Venezuela.
True, this is still hypothetical and probably Putin just floating the idea out there to judge O’s response. That is exactly why I think there should be a matching “hypothetical” response - such as proclaiming the eastern European missile shield will now proceed as planned.
Interesting that this should come when the US seeks to reset relations with Russia.
"Clinton said the two sides will get to work on re-negotiating a follow-up to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and nonproliferation. On other issues like Afghanistan, the Middle East and Iran, Clinton said, “We will work through them.”
Choose one of the above to draw back on.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Edited the title for clarity.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Russian bombers in Cuba or off the coast of Venezuela. Who cares? It’s not like they really change the strategic situation between the US and the Large Red Country Formerly Known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And since we have bombers and more scattered all over the place within easy flying distance of both Russia and areas which she considers to be within her natural sphere of influence, it’s somewhat hypocritical to complain of Russian bombers in the Caribbean.
Perhaps the best response would be to offer to restructure our involvement in NATO, so that we aren’t seen by Russia as using the organization to allow us to directly threaten Russian interests in Europe and South/Southwest Asia? That would likely take away the incentive on the part of Russia to try and destabilize our own “natural sphere of influence.”
The correct response is a smile. It is posturing to make a point about the expansion of NATO into their “sphere of influence”. Can we support extending our defense agreements into their traditional backyard while complaining that they are expanding friendships in ours?
In today’s world having bombers parked here or there is of symbolic value only; it isn’t a threat and by smiling and treating it as the non-threat it is you strengthen your position where it matters.
Smile. Communicate a “Whatever. :rolleyes:” State clearly that we do not perceive those bombers as a threat and would really like to get down to work on how to contain those who threaten us both, how to work together to provide for stable world economy, a stable energy supply for Europe (not said out loud but that is not subject to Russia’s whims, btw), and to work on a variety of other shared threats and concerns. So let us know when you are done posturing and ready to work with us, 'kay?
I think putin wants a more adversarial Obama , probably the last thing alot of countries want is a domestic situation where an American president is more revered than the homegrown team.
On a sidenote , its possible that Chavez wants the russian assets in place to deter any american military reponse to his benighted little shithole, the russian payoff is an oil producer thats on the same page, and the ability to engage more money out of the United States for saving said russians if it goes in the pot.
I dont see any need for Obama to do anything right away, its a complication, not a crisis. Put it in the todo list and move on to more important stuff.
Declan
Russia still has bombers? Who knew?
Looking it up just now, the article includes a picture of a Tu-95, a design which first flew in 1952; which makes it as old as, well, our heavy bomber, the B-52.
And quoted that they hosted a pair of blackjacks back in september, as well it failed to mention exactly what bombers would be hosted, but the 95 makes sense flying down from russia, doing those spy missions/freedom of navigation exercises and then a turn around at venenzuela.
Declan
A new “visionary” President privately hands Putin an olive branch and gets bitch slapped with it publicly. I’d say he was already tested for a response.
It’s a 1956 platform capable of launching 21st century cruise missiles.
I concur.
I don’t really know what Obama’s response might be, but if it were me, I’d say “I hear you want a bomber base in the this hemisphere? Sure: Lackland, Barksdale, or Hill? We’ll charge a little rent, but go ahead, park as many as you want.” Great way to keep an eye on them.
Also, I’m fairly sure that would freak 'em right out.
I don’t really know what Obama’s response might be, but if it were me, I’d say “I hear you want a bomber base in the this hemisphere? Sure: Lackland, Barksdale, or Hill? We’ll charge a little rent, but go ahead, park as many as you want.” Great way to keep an eye on them.
Also, I’m fairly sure that would freak 'em right out.
Hmmm.
So an air force chief says something that is quickly downplayed by the Kremlin. Something that clearly has no real significance whatsoever. Would be no threat that hasn’t already existed and is only yapping anyway.
That’s no bitchslap. Heck, that doesn’t even rise to trashtalk. The only value that kind of statement has is if it is able to provoke a response; that would show that you are able to be manipulated by posturing rather than able to coolly respond to events according to their real significance. The response
is about as close to the ideal “whatever. :rolleyes:” as you’ll ever see in RealPolitik.
Ignore the inconsequential.
The bitch slap referred to Obama’s private offer not to install a missile shield in Poland in return for cooperation against Iran. And the Russians wouldn’t be basing any planes in Cuba but would use it for refueling like they use to do.
duplicate post
For planes that can reach the United States from Russia (and back of course) without the need for refueling? Where are they going that they need to refuel?
Obama’s alleged offer (alleged as bothObama and Medvedev deny any offer was made in the letter) was a bitch slap?
It’s not a “there and back” trip, they’re remaining on station. it’s the same as a nuclear sub sitting off the coast. The new X-555 cruise missile brings Russia into the 21st century and that’s why the Tu95 is projected to be used for another 30 years. It’s not being used as a bomber, it’s a stand-off weapons platform that travels 400+ mph which makes it expensive to babysit. If they base in Venezuala and fuel in Cuba then it’s a huge area to monitor for the US.
Yes it was a bitch slap. Don’t take that as a negative to Obama but as a negative for Putin. It was still a bitch slap. I don’t know why there has been such a huge increase in saber rattling recently but it’s an ongoing thing from Putin and company.