What would be considered "anti-imperialist" positions re: Russia?

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Has anyone in this thread denied that the USSR absorbed those three countries after the second world war?

Russia.  Now 25% more absorbent.

Webgear

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Webgear wrote:

Why is there this constant belief here on the forum that the Russia Military isn’t as capable or as strong as the US Military?

What are these personal assessments based on?  

So you are saying that despite it spending more than its enemies and friends combined the Russians and presumably the Chineses are capable to going toe to toe with the US. What a rip off for the people of the US "democracy."  The US is clearly another type of hybrid imperial regime since its military is primarily used for seizing other people oil and other resources but it does not govern it instead leaves behind chaos which the corporations profit from.

Sorry for the delay in replying.

Spending vast amounts of money does not equal or mean increased military capability.

Look at the number of contractors employed by the United States, the number of lucrative contracts for provide support services (KBR, International Oil Trading Co) these are not cheap.

At least $138bn on private security, logistics and reconstruction contractors were spent on Iraq alone.

This has not increase the military capability of the US other than increase the personal wealth of individuals and corporations.

Webgear

jjuares wrote:
Webgear wrote:

Why is there this constant belief here on the forum that the Russia Military isn’t as capable or as strong as the US Military?

What are these personal assessments based on?  

 

It isn't just this forum that says Russia's military is weaker than the Americans.

 

Sorry for the delay in replying.

I would be afraid of the Russian military and their capabilities. They made advances in technology and capabilities since the early 2000s. They have paid close attention to NATO and how they operated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Russians have maintained their conventional capabilities while the rest of NATO focused on unconventional operations.

Webgear

Personally, I don’t see Russia as a threat. I would rather have Russia as a military and economic ally.

I believe they are trying to maintain their sphere of influence in their portion of the world just as any nation is trying too.

We shouldn’t be wasting resources and efforts in the Baltic until the Russians invade one of allies which isn’t likely to happen.

 

sherpa-finn

kropotkin1951 wrote:

sherpa-finn wrote:

Rather than bemoan the dismantling of one empire, why not anticipate the dismantling of all? Any bets on which will be independent first - Califormia or Tibet? 

Good question since neither of them have ever been independent.

Someone else can speak to Californian history. But my Tibetan friends have spoken with some nostalgia (tinged with irony, I presume) of the great Tibetan Empire of the 8th and 9th centuries which ruled much of that region. Don't know much about it myself, but wikipedia tells us that in its heyday the Tibetan Empire covered parts of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, China, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. 

So maybe every people, every nation must have their imperial moment in history. Indeed, maybe imperialism is just one more inevitable component of the human condition... 

Webgear

Ken Burch wrote:

Just trying to get what people here would see as a range of views on that country that would be part of the "anti-imperialist" spectrum?

Can you provide your definition on "anti-imperialist” and "imperialist"?

Would you say that Russia is currently an Empire?

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Webgear wrote:

Personally, I don’t see Russia as a threat. I would rather have Russia as a military and economic ally.

I believe they are trying to maintain their sphere of influence in their portion of the world just as any nation is trying too.

We shouldn’t be wasting resources and efforts in the Baltic until the Russians invade one of allies which isn’t likely to happen.

I agree with all of these points. I also think that we aren't just wasting resources in the Baltic, we are also increasing the likelihood of a disastrous military confrontation with Russia.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

So the invasion and rigged referendum is quite understandable.

..while i'm sure there were the usual shenanigans and slights of hand re the referendum they didn’t need it. the population voted for a better pension. the russians paid a better pension. i remember the day of the vote and i was watching a live feed..from democracy now i believe. the banks were inundated with questions about when the new pensions would kick in and how much. this was a smart move considering 2 shitty options.

NDPP

Russia is not an Imperialist Power  -  by Sukant Chandan

http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.ca/2015/10/why-russia-is-not-imperialist-c...

"...We hear those who echo the leading NATO powers in claiming Russia is an 'imperialist' country, or 'Russian militarism' to quote a well known english left leader at the moment. It is not anything of the sort. Here I attempt to lay out why it is not, and why the western, actively imperialist or neocolonial left, seek to state that it is...'

sherpa-finn

NDPP wrote:

Russia is not an Imperialist Power  -  by Sukant Chandan

http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.ca/2015/10/why-russia-is-not-imperialist-c...

"...We hear those who echo the leading NATO powers in claiming Russia is an 'imperialist' country, or 'Russian militarism' to quote a well known english left leader at the moment. It is not anything of the sort. Here I attempt to lay out why it is not, and why the western, actively imperialist or neocolonial left, seek to state that it is...'

The substance of the article being that if you define "MODERN imperialism [as] the development of west european and north american-based modern capitalism/imperialism", then Russia does not qualify as an imperialist power.

To which the only real response is "No shit, Sherlock!".  [With the hope that the scatalogical reference doesn't provoke disciplinary action.)

Personally, I lean to a somewhat broader definition of imperialism - Krop provided assorted examples in his cut and paste in Post #8, above. 

Rev Pesky

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
...As for the 180 base "thing" that is a straw man argument built by the Russia and company... If you look at the real, and I mean the real, distribution of US combat power on the planet most all those "bases" are small intelligence gathering facilities. They are not the type of base that would support a large military force.

But don't let me stop you from thinking otherwise. I challenge you to show me how wrong I am... with real stuff, not that fake shit Russia came up with. 

Presumably you would accept US Department of Defense , Defense Manpower Data Center via Time Magazine as an unbiased authority on USA troops abroad. If not, you can say so:

U.S. Troops Worldwide

Quote:
It's difficult to give a full picture of the number of troops serving overseas. According to the latest quarterly Department of Defense data on active duty, there are currently 150,560 U.S. military personnel serving in foreign countries.

But that number excludes countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Syria as the U.S. doesn't break down numbers of military personnel in many countries in the Middle East due to host nation sensitivities.

So a minimum of 150,000 troops in countries other than the USA.

According to Wikipedia,

List of Russian military bases

Russia has about 23,000 troops outside of Russia, but almost all of those would be in either Syria or former Soviet republics. Russia doesn't maintain any troops outside of Asia or the Middle East.

So there really is no comparison about troop strength between the USA and Russia around the world.

As I researched this, I stumbled across an interview with Vladimir Putin in MintPress News. Corriere della Sera is an Italian daily (June 8, 2015). 

Vladimir Putin in an interview with Corriere della Sera

Quote:
Paolo Valentino: Speaking of peace, the countries that used to be parties to the Warsaw Treaty and today are NATO countries, such as the Baltic states and Poland, feel threatened by Russia. NATO has decided to create special forces to address these concerns. My question is whether the West is right in its determination to restrain “the Russian bear”, and why does Russia continue to speak in such a contentious tone?

Vladimir Putin: Russia does not speak with anyone in a contentious tone, and in such matters, to quote a political figure from the past, Otto von Bismarck, it is not discussions but the potential that counts.

What does the actual potential show? US military spending is higher than that of all countries in the world taken together. The aggregate military spending of NATO countries is 10 times, note – 10 times higher than that of the Russian Federation. Russia has virtually no bases abroad. We have the remnants of our armed forces (since Soviet times) in Tajikistan, on the border with Afghanistan, which is an area where the terrorist threat is particularly high. The same role is played by our airbase in Kyrgyzstan; it is also aimed at addressing the terrorist threat and was set up at the request of the Kyrgyz authorities after a terrorist attack perpetrated by terrorists from Afghanistan on Kyrgyzstan.

...You yourself have mentioned NATO’s expansion to the east. As for us, we are not expanding anywhere; it is NATO infrastructure, including military infrastructure, that is moving towards our borders. Is this a manifestation of our aggression?

Finally, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was to a large extent the cornerstone of the entire international security system. Anti-missile systems, bases and radars are located in the European territory or in the sea, e.g. in the Mediterranean Sea, and in Alaska. We have said many times that this undermines international security. Do you think this is a display of our aggression as well?

...As for some countries’ concerns about Russia’s possible aggressive actions, I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO. I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid. Therefore, it is pointless to support this idea; it is absolutely groundless. But some may be interested in fostering such fears. I can only make a conjecture.

The interview is worth reading in whole.

6079_Smith_W

epaulo13 wrote:

So the invasion and rigged referendum is quite understandable.

..while i'm sure there were the usual shenanigans and slights of hand re the referendum they didn’t need it. the population voted for a better pension. the russians paid a better pension. i remember the day of the vote and i was watching a live feed..from democracy now i believe. the banks were inundated with questions about when the new pensions would kick in and how much. this was a smart move considering 2 shitty options.

That is exactly the same way the West Germans bought off East Germans. By letting them trade in their ostmarks for deutschmarks at par, rather than what they were really worth

Same line plenty of governments have used to get vulnerable people to do what they want. It is the grease that has always driven the wheels of colonialism and imperialism.

In this case they didn't even need the pension for the majority of the population. The real hook was the thing that ran the whole economy of the place. The port.

So again, it is a good question why they needed that 95 percent number. Why they invited fascist and far right parties as observers. Why they felt the need to kidnap a lone Tatar protester and torture him to death.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/18/reshat-ametov-crimea_n_498397...

 

NDPP

Crimea: Russia or Right Sector?

Crimeans Recount Their Experiences Following the US-Sponsored Coup, when the West Took Ukraine (and vid)  -  by Eric Zuesse

http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimeans-recount-their-experiences-followin...

"A compilation of accounts that Crimeans have given to human rights groups or directly posted to the internet, regarding their experiences...An organization, 'Ukraine Human Rights' created and posted to the internet, on 14 August, 2014, a 25 minute video, with English subtitles, telling these people's stories. It's titled 'The Pogrom of Korsun'..."

 

Crimea: The Way Home

https://youtu.be/t42-71RpRgI

Documentary by Andrey Kondrashev

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Interesting factoid from the article above. They send their elected official to Kiev and a colour revolution led by fascist thugs overturns their votes. I can see how the pro-Russia side would pick up even more votes for a referendum.

Quote:

This news-report consists of a compilation of accounts that Crimeans have given to human rights groups or directly posted to the internet, regarding their experiences when the freely elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, who had received 75% of the votes of Crimeans, was violently overthrown during January and February of 2014.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimeans-recount-their-experiences-followin...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Webgear wrote:

Personally, I don’t see Russia as a threat. I would rather have Russia as a military and economic ally.

I believe they are trying to maintain their sphere of influence in their portion of the world just as any nation is trying too.

We shouldn’t be wasting resources and efforts in the Baltic until the Russians invade one of allies which isn’t likely to happen.

I agree with all of these points. I also think that we aren't just wasting resources in the Baltic, we are also increasing the likelihood of a disastrous military confrontation with Russia.

I also agree with all those points. Which is why I tried to come to Iksomos's aid when he was under constant attack for saying favourable things about Russia.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..never mind :) 

Sean in Ottawa

I don't think a connection between his positions and the reason to come to his aid is a good thing. You can not want a ban and still not agree to all those points. There are a lot of positions on those issues and we should not have to agree to want Ikosmos to have another opportunity to participate.

I think Russia is a threat. I may think that the US is a greater threat but that does not mean I do not call them a threat. I oppose the binary thinking of having to defend one to criticize the other.

But my opinion, which I have argued with Ikosmos about, and would rather argue aboaut it with him again than to see him banned, is not relevant to coming to his aid. This opinion he holds, and I hold, while not in agreement is not fundamentally in violation of this place and we should be able to debate it here.

I think his treatment of people here did warrant some action and I was quite unhappy with my own exchanges with him in that regard -- I just do not think this should be permanent. I think it has already been too long.

My position on him is not agreement but a desire for fairness, proportionality, process and the ability to forgive and change. This for me is much more important than agreement on an issue. If you all agreed with me I would not bother to come here -- I would consult my mirror.

I am right now facing what I consider an unwarranted attack that went personal from a person on this site who has not been asked by anyone to stop and he will not stop becuase he does not have to. I challenged this person on an opinion and he has and he did not defend his opinion but went after me as whining, juvenile, a zealot, wiggling, raving, confused, closed minded.  Some people are allowed to go personal and break the rules and some are not. I am left wondering if he has a right to break the rules or if I am an acceptable target. Either way, this also affects my view of just how permanent punishment can be here when it often looks arbitrary or at least inconsistent. I have also noticed that generally since I do respond sharply when attacked, there is quite a tolerance for what can be lobbed in my direction. Perhaps it is the feeling that I can take care of myself, a bias, or whatever. But you do notice when people can attack you without consequence in very personal ways while others get banned, in some cases for similar action. The result is still that response is inconsistent. so if it is inconsistent then let it at least be measured and not permanent. I recognize that Ikosmos did more than attack individuals, I am just saying a temporary ban is not something you can ignore.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture
6079_Smith_W

I could post this in the thread more about the specific issue, but this is where the action is right now, so:

https://missilethreat.csis.org/russia-nato-a2ad-environment/

There is a neat interactive map on the page itself,

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Imagine the horror of Russia being able to defend itself. They should lay down their arms and accept a satrap from Wall Street like happened after the collapse of the USSR. That era was the "highpoint" in the economic return to carpetbaggers but strangely the Russians have no fond memories of that relationship. 

6079_Smith_W

It is just a map showing what is in the area we are talking about, kropotkin.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Imagine the horror of Russia being able to defend itself.

Well, they're going to have their hands full with Latvia, that's for sure.

Last I heard, the defiant Latvians paraded all seven of their tanks down the main drag, mere kilometers from their intended victim, Russia.

Webgear

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Imagine the horror of Russia being able to defend itself.

Well, they're going to have their hands full with Latvia, that's for sure.

Last I heard, the defiant Latvians paraded all seven of their tanks down the main drag, mere kilometers from their intended victim, Russia.

It was 5 tanks, and two motorcycles. Again MSN can't tell between a tank and a motorcycle.

 

Just joking. Latvia only has 3 tanks in real life, from 1954/55.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Just joking. Latvia only has 3 tanks in real life, from 1954/55.

But they don't make 'em like that any more.

No emissions controls.  No seatbelts.  A V8 engine!

sherpa-finn

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But they don't make 'em like that any more.

No emissions controls.  No seatbelts.  A V8 engine!

For a moment there, I thought you were talking about my first car ... it was a souped up 1975 Valiant Duster. 

Good memories. 

Rev Pesky

I suppose if Canada and Mexico invited Russia to put missiles on our border with the USA we would find out how relaxed the USA was about that sort of thing.

Pardon me if I speculate that 'relaxed' wouldn't describe their response. If I remember correctly, the last time something like that happened (Cuba), the USA threatened nuclear war unless the missles were removed.

I don't know why, but I guess they felt it was a threat...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Pardon me if I speculate that 'relaxed' wouldn't describe their response.

I would hope their response would include wondering to themselves "why would Canada side with Russia like this?  What did we ever do to them to make them want to push back?"

It's not like Latvia is somehow out of range of Russian missiles.  It might take Latvians a few more generations to forget being occupied against their will by Russia.  You can't rush these things.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's not like Latvia is somehow out of range of Russian missiles.  It might take Latvians a few more generations to forget being occupied against their will by Russia.  You can't rush these things.

Quote:

Russians have been the largest ethnic minority in Latvia for the last two centuries. The number of Russians in Latvia increased significantly during the Soviet occupation of Latvia when the size of the community grew from 10.5% of the total population in 1935 (206,499) to 34.0% in 1989 (905,515). It started to decrease in size again after Latvia regained independence in 1991 falling to 26.0% (520,126) in 2014, but recently it has been slowly rising due to a higher TFR.

Latvia is a little more complex than that. If I did the math right it looks like 50% of the population does not consider Russia a threat.

Quote:

But to many members of Latvia's Russian-speaking community – about 37% of a population of two million – it is not only the Kremlin but the Latvian government harking back to the days of the Soviet Union. “The security police report resembles the documents issued by the KGB many years ago,” says Boriss Cilevics, a parliamentarian with the Harmony Center Party, which is predominately supported by ethnic Russians in Latvia.

A country divided

The views of Russia are similarly cleaved along ethnic lines. A recent survey by Riga's SKDS Research Center found that 64% of ethnic Latvians perceived Russia as a threat to the nation. Among Russian-speakers, that number plummeted to 8%, while over a third (36%) of the community supported Russia's annexation of Crimea.

http://time.com/3456722/latvia-election-russia-ukraine/

 

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Pardon me if I speculate that 'relaxed' wouldn't describe their response.

I would hope their response would include wondering to themselves "why would Canada side with Russia like this?  What did we ever do to them to make them want to push back?"

It's not like Latvia is somehow out of range of Russian missiles.  It might take Latvians a few more generations to forget being occupied against their will by Russia.  You can't rush these things.

So you believe that having missiles placed within the border region between Canada and the USA would be viewed a 'pushing back' by the USA? In other words, they would view that development as aggressive?

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

So you believe that having missiles placed within the border region between Canada and the USA would be viewed a 'pushing back' by the USA? In other words, they would view that development as aggressive?

This is kind funny, because I did spend a good part of my childhood just a few miles from the biggest nuclear arsenal on earth. Drove past this every month or so. Same for the field of bombers and missile silos in Langdon, ND.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/pyramid-north-dakota

Of course the missiles weren't pointed at us, but they were designed to shoot incoming missiles which would then fall on Canada. And of course the presence of that complex probably put us in more target sights than New York.

I was just a kid at the time of course, but I don't recall anyone saying anything about it. Fact is, if it was to happen, what is an extra five minutes or so?

sherpa-finn

Actually, Rev I think Magoo was saying something a little closer to "Well, if the USA had invaded, occupied and annexed Canada for 50 years before we got our independence back, then they better not act all shocked and surprised if we then stuck a bunch of missiles along the 49th parallel". 

6079_Smith_W

And there are situations even more close for comfort than the current placements in Kaliningrad. Back in the 80s Germany had cruise missiles pointed at its own territory in the event of an invasion. It was the only country in the world that did that.

 

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:

Actually, Rev I think Magoo was saying something a little closer to "Well, if the USA had invaded, occupied and annexed Canada for 50 years before we got our independence back, then they better not act all shocked and surprised if we then stuck a bunch of missiles along the 49th parallel". 

You should probably read the history of the Baltic area. You might find some interesting things.

My orginal comment was about Cuba, which had missiles placed, and which caused the USA to threaten nuclear war. Magoo missed that part of it, as he often misses that which he doesn't want to see.

Certainly Cuba had as much right to protection as Latvia does, yes?

6079_Smith_W

Not sure how it relates though. In the first place (I think I mentioned this already) the attempt at placing missiles in Cuba was in response to missiles in Turkey. Both were eventually withdrawn as a bad idea.

As for the Baltics, who has missiles there?

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not sure how it relates though. In the first place (I think I mentioned this already) the attempt at placing missiles in Cuba was in response to missiles in Turkey. Both were eventually withdrawn as a bad idea.

As for the Baltics, who has missiles there?

In the first place, who cares why the missiles were going to be placed in Cuba? The point is the response of the USA to what they perceived as a threat. Their response was to threaten nuclear war.

Here's what NATO says about their 'missile defence':

Europe’s missile shield grows – thanks to the US Navy

Quote:
The arrival in Spain of a US guided missile destroyer marks a key stage in building up Europe’s protection against ballistic missile threats.

...The USS Donald Cook, which arrived at Rota Naval Station, Spain on 11 February, is the first of four ballistic missile defence (BMD)-capable destroyers that will be stationed at the base.

The ships are capable of tracking and shooting down ballistic missiles in flight, using their Aegis radar system and SM-3 interceptor missiles. These capabilities will make the destroyers a key component of NATO’s missile defence shield for Europe.

... “With the USS Donald Cook in Rota and three other ships arriving, we have four ships and the two systems ashore permanently stationed in Europe; that is quite an impressive capability to protect European populations,” said Robert Bell, Secretary of Defense Representative, Europe and Defense Advisor at the US Mission to NATO.  “With these ships stationed in Rota, we can project a missile defence capability much more immediately and responsively in this region,” he added.

...NATO’s missile defence system is a good example of Smart Defence, which enables NATO nations to share capabilities by pooling resources to respond better to common security challenges.

NATO’s long-term goal is to merge individual Allies’ missile defence assets into a coherent defence system, providing full protection for NATO European populations, territory and forces against ballistic missiles threats.

 

 

sherpa-finn

Rev Pesky wrote:

You should probably read the history of the Baltic area. You might find some interesting things.

Thanks for the suggestion, Rev. I got right on it.

So just back now from visiting my 94 year old mother and asking if I could borrow some of the Baltic history books from her bookshelf. (She's Finnish, btw.)

Looking through the (English language ones) quickly, I must say its not looking good for that whole "Russia needs protection from these nasty little Baltic peoples' perspective. But I am still working my way through a couple of 18th century Russian occupations ... so maybe relations will get better later on in the 19th and 20th centuries? Anyhow, I will keep you posted.

Sean in Ottawa

sherpa-finn wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

You should probably read the history of the Baltic area. You might find some interesting things.

Thanks for the suggestion, Rev. I got right on it.

So just back now from visiting my 94 year old mother and asking if I could borrow some of the Baltic history books from her bookshelf. (She's Finnish, btw.)

Looking through the (English language ones) quickly, I must say its not looking good for that whole "Russia needs protection from these nasty little Baltic peoples' perspective. But I am still working my way through a couple of 18th century Russian occupations ... so maybe relations will get better later on in the 19th and 20th centuries? Anyhow, I will keep you posted.

Well certainly if you look at the former territory of Finland you would get an idea. I am sure your mother will comment on Karelia, the Winter War and the Moscow Peace Treaty. I have had this explained to me by older generation Finns.

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

In the first place, who cares why the missiles were going to be placed in Cuba? The point is the response of the USA to what they perceived as a threat. Their response was to threaten nuclear war.

Heh? They imposed a blockade.

As for the endgame of nuclear war, everyone had that option Rev. Both sides.

Castro later said that he had asked Krushchev to use nuclear arms. The Russian ships had missiles, with the authority to use them. No button from teh Kremlin, as many assumed. And in the end it came down to one person stopping it, and stepping back from the brink. This guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

And it is important because the cause was the U.S. putting missiles too close in Turkey (which was your point, right?) and both parties in the end removing them because of how destabilizing it was.

As for what is going on now, we have already had that warning of nuclear retaliation, two years ago.:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-to-use-n...

And as of this winter the missiles are there, in Kaliningrad.

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And it is important because the cause was the U.S. putting missiles too close in Turkey (which was your point, right?) and both parties in the end removing them because of how destabilizing it was.

Please give a reputable citation for this piece of bullshit. More alternative facts from the anti-Russian posse. It was coincidentally right after the Cuban missle crisis that Israel gained nuclear capacity. 2+2=5

Quote:

Two years later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara worried that Turkish officers might try to fire some of nato’s nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union without permission—and ordered American custodians to sabotage the missiles, somehow, if anyone tried to launch them. Coded switches were subsequently placed inside nato’s hydrogen bombs. These switches, known as Permissive Action Links (pals), were designed to hinder unauthorized use of the weapons; the bombs wouldn’t detonate if the operator didn’t enter the right code. But pals could be circumvented by someone with the proper technical skills. When two nato allies, Greece and Turkey, were on the cusp of war in 1974, the United States secretly removed all of nato’s nuclear weapons from Greece and cut the arming wires of every nuclear weapon stored in Turkey, rendering them inoperable.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-h-bombs-in-turkey

6079_Smith_W

It is at the end of your posted article. The bombs are in storage with no means of delivery. And in 1974 the concern had nothing to do with Russia.

The jupiter missiles in Turkey which were part of the reason (along with Bay of Pigs) for the Cuban missile crisis were removed in 1963.

Quote:

By the time the Turkish Jupiters had been installed, the missiles were already largely obsolete and increasingly vulnerable to Soviet attacks. All Jupiter MRBMs were removed from service by April 1963, as a backdoor trade with the Soviets in exchange for their earlier removal of MRBMs from Cuba.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter#Military_deployment

One unsettling thing in that wikipedia article I did not know about is that the missiles in Italy were hit several times by lightning, which knocked them into "armed" mode. Eventually the U.S. put up lightning rods to prevent disaster.

 

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...

Heh? They imposed a blockade.

As for the endgame of nuclear war, everyone had that option Rev. Both sides.

Castro later said that he had asked Krushchev to use nuclear arms. The Russian ships had missiles, with the authority to use them. No button from teh Kremlin, as many assumed. And in the end it came down to one person stopping it, and stepping back from the brink. This guy:

...

A blockade is an act of war. Russia and Cuba  both had a perfect right to see it as such. But you've linked two separate items here, Castro asking for Russian to use nuclear weapons, and the Russian ships that were bringing arms to Cuba.

Those two events were not linked, except very generally. Here is Castor's request:

Castro asks for nuclear war

Quote:
Fidel Castro, the former Cuban leader who died Friday night at the age of 90, once requested that the leader of the Soviet Union consider launching a nuclear strike against the US in the event the country attacked Cuba.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, Castro wrote Nikita Khrushchev a letter detailing his concerns that an attack on Cuba was "imminent."

...Castro went on to explain that should the US attempt to invade and occupy Cuba, the country and the policies that would ensue would pose such a threat that the Soviet Union could not risk the possibility of a preemptive nuclear strike by the US.

He continued: 

"I tell you this because I believe that the imperialists' aggressiveness makes them extremely dangerous, and that if they manage to carry out an invasion of Cuba — a brutal act in violation of universal and moral law — then that would be the moment to eliminate this danger forever, in an act of the most legitimate self-defense. However harsh and terrible the solution, there would be no other."

This is quite different than the option of using nuclear torpedoes by the Russian ships bringing arms to Cuba. In any case, Castro did realize he was wrong, and admitted as much later in his life

Quote:
In a 2010 interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Castro appeared to concede that such an attack on the US would have been a mistake.

When asked by Goldberg whether his recommendation to Khrushchev still seemed logical to him, Castro responded, "After I've seen what I've seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn't worth it all."

The US hasn't changed their tune though, they're still saying nuclear weapons in Cuba is unacceptable:

Russia May Send Nukes To Cuba

Quote:
A well informed military-diplomatic official in Moscow told CBS News Thursday that Russian strategic bombers "could use an airfield in Cuba for refueling during flights for air patrol over the Atlantic." The source spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the topic.

Kornukov's statement was made in response to remarks earlier in the week by the nominee for U.S. Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, who said a move by Moscow to position nuclear weapons on the Caribbean Island would cross "a red line for the United States of America".

The London-based AFX news wire quoted Schwartz as saying: "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."

Which cements my point, that the USA is not willing to allow others to do what they feel they have a perfect right to do themselves.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well it's a good thing they didn't attack Cuba then, eh? It isn't called the Cuban Missile War after all, blockade or no.

In any case, I still don't see how that relates to the situation in the Baltics. Only one party has missiles in that region, and they are on their own territory.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well it's a good thing they didn't attack Cuba then, eh? It isn't called the Cuban Missile War after all, blockade or no.

In any case, I still don't see how that relates to the situation in the Baltics. Only one party has missiles in that region, and they are on their own territory.

Actually, a blockade is an attack, and considered so internationally. A blockade is, in fact, an act of war. The Soviet Union chose not to get into that war on behalf of Cuba, and Cuba was incapable of defending itself against the blockade, so it didn't get any worse.

Sean in Ottawa

It always seemed to me that Cuba was seeking to make an attack on Cuba as unthinkable as nuclear war by making it the same thing. An attack on Cuba was a historical reality not a distant or imagined threat.

As unpopular as North Korea is, it is hard not to see the same motivation unless you are trying to avoid it.

Edzell Edzell's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It always seemed to me that Cuba was seeking to make an attack on Cuba as unthinkable as nuclear war by making it the same thing.

As with the US and almost everybody else !

6079_Smith_W

Indeed. That would be a good part of the reason why NATO is putting troops in the Baltics

Sean in Ottawa

Edzell wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It always seemed to me that Cuba was seeking to make an attack on Cuba as unthinkable as nuclear war by making it the same thing.

As with the US and almost everybody else !

I agree although nuclear became an option for countries who could not stand up to the US in terms of conventional weapos. It was so unthinkable that even with a huge advantage a small country can be something you do not want to mess with. As horrible as nuclear weapons are that horror served as an equalizer when it comes to detterent. It removed the ability to think you can win.

NDPP

Here's an Anti-Imperialist postition

'It's NATO - Not Russia - That Has Deployed Tanks To Poland & Baltic States' - George Galloway

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376302-michael-fallon-speech-russia/

"The people are asking,' What's NATO for?"

Pages