Report: Russia Moves Nuclear Missiles to Cuba

[pmaitra]

Report: Russia Moves Nuclear Missiles to Cuba

Cuban missile crisis part two?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, August 2, 2012

A report out of Pravda quotes President Vladimir Putin as saying that Russia has moved strategic nuclear missiles to Cuba in response to the United States' continuing efforts to encircle Russia in Eastern Europe.

The article, written by Lyuba Lulko, explains how Russia is reviving its military operations in Vietnam, Cuba and the Seychelles.

In October 2001, President Vladimir Putin announced that the Lourdes radio-electronic center on the island had been shut down as a "gift" to President George W. Bush on the basis of promises given by Bush that the U.S. missile defense system would never be deployed in Eastern Europe.

However, with the missile defense system under the auspices of NATO now reaching "interim operational capability" in Europe at the end of May, that promise has been shattered.

"The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba," the report quotes Putin as saying.

"With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," added Putin.

According to the report, Cuba, which was angered by the original decision to shut down the radio-electronic center, has agreed to allow Russia to locate the missiles on Cuban territory because of its fears over new U.S. military bases in Colombia.

Whether the quotes attributed to Putin are accurate or not remains to be seen. They appear nowhere outside of the original Pravda piece.

Once the primary mouthpiece of the Soviet Communist Party, Pravda's influence has now declined rapidly. The online version is managed by former journalists who worked for the original newspaper but other than that the two versions are separate entities.

Speculation that Russia was re-building its nuclear infrastructure in preparation for a potential future conflict came with the news that 5,000 new nuclear bomb shelters were being constructed in Moscow to be completed by the end of 2012.

Officials justified the move by saying they wanted the entire population of Moscow to be able to reach a nuclear bomb shelter within minutes. China has also built huge underground bomb shelters, outpacing the United States whose bomb shelters from the cold war era still remain as they were at the time or have been decommissioned.

The prospect of Russia moving nuclear missiles to Cuba obviously harks back to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which marked the closest moment that the world came to World War III and a potential nuclear holocaust.

Given the gravity of Putin's alleged statements, don't expect to wait too long for Russian authorities to deny the quotes featured in the Pravda report.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Source: Prison Planet.com » Report: Russia Moves Nuclear Missiles to Cuba

 

[pmaitra]

Russia to revive army bases in three oceans
01.08.2012

The Russian government intends to restore the military-technical support of their ships at the former military base in Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba) and the Seychelles. So far, this is not about plans for a military presence, but rather the restoration of the crew resources. However, a solid contractual basis should be developed for these plans.

The intentions were announced on July 27 by the Russian Navy Commander Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov. "At the international level, the creation of logistics points in Cuba, the Seychelles and Vietnam is being worked out," Chirkov was quoted by the media. The issue was specifically discussed at the meeting with the leaders of all countries. President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang has recently held talks with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow and President Putin in Sochi. Cuban leader Raul Castro met with Putin in Moscow earlier this month. A little earlier the President of the Republic of Seychelles, James Michel made an unequivocal statement.

"We will give Russia the benefits in Cam Ranh, including the development of military cooperation," the President of Vietnam told the media. Cuba that has an American military base in Guantanamo Bay and is protesting against the deployment of new U.S. bases in Colombia, of course, wants to acquire an ally in Russia to be able to contain the United States. Seychelles in the Indian Ocean has always been in the zone of Soviet influence. In 1981, the Soviet Navy helped the government to prevent the military coup and before the collapse of the USSR the Soviets had a constant presence in the area. In June of 2012, at the opening of an Orthodox church in the capital city of Victoria, James Michel spoke of Russia's role in combating piracy and supported the Russian idea to build a pier in the port of Victoria, designed for the reception of the Navy warships of Russian Federation.

Following the statement by Vice-Admiral, Russian Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry made it clear that they were talking about rest and replenishment of the crews after the campaign in the area and not military bases. It is clear, however, that Russian warships could do both without special arrangements, given the good attitudes of the leaders of these countries toward Russia. It can be assumed that the Russian Admiral unwittingly gave away far-reaching plans of the Russian leadership. That would be great, because from the time of Peter the Great, Russia had a strong fleet and army. In addition, it is worth mentioning Putin's statement at the G20 meeting in June. After the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Putin made a sudden harsh statement to the press.

"In 2001 I, as the President of the Russian Federation and the supreme commander, deemed it advantageous to withdraw the radio-electronic center Lourdes from Cuba. In exchange for this, George Bush, the then U.S. president, has assured me that this decision would become the final confirmation that the Cold War was over and both of our states, getting rid of the relics of the Cold War, will start building a new relationship based on cooperation and transparency. In particular, Bush has convinced me that the U.S. missile defense system will never be deployed in Eastern Europe.

The Russian Federation has fulfilled all terms of the agreement. And even more. I shut down not only the Cuban Lourdes but also Kamran in Vietnam. I shut them down because I gave my word of honor. I, like a man, has kept my word. What have the Americans done? The Americans are not responsible for their own words. It is no secret that in recent years, the U.S. created a buffer zone around Russia, involving in this process not only the countries of Central Europe, but also the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The only response to this could be an asymmetric expansion of the Russian military presence abroad, particularly in Cuba. In Cuba, there are convenient bays for our reconnaissance and warships, a network of the so-called "jump airfields." With the full consent of the Cuban leadership, on May 11 of this year, our country has not only resumed work in the electronic center of Lourdes, but also placed the latest mobile strategic nuclear missiles "Oak" on the island. They did not want to do it the amicable way, now let them deal with this," Putin said.

It is obvious that Russia will not stop simply at "resting" their sailors in the area. Now back to the statement of Chirkov. Americans have not officially resented it. For example, the Pentagon spokesman George Little said that Russia had the right to enter into military agreements and relationships with other countries, as does the United States, according to France Press Agency. The reason is simple: American analysts believe that Russia now cannot afford to create its own military bases.

The Americans talk about Russia's lack of influence, money and the actual fleet. Western media quoted an "independent expert on the defense" in Moscow Paul Fengelgauer. He said that Russia does not have the necessary naval resources to provide constant presence outside its territorial waters, as it has only 30 major warships that serve five fleets. Therefore, the possibility of placing an additional station does not mean the expansion of sea power in Russia. This is largely an objective assessment. But since the crisis in the West in 2008, Russia began to recover part of its navy. The loss was not that great - about a quarter of the Soviet reserve. Another thing is that we should talk about the modernization of the fleet. There is much to maintain. On Thursday, Chirkov said that this year Russia's naval forces can be replenished with another 10-15 warships, including destroyers and nuclear submarines.

As for the influence, judging by the words of the Russian President, Russia is also actively growing in this regard, although work in this direction has only begun. As we can see, Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans are involved. This is due not only to geopolitical reasons, but the growing economic presence of Russia in the regions. For example, "Gazprom" is actively working on offshore Vietnam. In the Caribbean, it also participates in the construction of Meso-American pipeline and field development in Venezuela. An ammunition plant is under construction in Cuba.

However, one should start with a solid contractual basis. Take, for example, agreements on mutual defense that the U.S. has with the Philippines, Japan, Colombia, and Mexico. In the presence of such agreements military bases cannot be challenged as a military expansion. Russia has room to grow - of the 16 operating in the Soviet era military bases today there is only one left - Tartus in Syria, or two, if we consider the base in Sevastopol.

Lyuba Lulko

Pravda.Ru

Source: Russia to revive army bases in three oceans - English pravda.ru

 

[pmaitra]

Why Is Russia Building 5000 More Nuclear Bomb Shelters In Moscow By The End Of 2012?

The American Dream
Nov 11, 2010

Russia certainly seems to be in a hurry to prepare for something. RT is reporting that 5,000 new nuclear bomb shelters will be constructed in the city of Moscow by the end of 2012. Russian authorities believe that these new shelters are urgently needed because the current nuclear bomb shelters will only hold approximately half the population and are quite outdated. In addition, there are apparently very few nuclear bomb shelters for those living outside the city center at this point. Officials want virtually the entire population of Moscow to be able to reach a bomb shelter within a matter of minutes. But in this era when the "Cold War" is supposed to be over, why are 5000 nuclear bomb shelters such an urgent necessity?

The following is an RT video news report about these new shelters"¦.


But it isn't just Russia that has been busy building bomb shelters.

A few years ago, Shanghai's Civil Defense Office announced the completion of an absolutely massive underground shelter. It was reported that the shelter covers an area of over 90,000 square meters and could accommodate up to 200,000 people at a time.

But that giant shelter is not even as big as the "Underground Great Wall" that was built during that 1960s and 1970s. It is estimated that the "Underground Great Wall" contains 19 miles of tunnels and shelters and could hold up to 300,000 people. It reportedly has a munitions warehouse, a hospital, a theater and even a library.
So what about the U.S. government? Are they building any bomb shelters for us?

No.

Basically, Americans are sitting ducks. Whether it is a rogue nation launching a nuke or a full-out nuclear war, Americans literally have nowhere to go. In the event of a nuclear attack, most of us would be lucky to have enough time to duck and cover and say our prayers.

The sad truth is that the U.S. government considers the threat of nuclear war to be a thing of the past.

For decades, an overwhelming nuclear arsenal has been our primary protection against nuclear attack, but thanks to the last several presidents our strategic nuclear arsenal has been mostly dismantled.

Today, the United States has only 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, which represents an 84 percent decline since a peak of approximately 31,255 in 1967.

But that isn't far enough for Barack Obama. Currently, Obama is working on a treaty under which the United States and Russia would only be allowed a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads.

So with nuclear weapons rapidly spreading throughout the world, and with the U.S. only having a small fraction of the nukes that it used to have, doesn't that make a nuclear strike against the United States more likely?

Of course, but because the mainstream media tells Americans that we don't have to worry about nuclear war anymore most of them don't even think about it.

But Russia is obviously taking a different approach. Building 5000 bomb shelters in one city alone is a massive undertaking. Obviously they feel like building all of these shelters is important for one reason or another.

So are they just being paranoid or are they several moves ahead of us?

Source: Prison Planet.com � Why Is Russia Building 5000 More Nuclear Bomb Shelters In Moscow By The End Of 2012?

 

[Yusuf]

Putin is deluded.

 

[Razor]

Why Is Russia Building 5000 More Nuclear Bomb Shelters In Moscow By The End Of 2012?

The American Dream
Nov 11, 2010

Russia certainly seems to be in a hurry to prepare for something. RT is reporting that 5,000 new nuclear bomb shelters will be constructed in the city of Moscow by the end of 2012. Russian authorities believe that these new shelters are urgently needed because the current nuclear bomb shelters will only hold approximately half the population and are quite outdated. In addition, there are apparently very few nuclear bomb shelters for those living outside the city center at this point. Officials want virtually the entire population of Moscow to be able to reach a bomb shelter within a matter of minutes. But in this era when the "Cold War" is supposed to be over, why are 5000 nuclear bomb shelters such an urgent necessity?

The following is an RT video news report about these new shelters"¦.


But it isn't just Russia that has been busy building bomb shelters.

A few years ago, Shanghai's Civil Defense Office announced the completion of an absolutely massive underground shelter. It was reported that the shelter covers an area of over 90,000 square meters and could accommodate up to 200,000 people at a time.

But that giant shelter is not even as big as the "Underground Great Wall" that was built during that 1960s and 1970s. It is estimated that the "Underground Great Wall" contains 19 miles of tunnels and shelters and could hold up to 300,000 people. It reportedly has a munitions warehouse, a hospital, a theater and even a library.
So what about the U.S. government? Are they building any bomb shelters for us?

No.

Basically, Americans are sitting ducks. Whether it is a rogue nation launching a nuke or a full-out nuclear war, Americans literally have nowhere to go. In the event of a nuclear attack, most of us would be lucky to have enough time to duck and cover and say our prayers.

The sad truth is that the U.S. government considers the threat of nuclear war to be a thing of the past.

For decades, an overwhelming nuclear arsenal has been our primary protection against nuclear attack, but thanks to the last several presidents our strategic nuclear arsenal has been mostly dismantled.

Today, the United States has only 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, which represents an 84 percent decline since a peak of approximately 31,255 in 1967.

But that isn't far enough for Barack Obama. Currently, Obama is working on a treaty under which the United States and Russia would only be allowed a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads.

So with nuclear weapons rapidly spreading throughout the world, and with the U.S. only having a small fraction of the nukes that it used to have, doesn't that make a nuclear strike against the United States more likely?

Of course, but because the mainstream media tells Americans that we don't have to worry about nuclear war anymore most of them don't even think about it.

But Russia is obviously taking a different approach. Building 5000 bomb shelters in one city alone is a massive undertaking. Obviously they feel like building all of these shelters is important for one reason or another.

So are they just being paranoid or are they several moves ahead of us?

Source: Prison Planet.com � Why Is Russia Building 5000 More Nuclear Bomb Shelters In Moscow By The End Of 2012?

shelter covers an area of over 90,000 square meters and could accommodate up to 200,000 people

Are you sure ? That's like 0.45 sq. m. per person. Do they have to stand through the entire nuke holocaust ?
[HR][/HR]

In the event of a nuclear attack, most of us would be lucky to have enough time to duck and cover and say our prayers.

The sad truth is that the U.S. government considers the threat of nuclear war to be a thing of the past.

For decades, an overwhelming nuclear arsenal has been our primary protection against nuclear attack, but thanks to the last several presidents our strategic nuclear arsenal has been mostly dismantled.

Currently, Obama is working on a treaty under which the United States and Russia would only be allowed a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads.

So with nuclear weapons rapidly spreading throughout the world, and with the U.S. only having a small fraction of the nukes that it used to have, doesn't that make a nuclear strike against the United States more likely?

Statements like these intended for scaremongering and alluding to past 'glory' of the US nuke arsenal and present supposedly pathetic state of the arsenal and supposed US inactivity etc and add to that, mention of Obama, leads me to question the credibility and more importantly the intent of the author(s).

 

[asianobserve]

Putin is deluded.

 

[tony4562]

It's not Putin who is deluded. It's the folks here who are deluded. Everyone here seems to wish the forming of a grand anti-china alliance, but apparently the real world out there has different concerns.

India is sitting at a crossroads. They need soon to make choice about whom they gonna side with, and it will be garanteed a painful decision.

 

[asianobserve]

It's not Putin who is deluded. It's the folks here who are deluded. Everyone here seems to wish the forming of a grand anti-china alliance, but apparently the real world out there has different concerns.

India is sitting at a crossroads. They need soon to make choice about whom they gonna side with, and it will be garanteed a painful decision.

You are the one deluded! Only you and your kind believe that China does not deserve the widespread animosities against it. Of all regions Asia should be were China should be most comfortable and most welcome (by its neighbors)... But who is actually welcoming China in Asia?

Anyway, you're defensive blurt is OT.

 

[tony4562]

You are the one deluded! Only you and your kind believe that China does not deserve the widespread animosities against it. Of all regions Asia should be were China should be most comfortable and most welcome (by its neighbors)... But who is actually welcoming China in Asia?

Anyway, you're defensive blurt is OT.

I can understand you and your fellow kind's rage, but most people living outside India can't. Yesterday as I walked by this grand department store in a certain european metropolis, I could see chinese flag flying on top of it along with japanese and american ones, but the indian flag was no where in sight. And couple days ago as I read the manual for my new Osprey trekking backpack, i saw all the east asian languages, chinese, korean and japanese were included, along with (of course) english, french and german, but no Hindi or Bengali. Apparently the world is viewed very different by people who are not hindu nationalists.

 

[Tolaha]

I can understand you and your fellow kind's rage, but most people living outside India can't. Yesterday as I walked by this grand department store in a certain european metropolis, I could see chinese flag flying on top of it along with japanese and american ones, but the indian flag was no where in sight. And couple days ago as I read the manual for my new Osprey trekking backpack, i saw all the east asian languages, chinese, korean and japanese were included, along with (of course) english, french and german, but no Hindi or Bengali. Apparently the world is viewed very different by people who are not hindu nationalists.

Yeah... asianobserve is a Hindu nationalist!

What's with the Chinese and their inability to identify flags? Seems to be a recurring phenomenon!

 

[tony4562]

Yeah... asianobserve is a Hindu nationalist!

What's with the Chinese and their inability to identify flags? Seems to be a recurring phenomenon!

yeah right, just because a person spots a malaysian flag, so I must believe that he is malaysian! But I do acknowledge that Malaysia has a sizeable but underprivileged indian population. Then again all this matters little too me.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Malaysia has a sizeable but underprivileged indian population. Then again all this matters little too me.

I see where are you heading with this..

Don't derail, See the thread heading..

 

[Bangalorean]

I can understand you and your fellow kind's rage, but most people living outside India can't. Yesterday as I walked by this grand department store in a certain european metropolis, I could see chinese flag flying on top of it along with japanese and american ones, but the indian flag was no where in sight. And couple days ago as I read the manual for my new Osprey trekking backpack, i saw all the east asian languages, chinese, korean and japanese were included, along with (of course) english, french and german, but no Hindi or Bengali. Apparently the world is viewed very different by people who are not hindu nationalists.

Indians use English even for their domestically produced stuff. Your language nonsense doesn't prove anything.

And asianobserve is a Malayasian. "Hindu nationalists", my arse!

 

[Tolaha]

yeah right, just because a person spots a malaysian flag, so I must believe that he is malaysian! But I do acknowledge that Malaysia has a sizeable but underprivileged indian population. Then again all this matters little too me.

Stop assuming that everyone is a fraud like you are!

And if all this does not matter to you, then why bother spilling your filthy thoughts out in the first place!

 

[Virendra]

Are you sure ? That's like 0.45 sq. m. per person. Do they have to stand through the entire nuke holocaust ?

No. They'll hang
But these Russian and Chinese steps sound weird, scary.
By the way even if the US nukes get to around 1500 figure, it is still a huge number to destroy multiple enemies completely many times over.
Only a suicidal government could think of nuking major powers like US.

 

[tony4562]

OK back to the topic, what's your guys take on this development which shows that Russia still identifies the US as a (the) primary threat.

Happy or not happy?

 

[Virendra]

Not Happy. It doesn't bear good signs for peace and stability in the larger picture.
Big powers blowing hot air on each others face is not a good scenario for any one else on the planet either. Unless there's some country identical to scavangers

Regards,
Virendra

 

[tony4562]

Not Happy. It doesn't bear good signs for peace and stability in the larger picture.
Big powers blowing hot air on each others face is not a good scenario for any one else on the planet either. Unless there's some country identical to scavangers

Regards,
Virendra

Me too. I am all for complete abolishment of nuclear arms of all countries.

 

[Oracle]

OK back to the topic, what's your guys take on this development which shows that Russia still identifies the US as a (the) primary threat.

Happy or not happy?

When it comes to a great big war like say for e.g. WWIII, Russia and US would be together to target rouge countries like China, NKorea, Pakistan and the likes. Just take WWII as a learning tool. As I see it, India is close to Russia and having strong relations with US. Where is China headed? An axis with failed states?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Gentlemen, please consider the source of the original article. I am surprised that a person normally as responsible as pmaitra would post such a thing without a caveat of some sort.