- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
A U.S. Navy submarine has arrived in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in a show of force as a fleet of Russian warships gather for planned military exercises in the Caribbean.
U.S. Southern Command said the USS Helena, a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, pulled into the waters near the U.S. base in Cuba on Thursday, just a day after a Russian frigate, a nuclear-powered submarine, an oil tanker and a rescue tug crossed into Havana Bay after drills in the Atlantic Ocean.
The stop is part of a “routine port visit” as the submarine travels through Southern Command’s region, it said in a social media post.
Other U.S. ships also have been tracking and monitoring the Russian drills, which Pentagon officials say do not represent a threat to the United States.
You must log in or register to comment.
“We were following you ;)”
Holy propaganda Batman!
Just fucking sink them
Just send the The USA Caribbean Jet-ski club at them… I’ve heard Russian ships kinda don’t like jet-skis…
And that would be a good idea why?
It would be a good idea if we could do it without the Russians knowing who did it…
What the submarine or the Russian ships?
Either way that seems like an extraordinarily bad idea.
In this case I would say no as Cuba needs a security guarantee against the us as they have no nuclear weapons to prevent a successful bay of pigs invasion.
I don’t see that working out at all well for the US. I don’t think there’s a lot of sympathy for the US against Cuba internationally, and even if invading Cuba would get lots of support internally, it would kind of be like a dog catching a car. Now that you have it, what are you going to do with it.
Politically, the best thing America can do is leave them alone (at least as much as they do right now) until Cuba decides to change their stance, while restricting their access to weapons that could be a threat to America.
So…there’s not a lot of sympathy for the US against Cuba internationally? And it’s politically better for the US to maintain the status quo until Cuba comes to negotiate? And no, pushing for a UN resolution isn’t negotiating. This is a staring contest, and neither side wants to be the one to lose.
The US is attempting to bully Cuba into submission just like how Russia is trying to do to Ukraine
I’ve noticed a lot fewer bullets, armies, missiles, and artillery in Cuba compared to Ukraine. I’ll grant America is bullying Cuba, but not just like Russia is Ukraine.
The stop is part of a “routine port visit” as the submarine travels through Southern Command’s region, it said in a social media post.
“But please don’t let that stop you from being terrified,” says the news media.
Terrified of what your ignorance? Russia has been sending nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines off of the eastern and western seaboard for over 60 years. This is hardly anything new. Also, the cool thing about missiles that are intercontinental is that you can fire them for more than a continent away…
This is hardly anything new.
Yes, that was my point. I’m not sure why you thought my point was exactly the opposite.
See the new lemmy, same as the old reddit.
I think it’s pretty funny actually. This version of Helena is on her last cruise before being decommissioned. Shit is so not new we’re surfacing a boat built in 1987 to fly the flag and remind them they can go from sailor to swimmers at any second while near our coast, and if an LA class is around there’s probably a newer shark nearby.
I don’t think a dick waving contest is going to work out well for the blyats.
The Americans are the evil ones in the Cuba situation
You’re a fool to think that Cuba is anything more than a pawn for Russia. But you can ask the dead Cuban mercenaries’ families, if you’d like.
Not that I approve of American policy toward Cuba, but that has fuck all to do with this dumbass development.
You can categorize any smaller country as a pawn when they’re placed between two competing powers, but they often really don’t have much of a choice in that.
And TBF Castro wanted to push the Cuban missile crisis a hell of a lot further then then Khrushchev was willing to. So maybe more pitbull than pawn, at least for a time.
But real talk, America has horribly exploited and abused Cuba since the Spanish-American war, and let’s just say, still lightly meddled in their affairs in for nearly 50 years prior to the post war occupation.
So getting your feels up in a twist about Russia managing to sail a handful of warships to Cuba, is kinda petty. Especially since it’s even odds that the fucking engines catch fire on it’s return trip.
Americans wave to the Russians
Cuban
MissileWarship Crisis
This is theater for the Russian and American public. Neither act is actually militarily provocative at all. The US knew when the Russians left port, followed them the whole way to Cuba, and knew there was nothing significant on board. The US waited a day to reveal its nearby attack sub and described its port call as routine, no provocation.
It’s politically provocative only because Russia should stay the f out of America’s curtilage. It’s a third rate shithole country that gets respect only because it represents a culture that would have no quams about nuking a frew western cities in retaliation for hurt feelings, no quams about sending tens of millions of their kids to go die in war. They are respected the same way you respect a guy walking around in public yelling angrily to himself.
I have no knowledge at all, but this is what makes the most sense to me. I don’t have a high opinion of Russia’s strategic military decisions (and the truth is I have no idea what this is about), but I know that countries have ships that travel around, it is normal, and I just can’t imagine any country that is run by adults that would think that sending ships to Cuba in this way would be any kind of anything provocative or whatever.
But I can easily believe that the US news media would see the words “Russian ships” and freak out and start writing all kinds of stories about it. I mean, people are clickin on it. Mission accomplished.
The article was also pretty non-inflammatory in my opinion.
They (governments) don’t do it because it’s taken as threatening, but more because it’s not. It’s a very specifically not belligerent way to push back on a country. “I can wander in here right up against your borders because your zone of exclusive control isn’t as big as you claim”.
We do the same thing with China to push back on their claims that certain waterways belong to them. (Ours looks a little different since we routinely patrol shipping lanes, so a more overt ship but also more common to just see tooling around looming at would be pirates, so it’s not the same message as if a Russian missile destroyer showed up off the Florida coast. We send that message with a carrier group.). By overtly and openly using a waterway we say “LOOK AT US JUST NORMALLY USING THIS PUBLIC ROUTE LIKE A NORMAL SHIP IN PUBLIC WOULD DO WHEN THEY WEREN’T VIOLATING CHINESE TERRITORIAL WATERS”.
We would rather other nations not send military vessels near the US mainland. Russia would rather not have a bunch of stuff happen that we regularly facilitate. So they discreetly give us the finger by doing the tamest version of what we don’t want while still having a perfectly normal excuse.
I think the only big thing to note is I don’t think Russia sends ships elsewhere all that frequently. Their navy is a bit of a joke. It’s still not provocative, but it is different.
I’m assuming the us showed the sub as a signal saying “we were right there with you. Did you even detect us? You don’t stand a chance, so don’t start anything.”
I came back to this and I just wanna highlight that “stay the f out of America’s curtilage” is one of the most succinctly perfect phrasings I have seen on the internet for quite some time
Why does the US have a base in Guantanamo Bay, anyway? I thought the government of Cuba has protested it for literally half a century?
I guess it’s for the same reason why the US embargo of Cuba has seen mass condemnation in the UN General Assembly for more than 30 years without result…
Might makes right?
Why does the US have a base in Guantanamo Bay, anyway?
Because of a 1903 lease agreement with no end date which the post-revolutionary government has not gone back on so far. They protest it, but they have yet to actually say the terms have changed. And they also have a backlog of U.S. money waiting for them when they wish to renegotiate. Don’t underestimate the PR boost having a U.S. naval base on Cuban soil gives to the Cuban government the same way having North Korea and South Korea share a border is good propaganda for both countries.
Nice way to twist the story with irrelevant technicalities (that I haven’t been able to verify. Cuba is pretty clear about wanting the US base gone).
US would never give up Guantanamo Bay. Cuba has 0 negotiation advantages because they’re a small poor country whose economy is being crippled by US blokkades for decades.
… It’s a preposterously easy to find bit of information.
Us fought a war with Spain. Spain lost and got booted from the Americas, Asia and Pacific, with the US taking Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
A few years later we stipulated that Cuba’s independence was conditional on allowing a navel base to remain under US control, Cuba reluctantly agreed, and a lease was signed with no end date with the US paying rent for the land.When nations change governments, there is always a period of figuring out how treaties and debts are assumed. Usually the successor government assumes at least a portion of “fair” debt inherited from the previous government. (No, we’re not paying for the ammunition the previous government shot at us, yes we’re going to pay the interest on the loan for agricultural supplies). Same goes for treaties.
Post revolution Cuba did the usual and continued international relations as “Cuba”, and not a brand new entity. Hence their argument being that the lease treaty is and was illegitimate, not just “not recognized”, inapplicable or rejected. The US holds it’s a perfectly legitimate agreement and keeps sending payment on time. Everyone agrees there’s an agreement between the US and Cuba around the base, with the contention being about the legitimacy of the 1903 treaty, not it’s applicability.Yes, Cuba has no leverage to pressure negotiations in their favor. This was true before the embargo as well as after. No, they did not really have a viable alternative to agreeing to the lease. The best option sucking is usually not considered to make a treaty invalid.
Fair or not, the treaty is generally regarded as legitimate, which limits Cuba’s options to use the law to compel the US to leave.
With no interest in negotiation, nothing to offer, no military force, and US complacency with the status quo, the odds of both parties agreeing to end the lease is pretty low.As I said, the technicalities of why the US claims that their presence on Guantanamo Bay is rightful is irrelevant, the reason they still hold it is 100% their militarily and economically domination over Cuba (which the US keeps in place with their illegal blokkades), making it impossible for Cuba to have any negotiation power.
When the contract was made Cuba could not refuse it because the US had already occupied Cuba. A contract that is made with an army standing at your door to invade if you don’t sign it is not a legitimate contract. The US is a coloniser and Cuba is just one of the examples. Cuba got lucky though because they at least got some independence (albeit with constant interference of the US trying to spark a civil war).
Unfortunately, there are no agreements between nations that don’t involve the presence of armies. One of the byproducts of the US fighting Spain to kick them out of Cuba is that the US army is necessarily involved. The alternative was continued Spanish colonialism, not an independent Cuba.
Do you find the German or Japanese surrender treaties to be illegitimate because they were made at gunpoint?
The US could have left Cuba after the war was won, and they can even leave today. Implying that that’s not an option is crazy. Guantanamo Bay is currently used to undermine Cuban independence and enforce an illegal blockade that heavily impacts the lives of all Cuba’s citizens. Implying that that’s not a bad thing or that the US should not stop doing active harm to Cuba’s citizens in this way is pretty disgusting imo.
Starving a whole country because you don’t agree with its politics is monstrous behaviour.
I don’t think I implied that we couldn’t leave, or even that we shouldn’t. I said that Cuba’s not going to get us to leave by asserting that the agreement was never valid, because that’s just going to get the response of “yes it is”. For better or worse nations negotiate backed with weapons, and a power imbalance is inevitable.
It’s not even a matter of right or wrong, just reality. Few would argue that the Japanese constitution is illegitimate and that power should rightly devolve back to the Empire of Japan.You have some misapprehensions about the embargo of Cuba. It’s sometimes called a blockade for rhetorical effect, but it’s not actually a blockade.
It’s not “enforced” from Guantanamo bay, it’s enforced by civil penalties levied by the Treasury department on US entities and their subsidiaries, and to a limited extent by the department of state through threats of potential trade or diplomatic consequences.Cuba can and does trade with other nations, including US allies, and even the US. The harm the embargo does is via sharply limiting the availability of the lines of credit smaller nations rely on for continuing development of their infrastructure, not by literally preventing boats full of food from landing. Additional harm is done by denying them access to the largest convenient trading partner in the region for non-food, non-medical (embargo terms have excluded those items for decades) trades which further harms their economy by denying them a reliable cash influx their neighbors rely on, as well as making imports more expensive through sheer transport distance.
Justified or not, and regardless of poor negotiating position, refusal to engage in a dialogue is not helping Cuba’s position.
They have their own ideological motivations for refusing to engage. Even a tacit acknowledgement that maybe they shouldn’t have nationalized the assets of US companies without compensation would get them a lot of negotiation credit, and it costs them nothing, except for the ideological factors. The US doesn’t get much out of it, and $6 billion 1959 can be written off fairly easily for the PR win.One side doesn’t need to budge, and the other one refuses, and they both have their reasons. I believe that was the point OP was going for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuban–American_Treaty_of_Relations_(1903)
Literally first search result.
What’s wrong with you?
Just a tankie backing up another tankie there. (I checked their post history, and it checks out)
Thank you for the link it’s an enlightening read that I’m sure will get ignored.
Please define the term tankie for me and how it applies to me.
I’m a communist, you can just call it by its name.
Um are you sure? Because everything I read says they don’t want it but the US won’t leave.
This is a good example of geopolitics.
Yes, again, they protest it but also refuse to renegotiate it.
I never understood how slavery could stand for so long… But I guess now I do?
Nevermind that the embargo on Cuba limits the utility of US money.
Edit: for a similar scenario, look at the conditions for Haitian “independence” from France. France forced Haiti to pay for the lost property (read: slaves) that were freed by independence, costing the Haitian economy something like 20 billion dollars of economic contribution… For daring to free slaves. But oh no my agreements!
All Cuba has to do is go to the negotiating table. It is good for their propaganda to not do so and they don’t need Guantanamo for anything.
All Haiti has to do was send it’s slaves back to France, I really don’t see the problem.
Are you really equating the U.S. sending a yearly uncashed check and keeping a Naval base at the ass end of Cuba with people being enslaved?
You should maybe read up on Haitian independence…
So you are saying a U.S. naval base at the ass-end of Cuba is the same as human enslavement?
That’ll show’em.
and a rescue tug
Imagine having to send a tug boat everywhere with your navy. You know, just in case.
It is pretty bold of Russia to only send one tug. What it the rescue tug needs a rescue tug?
Imagine being assigned to the most reliable ship in your country’s navy
Damn American imperialists!
Russian ships get embarrassingly damaged/sunk by Ukrainian drones/cruise missiles.
“Hey, Venezuela is fantastic this time of the year!” - Russian Navy
Maduro will be welcoming them with open arms and appreciates the attention from daddy Putin. Gotta prop his own autocracy somehow.
Wait, doesn’t the US like hate Cuba and everything?
Why does it sent submarines there but not fucking furniture and cars? Is it just russia of the west?
The US sends Cuba a check to rent Guantanamo bay. Cuba doesn’t cash it.
I kinda suspect Cuba would prefer to evict the tenant but in this situation the one with the nuclear powered subs gets to set the terms.
Funny games. The US probably has spies on the Russian ships. Russia may have a spy or two on the US sub. Neither side is remotely surprised by any of the public information on this.
