Same old Cuba
Are those who would normalize U.S. relations with Cuba intelligent enough to decode the signal being sent by an agreement to reopen a Russian “signals intelligence” base there?
Cuban dictator Raul Castro and Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly struck the deal in Havana this month (though Mr. Putin later denied it). Russia supposedly gets to reopen the electronic spying post; Cuba gets off the hook for about 90 percent of its Soviet-era debt to Russia — about $32 billion, according to The New York Times.
Ironically, debt played a role in Mr. Putin's closure of the base in 2001 — because Congress linked its abandonment with restructuring of Russian foreign debt. Technological updates to the listening post in Lourdes, outside Havana and about 150 miles from Florida, could bolster its former capabilities.
At its height, says The Times, Lourdes monitored the U.S. Navy, the U.S. space program and “microwave transmissions of telephone conversations in the southeastern United States” while facilitating communications with Russian spies in America. Heading Cuba's armed forces in 1993, Mr. Castro claimed Lourdes then produced 75 percent of Russia's strategic intelligence on the U.S.
Questions abound over what's left of the old Lourdes facility and to what extent it can or will be constituted, given Russia's struggling economic situation. Thus, whether this spate of power projection is real or faux remains difficult to discern. But the signal for Castro apologists should be that the more things appear to change in Cuba, the more they stay the same.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.