TURNER SAYS 'BREAKTHROUGH' CONFIRMED SOVIET PRESENCE IN CUBA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81B00401R000300010018-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 17, 2001
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: October 6, 1979
• Content Type: NSPR

ARTICI~~pp PE d For Release ~` e~DP81 B00401 R000300010018-2
pib PA
r -ry
S a S. b, r' 'e': a'
urner kthrough
wcontirme presence
By CHARM W: CORODRY
Wa hinown Bureau of 7hesun
director of central intelligence,'' giving unit had been iii Cuba since the mid-1970's
fresh details. on the Soylet brigade is or longer.
Cuba. said yesterday' in.?"intelligence-'.!=,, Admiral Turner offered fuller explana-
breakthrough" In August gave the (Jnite4 ';,; tlon on the question of when, and whether,
States persuasive evidence that Russian`:" Russian combat troops indeed left Cuba
troops were back on the island' and In a ?:+~' after the 1982 missile crisis.
combat formation..; ."' He said the evidence is that all those in
Addressing the Association of Former' combat units departed in the 1963.1964 1
Intelligence Officers, he described ' the" period.
Soviet outfit as consisting. of three in- In his speech, President Carter said
fantry battalions, a tank battalion and the `~ . there were 20,000 Soviet military men in
normal artillery, antiaircraft' and 'anti-'?',.Cuba at the time of the 1962 crisis and
tank guns and support of such a unit. It, "most of them were also withdrawn llike
has been said' to number 2,000 to 3,000% ":;^ the 'missiles} and we monitored their
:, ..
men. ?.: .-' departure... Those remaining, he said,
Admiral Turner did not elaborate .on :. , were thought to be advising and training
the "intelligence breakthrough"' that Cubans and doing intelligence work.
finally produced what the administration ; This assessment left some questions be- I
accepted as persuasive evidence." The cause of a briefing by the then-defense
modifer "persuasive" :was applied first by? secretary, Robert S. McNamara, in Febru-
President Carter in his Monday' night.. aiy.1963.
speech. Earlier, officials had simply said At that time. Mr, McNamara said there
the combat brigade was there-its prey-? ! !; "four comW forces, roughly each
The intelligence chief said the detetr'y 5' the size of a reinforced battalion" in Cuba.
There were other technicians and advisers
tiobt process was greatly aided by repro?.y_..atated with air units and training
cessing old data stored in computers and^;Cubans to use patrol craft and coastal de-
once thought irrelevant; By 1978, he?aald,:;:
there was "strong suspicion". the Russians. tense equipments be said...
were reintroducing combat troops ' into' ?r;r` ?' Mr: McNamara put the combat person.
Cuba and after the August conclusions`` ?' nel at that time at about 5,000, which he
were reached, it was accepted that the _" said comprised a "very, very small farce,"
:formation had been there at least sinco` and said there were about 12,000 other
1978, , ? ? ? _ , Russian military men then in Cuba.
Approved For Release 2001/09/05 : CIA-RDP81 B00401 R000300010018-2
 ARTICLE AF`?F proved For ReI 2091t/QMS CIA-RDP81 B00401 R000300010018-2
PAGE / 4 OCTOBL.L~f' 2 1979
questions and Answers one
issue of Soviet Tro2psincuba
By BERNARD GWERTZMAN
Specim to ra. Now York Timm
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - The month-
long controversy over Soviet troops in
Cuba was addressed by President Carter
in a report to the nation on Monday, but
some confusion seems to persist. What
follows, in question-and-answer form, is a
summary of the current situation.
Q. How many Soviet military per-
sonnet are therein Cuba? .
A. According to American intelligence,
there are 4,000 to 5,000 Soviet military
personnel in Cuba.
Q. How long have they been at that
level?
A. Since the end of 1962,. when, as a re-
sult of the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviet
Union agreed to withdraw most of the
22,000 troops it had in Cuba.
Q. What has the recent controversy
been about, If the number of military .. .
personnel has not changed in all this
time? ,
A. The dispute has been over the role of
those Soviet soldiers. Until the past sum-
mer, American intelligence believed that
they were there either as military advis-
ers, to help train Cuban forces, or tostaff
Soviet Intelligence listening posts. But
last summer, as the result of an accumu-
lation of evidence, the intelligence people
became convinced that 2,000 to 3,000 of
the troops - a figure cited the other day
was 2,600 - had been formed into a com-
bat brigade at some unknown date.
Q. What are the components of this .
combat brigade? .: , .
A. The Carter Administration has not
been consistent about this. On Sept. 5,
Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance said it
consisted of "motorized rifle battalions,
tank and artillery battalions, and combat
and service support units." But. on Mon-
day, senior officials who did not want to
Q. What did President Carter say
about the troops in his speech on
Monday?
A. He said. "We have obtained evi-
dence that a Soviet combat brigade has
been In Cuba for several years." He noted
that, in discussions with Soviet officials
and In an exchange of messages with Leo.
nid I. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, the
United.States had received "significant"
assurances about the Soviet troops..
Q. What are those Soviet assur.
ances?
A. That the unit is a training center and
nothing more; that it will not change this
function; that Soviet personnel in Cuba
will not become a threat to the United
States or any other country.
Q. Aren't those assurances more or
less what the Soviet Union has been
saying all along?
A. Yes.
Q. What then Is "significant"
about the assurances?
A. American officials explain that the
assurances end a psychological uncer-
tainty about the ultimate size of the re-
ported brigade. Any increase in the size
or fighting ability of the unit would be a
violation of the assurances. President
Carter, interpreting the Russians' assur.
ance, said, "We understand this to mean-
that they do not intend to enlarge the unit
or to give It additional capabilities." In
addition, officials reason, the assurances
allow the Russians to disband the re-
ported brigade quietly, thus resolving the
...L..{.. ~~LI.._
Q. Did Mr. Carter or Mr. Vance as -! devious behavior. Mr. Cartel contends
tually ask theRuasians to withdrawn I,'.-that-the treaty_serves the American na-
the brigade from Cuba? .
A. The Administration has. refused to
answer that question directly. Officials
have left. the impression that, if they did
Q. Does that mean that Mr. Carter
failed In hissgoal to change the status
A.A. Such as interpretation is possible,
but the Administration-contends that in
fact the status quo has been changed in I
ways that are more acceptable to the
UnitedStates. . 1-
Q. How has the status quo changed,
In the Administration's view?
A. First, it says that the assurances on
the future role of the Soviet troops end the
uncertainty about the future size and
function of, the unit. Second, it says that
the steps announced by Mr. Carter in the
military and political field would offset
the continued presence of the troops.
President rthe eally announced by the
r y important?
A. Probably not, but they do highlight
American power in the_Caribbean. and
give a warning to the Cubans. _
Q.. Why has the brigade issue bees
linked by senators to approval of the
nuclear arms treaty? -
A. For a number of reasons. Opponents
of the treaty have used the reported be.
Iated discovery of the brigade to bolster-!
their case by raising questions about the
ability of American intelligence to check
on Soviet compliance with the treaty.
They also contend that the treatyweak-
ens the United States miiitariiyy at a time
when the Russians are expanding in
places like Cuba. Some senators, out of
conviction or political necessity, are
using the threat of treaty rejection to pull..
without regard. to the issue of Soviet
troops in Cuba.: -
Q. Would there be much contro-
versy over the Soviet troops if no
be identified said the brigade has three vigorously. Most of the diplomatic con-r I arms treaty was pending?
infantry and one tank battalion and was tacts appear to t[ave been focused on find-! ; A. Ptpbably not.
commanded by a colonel. It is supposed ing ways, short of a complete Soviet with-
to have 40' tanks and 60 armored person- drawal, to limit-,the reported combat abil-
nel carriers, and, be garrisoned in two ity of the troops.
locations.'! .= .. ? - . Q.. Didn't the 4dministration, say
Q. What has Moscow said about all that the status quo of the combat brl-
this2Y gade was unacceptable?. =' .
A. TheSoviet Union 4 as well as Cuba A. Yes. On Sept. 5, Mr. Vance said,
-- has denied that there are any Russian "Let me say very simply thaf1wlll not be
combat troops in Cuba. It says that the satisfied with maintenance of the status
level of its military personnel has not quo." Two days later, Mr. Carter was
changed since 1962 and that they are in more succinct: "This status quo Is not ac-
Cuba solely to run a "training center" for ceptable." On Sept. 25, Mr. Carter said,
Cubans. It says that the troops pose no "The status quo is not acceptable to us.".,
threat to the United States or anyone else Q. Has the status quo changed so.
and have every legal right to be there. ?i:. that the situation Is now acecept- '
Q. Which side Is right? able?
A. It is difficult to make an independent, A. The Administration was never pre-
assessment. The' Administration has not cise on exactly what . it meant by the
made public the basis for its intelligence status quo's not being acceptable.. If it
assessment, such as aerial photographs meant that the. brigade had to leave or
or intercepted- radio messages.- And the . 'that. its combat ability had to be ended,
Cubans have not allowed independent ob: then the status. quo apparently remains
servers to check on its denial. Senators- unchanged. t.
who have bees busied have not
tionedtheffradf is. -.,;App, gye efease 2001/09/05: CIA-RDP81B 00401 R000300010018-2