Russia-Ukraine War More Dangerous Than the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?
Yes, it most certainly is.
The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was an extremely dangerous nuclear faceoff between the former Soviet Union and the United States. Those of us old enough to remember that high-tension, high-sea confrontation can recall the dread we felt as the world waited to see who would back off first. It could have easily turned into a deadly exchange of nuclear weapons, although the United States seriously outgunned the Soviet Union.
War was indeed possible but not likely. In 1962 the United States' nuclear arsenal was six times greater than that of the Soviet Union. The United States had over two hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching any target within the Soviet Union, compared to the Soviet Union's 36 ICBMs with warheads of considerably less destructive power.
The circumstances that produced that crisis sixty-one years ago and the circumstances driving the current crisis in Ukraine are remarkably different, making the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine far more dangerous.
First, to be clear, Ukraine's independence was recognized nearly thirty years ago when the Russian Federation, the United States, and Great Britain signed the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The memorandum not only established the sovereignty of Ukraine's borders but expressly prohibited either the threat or the actual use of force, explicitly precluding the use of nuclear arms by any of the signatories. The prohibition against using nuclear arms is particularly significant because, in return for that assurance, Ukraine shipped all of its nuclear warheads to Russia for decommissioning.
Similarly, the differences between Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and (today's) Russian Federation President, Vladimir Putin, are important to understand. Khrushchev was, for many years, a loyal apparatchik who rose through the ranks into the privileged ruling nomenklatura. As the First Secretary of the Communist Party and Chairman of the Russian Council of Ministers, he really wasn't a dictator who answered to no one. He was, of course, at the top of the Kremlin leadership, but that leadership plotted against him and, in a 1964 coup, replaced him with Leonid Brezhnev.
Volumes have been written about Khrushchev's fall from power and what precipitated his fall. The Cuban missile contretemps was, no doubt, a factor, but certainly not the only or primary factor. Significantly, there were those in positions of power who could effectively plot against him. There is no one in today's Russia to throw Vladimir Putin out of office; no one who would live to tell about it anyway.
Khrushchev was born late in the 19th century, a decade-and-a-half after Joseph Stalin. He worked closely with Stalin and rose in the communist party's hierarchy. Still, after ascending to leadership, he dared to become a vocal critic of his notorious predecessor, even denouncing him before the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party. Conversely, as the late Mikhail Gorbachev warned a dozen years ago, Vladimir Putin is ruthless and quite reminiscent of Stalin.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was somewhat of a tit-for-tat escalation in tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. The year before the Cuban missile crisis, the United States had placed Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Turkey at the Soviet Union's doorstep. The Jupiter missiles were incapable of pinpoint accuracy, and it took several hours to prepare the liquid-fueled missiles for launch. Therefore, they were primarily considered first-strike nuclear weapons and were a huge thorn in Khrushchev's side.
Furthermore, the United States had flown approximately 30 high-altitude U2 spy planes over Russia for four years before the Cuban missile crisis until one was finally shot down in 1960. Our aggressiveness was, to Khrushchev, ample justification for attempting to checkmate us with Soviet missiles on our doorstep in Cuba.
The attendant drama and worldwide observation of our successful high-seas blockade of Cuba, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk's ill-advised comment that Russia "blinked" in the face of America's blockade had certainly tarnished Khrushchev's standing among the Russian inner circle by the time they ousted him two years later.
There is no functioning Presidium in Russia now. Putin is Russia, at least for the time being. For Putin, everything has gone wrong. He has shown himself to be an inept war planner and startlingly unaware of how inept his army is. He is today welcome almost nowhere. A warrant for his arrest for war crimes has been issued by the International Criminal Court, turning his "special military operation" into a nightmare that will follow him for the rest of his life.
The swift victory he presumed when he ordered Russian forces into Ukraine has become a humiliation in a country where humiliated leaders do not fare well.
Thus far, in prosecuting his war against Ukraine, he has drafted conscripts mainly from the far eastern reaches of Russia and recruited criminals from the nation's prisons to keep the people close to major population centers such as Moscow and St. Petersburg unaware of how badly Putin's "special military operation" against Ukraine is going.
Leaked U.S. intelligence reports estimate that nearly 50,000 Russian troops have been killed, and another 150,000 to 180,000 have been wounded. It seems a safe bet that Russia has been taking between 10,000 and 15,000 casualties a month since beginning its Ukrainian misadventure. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was one casualty. Major Rudolf Anderson, an American Air Force U-2 reconnaissance pilot, was shot down over Cuba.
The World Bank estimates it will cost close to a half-trillion dollars to rebuild Ukraine, assuming the war ends shortly, which does not seem likely. The bill for rebuilding Ukraine will, presumably, be sent to Russia. Everyone who expects Russia to pay that bill, raise your hand.
Meanwhile, NATO has finally gotten religion, and its members are substantially increasing their military budgets. Worse yet, from Russia's point of view, the treaty organization has now welcomed Finland into its ranks, and soon Sweden will follow—literally inconceivable before Putin's special military operation.
So, Putin's great misadventure has become one of the greatest military disasters in Russian history. And therein lies the danger. Putin can (1) either call it quits and retreat, (2) he can try to hold onto the Ukrainian territory he currently occupies and try to negotiate an end to the war, or (3) he can try to introduce "a game changer" into the conflict. He can begin using so-called low-yield tactical nuclear weapons as he has threatened to do.
Here's the rub. (1) If Putin calls it quits and retreats, he's done. His image as a master chess player on the world stage becomes laughable. (2) If he tries to negotiate an end to the war, the Ukrainians will be keenly aware of the worthlessness of their last negotiation with Russia that produced the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, and finally (3) if he introduces nuclear weapons of any kind into the conflict, all bets are immediately off regarding restrictions against attacking Russian territory.
President Biden has rallied America and our European allies to provide the means to enable Ukraine to defend itself. History will treat him well for that. Seventy percent of Americans either support the country’s assistance to Ukraine (48%) or are neutral (22%), while 29%, mostly Republicans, voice opposition. According to Pew Research, most of the opposition is consistent with the growing share of Republicans who say the U.S. is providing too much support to Ukraine. Today, 40% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents hold this view, up from 32% last fall and much higher than the mere 9% of Republicans who held this view a year ago. Why? Largely because former President Trump and his most avid supporters are loath to see President Biden get credit for anything, especially for supporting Ukraine after Trump could not bring himself to offer a word of support for providing the means to stand with the Ukrainian defenders of their homeland. When the former President claims the war would have never happened on his watch, he is really saying he wouldn’t have given Ukraine a dime once Russia invaded. I have little doubt but that he would have stood with the America Firsters 84 years ago as they fought against American aid to Britain in its darkest hour against the Nazis.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was dangerous, but it doesn't hold a candle to the danger Putin has visited upon the world. Vladimir Putin is a desperate man. He has demonstrated the greatest miscalculation since Hitler attacked Poland and Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojoidiki Tojo ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor. Desperate people are prone to do desperate things.
Buckle up.
Please consider our Of Thee I Sing 1776 Premium option. While my weekly column is always free, for just $5/month you’ll also receive my annual ebook, “Essays For Our Time,” as well as my new Podcasts. My recent podcasts have featured my commentary on the Fox Corp Settlement, The CNN Trump Town Hall, and my interviews with:
John Thoresen, Executive Director, Barbara Sinatra Children’s Center
William Bratton, Retired Chief of Police, New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston
Rikki Klieman, Attorney, Network News Analyst, and best-selling author
Katherine Gehl, co-author of The Politics Industry and founder of the Institute for Political Innovation
Jazz artist Ann Hampton Callaway
Outlander author Diana Gabaldon
AI Data Scientist Lawrence Kite
Ryan Clancy, Chief Strategist of No Labels
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Joe Lieberman
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan
Join me in dissecting the day’s top news and other topics with a premium subscription to Of Thee I Sing 1776. And you will automatically receive the 2022 Edition of my ebook, “Essays for Our Time.” and my regularly scheduled Podcasts. Just copy, paste and click on this link to become a Premium subscriber: https://oftheeising1776.substack.com/subscribe.
All comments regarding these essays, whether they express agreement, disagreement, or an alternate view, are appreciated and welcome. Comments that do not pertain to the subject of the essay or which are ad hominem references to other commenters are not acceptable and will be deleted.
Invite friends, family, and colleagues to receive “Of Thee I Sing 1776” online commentaries. Simply copy, paste, and email them this link— www.oftheeising1776.substack.com/subscribe –and they can begin receiving these weekly essays every Sunday morning.
I think this is the most well thought out explanation of the current situation. This article should be in the Nytimes and wsj. It’s such an insightful explanation of history and the present day. Thank you ( again) Hal
I don't believe the average Americans think we were close to war during the Cuban Missile crises.
I was briefly friends with the US 1st Lt naval officer who actually boarded one of the Russian boats leading the group of vessels attempting to breach the American Blockade. He instructed the Captain to withdraw his ships... The captain refused.... Through his walkie talkie he asked the captain of his ship to train his ship's guns directly at the lead vessel. He then withdrew.... The captain order the ships guns, which were not manned, (that means no American sailers were at battle stations). to face the oncoming flotilla. The Russian boats had were all at full stop... When he returned to his ship after what he tells me was bluff the Russian ships slowly withdrew and did not re approach.. I share this harrowing tale only to show how fraught with danger these confrontations can be....What if the Russians continued through the blockade or even fired a warning. shot... As you pointed out Khrushchev was a far different leader than Putin