Cuban Missile "Crisis" Replay

[jwoodie]

The current US involvement in Ukraine is being played out exactly like JFK's Cuban Missile "Crisis" in 1962. For those who don't remember, Russia (aka USSR) wanted US missiles removed from Turkey, so it started sending missiles to Cuba. Premier Krushchev correctly sized up JFK as a lightweight President who would fold under pressure, so he made him agree to a secret deal to remove the missiles from Turkey. In return, JFK got to pretend he was a tough guy by getting the Russians to remove their missiles from Cuba.

In the current situation, Russia has invaded Ukraine in order to prevent it from joining NATO. Like JFK, President Biden is getting to pretend he is a tough guy before he makes a secret deal with Putin to never allow Ukraine into NATO (and other concessions). In both cases, US Presidents will have traded their country's long-term strategic interests for their own political gains.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Ukraine would never have to join NATO if it wasn't for their annexation-happy neighbor to the East.

 

[Ace Nova]

Interesting perspective. Here's another one:

After carefully considering the alternatives of an immediate U.S. invasion of Cuba (or air strikes of the missile sites), a blockade of the island, or further diplomatic maneuvers, U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy decided to place a naval “quarantine,” or blockade, on Cuba to prevent further Soviet shipments of missiles. Kennedy announced the quarantine on October 22 and warned that U.S. forces would seize “offensive weapons and associated matériel” that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba. During the following days, Soviet ships bound for Cuba altered course away from the quarantined zone. As the two superpowers hovered close to the brink of nuclear war, messages were exchanged between Kennedy and Khrushchev amidst extreme tension on both sides. On October 28 Khrushchev capitulated, informing Kennedy that work on the missile sites would be halted and that the missiles already in Cuba would be returned to the Soviet Union. In return, Kennedy committed the United States to never invading Cuba. Kennedy also secretly promised to withdraw the nuclear-armed missiles that the United States had stationed in Turkey in previous years. In the following weeks both superpowers began fulfilling their promises, and the crisis was over by late November. Cuba’s communist leader, Fidel Castro, was infuriated by the Soviets’ retreat in the face of the U.S. ultimatum but was powerless to act.

The Cuban missile crisis marked the climax of an acutely antagonistic period in U.S.-Soviet relations. The crisis also marked the closest point that the world had ever come to global nuclear war. It is generally believed that the Soviets’ humiliation in Cuba played an important part in Khrushchev’s fall from power in October 1964 and in the Soviet Union’s determination to achieve, at the least, a nuclear parity with the United States.

Cuban missile crisis | History, Facts, & Significance

Cuban missile crisis, major confrontation at the height of the Cold War that brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of a shooting war in October 1962 over the presence of Soviet nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba. The crisis was a defining moment in the presidency of John F...

www.britannica.com

To think that JFK prevented the USSR from placing nuclear ballistic missiles 90 miles from the United States, solely for political reasons, is nonsense. Situations like the Cuban Missile Crisis are every president's worst nightmare. High risk situation with very little to gain - especially if things do not go your way.

As far as the War in Ukraine - Biden has little or nothing to gain from it. If some sort of treaty is reached to end the war, it will be credited to Ukraine and likely Zelensky. Not much to gain politically for Biden, tbh.

 

[Concerned American]

The current US involvement in Ukraine is being played out exactly like JFK's Cuban Missile "Crisis" in 1962. For those who don't remember, Russia (aka USSR) wanted US missiles removed from Turkey, so it started sending missiles to Cuba. Premier Krushchev correctly sized up JFK as a lightweight President who would fold under pressure, so he made him agree to a secret deal to remove the missiles from Turkey. In return, JFK got to pretend he was a tough guy by getting the Russians to remove their missiles from Cuba.

In the current situation, Russia has invaded Ukraine in order to prevent it from joining NATO. Like JFK, President Biden is getting to pretend he is a tough guy before he makes a secret deal with Putin to never allow Ukraine into NATO (and other concessions). In both cases, US Presidents will have traded their country's long-term strategic interests for their own political gains.

This is true, but the US currently has nukes at Incirclik air base in Turkey so it is moot.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Interesting perspective. Here's another one:

After carefully considering the alternatives of an immediate U.S. invasion of Cuba (or air strikes of the missile sites), a blockade of the island, or further diplomatic maneuvers, U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy decided to place a naval “quarantine,” or blockade, on Cuba to prevent further Soviet shipments of missiles. Kennedy announced the quarantine on October 22 and warned that U.S. forces would seize “offensive weapons and associated matériel” that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba. During the following days, Soviet ships bound for Cuba altered course away from the quarantined zone. As the two superpowers hovered close to the brink of nuclear war, messages were exchanged between Kennedy and Khrushchev amidst extreme tension on both sides. On October 28 Khrushchev capitulated, informing Kennedy that work on the missile sites would be halted and that the missiles already in Cuba would be returned to the Soviet Union. In return, Kennedy committed the United States to never invading Cuba. Kennedy also secretly promised to withdraw the nuclear-armed missiles that the United States had stationed in Turkey in previous years. In the following weeks both superpowers began fulfilling their promises, and the crisis was over by late November. Cuba’s communist leader, Fidel Castro, was infuriated by the Soviets’ retreat in the face of the U.S. ultimatum but was powerless to act.

The Cuban missile crisis marked the climax of an acutely antagonistic period in U.S.-Soviet relations. The crisis also marked the closest point that the world had ever come to global nuclear war. It is generally believed that the Soviets’ humiliation in Cuba played an important part in Khrushchev’s fall from power in October 1964 and in the Soviet Union’s determination to achieve, at the least, a nuclear parity with the United States.

Cuban missile crisis | History, Facts, & Significance

Cuban missile crisis, major confrontation at the height of the Cold War that brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of a shooting war in October 1962 over the presence of Soviet nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba. The crisis was a defining moment in the presidency of John F...

www.britannica.com

To think that JFK prevented the USSR from placing nuclear ballistic missiles 90 miles from the United States, solely for political reasons, is nonsense. Situations like the Cuban Missile Crisis are every president's worst nightmare. High risk situation with very little to gain - especially if things do not go your way.

As far as the War in Ukraine - Biden has little or nothing to gain from it. If some sort of treaty is reached to end the war, it will be credited to Ukraine and likely Zelensky. Not much to gain politically for Biden, tbh.

The real victory for Russia was the promise that there wouldn't be another Bay of Pigs, that is what Russia really feared. Cuba is in their orbit of influence and so close to America it allows Russia the means to spy and recruit from close proximity. In the end, avoiding a nuclear war is a pretty good outcome.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The current US involvement in Ukraine is being played out exactly like JFK's Cuban Missile "Crisis" in 1962. For those who don't remember, Russia (aka USSR) wanted US missiles removed from Turkey, so it started sending missiles to Cuba. Premier Krushchev correctly sized up JFK as a lightweight President who would fold under pressure, so he made him agree to a secret deal to remove the missiles from Turkey. In return, JFK got to pretend he was a tough guy by getting the Russians to remove their missiles from Cuba.

In the current situation, Russia has invaded Ukraine in order to prevent it from joining NATO. Like JFK, President Biden is getting to pretend he is a tough guy before he makes a secret deal with Putin to never allow Ukraine into NATO (and other concessions). In both cases, US Presidents will have traded their country's long-term strategic interests for their own political gains.

Ukraine was trying to join the EU, not NATO. Germany and France had made it clear they would not allow Ukraine to join NATO for fear of offending Putin. There were no Russian security issues involved in the decision to invade Ukraine.

Putin has told us over and over again that he refuses to accept Russia's internationally recognized borders and intends to recover the parts of the Russian empire Russia controlled in the past. In the Cuban missile crisis, Russia was installing nuclear capable missiles in Cuba which could be used against the US, but in Ukraine, the US has been careful not to send weapons to Ukraine that could be easily used to attack Russia. The only similarity between the two cases is that they both involved the US and Russia.

 

[Litwin]

Russia (aka USSR)

 

[Ringo]

After getting humiliated by the Taliban, the U.S. thought it would be a great idea to take on Russia and China at the same time...
Every country the U.S. 'Helps' seems to end up looking like this. Taiwan, take a good look. They want to help you next

 

[jwoodie]

The only similarity between the two cases is that they both involved the US and Russia.

Perhaps I used too many big words? The POINT of the OP was to compare POLITICAL responses, not military ones. In both cases, weak and politically vulnerable US Presidents responded to Russian provocation with false bravado for domestic consumption while giving the Russians everything they wanted. (Please don't give me any of that PT 109/Camelot crap.)

 

[toomuchtime_]

Perhaps I used too many big words? The POINT of the OP was to compare POLITICAL responses, not military ones. In both cases, weak and politically vulnerable US Presidents responded to Russian provocation with false bravado for domestic consumption while giving the Russians everything they wanted. (Please don't give me any of that PT 109/Camelot crap.)

A ridiculous point. The Cuban missile crisis ended Khrushchev's political career and made Kennedy a hero, so at least in terms of politics, it was a US win. There are still 50 NATO nuclear missiles in Turkey and there is no evidence of Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Surprisingly, Biden is a tough guy on this issue, even if he is a pussy on Iran. He has increased the strength and cohesiveness of NATO, ended the constant French and German griping about forming an all European defense force without the US and put the Russian economy on life support; see

Russiaâs budget deficit may reach $24.61 bln in January

"According to preliminary estimates, the volume of federal budget revenues in January 2023 amounted to 1.356 trillion rubles, which is 35% lower than the volume of revenues in January 2022," the Ministry of Finance says

tass.com

There is no rational basis for believing the US has made any secret deal with Russia about Ukraine joining NATO.

 

[Concerned American]

He has increased the strength and cohesiveness of NATO, ended the constant French and German griping about forming an all European defense force without the US

How is this a bad thing^^. The Europeans have had over 75 years of being under the US wing. It is time for them to provide for their own defense. The US taxpayer should not be their cash cow but sadly that is the case.

 

[toomuchtime_]

How is this a bad thing^^. The Europeans have had over 75 years of being under the US wing. It is time for them to provide for their own defense. The US taxpayer should not be their cash cow but sadly that is the case.

It is a bad thing because without US leadership Europe would not be able to halt Russian western expansion. If the US had remained involved in world affairs after WWI, it is unlikely there would have been a WWII, and if the US had not joined with the western allies in WWII, it is likely Germany and Japan would have won and without US involvement in NATO, it is likely the USSR would be in control of Europe.

Just as the US dollar and US national debt help stabilize the global economy, US involvement in international political and security matters help preserve order and prevent large scale wars. The cost of doing this is a relatively small item in the massive US budget, but its impact is enormous and beneficial to nearly the whole world.

 

[Concerned American]

US involvement in international political and security matters help preserve order and prevent large scale wars.

This is not the world of the early or mid 20th century. Europe is not some backward underfunded third world area. Europe and the European Union are more than capable of defending themselves against Russian aggression. The bullshit domino theory has run its course and it is NOT the US role or responsibility to be the world's police. Like I've expressed to others who feel that "the American Way" should be forced on the rest of the world, if it is so important to you, grab your weapons and haul your butt over to Ukraine and make your commitment evident.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This is not the world of the early or mid 20th century. Europe is not some backward underfunded third world area. Europe and the European Union are more than capable of defending themselves against Russian aggression. The bullshit domino theory has run its course and it is NOT the US role or responsibility to be the world's police. Like I've expressed to others who feel that "the American Way" should be forced on the rest of the world, if it is so important to you, grab your weapons and haul your butt over to Ukraine and make your commitment evident.

You seem to be trying to make two points: first that Europe is fully capable of preventing Russian expansion into Europe and second, even if it is not, it serves no US national interest for the US to offer help.

As to your first point, that Europe is capable of defending itself against Russian aggression, there are still too many rivalries and suspicions among EU members for them to organize adequately for their own defense, and the two countries one would think of as likely leaders because of their size and wealth have also been among the most reluctant to invest in the defense of Europe. NATO works because it is a purely defensive alliance that is not purely European and because, of course, of the US massive military strength and the huge industrial capacity of the US military industrial complex. The EU is certainly large enough and wealthy enough to form its own defense force, but it is not cohesive enough to get the job done.

As to your second point, that it serves no US national interests to bolster Europe's defense against Russian aggression, I would argue the cost is small compared to cost of dealing with all the economic dislocations ongoing war in Europe would entail.

 

[Concerned American]

the two countries one would think of as likely leaders because of their size and wealth have also been among the most reluctant to invest in the defense of Europe.

And no EU or NATO country is going to take the mantle as long as the US keeps ponying up the money for their defense. Your take on European cohesiveness is just that, your take. You're assertions are gross speculation at best. I did not make two points--like most democrats, you try to misdirect the discussion by trying to add info that exists only in your own mind. Try reading and comprehending instead of attempting to put your own spin on what is clearly posted. The day's of the US attempting to save the world for mom and apple pie are long gone--it is a bullshit narrative. As for the second part of YOUR post--My tax $$ have no business in Ukraine. They have done absolutely nothing for the US, indeed many of the issues they espouse are completely contrary to American interests.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And no EU or NATO country is going to take the mantle as long as the US keeps ponying up the money for their defense. Your take on European cohesiveness is just that, your take. You're assertions are gross speculation at best. I did not make two points--like most democrats, you try to misdirect the discussion by trying to add info that exists only in your own mind. Try reading and comprehending instead of attempting to put your own spin on what is clearly posted. The day's of the US attempting to save the world for mom and apple pie are long gone--it is a bullshit narrative. As for the second part of YOUR post--My tax $$ have no business in Ukraine. They have done absolutely nothing for the US, indeed many of the issues they espouse are completely contrary to American interests.

Clearly, your head is too mired in partisan politics to be able to enter a substantial discussion. I am not a Democrat. I am an independent who voted for Trump twice but will not vote for him again in part because of his position on this issue.

 

[Concerned American]

Clearly, your head is too mired in partisan politics to be able to enter a substantial discussion.

Clearly, your head is too mired in your blind ASSumptions to entertain any opposing views. Like most "independents" on this board you are firmly entrenched in the democrat party line.

 

[marvin martian]

Ukraine would never have to join NATO if it wasn't for their annexation-happy neighbor to the East.

Interesting theory. What do you think is the reason for the other nations that joined NATO?

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Interesting theory. What do you think is the reason for the other nations that joined NATO?

The other nations joined NATO during the Cold War, when nobody was sure if the U.S.S.R. would be bold enough to invade Western Europe.

 

[Concerned American]

The other nations joined NATO during the Cold War, when nobody was sure if the U.S.S.R. would be bold enough to invade Western Europe.

The cold war is generally accepted as ending in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The end of the Cold War
Fourteen former soviet republics have joined NATO--all since 1991. The USSR would never have allowed one of their republics to join the opposition. SMFH. The 14 Former Soviet and Soviet-aligned Republics That Joined NATO After the Cold War – 24/7 Wall St.
Have you not studied history. Lucky for you, many on this board lived through it and remember it well.