Is the world as close to nuclear war as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin at a US-Russian summit in Switzerland in June 2021.Image Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

“He’s not joking when he talks about the possible use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons because his troops are underperforming,” Biden said of President Putin. According to him, the world has not seen such a serious threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis, 60 years ago this month.

Then the United States and the Soviet Union were on the brink of collapse after American spy planes discovered that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear missiles in communist Cuba that could reach American cities in minutes.

President Kennedy demanded that Moscow remove the nuclear missiles and imposed a naval blockade around Cuba to stop Soviet ships carrying new weapons. At the same time, he warned Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev that the US would retaliate with its (much larger) nuclear arsenal in the event of an atomic attack by the Soviet Union.

After thirteen days in which the world seemed to be heading for a nuclear catastrophe, Khrushchev gave in to his knees. In exchange for Kennedy’s security guarantees to Cuba, he promised to withdraw the nuclear missiles. The US also quietly removed its nuclear missiles from Turkey.

Diplomatic Horde

With his reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Biden hopes to raise a diplomatic hurdle for Putin, much like he did early this year with his loud warnings that Russia was about to invade Ukraine. That didn’t work at the time, but it may help now: the use of nuclear weapons would cause Putin considerably more diplomatic damage.

Unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, this time it is not about a direct nuclear threat to the United States, but about the possible use of a tactical nuclear weapon (with limited range) against Ukrainian troops trying to recapture the newly annexed areas by Russia. According to Moscow, that would amount to an attack on ‘Russian’ territory.

It is an unprecedented threat, especially since Ukraine gave up its share of the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal in 1994 in exchange for guarantees from Moscow that it would respect Ukraine’s borders. If Kyiv still had nuclear weapons, Russia would never have invaded Ukraine, let alone threatened nuclear weapons.

Umbrella

With the threats, Putin also turns the prevailing view of nuclear weapons on its head. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have been seen as last-minute defenses, but now Putin threatens to use his nuclear weapons as an umbrella under which his troops can invade other countries.

That is something that the US and NATO countries cannot tolerate. The White House has said a Russian nuclear attack will have “catastrophic consequences” for Russia. But even if Putin actually uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, it will not inevitably lead to a nuclear war between the West and Russia. Almost all experts assume that the US will limit itself to a response with conventional weapons.

western answer

Former general and former CIA chief David Petraeus recently suggested to US television that the US and NATO will retaliate by destroying Putin’s forces in Ukraine and sinking Russia’s Black Sea fleet. This would bring the US and NATO into direct military conflict with Russia for the first time; so far they have limited themselves to arms supplies to Ukraine.

Whether that really belongs to the American plans (let alone NATO’s) is unclear. Still, the White House would not have been dissatisfied with Petraeus’ performance. It may still make Putin think: should he scale up to a nuclear showdown with the West that may indeed lead to a mutual Armageddon?

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy came under heavy pressure from the military top, who urged mass bombing followed by an invasion of Cuba. But he stood his ground.

Khrushchev was also under pressure, especially from Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who said Moscow should launch a nuclear attack if the US tried to invade his country. “Castro has no idea what nuclear war is,” Khrushchev told a colleague, according to historian Max Hastings in his newly released book. Abyss (the abyss).

Humiliation

For Khrushchev, the recall of the Soviet missiles was a deep humiliation (which would later also contribute to his forced resignation). But he realized there was no other way to save his country and humanity.

According to Hastings, the big question is whether Putin is also prepared to swallow his pride. Another problem, he says, is that Biden and Putin currently do not have a ‘back channel’ seem to possess like Kennedy and Khrushchev at the time. Through Robert Kennedy, the president’s brother, and Soviet ambassador Anatoli Dobrynin, the two were able to gauge each other’s intentions at the time. Now that trust is completely missing.

ttn-23