- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 36,677
- Reaction score
- 17,395
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
At the end of the 1950's, Eisenhower installed nuclear missiles on the USSR's border in Turkey. By 1961, tensions were at an all-time high, with Khrushchev threatening to sign a peace treaty with East Germany which would end any access rights to Berlin to the allies, which would threaten nuclear war; as East Germans fled in great numbers, leading to the creation of the Berlin Wall.
Khrushchev did not like the nuclear missiles on his border; but in 1960, Cuba had a revolution where the US alienated the new leader, Castro, who turned to the USSR as an ally, and there was an opportunity for Khrushchev to match the US missiles on his border with Soviet missiles in Cuba.
He had a hell of a good case for doing so, as JFK admitted privately. So he decided to proceed. His advisers suggested he admit the plan publicly, making the case for why he was justified in doing so. But Khrushchev disagreed and decided to place them covertly, planning to announce them as a fait accompli.
However, the US U-2 spy planes detected the arrival of the missiles and the US was alerted. The US kept this secret while JFK faked a flu to cancel his travel and return to the White House where they planned a response and decided on a plan.
The military recommendation and initial response was to launch an attack on the missiles by the Air Force; but JFK asked if the Air Force was certain they could destroy all the missiles, and they could not guarantee it. The discussions led to JFK deciding to make a public demand for the withdrawal of the missiles, with an act of war, a quarantine, he renamed to a blockade to soften the political impact.
JFK shocked the world with his televised speech. In the United Nations, the Soviets had denied the missiles; the US presented the U-2 photographic evidence. The world was convinced.
And politically, the fact that Khrushchev had been caught in a secret act that his government had lied about, caused the world's reaction to immediately be negative toward him; giving the US great weight for demanding the removal of the missiles.
Privately, JFK admitted that Khrushchev had a good case for justifying them as matching the US, but he took advantage of the political momentum of catching Khrushchev in his lie, and made his concessions to Khrushchev - to not invade Cuba if ongoing inspections confirmed there were no missiles, and to remove the missiles in Turkey - private agreements.
Khrushchev agreed to a humiliating reversal and was removed as the Soviet leader the next year primarily over that. If he had listened to his advisers and done his plan publicly, the outcome might have been very different.
Putin did not learn a thing from the history. He absurdly placed his forces on Ukraine's border for months, with only absurd pretenses as excuses, lying that the US claims of his plans to invade were false and hyperbole.
So when Putin broke every word his government had given the world and invaded, the political reaction was much more immediately negative as a result. It painted Putin completely as a war criminal aggressor; if he had any justification, why would he have lied?
There's no guarantee what would have happened, but if Putin had spent those months announcing his demands, his case, and his plan to remove the government by force if a diplomatic were not reached, things might have been very different.
People might have disapproved, but there wouldn't have been surprises, and I suspect the results wouldn't have been that different. The west still had no other clear options to counter his plan; NATO still would not have intervened. The result would likely have been the same except with Putin having told the truth and making his justification for his actions openly.
That choice might have had a huge negative effect on the world's reaction, for no reason to Putin. History repeated.
Khrushchev did not like the nuclear missiles on his border; but in 1960, Cuba had a revolution where the US alienated the new leader, Castro, who turned to the USSR as an ally, and there was an opportunity for Khrushchev to match the US missiles on his border with Soviet missiles in Cuba.
He had a hell of a good case for doing so, as JFK admitted privately. So he decided to proceed. His advisers suggested he admit the plan publicly, making the case for why he was justified in doing so. But Khrushchev disagreed and decided to place them covertly, planning to announce them as a fait accompli.
However, the US U-2 spy planes detected the arrival of the missiles and the US was alerted. The US kept this secret while JFK faked a flu to cancel his travel and return to the White House where they planned a response and decided on a plan.
The military recommendation and initial response was to launch an attack on the missiles by the Air Force; but JFK asked if the Air Force was certain they could destroy all the missiles, and they could not guarantee it. The discussions led to JFK deciding to make a public demand for the withdrawal of the missiles, with an act of war, a quarantine, he renamed to a blockade to soften the political impact.
JFK shocked the world with his televised speech. In the United Nations, the Soviets had denied the missiles; the US presented the U-2 photographic evidence. The world was convinced.
And politically, the fact that Khrushchev had been caught in a secret act that his government had lied about, caused the world's reaction to immediately be negative toward him; giving the US great weight for demanding the removal of the missiles.
Privately, JFK admitted that Khrushchev had a good case for justifying them as matching the US, but he took advantage of the political momentum of catching Khrushchev in his lie, and made his concessions to Khrushchev - to not invade Cuba if ongoing inspections confirmed there were no missiles, and to remove the missiles in Turkey - private agreements.
Khrushchev agreed to a humiliating reversal and was removed as the Soviet leader the next year primarily over that. If he had listened to his advisers and done his plan publicly, the outcome might have been very different.
Putin did not learn a thing from the history. He absurdly placed his forces on Ukraine's border for months, with only absurd pretenses as excuses, lying that the US claims of his plans to invade were false and hyperbole.
So when Putin broke every word his government had given the world and invaded, the political reaction was much more immediately negative as a result. It painted Putin completely as a war criminal aggressor; if he had any justification, why would he have lied?
There's no guarantee what would have happened, but if Putin had spent those months announcing his demands, his case, and his plan to remove the government by force if a diplomatic were not reached, things might have been very different.
People might have disapproved, but there wouldn't have been surprises, and I suspect the results wouldn't have been that different. The west still had no other clear options to counter his plan; NATO still would not have intervened. The result would likely have been the same except with Putin having told the truth and making his justification for his actions openly.
That choice might have had a huge negative effect on the world's reaction, for no reason to Putin. History repeated.