• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin's big political mistake, repeated from history

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
46,485
Reaction score
22,693
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.
 
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.
Seems like a solid observation. By contrast look at the American invasions of Afghanistan and especially Iraq. It wouldn't make much difference to opponents of the invasions/politicians responsible, but when folk leaning towards support of Putin/Russia have to suddenly flip from "This is all posturing, of course he won't invade, you're just weak little liberal crybabies" to "Uh... yeah, invasion is a good thing" that's a real problem. In 2003 Bush supporters and 'hawks' around the world had months to rehearse their propaganda lines and innoculate their basic human empathy against the coming horrors of war.
 
... if Putin had spent those months announcing his demands ...

Hasn't Putin/Russia been discussing NATO for years/decades?

I read that Putin was asking Clinton to let Russia join NATO in 2000.
 
Hasn't Putin/Russia been discussing NATO for years/decades?

Yes. I'm not referring to Putin discussing opinions on issues like that - I'm talking about him being honest about his plan to invade Ukraine if whatever his demands were weren't met, and making his case to justify why he felt right to do so. Not unlike how the US says 'if you attack one inch of NATO soil, we will respond with a full military attack'. So he wasn't guilty of lying and deceit in his plan.
 
Yes. I'm not referring to Putin discussing opinions on issues like that - I'm talking about him being honest about his plan to invade Ukraine if whatever his demands were weren't met, and making his case to justify why he felt right to do so. Not unlike how the US says 'if you attack one inch of NATO soil, we will respond with a full military attack'. So he wasn't guilty of lying and deceit in his plan.

Following your line of thinking, maybe the silver lining in the mushroom clouds is that Putin has announced that he'll use nuclear weapons, so if nuclear war starts, Putin will have been truthful about it.
 
Following your line of thinking, maybe the silver lining in the mushroom clouds is that Putin has announced that he'll use nuclear weapons, so if nuclear war starts, Putin will have been truthful about it.
That doesn't make any sense. You're seeming antagonistic for no good reason and posting a nonsensical provocation as a result. No one is advocating nuclear war here, but in your absurd example, Putin being honest about his intentions on it would be better than deceit. And Putin's threats are a reminder of the need to eliminate nuclear weapons.
 
That doesn't make any sense. You're seeming antagonistic for no good reason and posting a nonsensical provocation as a result. No one is advocating nuclear war here, but in your absurd example, Putin being honest about his intentions on it would be better than deceit. And Putin's threats are a reminder of the need to eliminate nuclear weapons.

You're misunderstanding my comment because I included the quite possible extreme outcome- nuclear war. I'll rephrase:

Following your line of thinking, if nuclear weapons are actually used, at least Putin will have been truthful about it.

Another way of phrasing (this small part of my) position, sarcastically: At least Putin didn't lie about his threats to use nuclear weapons. That's what's important here.
 
You're misunderstanding my comment because I included the quite possible extreme outcome- nuclear war. I'll rephrase:

Following your line of thinking, if nuclear weapons are actually used, at least Putin will have been truthful about it.

Another way of phrasing (this small part of my) position, sarcastically: At least Putin didn't lie about his threats to use nuclear weapons. That's what's important here.

It doesn't seem I misunderstood it; it just doesn't make sense. Nuclear weapons aren't the topic I posted about, but let's go with your post: if Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons, is it better if he is honest about his conditions when he would use them, or better for him to just lie about his intentions and use them when he said he wouldn't?
 
It doesn't seem I misunderstood it; it just doesn't make sense. Nuclear weapons aren't the topic I posted about, but let's go with your post: if Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons, is it better if he is honest about his conditions when he would use them, or better for him to just lie about his intentions and use them when he said he wouldn't?

Putin lying about not attacking Ukraine is pretty low on my (off the top of my head) importance list. What's important is the (very lacking) international peace process.
 
Putin lying about not attacking Ukraine is pretty low on my (off the top of my head) importance list. What's important is the (very lacking) international peace process.
You both missed the point of the topic - the political effect of Putin on his choice to lie - and you don't actually discuss your other topic offering some specific 'international peace process' you want to talk about. The post wasn't helpful. It seems you misunderstood the topic.
 
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.
I am still looking for Putin's mistake. What has he done wrong?

The parallels to Cuba are minimal. There are no secreted movements of WMD, Putin has not been caught in outright lies, nor has he been forced to back down like he was in Syria.

What do you think you see that is not apparent to a casual observer?

You both missed the point of the topic - the political effect of Putin on his choice to lie - and you don't actually discuss your other topic offering some specific 'international peace process' you want to talk about. The post wasn't helpful. It seems you misunderstood the topic.
He didn't lie. The cover is barely a G-string but it's there.
 
Back
Top Bottom