60 years of the Caribbean crisis. Putin wants to be steeper than Khrushchev
The USSR and the US, two superpowers that possessed nuclear potential, which according to certain estimates was enough to destroy humanity several times a step towards the use of nuclear weapons against each other: from October 16 to October 28, 1962, the Caribbean crisis lasted. It seemed that in the future everyone made the proper conclusions and would never happen again.
However, only a few decades have passed - less than the average life expectancy of one person - and two superpowers stand again on the verge of escalation. Only this time was the USSR replaced by the Russian Federation, which took away the entire nuclear arsenal of the former Union, in particular, a significant part of it in Ukraine, which now threatens to use weapons of mass destruction.
Focus mentioned the "golden autumn" in 1962, which, because of the confrontation of the USSR and the USA, almost became the latter for humanity, and asked experts about whether a new Caribbean crisis was possible today. After the Second World War, the former allies, the USA and the USSR entered the fierce confrontation.
The reason was fundamentally opposite ideologies that professed in the United States (capitalism and ideas of the free market) and the USSR (socialism with the subsequent desire of transformation to communism and planned economy). Ideology is so antagonistic in essence that geopolitical opponents were doomed to confront almost every area of human life - from space program to the use of toilet paper in everyday life.
It is interesting that when the space program was practically the end of the confrontation, the household sphere became the Achilles Fifth of the USSR, which the United States did not miss the opportunity to use. Direct confrontation did not occur because initially the United States (1945) and then the USSR (1949) was acquired by nuclear weapons, the use of which potentially led to excessive number of casualties, which no one wanted to allow.
Over time, the arsenals reached such a size that they began to assume that their simultaneous use can lead to the death of all humanity on the planet. Therefore, nuclear weapons were called restraint weapons, and the confrontation between the two hegemons - the "Cold War", that is, without a hot phase, a direct clash of both armies. The Cold War Strategy was surrounded by a rival nuclear weapons on all sides, so that in the event of exacerbation, it simply could not strike.
For this purpose, submarines, strategic planes and ground base were used. In 1959, the United States managed to break the parity in the last component by placing nuclear weapons, namely, medium-range missiles PGM-19 Jupiter in Turkey (joined by NATO since 1952), that is, close to the Soviet border.
However, Washington did not take into account that in Cuba, which is 140 km from the American state of Florida, in 1959 the socialist government of Fidel Castro came to power, which established an authoritarian regime similar to the Soviet one. The unsuccessful attempt to plant a landing of new authorities in the Gulf of Pigs in the spring of 1961 has only contributed to the rapprochement of both socialist states.
In the capital, Havana Cuba understood that without the support of a powerful ally, the regime could not withstand - sooner or later the United States would still have a successful operation. There is also a version that even the success of pig bay would not be possible without the help of the USSR, which kindly shared with the Cubans intelligence. In Moscow, however, they grabbed a chance to get an ally close to the American borders.
At that time, in addition to the maritime border between the United States and the USSR (through the Bering Strait), two NATO members - Norway and Turkey had common borders from the USSR. Therefore, Moscow and Havana agreed on the placement of the Soviet military contingent in Cuba. The world was approaching an armed conflict, which with a high probability could develop into nuclear.
During the Second World War, two atomic bombs were dropped to Japan, which during the fighting actively used chemical weapons, but it did not have nuclear. What if the two sides of the war use their nuclear arsenal, no one was predicted. The world froze in anticipation of irreparable. Like such dramatic events, its circumstances over time began to overgrown semi -legendary - semi -conspiracy theories.
In particular, there is a version that in the process of blockade, American destroyers attacked a Soviet submarine that tried to break it. As a result, the submarine lost connection with the outside world and its commander, deciding that the war began, ordered the launch of a nuclear missile (in some versions it was about torpedo). However, he was receded by one of the senior officers of the vessel, who, if these events really happened, saved humanity.
The version of parallel negotiations, which led to the White House, or the US President's brother with a Soviet resident, is also widespread. It was at these negotiations that an agreement was allegedly reached to remove escalation. The fact is that on October 27, an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft was shot over Cuba, and a 35-year-old pilot, Major Rudolf Anderson, was killed.
It was already a face of confrontation, because in the case of a task in response to the US troops, the escalation would no longer be stopped. However, the day before, the USSR leader Nikita Khrushchev sent Kennedy a telegram with a proposal of negotiations. He suggested taking away Soviet Cuba missiles in response to the Nonpad's Guarantee to the US island.
And on October 27, after the incident with the reconnaissance aircraft, Khrushchev proposed to remove rockets in exchange for a similar step with American missiles in Turkey. This, in particular, gave rise to the version that the plane was not agreed with Moscow. Then the Kremlin realized that they did not fully control the situation and this contributed to their initiative to negotiate.
This incident remains a reminder that in the case of excessive escalation, everything can solve one careless shot. The United States officially agreed to the conditions of the first message (rockets in exchange for the guarantees of the non -aggression) on October 28, which marked the end of the Caribbean crisis. In December 1962. at. The UN Secretary General arrived in Cuba and stated that there was no more Soviet weapons there.
According to the version with parallel negotiations (which, most likely, the question is in what format), the United States agreed to dismantle their missiles in Turkey under the pretext of their outdance, which actually happened in 1963. Thus, publicly the United States was the victorious in this confrontation, as they achieved the retreat of the USSR from their borders. In 1963, an agreement was signed by a ban on nuclear testing "in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater.
" In the future, both camps in journalism, cinema, literature and other spheres of culture launched a rhetoric against nuclear confrontation. Post -apocalyptic scenarios awaited the world in the event of nuclear confrontation. Treaties that contributed to the inhibition of "arms race" were signed between the USSR and the US, at least in the nuclear sphere. Also, a "hot line" was drawn between the White House and the Kremlin for direct negotiations in case of repetition of something similar.
With the collapse of the USSR, there was a hope for nuclear disarmament. For the first time in history, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have created a precedent of nuclear disarmament, abandoning nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. Our state has given the third nuclear arsenal in the world. What is the future in the process of nuclear disarmament after Russian aggression against Ukraine is a rhetorical issue. It was nullified by the annexation of Crimea.
Now Ukraine is threatened, in fact, its arsenal. The Kremlin considers the retreat of the USSR in the course of the Caribbean crisis, and Khrushchev - weak and in recent decades in every possible way. The policy of modern Russian authorities is based on revenge and desire to "re -play" again. Therefore, to be on the site of Khrushchev is a real way for the modern Kremlin owner, the opportunity to put his rhetoric in reality. The parallels, of course, are not complete.
There is even a certain element of reflection, because now the US is protecting the far country from its neighbor's aggression and its geopolitical rival. A more appropriate example would be the situation with Taiwan, which is also an island. The uniqueness of the Ukrainian situation is that Kyiv voluntarily abandoned nuclear weapons in 1994. Thus, creating a precedent. From this point of view, even the annexation of Tuzla island could already launch long -term but irreversible processes.
Aggression is first hybrid, and then full -scale with subsequent creeping annexation of all new territories against the country, which abandoned considerable nuclear potential - from the country that received it and also guaranteed security for its victim.
Which precedent can cause more harm to world order and safety? It is no longer about the disarmament of the "nuclear club" states, but what factors will now make the idea of nuclear weapons other countries that apply for independent policy: from Brazil to Indonesia and Saudi Arabia? In fact, the world order has caused irreparable damage and insufficiently convincing punishment of the aggressor-charm (which does not comply with the obligations taken) will launch a reverse count to the war between nuclear states, which in this case will become inevitable.
To get a complete idea of how significant the nuclear threat is today, focus has addressed experts. How can China's use of any type of weapons can be used? Neutral countries reaction (India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.
)? Volodymyr Gorbach, political analyst at the Institute of Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, expert on foreign and domestic policy of Ukraine: I will not be original in this matter, when I will say that all these states will be administered to the use of nuclear weapons negatively, with condemnation. No one will approve and no one can refrain from condemning to choose a neutral position. Everyone will be condemned at least in words.
Anna Shelest is the Director of the Ukrainian Prisma Foreign Security Programs: in this case, it is wrong to call China and India neutral states because they are nuclear. In the use of nuclear weapons, they can no longer be called neutral countries as they try to partially represent in the political sphere. The Nuclear Power Club has certain obligations and certain principles they prescribed. It would be important for Ukraine to hear China and India's position on the Kremlin nuclear blackmail.
As for China, it is also difficult to call it neutral about the possible use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine, since this state has actually signed the Budapest Memorandum. The Middle Kingdom, together with France, later became the signatories of the memorandum. One of the points has a norm for non -use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine and their position is important here.
What can be the NATO reaction in two variants: no inch NATO countries have been injured or a radioactive cloud went to the Alliance? Vladimir Gorbach: The reaction was voiced to me. They said that the reaction would be kinetic - it would be a force stroke. I do not think that the reaction will be with the use of nuclear weapons as it will stimulate further escalation. The reaction will be power but non -nuclear. This will be done in order not to raise the rate.
Such a response that will be preschool and deprive Russia of this conflict. The use of high -precision, destructive and deadly weapons on installations and launch points. Tactical nuclear weapons can be used from the occupied territory of Ukraine along the front line. If they are launched from the occupied territory - there will be a response to these points, if from the Russian territory - less likely to strike in response.
However, there may be blows to Russian troops located in the occupied territories, including the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation. Anna Shelest: Brussels is currently actively discussing the issues of NATO's reactions to nuclear weapons. Article 5 of the Collective Security Treaty said clearly about the attack, and only recently spelled there a norm for cyber attack. If a radioactive cloud goes to the Alliance, it is not an attack.
Some American generals even propose to break the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation when using it. Asymmetrical actions are possible, but today no one will be able to say clearly what they will be. How rigid can be the response of nuclear states: US, UK, France? Vladimir Gorbach: Everyone will look at the US, they have the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons and a variety of ways to deliver these weapons. The whole world will look at the United States and their reaction.
How much time will it take from the moment of decision on the use of nuclear weapons to its implementation? Mykola Sungurovsky, Military Expert Razumkov Center: It is possible that it will take 2-3 days. It all depends on how complete the preparation for the tactical nuclear stroke was, and whether warheads were brought to the troops. The transportation of this type of weapon depends on what transport it is delivered - rail or aviation.
Can the US and allies technically "set" strategic nuclear weapons launches, or a blow in response to the Russian Federation in the event of escalation? When it comes to tactical nuclear weapons, these are mobile launchers. It can be artillery, missile installations or weapons installed on a ship. It is difficult to talk about "suppression" here, everyone needs to follow, but this is a difficult procedure.
What can be the consequences for the Russian Federation (its military) in the case of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine (figuratively speaking "if the wind blows to Russia")? It's also difficult to predict. The US does not open their cards completely. Will there be a blow to the Russian territory? They are silent and do the right thing. The uncertainty element is additional work for Russia. Recent events, when Lukashenko agreed to deploy a joint group of troops . . .
It is possible that some launcher with nuclear ammunition will be transferred to the armament of this group. And then the task becomes more complicated, because the decree will be forced to decide who used nuclear weapons and which country to strike. What are the consequences for ecology if the tactical nuclear bomb will be ripped over the pond (Dnipro or the Black Sea) at the Black Sea itself, it is dangerous to draw a nuclear stroke.
The Black Sea is special because it has a high concentration of hydrogen sulfide. The entire Black Sea basin can explode and it will be an environmental disaster of a planetary scale. Over the Black Sea - can. As a demonstration act. What will happen to NATO-Ukraine neighbors if tactical nuclear weapons are applied over Western Ukraine? Can NATO use the 5th article on collective security? Definitely so. Initially, they will apply ordinary weapons, which in their potential is not inferior to nuclear.
There will be sighting strokes at the storage sites of nuclear warheads, on the identified positions of the means that use nuclear weapons. Perhaps on decision -making centers. The NATO strategy is secret, and this issue can only be guessed. This element of uncertainty, which is most terrified by the enemy.
Is it possible to technically apply strategic nuclear weapons against Ukraine (is it possible to target strategic nuclear media and the effects of infection for Ukraine in principle? The carriers of strategic nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation are already aimed at some goals in the territory of the United States. There is no point in applying strategic nuclear weapons in a non -nuclear state.
Are there any threats to the 60s of the 60s and is the repetition of the Caribbean today, but with other scale? We asked Alexander Har. The diplomat, Assistant Minister of Defense of Ukraine in 2020, expert of the Center for Defense Strategies considers the following: to apply nuclear weapons against Ukraine from a military point of view is madness. It will not produce the expected result, and the negative consequences will be for Russia, even if they do not strike in its territory.
It is a tactical nuclear weapon that is stored. Initially, there should be a certain situation where the Russian leadership decides that they do not have methods to influence Ukraine, and then a political decision will be made to apply the usage, which they still have to be delivered to the relevant positions. There are rumors that they want to show their determination in the question "I do not blame", somewhere at the landfill. They use nuclear weapons not against Ukraine, but in their territory.
Or maybe nuclear weapons are used somewhere in neutral positions in the Arctic to intimidate the civilized world. The goal is called the Snake Island. This is more symbolism than military logic. Я не можу точно сказати, скільки часу має пройти від прийняття рішення до застосування. Це занадто гіпотетичне питання.
Якщо мова йде про використання ядерної зброї на нейтральній або російській території — ніхто не буде приймати питання про нанесення удару по РФ. Якщо це буде на території України — відповідь буде неядерною.
США мають достатній потенціал, щоб нанести значної шкоди, яка буде співставною з ядерною зброєю. Вони не будуть входити у цю спіраль конфронтації для подальшої ескалації конфлікту.
Удар може буде нанесений по території РФ, якщо росіяни зійдуть з глузду і почнуть щось робити зі своєю стратегічною ядерною зброєю, яка вже наведена на США.
Я гадаю, що немає паралелі між Карибською кризою та теперішніми подіями, бо тоді зіштовхнулися інтереси двох держав, які були на грані ядерного конфлікту між собою. Те, що нас зараз лякає Росія, це інша справа.
Вони туманно намагаються сказати, що можуть завдати ядерного удару по США та Європі, але це маячня. Вони розуміють, що буде удар у відповідь. Американці не можуть залишити це без відповіді, і це буде кінець людства. .
Колишні американські посадовці, серед яких Герберт Макмастер (ексрадник Трампа), Веслі Кларк (генерал США), Бен Ходжес (екскомандувач силами США у Європі), кажуть, що США можуть нанести удари по російських військах на Донбасі, у Криму, а також у Херсонській та Запорізькій областях.