Does JFK's solution of the Cuban Missile Crisis show how to end Russia's war against the Ukraine and restore world stability?

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Why Elon Musk is right - Responsible Statecraft

Edited October 8, 2022 by Douglas Caddy

[Douglas Caddy]

From the article: "Managing this peculiar mix of ambition and fear poses a formidable challenge. It requires a delicate balance between pushing back against Russian belligerence – as we have been doing quite effectively in Ukraine – and engaging diplomatically to prevent a descent toward a direct conflict – which we have largely neglected. The resolution of the Cuban missile crisis, which involved both an American ultimatum threatening a military attack and a parallel offer to trade the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba for the removal of American missiles from Italy and Turkey, provides an example of how that balance can work."

[Michael Griffith]

The Russian oligarchs will eventually force Putin to withdraw from Ukraine, but only if we continue to make the price of Russian occupation severe. Ukraine did nothing to deserve Putin's invasion. It's none of Putin's business if an eastern democratic nation wants to join the EU and/or the defensive alliance of NATO.

Putin misjudged Biden and thought that Biden would impose a few modest sanctions and leave it at that, as Obama did when Putin took Crimea. But, to his great credit, Biden continues to make Russia pay a stiff price for Putin's aggression. As happened with Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, even many Kremlin hardliners will support withdrawal when they become convinced that the price is going to be too severe if they remain in Ukraine.

As for the Pope's advice, the Pope should stick to dealing with his many pedophile priests. 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Douglas Caddy]

50 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

The Russian oligarchs will eventually force Putin to withdraw from Ukraine, but only if we continue to make the price of Russian occupation severe. Ukraine did nothing to deserve Putin's invasion. It's none of Putin's business if an eastern democratic nation wants to join the EU and/or the defensive alliance of NATO.

Putin misjudged Biden and thought that Biden would impose a few modest sanctions and leave it at that, as Obama did when Putin took Crimea. But, to his great credit, Biden continues to make Russia pay a stiff price for Putin's aggression. As happened with Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, even many Kremlin hardliners will support withdrawal when they become convinced that the price is going to be too severe if they remain in Ukraine.

As for the Pope's advice, the Pope should stick to dealing with his many pedophile priests. 

I agree with you. This headline from today's New York Times shows what a weakening hand Putin has in the debacle of the war he initiated against Ukraine:

A Distracted Russia Is Losing Its Grip on Its Old Soviet Sphere

Russia’s domination of Central Asia and the Caucasus region is unraveling as the Kremlin focuses on the war in Ukraine — and border violence is flaring.

• Give this article
• 59

 

[Jeff Carter]

As a sovereign nation, Cuba had the “right” to choose its alliances and maintain its national security in a manner of its choosing. The Americans, for their part, argued that the stationing of missiles in Cuba created a uniquely insecure situation for U.S. national security and therefore represented an unacceptable red-line.  The Kennedy administration was correct in their reasoning, I believe, but it is interesting how the concept of regional mutual security - the “solution” in 1962 - has been rejected out of hand in Ukraine by NATO.

The diplomatic off-ramp has been in place as a UNSC resolution since 2015. Very smart persons warned decades ago that the war which is happening now was inevitable if NATO moved into this area. The reasoning justifying this disastrous policy is actually a repudiation of the concepts espoused by the Kennedy administration in 1962.

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

As a sovereign nation, Cuba had the “right” to choose its alliances and maintain its national security in a manner of its choosing. The Americans, for their part, argued that the stationing of missiles in Cuba created a uniquely insecure situation for U.S. national security and therefore represented an unacceptable red-line.  The Kennedy administration was correct in their reasoning, I believe, but it is interesting how the concept of regional mutual security - the “solution” in 1962 - has been rejected out of hand in Ukraine by NATO.

The diplomatic off-ramp has been in place as a UNSC resolution since 2015. Very smart persons warned decades ago that the war which is happening now was inevitable if NATO moved into this area. The reasoning justifying this disastrous policy is actually a repudiation of the concepts espoused by the Kennedy administration in 1962.

JC-

I get the Cuba analogy, and even more: JFK pulled missiles out of Turkey as part of the agreement to end the crisis, back in 1962.

Russia's history is one of repeated and fantastically gruesome military invasions from the East. By now, it is the Russian DNA to fear invasion from the East. 

All that said, Putin's war on Ukraine was volitional. Turning Mariupol into rubble was a war crime. Russia was not cornered, and threats were abstract, theoretical.  Loose talk about nuclear wars is appalling. 

It does appear Biden bungled matters, by offering Zelensky a ride instead of guns.

Some suspect Russia was lured into Ukraine, to enter a stalemate, that would either weaken Russia dramatically, or would lead to regime change. Neo-con, neo-lib type thinking. Probably HRC is chortling away, now re-reading Curtis LeMay manuscripts. 

For sure, this was not Germany's idea, but perhaps Poland's, the US-Deep State and Great Britain's. 

It does look like a long expensive stalemate is on the the table. From my armchair, I can tsk-tsk. For the people on the ground, this is horrible. 

The US could avoided this? Maybe. Russia could have avoided this? Certainly. 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ben: Some suspect Russia was lured into Ukraine, to enter a stalemate, that would either weaken Russia dramatically, or would lead to regime change. Neo-con, neo-lib type thinking. Probably HRC is chortling away, now re-reading Curtis LeMay manuscripts. 

For sure, this was not Germany's idea, but perhaps Poland's, the US-Deep State and Great Britain's.

 

Some suspect? That sounds like more "conspiracy woke" talk that will never be revealed as true, and for that reason will be seen as more fodder to them as to the inscrutability of the "deep state."  No one can talk with any certainty about regime change. All contingencies are being considered as they arise. Why is that unbelievable?

Actually Ben from Thailand, we in the U.S. are not a monarchy.  HRC holds no political position now in the U.S. and is completely powerless to effect Ukraine policy, so why is she even mentioned? The people in the U.S. running this show we're never as bellicose and warmongering as you at the start of this conflict,Ben. They played it much more cooly, and they've actually managed the PR quite well, granted with small Biden gaffes that haven't amounted to much. I understand you're not an advocate of TR's "speak softly". I mention this only as an example of what not to do.

Ben:Biden/NATO are flatfooted? Seems so. No new plans, no initiatives, no means to deliver some real losses to Russians. 

 

Biden may not be a Putin-stooge, but the results are the same.

But the US invents reasons to not enforce a No Fly Zone in Ukraine, bowing to Putin threats.

 

I happen to be hawkish on Ukraine, and would prefer going to No Fly Zones.

I now advocate a No Fly Zone for Ukraine, and possibly even NATO boots on the ground. 

Times change and so yes, I have moved to a more-hawkish position on Ukraine.

****

Ben: It does appear Biden bungled matters, by offering Zelensky a ride instead of guns.

How did Biden bungle it?  There's absolutely nothing unconventional about this. Biden offered Zelensky exile at the beginning, Then offered them arms when they expressed resolve to fight.  When they made a go of it, they gave them more. Now that they're taking back land, they're giving them more weapon systems , but not everything they want. Biden's gradual escalation pretty much mirrors public sentiment. No Americans coming home in body bags, which has been pretty much the Democrat policy for 50 years actually. All the while Biden has been able to adjoin a NATO alliance no one, particularly Putin thought was possible at the beginning. Though it faces it's first big test  with European fuel shortages this winter. People can disagree that we shouldn't have gotten involved, but the sentiment now, is that it is a cautious success.

It's been handled so well, at this point we have to consider the problem of the dangers of too much success, which is  actually the subject the article deals with.

What's critical to know. Which no one really seems to know, is how is power structured in Putin's Russia? Doug's article talks that Putin has further isolated himself that now he's now under the  greater influence of right wingers, and is as unpredictable as ever, and thinks the everyday people will by in large go with their historic fears of invasion from the East and hunker down as the did in WW2. He says times are more dangerous and the U.S. has to balance their approach with more diplomacy, but he doesn't really offer any tradeoffs or possible solutions.

There is probably a critical moment to be seized to maximum advantage. It doesn't seem immediately, and I'm not sure we will when it arises, but it would seem to me, the current episode involves watching to see what success Ukraine has in regaining territory, at least before the winter, which is true, could be dangerous. JMO

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Douglas Caddy]

 

This is not the time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by giving Putin an offramp for hm to save face and salvage his disastrous policies to return to battle later.

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

This is not the time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by giving Putin an offramp for hm to save face and salvage his disastrous policies to return to battle later.

Maybe...but Putin is 70 years old. He looks bad too, although he is probably getting the sort of medical care that powerful people get, that extends life. 

11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ben: Some suspect Russia was lured into Ukraine, to enter a stalemate, that would either weaken Russia dramatically, or would lead to regime change. Neo-con, neo-lib type thinking. Probably HRC is chortling away, now re-reading Curtis LeMay manuscripts. 

For sure, this was not Germany's idea, but perhaps Poland's, the US-Deep State and Great Britain's.

 

Some suspect? That sounds like more "conspiracy woke" talk that will never be revealed as true, and for that reason will be seen as more fodder to them as to the inscrutability of the "deep state."  No one can talk with any certainty about regime change. All contingencies are being considered as they arise. Why is that unbelievable?

Actually Ben from Thailand, we in the U.S. are not a monarchy.  HRC holds no political position now in the U.S. and is completely powerless to effect Ukraine policy, so why is she even mentioned? The people in the U.S. running this show we're never as bellicose and warmongering as you at the start of this conflict,Ben. They played it much more cooly, and they've actually managed the PR quite well, granted with small Biden gaffes that haven't amounted to much. I understand you're not an advocate of TR's "speak softly". I mention this only as an example of what not to do.

Ben:Biden/NATO are flatfooted? Seems so. No new plans, no initiatives, no means to deliver some real losses to Russians. 

 

Biden may not be a Putin-stooge, but the results are the same.

But the US invents reasons to not enforce a No Fly Zone in Ukraine, bowing to Putin threats.

 

I happen to be hawkish on Ukraine, and would prefer going to No Fly Zones.

I now advocate a No Fly Zone for Ukraine, and possibly even NATO boots on the ground. 

Times change and so yes, I have moved to a more-hawkish position on Ukraine.

****

Ben: It does appear Biden bungled matters, by offering Zelensky a ride instead of guns.

How did Biden bungle it?  There's absolutely nothing unconventional about this. Biden offered Zelensky exile at the beginning, Then offered them arms when they expressed resolve to fight.  When they made a go of it, they gave them more. Now that they're taking back land, they're giving them more weapon systems , but not everything they want. Biden's gradual escalation pretty much mirrors public sentiment. No Americans coming home in body bags, which has been pretty much the Democrat policy for 50 years actually. All the while Biden has been able to adjoin a NATO alliance no one, particularly Putin thought was possible at the beginning. Though it faces it's first big test  with European fuel shortages this winter. People can disagree that we shouldn't have gotten involved, but the sentiment now, is that it is a cautious success.

It's been handled so well, at this point we have to consider the problem of the dangers of too much success, which is  actually the subject the article deals with.

What's critical to know. Which no one really seems to know, is how is power structured in Putin's Russia? Doug's article talks that Putin has further isolated himself that now he's now under the  greater influence of right wingers, and is as unpredictable as ever, and thinks the everyday people will by in large go with their historic fears of invasion from the East and hunker down as the did in WW2. He says times are more dangerous and the U.S. has to balance their approach with more diplomacy, but he doesn't really offer any tradeoffs or possible solutions.

There is probably a critical moment to be seized to maximum advantage. It doesn't seem immediately, and I'm not sure we will when it arises, but it would seem to me, the current episode involves watching to see what success Ukraine has in regaining territory, at least before the winter, which is true, could be dangerous. JMO

 

 

 

 

 

The record shows the US (or US intel services, if not an unwitting Biden Administration) signaled it would not contest a Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

That was likely a bungle. Not avoiding an incredibly inhumane and expensive war is a bungle, to put it mildly. 

OK, what to do now? 

Well, it looks like a long stalemate is on the table. Maybe I am wrong on that, and I hope I am. 

For us, a long stalemate becomes boring headlines. For the people on the ground, hell on earth. 

Yes, if there is an armistice to be had, perhaps that is a good option. That happened in Korea, btw. 

[Douglas Caddy]

Things are getting really serious.

'A very dangerous road': Putin and the U.S. navigate a new round of nuclear brinkmanship (yahoo.com)