The Most Dangerous Moment Since 1962 : Daily Current Affairs

Date: 05/11/2022

Relevance: GS-2: Bilateral, Regional and Global Groupings and Agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests.

Key Phrases: Trans-Atlantic Nuclear Alliance, Cuban Missile Crisis Of 1962, Bay Of Pigs Invasion, Fidel Castro Regime In Cuba, The Spiral Model, Strategic Empathy, The Role For Global Diplomacy

Why in News?

The Russo-Ukrainian War has brought the world to its most dangerous moment with chances of nuclear escalation in Ukraine since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the two nuclear superpowers were in direct confrontation.

Key Highlights:

A complex polycentric conflict has begun eight months after the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine where, inside Ukrainian territory, Russia’s nuclear-armed forces are battling high-performing Ukrainian troops that are directly assisted, in terms of money, weapons, and fighters, by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the trans-Atlantic nuclear alliance.

What is the Cuban missile crisis?

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was a direct and dangerous confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and was the moment when the two superpowers came closest to nuclear conflict.

The onset of the crisis:

In July 1962, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev reached a secret agreement with Cuban premier Fidel Castro to place Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba to deter any future invasion attempt after the failed U.S. attempt to overthrow the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs invasion.
A U.S. U–2 aircraft displayed sites for medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles (MRBMs and IRBMs) under construction in Cuba thus precipitating the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Soviets claimed that the missiles were for defensive purposes, but the U.S. found the presence of nuclear missiles on an island 145 km off the coast of Florida as a security threat.
The U.S. would not accept any challenge to its hegemony in the western hemisphere, its immediate periphery and thus, ordered a naval “quarantine” of Cuba blocking access for Soviet ships.
The US also declared that the United States would not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba, and demanded that the Soviets dismantle the missile bases already under construction or completed, and return all offensive weapons to the U.S.S.R.

De-escalation of the crisis:

An agreement was reached in which the Soviets had to remove their missiles from Cuba and the United States promised not to invade the island and it promised the removal of U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey as well as a guarantee that the United States would not attack Cuba.
If the Soviets refused to remove the missiles, the US would be forced to escalate the crisis by authorizing air strikes over Cuba to bomb the missile sites.
In the event that the Soviets responded militarily to Kennedy’s demands, contingency plans were developed for a full-scale invasion of Cuba and a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

Origins of the Ukraine crisis:

The origins of the Ukraine crisis can be traced to NATO’s eastward expansion which took in more countries and pushed its borders towards Russia’s periphery.
The group’s leadership and the new members emphasized that they were a defensive alliance and did not pose any threat to Moscow and the former Soviet allies and the (newly born) republics were independent entities that could take sovereign decisions on whether they should join any military alliance or not.

Similarity between the Cuban and Ukraine crisis:

Russia did not accept NATO’s arguments in a similar way Ukraine did not accept the Soviet argument that the Cuban missiles were for defensive purposes, or that Cuba was an independent country that could take sovereign decisions on whether it should host Soviet missiles or not.
Russia saw NATO’s expansion into and growing influence on the old Russian rim land as a national security threat to Russia, just like Kennedy saw the presence of Soviet missiles in the Caribbean as a national security threat to the U.S.

Difference between the Cuban crisis and Ukraine crisis:

The Cuban missile crisis was a crisis that was resolved before it actually stepped into war, whereas in the case of Ukraine, a full-scale war began on February 24 with the Russian invasion, which makes the crisis even more complex and demands more urgent calls for enhanced diplomatic efforts.
Russia and Ukraine could not avert an actual conflict, but they can still avert a catastrophic direct Russia-NATO war.

The spiral model:

The current phase of the Ukraine war is a textbook example of a spiral model where parties treat each other with matching hostility, sharply escalating an existing conflict.
Even if there is no desire for a nuclear war on both sides, escalatory spirals could be dangerous, which, if left unchecked, could take their own course.

Why is there no conscious diplomatic effort to create conditions for talks?

A more realistic explanation is that the US sees an opportunity in the Ukraine war to weaken Russia by continuing to arm Ukraine, as the Russian failure in Ukraine can have political consequences, and thus, escalation becomes a policy of choice.
The Russians, on the other side, see the U.S. as the main force behind Ukraine, before and after the war began.
As a failure in Ukraine will have both security and political consequences, Russia cannot afford to make compromises and the escalation becomes the way ahead for him as well.

Lessons from the Cuban crisis:

There was a high possibility of an intercontinental nuclear exchange during the Cuban crisis and this time, reprehensibly, Russia is threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, to terrify Ukraine and its partners and force negotiations on Moscow’s terms.
There is an utmost need to avoid a nuclear attack in wartime since, if the Russians use nuclear weapons, it will break a nuclear taboo that has been embraced by the whole world for over seventy years.
U.S. and Russian leaders awake to their responsibility as the two biggest nuclear powers, will redouble their joint efforts to control, limit and reduce nuclear weapons.
China, modernizing and building up its nuclear arsenal, should be invited to join in the discussions, in line with the size of its force structure.

Need for Strategic Empathy:

The conflict will keep deteriorating unless the leaders break the spiral as was evident in Russia’s recent attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure and the Ukrainian drone attack in Sevastopol, Crimea.
To break the spiral, the parties will have to first look beyond their personalist view of the conflict and try to understand the structural conditions from which their rivals operate.
This would allow the leaders to empathise with their rivals, irrespective of their moral position which is called as strategic empathy by realists and make difficult decisions to make peace.
Kennedy and Khrushchev had shown strategic empathy to understand the predicament both leaders were in, and they could make difficult choices.
However, Ukraine and Russia are in their own silos, blaming each other and blindly pursuing their goals through force.

Actions essential to reducing the chance of a nuclear escalation in Ukraine:

Russia’s nuclear threats should not be treated as a standoff to be won, but as an impending crisis to be prevented.
The United States must continue to maintain an open and transparent bilateral line of communication with Russia and Russia, for its part, should establish a communications hotline with Ukraine.
The United States must work harder to strengthen norms against the existence and the use of nuclear weapons. It should make clear that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia would be viewed by all as unacceptable in the face of a predatory nuclear threat, the United States must also move to uphold the current nuclear taboo on its own by committing to a policy of no-first-use.

The role for Global Diplomacy:

Indonesia is the current G20 chair and India is the incoming chair and both have refrained from condemning Russia, keeping communication channels open.
In the run-up to the G-20 summit, India and Indonesia are well placed to take a diplomatic initiative to persuade Russia to step away from the nuclear rhetoric and emphasize the deterrent role of nuclear weapons and not expand it.
Such a statement would help reduce growing fears of escalation and may also provide a channel for communication and open the door for a dialogue that can lead to a ceasefire.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. The lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis remain valid 60 years later. Examine. Discuss the course of action needed to reduce the chance of a nuclear escalation in Ukraine. (250 words).