The Ukraine war is a textbook example where the parties involved are treating each other with equal hostility – a dangerous slope – rapidly escalating the conflict.
The Ukraine war is a textbook example where the parties involved are treating each other with equal hostility – a dangerous slope – rapidly escalating the conflict.
In October 1962, when the United States discovered that the Soviet Union had transferred nuclear missiles to Cuba, US President John F. Kennedy called it a “deliberately provocative and unreasonable change of status quo that cannot be accepted by this country.” could…” He ordered a naval quarantine of Cuba, thus blocking access for Soviet ships. He appointed an executive committee of his National Security Council to advise them on possible responses. While the majority of ExComm members supported airstrikes on Cuba targeting Soviet missiles, Kennedy stuck to the quarantine, which was also one of the committee’s recommendations. At the same time, he opened a back channel for Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev through his brother Robert Kennedy. “Even if he (President Kennedy) doesn’t want or wants war, something irreversible can happen against his will. If the situation persists longer, the president isn’t sure if the military wants them.” Will not overthrow and seize power,” Robert Kennedy told the Soviet ambassador in Washington. Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s message, which he saw as a “call for help”, and the two leaders called on their countries pulled back from the brink of nuclear war.
The world has seen many military conflicts since the Cuban Missile Crisis. There have been wars on the continents. Both the former Soviet Union and the US initiated interventions, invasions and proxy conflicts in vulnerable countries. But a 1962-like scenario, where two nuclear superpowers lost their sights, never happened – until the outbreak Ukraine crisis. Eight months after Russia begins its invasion of Ukraine, this is what it looks like: a complex multicentric conflict where, inside Ukrainian territory, Russia’s nuclear-armed forces are battling high-performing Ukrainian soldiers, who are directly charged with money. Aid is provided, weapons and fighters by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Trans-Atlantic Nuclear Alliance.
Origin of Crisis
In addition to fears of the current conflict escalating directly into a Russo-NATO war, there are similarities and dissimilarities between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Ukraine War. The similarities begin with the origins of both crises. Khrushchev secretly transferred nuclear missiles to Cuba after the failure of the Central Intelligence Agency-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of the island in 1961, where guerrillas under the command of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara established a pro-American military dictatorship in 1959. was overthrown. Later, the Soviet Union claimed the missiles were for defensive purposes, but the US found the presence of nuclear missiles in an island 145 km off the coast of Florida as a security threat. Simply put, the US will not accept any challenge to its hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, its immediate periphery.
The origins of the Ukraine crisis can be traced back to NATO’s eastward extension. When NATO captured more countries and pushed its borders toward Russia’s periphery, both the group’s leadership and new members insisted that they were a defensive alliance and posed no threat to Moscow. He also argued that the former Soviet allies and (nascent) republics were independent entities that could make sovereign decisions on whether they should join a military alliance. Nevertheless, as Kennedy and his national security team did not accept the Soviet argument that Cuban missiles were for defensive purposes, or that Cuba was an independent country that could make sovereign decisions on whether or not to host Soviet missiles. That is, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his team did not buy into NATO’s similar arguments. Mr Putin saw the expansion of NATO and growing influence over the Old Russian Rim land as a national security threat to Russia, just as Kennedy saw the presence of Soviet missiles in the Caribbean as a national security threat to the US.
But the similarities end there. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a crisis that was resolved before it actually fell into the war, whereas in the case of Ukraine, a full-scale war began with a Russian invasion on 24 February, which would have further complicated the crisis. and demands more urgent calls. To enhance diplomatic efforts. Mr Putin and US President Joe Biden simply missed the point to avert a real conflict, but they could still avert a horrific direct Russo-NATO war. But are they doing anything to meet him?
spiral model
The current phase of the Ukraine war is a textbook example of what international relations theorists call a spiral model, where the parties treat each other with equal hostility, exacerbating the current conflict. Even if both sides have no desire for nuclear war, escalatory spirals can be dangerous, which, if left unchecked, can do their job. Why, however, is no conscious diplomatic effort made to create the conditions for dialogue?
One way to look at conflicts is to take an ethical, regulatory view of them. The mainstream narrative in the US about Mr Putin corresponds with this view – he is an aggressor who has violated international laws and norms by invading Ukraine and annexing its territories, and therefore, not negotiating with the Washington Kremlin. Will do This authentic absolutism is not consistent with the past and present of US foreign policy. The US has violated UN norms several times in its intervention abroad and had no moral merit in recognizing its ally Israel’s illegal occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights or the disputed Jerusalem, half of which was illegally held. It was annexed by Israel as its capital.
A more realistic explanation is that Washington sees an opportunity to undermine Russia while continuing to arm Ukraine in the Ukraine War. According to this narrative, the Russian failure in Ukraine could have political consequences, including challenges to Mr. Putin’s grip on power. So, growth becomes the policy of choice. Russia, on the other hand, sees the US as the main force behind Ukraine, both before and after the start of the war. As a failure in Ukraine will have both security and political consequences, Mr Putin cannot afford to compromise. Growth becomes the way forward for him as well. This is a dangerous slope.
strategic sympathy
Unless leaders break the spiral, the conflict will continue to worsen, as was evident in Russia’s recent attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure and the Ukrainian drone strike in Sevastopol, Crimea. To break the spiral, parties must first look beyond their individual view of the conflict and try to understand the structural conditions from which their rivals operate. This would allow leaders to empathize with their rivals regardless of their moral positions (what realists call strategic empathy) and make difficult decisions to make peace. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he will not talk to Russia as long as Mr Putin is president. Mr Biden Says “Putin Can’t Stay in Power”, But is there any certainty that the security situation in Europe will improve if the Putin regime falls? Did the collapse of the communist Soviet Union bring lasting peace to Europe? To Mr. Putin, Washington is the sum of all evils. But when Russia seeks to reshape the European security framework through force, how can it expect President Biden to sit idle? Which US President would do this?
editorial | Reckless Threats: On the Ukraine War and Dirty Bomb Talks
Kennedy and Khrushchev both had shown strategic sympathy for the leaders’ understanding of the position, and they could make difficult choices. But Mr. Putin and Mr. Biden are blaming each other and blindly pursuing their targets through force, while Ukraine is on fire. The sooner they come out of it, the better for the world.
stanly.johny@thehindu.co.in