Cuban Missile Crisis: NATO's Mirror Image

Genesis

Jacob wrestles with an angel through the night, refusing to let go until he is blessed. The encounter is fierce but ends in a hard-won peace. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy found himself in a similar struggle—not against an angel, but against forces of pride, power, and ideology. The Cuban Missile Crisis became a wrestling match for the survival of humanity, one that demanded humility, secrecy, and compromise.

While the world focused on Soviet missiles in Cuba, few realized the U.S. had its own arsenal stationed in Turkey, threatening the Soviet Union from a similarly precarious position. The crisis was not a one-sided aggression but a standoff between two superpowers, each unwilling to blink first. The resolution required JFK to act decisively—and secretly—against the wishes of the bureaucratic machine.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

October 1962, as Soviet missiles appeared in Cuba, Kennedy’s administration declared them an existential threat. The world teetered on the brink of nuclear war, but the narrative omitted a crucial detail:

• U.S. Missiles: The Soviet deployment in Cuba was a direct response to American nuclear weapons placed in Turkey, mere miles from Soviet borders. The missiles in Cuba were not an unprovoked act—they were a calculated counterbalance.

• The Real Deal: The crisis ended not with unilateral victory but through a secret agreement. Behind closed doors, JFK and Khrushchev negotiated the removal of U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for Soviet missiles leaving Cuba.

This deal had to be struck quietly, with Kennedy navigating around his own government. Bureaucrats and military leaders pushed for more aggressive actions, but JFK understood the stakes: avoiding nuclear war demanded restraint and compromise.

Ukraine and NATO

Today’s geopolitical landscape echoes the Cold War, with NATO's expansion toward Russia mirroring the missile placements of the 1960s, bringing Western military power to Moscow's doorstep. Just as the Soviets saw missiles in Turkey as a threat, Russia views NATO’s proximity as a provocation, with Ukraine caught in the middle as a modern-day Cold War Cuba—strategically critical and precariously positioned. Unlike the backchannel diplomacy of JFK and Khrushchev, today’s tensions lack compromise, driven instead by public posturing and private profiteering, leaving escalation as the dominant strategy.

Security Narratives

The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Ukraine conflict perfectly highlight the "Do as I say, not as I do" playbook of global superpowers:

• The U.S. in 1962: “Soviet missiles in Cuba?! That’s a direct threat to our sovereignty! This aggression will not stand!”

• Russia in 2022: “NATO forces near our borders?! That’s a direct threat to our sovereignty! This aggression will not stand!”

It’s the geopolitical equivalent of a neighbor yelling, “Your tree’s branches are in my yard!” while dumping their own trash over the fence. What’s intolerable for one is suddenly absolutely essential for the other. Because apparently, “sovereignty” is just a fancy word for “mine, not yours.”

The Military-Industrial Complex

Today’s geopolitical tensions, like those of the Cuban Missile Crisis, are as much about profits as they are about security. NATO’s expansion and the Ukraine conflict have sparked a surge in defense spending, echoing the Cold War arms race that enriched defense contractors. For the military-industrial complex, prolonged tensions are a boon—stability halts the flow of lucrative military contracts, while ongoing conflict ensures steady profits from the production of weapons and war machinery.

The Bureaucratic Chessboard and JFK’s Defiance

JFK’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a masterstroke in geopolitical chess, sacrificing neither principle nor peace despite immense pressure from entrenched powers. By pursuing secret diplomacy and avoiding nuclear catastrophe, he defied the military-industrial complex and intelligence agencies pushing for escalation. This bold maneuver, prioritizing the greater good over institutional demands, stood as a striking act of independent leadership.

Yet, in the high-stakes game of power, JFK himself became a sacrificed piece. Like a pivotal chess move where a knight or bishop is lost to secure the board's balance, his assassination just a year later raises questions about whether his defiance of powerful institutions made him expendable. Challenging the deep state and military-industrial complex may have set the stage for his untimely end—history we’ll examine more closely in a future newsletter.

Food For Thought

Imagine a side-by-side timeline:

Soviet missiles in Cuba versus NATO forces in Ukraine. Both cases reflect superpowers acting out of fear and pride, justifying their provocations while condemning their rivals.

If missiles in Cuba warranted a secret deal, why isn’t a similar compromise being sought for Ukraine?

Are today’s leaders too entrenched in bureaucracy to seek peace? Let us know below.