0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
320 $

Putin: Ukraine Is To Russia What Cuba Was To America In The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

Support SouthFront

Putin: Ukraine Is To Russia What Cuba Was To America In The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

Illustrative Image

Written by Eric Zuesse

In an almost universally ignored speech by Putin, on December 1st (titled “Ceremony for presenting foreign ambassadors’ letters of credence”), he said, merely as an aside [and I here shall add clarifications in brackets]:

By the way, the threat on our western border [he was referring mainly to Ukraine] is really growing, and we have mentioned it many times. It is enough to see how close NATO military infrastructure has moved to Russia’s borders. This is more than serious for us. [He meant that it is an existential threat against Russia, just as the Soviet Union’s placement of nuclear weapons in Cuba would have been an existential threat to America in 1963. But he always tries to be non-alarmist, because his real audience regarding such matters is the people who control U.S. foreign policies, and he doesn’t want to draw the public’s attention to matters of existential consequence between the superpowers.]

In this situation, we are taking appropriate military-technical measures. But, I repeat, we are not threatening anyone and it is at the very least irresponsible to accuse us of this, given the real state of affairs. This would mean laying the blame at the wrong door, as the Russian saying goes.

In my speech at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs I already stressed that the priority facing Russian diplomacy at this juncture is to try to ensure that Russia is granted reliable and long-term security guarantees.

While engaging in dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on the elaboration of concrete agreements that would rule out any further eastward expansion of NATO and the deployment of weapons systems posing a threat to us in close proximity to Russia’s territory. We suggest that substantive talks on this topic should be started.

I would like to note in particular that we need precisely legal, juridical guarantees, because our Western colleagues have failed to deliver on verbal commitments they made. Specifically, everyone is aware of the assurances they gave verbally that NATO would not expand to the east. But they did absolutely the opposite in reality. In effect, Russia’s legitimate security concerns were ignored and they continue to be ignored in the same manner even now.

We are not demanding any special terms for ourselves. We understand that any agreements must take into account the interests of both Russia and all other states in the Euro-Atlantic region. A calm and stable situation should be ensured for everyone and is needed by all without exception.

That said, I would like to stress that Russia is interested precisely in constructive collaboration and in equitable international cooperation, and this remains the central tenet of Russian foreign policy. I hope that you will convey this signal to the leaders of your states.

He was referring there to the fact that the U.S. Government — which had, in 2013, been planning to replace Russia’s largest naval base, which had long been on Crimea, and to transform it into yet another U.S. naval base, and which U.S. Government, since 2011, had been planning and then in February 2014 actually perpetrated a coup in Ukraine so as to have a new Ukrainian government which would join NATO and allow America to position U.S. nuclear weapons less than a ten-minute flight-time away from nuking Moscow — that this U.S. Government had broken its repeated verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that if the Soviet Union would end its side of the Cold War, then America would do likewise, and NATO would not expand “one inch to the east” (toward Russia’s border).

Putin has many times expressed his regret that the Soviet Union had agreed to quit (in 1991) the Cold War without getting ironclad commitments from the U.S. to simultaneously do the same on its side. However, this new speech from Putin (as was so brilliantly pointed out by the great geostrategic analyst Alexander Mercouris in this recent video from him — starting at 9:55 in that video) is entirely new from Russia: “The Russians have never actually set out their position on NATO’s eastward expansion in this way. They have never previously, at any point since the end of the Cold War [on Russia’s side — America never left the Cold War], or even, by the way during the Cold War, said that they now insist that there is to be in effect an international treaty which will limit the expansion of NATO eastward and which will reduce NATO military forces in areas close to Russia’s borders. The fact that Putin is talking in this way is a sign of growing Russian confidence. … (18:35) For the first time, since the end of the Cold War [on Russia’s side], it is the Russians who are now making demands of The West [the U.S. regime and its satellite states or colonies — ‘allies’]. They are saying that they now want legal guarantees that NATO’s expansion eastward [i.e., closer to Russia’s border] must stop. What they are saying is that they will not tolerate NATO expansion into places like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and the rest, and that they insist that there must be a treaty agreed by the Western powers, that that will not happen. They also want some form of treaty which will restrict the deployment of Western military systems close to Russia’s borders. The Russians have never made this sort of demand before, but they are making it now. … It speaks of a major belief in Russian self-confidence. … Putin, in that speech which he made, at the Russian Foreign Ministry — a speech which, to my mind is going to become one of the most important speeches of the Cold War era — is going to become gradually understood to mark a fundamental break in Russian foreign policy. … until the point is finally reached, when the NATO powers, the Western powers, finally accept that the Russians have fundamental security interests in Eastern Europe, and negotiate in earnest to acknowledge those [as Khrushchev did with JFK in October 1963 regarding Cuba]. … It may take five years, it might take ten years; it might take even longer than that. But in time that negotiation … will take place, and an agreement will be reached; or, alternatively, there will be something far more dramatic.”

Mercouris’s statement got me to wondering why Putin would be demanding, now, after all of these decades when he wasn’t, that the lying promises that George Herbert Walker Bush’s representatives had been making to Gorbachev and to his representatives, that the U.S. and its allies had no goal of conquering Russia if the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw-Pact copy of America’s NATO military alliance, all would end, and that NATO would then NOT expand closer to Russia’s border, turned out to have been lies (by G.H.W. Bush) that were clearly demonstrated by all subsequent U.S. Presidents to have been lies. WHY would Putin now want those lies to be signed by the U.S. Government and its vassal-nations, after the U.S. regime’s entire record ever since the end of WW II has been one of lying? Why would he want the U.S. signature being now placed on those promises? It’s a worthless signature, entirely untrustworthy, isn’t it? Look at what the U.S. regime did to the START Treaty, Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Iran Nuclear Agreement, and to so many other Treaties that it had signed-onto — unilaterally trashed them, by unilaterally abandoning the Agreement on its side. What would actually be to be gained by such a trashy signature — a signature from a nation whose trustworthiness has been so conclusively disproven?

Maybe Putin’s strategy is to get it in writing (though the U.S. routinely cancels its international agreements and therefore its “signature” is meaningless), in order subsequently to announce that if and when the U.S. ever violates what it had signed (and this follow-up by Russia will then automatically make the signed Agreement effectively inviolable-noncancellable), then, at that moment, both the full force of the Russian (and maybe also of the Chinese) nuclear forces that are targeted against the snake’s head (D.C., NYC, London, Toronto, Canberra, and Israel) will be promptly unleashed. That would be an unannounced and unwarned first-strike nuclear attack against the snake’s head. Then Russia (and maybe also China) will wait for any possible counter-attack (body-twitches from the snake) before unleashing a second unannounced nuclear attack, which would be against and destroying all nations that had participated in that counterstrike against those participating U.S.-allied nations’ counter-attack.

If that is the reason why he is now demanding that the promise be put in writing, then I think that he was correct to assert what he said. Indeed: what OTHER geostrategy from a Russian (and perhaps also from a Chinese) leader who has been placed (by that snake) into such an existentially precarious position, would make any sense, at all?

(I say this in full recognition that any WW III would produce nuclear winter and terminate all human life and perhaps all life on this planet; however, the U.S. regime, ever since at least 2006, has been planning to ‘win’ such a war; and the only way that Russia and China might possibly be able to deter such insanity would be for them to pursue a very clear path forward that includes the real possibility of their initiating the nuclear stage of the conflict. The U.S. — including NATO — regime’s rabidly neoconservative presumptions are that it will scare its opponents into ultimately complying with the regime’s imperialistic demands. If a slave is about to be killed by its master, then its only choice — if any — is to kill its master in the process, regardless whether that will save the slave’s life. If this is the only way to end imperialism, then still it must be done, and the side that issues the first-strike will be on the right side of it, and the imperialist opponent will be on the wrong side of it. The slave who kills its master is in the right, because the slave-master is always on the wrong side of the relationship. My next book, due out soon, will be about this, and will be titled America’s Empire of Evil.)

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Cuba never did it

Lone Ranger

Cuba was never a part of the USA. Ukraine was Russia till 1918. Big difference.

Lone Ranger

Aside from that nobody would care if the U.S. wouldn’t support neonazis and deploy missile systems on the Russian border.


The [Brackets] are not clarification but your own interpretation. So this article is bunk.

He didn’t say anything about Cuba. He didn’t threaten to attack if NATO forces didn’t cease and desist as did Kennedy during the Cuban crisis.

So the title is misleading. You are reading into it what you want to hear.


Офицер остался! послушай мою команду! атаковать в западном направлении. уничтожить всех на своем пути.

Lazy Gamer

Why the fuck is it so hard to post here?! I need to edit everytime! When Russia asks for guarantees on an issue of existence, then it is working on the wrong policy. First, the conditions for the guarantee when it was first made was the existence of the Soviet Union with larger holdings. The situation is now different as Russia has lost its old front lines due to the independence of states that choose to side with Nato. Second, begging for guarantees is an acknowledgement of a number of things a)Russia cant match US/Nato soft power to sway states b) Russia is still in an iron curtain mindset c) Russia is in a disadvantageous position as it requires an act from another person rather than they themselves securing their interests. By focusing on that guarantee, Russia did not take care of its old spheres of interest as much as it should. Neither does it also entertain any hope that it could sway back its old sphere(maybe those debt and transit fees werent so bad after all. lol). It is bent only on its own isolationist survival. These conclusions may doom its own detached relationships elsewhere… When Russia tried to cultivate partnerships, it strengthens its flanks, front lines, and outposts. Probably in 20 years time, the atlantic distance would be the same as the Ukrainian distance for missile purposes. In 50 years time, army projection differences would be cut down to comparable levels(much easier if Russia can hold on to South America) Both sides will learn to live with shorter response times and distances. Barring that, then this will lead to conflict in the near term and one side will then compromise on a lower bar.

Last edited 1 year ago by Lazy Gamer

There are some protected/banned words.


Blame Gorbachev. What he did was unprecedented stupidity in all history of the world. Whether USSR was good or not is one thing, but it was an empire. And you just don’t disband an empire. When Southern states seceded from the Union Lincoln burned them to the ground and occupied them forever. Russians abandoned not just East Germany, they allowed some Mickey Mouse Ukraine and shitty little Lit-Lat-Estonia to take whatever they want. Now they are surprised to discover their “western partners” are total a-holes whose only goal is to destroy Russia?


blame KGB and army for not killing him. CIA killed Kennedy and he was nothing compared to Gorby. Look how they treated Trump he once said something against NATO and they went berserk. Yet Soviets allowed one traitor to destroy the entire country in 5 years


Putin’s speech is a maneuver to point in the future to Russia’s effort on the eve of war to operate on the moral high ground. He disclaims extra-territorial ambitions and politely requests that the western states stop placing their forward operating bases on Russia’s door step. Of course history is written by the victor, but if the hostilities grow to war and Russia regains ground, Putin can point to his reasonable solicitations of the west’s diplomatic corps on the eve of battle to show it was not Russia’s fault. This is in line with the article on mass graves and war crimes by the “ukronazis”. These are all predicates to war.

Instead all sides should maintain lines of actual control. Keep the status quo. Let Europe become further and further dependent on Russian gas. Work up the German/Russian alliance. Go to work, not to war.


America is not interested in status quo that is the problem. and EU/Germany is fully under their control as always

Capt Spike

“The Russians have never made this sort of demand before, but they are making it now. … It speaks of a major belief in Russian self-confidence.…”

No, it is what good Kings and Generals have done throughout history when a major war is close to beginning – they offer terms to the other side to avoid such a war.

The other side can accept/reject the terms or even submit other terms themselves, but for anyone who has held any senior military rank it will be clear that Putin is on the brink of a major confrontation with NATO in the Ukraine / Black Sea region and clearly is doing all he can to avoid it without risking national security any further.

Messages such as this are clear to tribal leaders and heads of national militaries alike – it is stop where you are, advance no further, take no further action, and submit to our very fair and reasonable terms of peace, or we will fight you on the battlefield, with all the risks entailed for both sides.

Of course if Putins terms are rejected, which they likely will be, Putin will be backed into a corner and left with some very difficult choices – non of them good.

Last edited 1 year ago by Capt Spike

I believe you have the tense incorrect here. Russia has been elbowing its way out of the clutches and crutches to stay out of the corner, it has already made its decision, (either No or Next move, actually both) Neyt!


Putin prepares for conflict. He doesn’t initiate it. If Ukraine the two renegade provinces then Putin answers with overwhelmingly force in this very limited theater. Full stop.

No WWIII. No March to Kiev. There is nothing in it for Russia. Just protect the ethnic Russian community and maybe absorb these two provinces, but nothing more.

Putin can be Peter the Great but not via WWIII.

Karl Wolfe

If only the United States wasn’t run behind the scenes by the Neo-Communists, then Putin would go down in history as Peter the Great of his time. Unfortunately the Eugenics Swine are in control and their infantile minds are incapable of rational behavior and decision making. Hopefully at the Judgement these vile anti-human Pigs will be cast down into the rotting pit of hell where they will TRULY learn what they thought they were going to “enjoy” will be an eternity of suffering that is beyond the ability of words to describe. The murdering swine deserve the fate that awaits them. How wonderful will be their genuine SURPRISE at what they claimed to not exist is far, far worse than St. John described FOR THEM. To go against the Creator when one has been warned of the consequences is the action of a FOOL.


Earth is a hell

Matter is Hell

Marcelo Rodriguez

Al ser una amenaza existencial para Rusia debe tomar enserio las amenazas de la OTAN ante esta circunstancia las negociaciones no van a llevar a ningún lado ya que por el lado de EE.UU y sus aliados está muy claro sus objetivos que es lograr cercar territorio Ruso con la mayor cantidad de países hostiles y aliados de la OTAN. Llevar la infraestructura de esta Organizacion cerca de las fronteras Rusas, sumado al despliegue de armas ofensivas y sistemas antimisiles les daría una ventaja estrategica ya que se podría atacar Moscú en apenas unos minutos. Es por ello que Rusia debe sacar a relucir su estrategia de jugador de ajedrez colocando misiles y bases en países cercanos a las fronteras de EE.U.U como es el caso de Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela paises aliados a Moscú y que son víctimas de las sanciones unilaterales impuestas por EE.UU Con esta medida se desescalaria el conflicto haciendo pensar varias veces a EE.UU y la Otan de iniciar cualquier tipo de conflicto.


i prefer Russia than LGBTRANS USA and its LGBTRANS NATO








Last edited 11 months ago by Hispadao
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x