Vyacheslav Nikonov
In May 1962, Nikita Khrushchev, the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union suggested to deploy Soviet medium-range missiles in Cuba. His idea was later transformed into Operation Anadyr. During the following months, the world was on the brink of a nuclear war that was finally averted. Vyacheslav Nikonov, Ph.D. in history and first deputy chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the State Duma, explains why the Soviet government sent its troops to Liberty Island, how relations between the countries developed after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and whether the world was on the brink of a global war in recent decades.
– Mr. Nikonov, it is assumed that the Soviet government resolved to launch Operation Anadyr as a response to the deployment of U.S. missiles in Turkey and Italy. In your opinion, was it possible to make the United States withdraw its dangerous arsenal from those countries via diplomatic efforts?
– The missiles deployed in Turkey and Italy had hardly anything to do with Khrushchev's decision. However, there were more than enough reasons to launch the operation aimed at the deployment of our missiles in Cuba. At this point, we can refer only to memoirs and things spoken by the participants of the events in public or at the Presidium of the Central Committee.
Apparently, the decision was taken by Nikita Khrushchev personally. The idea was his. The research related to the deployment of missiles in Cuba was not conducted by the General Staff or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Why did Khrushchev take such a decision? There are explanations provided by him, as well as by his son-in-law Adzhubei, his son Sergei, Andrei Gromyko, Anastas Mikoyan, and Fedor Burlatsky. The latter used to work as Andropov's assistant back then. We cannot say that those explanations are very different. Nevertheless, Nikita Khrushchev's first argument was to support Cuba, which was totally unprotected in case of U.S. aggression.
The well-known Bay of Pigs Invasion was a year before. Back then U.S. President Kennedy arranged a military operation against Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro. The operation failed. One of the reasons behind its failure was the fact that Cuba had already been supplied with heavy Soviet, Czech, and GDR armaments. There was no doubt that the effort to overthrow Castro would be made again. Indeed, there was the Cuban Project, also known as Operation Mongoose, which Robert Kennedy, the president's brother, was personally in charge of. That operation was about to commence. Therefore, this particular reason was definitely the primary one.
There was another reason related to missiles. This was the issue of establishing the military-strategic parity with the United States. Khrushchev was very much concerned about it. Back then, the U.S. had roughly seventeen-fold superiority in strategic weapons, the number of nuclear warheads, as well as nuclear warhead carriers, including bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Furthermore, that superiority was provided mainly by American bomber aviation that had bases in Europe, Turkey, and on the borders of the Far East.
We had no capability of striking United States territory with bomber aircraft, with the exception of Alaska. We had up to 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles. And we had no submarine-based missiles capable of reaching the United States.
And the third point is that Khrushchev was rather annoyed by the fact that Americans were capable of everything, and we were not. That is, important reasons included the prestige and ambition to "put a hedgehog in the Americans' pants", as someone said at that time. This idea also pleased or at least fascinated him. Perhaps, these were the three main reasons.
– So, the intention to have the American intermediate-range Jupiter missiles removed from close proximity was not the primary one?
– Furthermore, the idea to deploy missiles in Cuba and then negotiate them for American missiles in Turkey and Italy was not initially mentioned at all. It came up in the course of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Actually, Kennedy had discussed with his associates the possibility of removing the obsolete missiles from there even before relations with the Soviet Union deteriorated. They did not contribute to combat capabilities and caused some diplomatic issues. Furthermore, the U.S. military assumed that the Jupiters could be successfully replaced by Polaris, the more advanced submarine-based ballistic missiles. They were well capable of threatening the Soviet Union from the waters of the Mediterranean Sea or the Black Sea. Thus, the Americans certainly didn't have to fight for the missiles in Turkey with their lives. Little did they care about them.
– Now what kind of missiles did we send to Cuba?
– There were more than just missiles. On May 24, Khrushchev first mentioned the idea of placing missiles in Cuba during a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee. On June 10, the Anadyr plan was approved. It made provisions for setting up a group of 51 thousand Soviet troops in Cuba. That group was to include the joint missile division equipped with 24 R-12 ballistic missiles that have a range of about 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles), and 16 R-14 missiles that have a range of 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles). Each warhead featured a blast yield of 50 Hiroshimas. They managed to deliver R-12, however, R-14 missiles were never delivered.
Furthermore, two missile regiments were also assigned to go there. They were armed with cruise missiles having a range of 160 kilometers (100 miles) and nuclear warheads. That group of troops was supposed to include also four separate motor rifle regiments, an anti-aircraft division, an anti-aircraft missile division, an aviation regiment with the Mig-21, a helicopter regiment, as well as a fleet, which was actually not established, and a mine-and-torpedo aviation regiment of the Il-28 bombers.
Thus, it was the biggest military landing and logistics operation in the history of our country. It was also the most complex operation from a technical point of view, and it was conducted in a fairly covert manner. The decision was made on June 10. The shipments commenced in June to August. A huge number of vessels left for Cuba. However, the Americans found out about it much later. It was only by October that they got some information, and the Soviet missiles were already being deployed in Cuba.
– So, the Americans failed to uncover the scheme at the moment the ships started heading towards Cuba?
– Sure enough, they flew over our vessels but the armament was supplied disguised as agricultural equipment. The missiles were transported in the holds and were not visible from the air. When this fleet headed for Cuba, it provoked greater attention from U.S. intelligence, however, they did not believe that our missiles, especially those with nuclear weapons, could be there.
– Having sent ships to Cuba, was Khrushchev actually prepared for war? Or was his objective only to intimidate Kennedy?
– You know, since we had a seventeen-fold lag in nuclear-missile weapons, it's pretty weird to somehow suspect that Khrushchev wanted to commit absolute suicide together with our whole country. He certainly had no intention of war with America, and we never had any agenda of attacking the US, unlike Washington, which used to update its nuclear-armed missile attack on the USSR on a yearly basis. By the way, as the crisis unfolded, all of America's nuclear deterrent forces got fully operational, and they were really ready to destroy the Soviet Union along with all those who lived in it.
We withdrew our nuclear assets from Cuba as an outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, most of the Soviet military force stayed there until the collapse of the Soviet Union. As to Kennedy, he undertook a gentleman's commitment and withdrew the missiles from Turkey, although it actually was not part of the deal.
– After the resolution of the crisis, the USSR and the United States ceased targeting each other with weapons. However, NATO has been moving closer and closer to Russia's borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What does the United States want to achieve by these actions?
– The aim is to destroy Russia. This is the goal the West has been pursuing for the last thousand years. The United States aspires to global dominance. However, there are several rather serious impediments in its way. Our country is among the most serious of them. It is the only country capable of challenging the United States in the military and political fields.
Speaking of the official strategy of the United States, at least in the post-World War II period, it has been aimed at weakening and destroying alternative centers of power that are capable of challenging its global dominance. Russia and China are among the two main strategic targets of the United States, its main enemies. Their entire policy is aimed at weakening and, in an ideal scenario, destroying us.
– How then can we interpret the words of former U.S. President Bill Clinton that he offered Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin to join NATO? What was the purpose of this suggestion? Or was it his tale?
– He lies. Yeltsin had some thoughts regarding the possibility of joining NATO. He discussed this idea with George Bush Sr. Andrei Kozyrev (the Russian Foreign Minister at the time. - Ed.) also used to talk about it. However, the response was always "No," and it was a rather harsh response. The U.S. did not invite Russia to NATO. There were no such invitations.
It's worth noting that when I was a member of the first State Duma in 1994 and 1995, I used to attend all of the NATO parliamentary assemblies. It was then that the question of NATO expansion was raised for the first time. We also brought up the idea of potential membership. However, we didn't have any expectations that it would be accepted but rather teased the other side. It was clear that Russia could not be a member of NATO. If Russia joined NATO, that would be the end of NATO. It was clear to all sides.
– There has been a special military operation in Ukraine for several months now. It is well-known that Western weapons have been supplied to this country, and NATO instructors have come there. What do NATO members need Ukraine for?
– The aim is just the same. This is simply one of the tools used by America to destroy Russia. It was intended to turn Ukraine into a box of dynamite that would explode and destroy us.
– Do you think the Alliance will dare to confront Russia directly on Ukrainian territory?
– So what kind of confrontation do you think it is right now? It is certainly a direct confrontation. They are sending weapons, instructors, and a large number of so-called representatives of private military companies who are actually just military personnel. Isn't this a direct involvement in the conflict? Will they declare that they are sending their troops officially? Well, probably not because I don't know of any country other than Poland where the idea of war with Russia enjoys any kind of public support.
– What kind of world will it be after the special operation is over?
– It will be different. I can't tell you what it will be like because the special operation is not over. Many things depend on how we finish the operation, how we endure this situation and how they endure it. So far it is not just about a confrontation of some military forces, which is quite important, but a confrontation of two very different worlds. There is the Western world, which aimed global dominance, and in many ways, it has been so for the past decades. And there is the rest of the world, which does not want to put up with it.
Moreover, it is a confrontation of different economies. There are real economies with industry, agriculture, and the military-industrial complex that our country, China, and India have. There are also the economies of the funny money, bubbles, pyramid schemes, and financial exchanges that the West has. The above should also bring the world to a very different situation. Until recently, the world of the paper-based economy and the world of the dollar issue managed to be stronger than the world of the real economy. I think we should expect a serious turnaround here.
It is incredibly complicated to foresee what exactly the new world is going to be like. This is because it is evolving in all sorts of unpredictable ways. Sometimes it doesn't turn out the way we want it to. Nevertheless, the changes will certainly be fundamental. One author that I find interesting said, "If you make a prediction about the world of the future and that prediction looks like science fiction to you, you're probably wrong. However, if it doesn't look like science fiction, you're certainly wrong.”
– Has there been anything like the Cuban Missile Crisis over the last 60 years? How relevant are the lessons learned from it today?
– There has been no similar event to the Cuban Missile Crisis in the last sixty years. The world did not come that close to a general confrontation again. The current crisis around Ukraine is certainly the closest to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nevertheless, as of today, we have a much longer way from the intensity preceding the outbreak of the crisis to the actual exchange of nuclear strikes than we were in October 1962.
Source: https://www.pnp.ru/
