After watching the movie "Thirteen Days" here are your case study assignment

questions:

1. Identify the issues that motivated the Russians to set the missiles in Cuba.

The basic motivation behind the Russians setting missiles in Cuba was the race for
power between the two Super Powers of the world. During his elections campaigns,
Kennedy talked about US having less missiles compared to the Russians. This,
however, was not. The Russians, to test the newly elected President, built the wall
around West Berlin, which further heated the situation.
In this cold war the Russians missiles were only powerful enough to be launched
against Europe but U.S. missiles were capable of striking the entire Soviet Union.
This, and Americas troubled relations with the Cuban Prime Minister, Cuba’ strategic
location and their need to match up with the US capabilities led to them setting up the
missiles in Cuba, which would give them a first strike power.

2. Identify the issues that motivated the Cubans to accept the missiles in their country.

The Cuban Prime Minister was well aware of the fact that the Americans could
attempt to overrun his Government, especially after their failed attempt in the Bay of
Pigs invasion, which the Americans had lost. The Americans followed this by a mock
invasion of a Caribbean island and a mock plan to invade Cuba. This fear motivated
the Cubans to let the Russians set up a missile base in their country. However, it is
important to note that Cuba, its leadership and its people had no or very less role to
play between this race for power between the two super powers. Though the
agreement seemed to have helped the Cubans with he Americans agreeing never to
invade Cuba, it actually was a battle between the US and the Russians and did not do
a lot of good to the Cubans.

3. What was the message the Russians tried to convey with their first letter to the
Americans?

The first electronic message received by the Russians sent a mixed response, which
made the Americans believe the Russians were undecided on their course of action.
The first crucial message, however, was through a Russian spy; a close aide of
Russian President, where the first offer to remove the missiles was made. This offer
called for America submitting to never invade Cuba in return of the removal of the
missiles. The message Russian wanted to send across was they did not want war and
was ready for dialogue. It was very important on part of the Russians to make this
move, as they were aware that Americans would not wait for the Missiles to get
activated and a strike from Americans would call for retaliation from Russia. Hence,
this first message was most crucial as it opened doors for dialogue instead of War.
4. What did the Americans understand from the first letter they received from the
Russians?

The American analysis was that the letter was apparently written by the Russian
President himself and was written in hurry and under pressure. This led them to
believe that possibly the President was under pressure from the hardliner communists
which made his decisions less predictable. This seemed to have worried the
Americans and called for further efforts to engage in dialogue and a compromise if
they wanted to prevent war. This letter, followed by the message from the Russian
spy, who called for a compromise deal was well interpreted by the Americans and
could have completely changed the course of events if interpreted otherwise. For
example, since the electronic message did not say anything clearly, it could have also
been interpreted as the Russians buying time to activate the missiles there by leading
to immediate strikes by the Americans. This message was one of the crucial keys to
lead to the destination.

5. How do you evaluate their reaction to the first

letter?

The Americans’ reaction to the first letter was accurate. They had started positioning
their forces to deal with the worse and well interpreted this first message and did not
make the first strike. Their decision to communicate through the open communication
channels put across the clear message that they were ready for dialogue but also war,
if the need be. The wrong interpretation of the first letter could have resulted in
immediate strikes by the Americans and far lessened the chances of a resolution
without war.

6. Would you have done anything different in

response to the first letter?

It was very important to understand well the first letter as it could have thrown some
light on the intentions of the Russians. Since the Russians had been out rightly
denying the presence of any offensive weapons on the Cuban Island it was crucial to
understand if they setting up these missiles to reach a deal or to gain the first strike
power. While it was less likely that it would have been the former, the Americans
were in no case ready to compromise on the latter. Hence, my response of the letter
would have been on the same lines as it was, evidently, the only was out without a
war.

7. What was the message the Russians tried to convey with their second letter to the
Americans?

The American missiles in Turkey were 100 miles away from Russia and could target
almost all of Russia. The Russians did not have this capability. Their missiles could at
best cover Europe but could not reach up to American. The message from the second
letter was more or less clear. The Russians wanted the Americans to know that they
would not submit to American military superiority. Thus, if the Americans were to
prevent their soil from being on target of the Russian missiles, they were to retreat
from Turkey.

8. What did the Americans understand from the second letter they received from the
Russians?

The interpretation of this message was that this whole exercise was not offensive in
nature but was a show of might for military equality. Since the Russians did not have
the technology to target Americans, they wanted the Americans to remove their
installations from Turkey and Italy. This message was easier to interpret as compared
to the first as here the purpose was clear and objective.

9. How do you evaluate their reaction to the second letter?

The Americans decided to agree to the first demands made in the first letter and
ignore having received the second. This reaction seemed wishful thinking to me.
Since Cuba was of miniscule importance in this war of power between the two super
powers, it was more or less evident that they had not put the missiles in place to
remove them for a commitment from American of not invading Cuba. The crux of
Russian planting these missiles in Russia was military might. And the only
complement to the removal from Cuba was an exchange removal from Turkey.

10. Would you have done anything different in response to the second letter?

It was difficult to deal with the second letter. The Russians had made clear from their
2 letters that they were ready for negotiation but had also made clear that they did not
have a concrete demand. Hence, a weak response to the letter could have given them a
chance to further their demands. Also, it was evident that they would not give in
unless offered something substantial but this could have badly hampered the
Kennedy’ image which he could not afford for the forthcoming elections. Hence, as
the admiral said, the President “was in a bad fix”. I would have negotiated on the
same lines but not by trying to ignore the first letter. It could have also sent a wrong
message that the Americans’ were not ready to give up their military might and could
have worsened things. Fortunately, this did not happen, as the stakes were high on
both sides.
11. Would it make any difference if the two presidents had a face-to-face negotiation
from the beginning?

As soon as this fiesta ended, the American and Russian heads of state set up a hotline
between the two countries for better negotiations. This clearly tells us how well they
understood the lack of communication during this conflict. It would have definitely
made a lot of difference if the two Presidents had negotiated face to face. At
numerous events, America could have given in and gone for War. It was only chance
and wisdom of the people involved that prevented it. Both parties well understood the
needs and vulnerability of each other and a face-to-face dialogue could have helped a
lot.

Thanks and Regards

Amardeep Singh