On Ukraine, what would John F. Kennedy do?

As a lifelong follower of President John F. Kennedy, and as a Kennedy School grad who spent months studying the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, I often think in moments of international crisis, what would JFK do? The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is taking place nearly 60 years after Russia’s placement of intercontinental ballistic missiles in Cuba, 90 miles off the shore of Florida.

According to James Hershberg, former Director of the Cold War History Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center, “we are in a second Cuban Missile Crisis, in many ways, in terms of the danger of escalation,” says Hershberg. “Putin is acting so irrationally he makes Nikita Khrushchev appear like a rational actor in comparison.” [Source: Canadian Press, ‘In Russian invasion of Ukraine, Cold War echoes reverberate’, March 13, 2022]

The Cuban Missile Crisis, coming eighteen months after Kennedy’s disastrous decision not to pull the plug on the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, plunged the world - already in full Cold War mode - into a paralyzing state of fear. Yes, in school, we practiced nuclear bomb test drills by ducking under our school desks. We were glued to our black-and-white TV monitors while watching with increasing anxiety President Kennedy’s handling of the most profound threat to world peace since the Second World War.

Kennedy quickly invoked a naval “quarantine” (not a “blockade” as that would be defined as an ‘act of war’) around “that imprisoned island” as he referred to it. Meanwhile, members of ExComm, his team of advisors pressed him for tougher actions — invasion, including the possible use of nuclear missiles. When Kennedy heard that suggestion from one of his generals, he replied curtly, “and then what?".

Kennedy was not impressed by military objections. The Bay of Pigs had taught the President to distrust the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The first advice I’m going to give my successor,” he once said to his journalist friend Ben Bradlee, “is to watch the generals and to avoid feeling that because they were military men their opinions on military matters were worth a damn.” During the Missile Crisis Kennedy courteously and consistently rejected the Joint Chiefs’ bellicose recommendations. “These brass hats have one great advantage in their favour,” he said. “If we…do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive later to tell them that they were wrong.” [Source: Robert F. Kennedy, ‘Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis’]

Now in Ukraine, the Russian bear has been unleashed and 2.5 million refugees have fled their country, amid clear evidence of war crimes aimed at civilian populations.

So, what would JFK do? Although no one definitively knows the answer to that, I believe we can learn from his Cuban Missile Crisis experience during those thirteen days when the world stood on the precipice of nuclear war.

First, he knew what his goal was. Ultimately, he knew that Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles - whether launched by air from the Soviet Union or stationed in Cuba - were a clear and present danger (although the U.S. held a significant advantage in sheer numbers). However, his real focus was on Berlin, which Khrushchev had already told him earlier in 1962 that the Soviets intended to move in on West Berlin after the U.S. mid-term elections. Kennedy knew that after his meeting with Khrushchev in April 1961, the Russian leader viewed him as weak. So, Kennedy realized that rolling over on Cuba was a further invitation to Khrushchev to finally take over West Berlin.

Second, he held his cards close to his chest. When National Security Assistant McGeorge Bundy first showed the President aerial confirmation of the Russian medium-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba, he played it cool. He called in Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko to the Oval Office and asked him directly if Russia was doing this, and Gromyko denied it. Kennedy had given him the chance to come clean. He used this lie on television and at the United Nations to bring the world onside when he subsequently revealed the extent of their provocation and lies. Similarly in Ukraine, the world can see via television and social media the extent of Putin’s lies as to what he is up to in Ukraine.

Third, Kennedy chose his messages carefully. Kennedy didn’t give Khrushchev and the Russians a free hand for their continued build-up of missiles in Cuba. He never publicly said, as President Biden has done with Russia and Ukraine, “we will not invade” Cuba. While he quickly installed the naval quarantine around Cuba, preventing the continued shipment of missiles from Russia, he kept the Russians off-balance. He knew from personal experience in the Pacific during World War II that few tyrants can resist such a virtual invitation to invade another country.

Even if Kennedy were personally opposed to it, he wouldn’t have publicly ruled out a ‘No Fly Zone’ over the country he vowed to support. Kennedy knew that ambiguity has a role to play in diplomacy. In his address to the nation, he offered both a sword and an olive branch. In clear and powerful language, he said, “I call upon [Khrushchev] to abandon this course of world destruction and join in the historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man[kind].”

Fourth, he kept his options open. While he personally was opposed to an invasion or the ‘surgical’ use of nuclear weapons (as virtually all his ExComm members had advocated early in the process) he continued to ask questions, seek evidence, and listen to arguments. Other than the announcement of the naval quarantine, Kennedy promised in his televised address “a full retaliatory response by the United States” should Russia attempt to use those weapons. Khrushchev was left guessing as to what that ‘retaliatory response’ might be. Contrast this with the current message to Putin: ‘no’ to the presence of NATO troops or air support, ‘no’ to a No Fly Zone, and ‘no’ to providing the 28 Polish MIG fighter jets for the Ukrainian pilots to defend themselves. There is no ambiguity there, and no doubt Putin is grateful.

Fifth, Kennedy used television as a key channel to reach over the heads of political hard-liners and critics into the living rooms of the American people, as he demonstrated his cool and clear determination to address this threat to world peace. One of my professors at the Kennedy School, Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, was an aide to President Kennedy whose central premise was that the power of the Presidency is to persuade.

The best example of using his power to persuade was JFK’s televised address on Monday, Oct. 18th, 1962, when he shared with Americans the photos taken by U-2 flights over Cuba, announcing the imposition of the naval quarantine, and demanding that the Russians remove the missiles. The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy uses Instagram Live and other social media platforms to give hope to his people and galvanize world audiences -whether from his bunker or from the streets of Kyiv. As with Kennedy, the strength of his delivery and the power and authenticity of his messages help drive home the seriousness of the situation and his call to action.

In Zelenskyy’s case, it’s easy to forget that he is a former actor. Of course, President Reagan was a former actor before entering the world of politics. When someone once asked Reagan, “how can an actor be a President?” Regan replied, “how can a President not be an actor?” Reagan became known as one of the most eloquent orators of the twentieth century and was able to build a solid relationship with Soviet President Mikhael Gorbachev that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union a year after leaving office.

Although it’s not fair to compare any modern political leader to Kennedy’s eloquence, world leaders can benefit by studying how Kennedy mastered the camera, and, as was said many years later about Winston Churchill during World War II, he “mobilized the English language and sent it into battle”.

Sixth, JFK allowed his adversary to have dignity in their climb down. He knew that the presence of older generation missiles with nuclear warheads in Turkey was a sore point with the Russians. He was personally annoyed to find out they were still there. He asked his brother Bobby to open a backchannel with the Russians in which he proffered the removal of those missiles as a quid pro quo for the removal of missiles in Cuba - so long as they were not publicly linked and would be removed later. Besides helping him with his domestic critics, he knew this helped Khrushchev in his internal battles with Kremlin hardliners, as he could claim this as an achievement. Although it may have helped the Russian leader in the short term, he was removed from office a year after the Cuban missile crisis. History will be kinder to Khrushchev than it will be to Putin.

Kennedy had the emotional intelligence to give the Russian leader breathing room as the two nations were “eyeball and to eyeball and I think the other fellow just blinked”. (Source: Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Saturday Evening Post, Dec. 8, 1962) The world stepped back from nuclear war on October 28th, 1962 when Khrushchev ordered the missile carrying merchant ships to turn around as they neared the American quarantine. John F. Kennedy stood up at the precipice of nuclear war with a resolute, yet flexible approach. His innate and developed leadership communications skills were a critical part of that achievement. Today, many things have changed as the West and Russia face each other while tanks and missiles rain down on Ukraine. There are more complexities today and more moving parts, yes. But there is always a time for leadership. What the world is witnessing in Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a leader who is equally resolute as he builds a coalition of support around the world.

I’m confident that John F. Kennedy would be proud of President Zelenskyy today and encourage him to keep the vision of a free Ukraine front and centre as he stands up to Putin who tries - but cannot succeed - in over-powering the pride, determination, and sheer will of the Ukrainian people.

Barry J. McLoughlin, M.P.A. is a leadership communications consultant with TLC Transformational Leadership Consultants Inc., Fellow of the Riddell Master of Political Management Program at Carleton University, and Adjunct Professor of Strategic Communications in the Shannon School of Business, Cape Breton University. Email: barry@tlcTransformationalLeadershipConsultantsInc.