The Unintended Consequences of Poor Choices: Cuba, the Soviet Union, and Lessons for the Transition to a New World Order

The history of Cuba's relationship with the United States and the Soviet Union provides a striking example of how seemingly small or poorly thought-out decisions can lead to monumental geopolitical consequences.

Fidel Castro's initial overtures to the United States and the subsequent rejection illustrate not only a missed opportunity but also how a self-fulfilling prophecy unfolded.

The U.S.'s treatment of Castro as a potential communist adversary drove him to embrace the Soviet Union, thereby fulfilling the very threat they sought to prevent.

This dynamic underscores the interplay between the largely deterministic underlying system dynamics and the contingent, above-system processes that allow for some degree of agency—until they are constrained by systemic forces.

This analysis draws parallels with the current global transition toward a new world order, emphasizing the importance of strategic decision-making in avoiding escalations and unintended outcomes.

Castro’s Vision and His Outreach to the United States

When Fidel Castro came to power in January 1959 after overthrowing the corrupt and repressive regime of Fulgencio Batista, his primary goal was to reform Cuba.

Castro reached out to the United States with an open hand:

• Diplomatic overtures: Shortly after taking power, Castro visited the U.S. and emphasized that his revolution was not communist but aimed at fighting corruption and inequality.
• Pragmatic reforms: Castro implemented land reforms to address economic inequality, which he viewed as essential for Cuba’s social stability and development.
• Desire for collaboration: In speeches and private meetings, Castro sought to assure Washington that a strong, independent Cuba posed no threat and could even be a partner.

The U.S. Rejection: Ideological Reflexes and Economic Interests

Despite these efforts, the United States rejected Castro, driven by a mix of economic and ideological concerns. This rejection was pivotal in pushing Castro toward the Soviet Union, creating a dynamic that fulfilled the very fears the U.S. sought to preempt.

a. Damage to U.S. economic interests:

• Castro’s land reforms primarily targeted foreign, particularly American, companies that owned vast tracts of land.
• The nationalization of U.S. companies without adequate compensation was seen in Washington as a direct assault on its economic interests.

b. Cold War ideological reflexes:

• Although Castro initially distanced himself from communism, the U.S., in the context of the Cold War, quickly labeled him a potential Marxist.
• There was a pervasive fear that any form of reform in Latin America could lead to a domino effect of communist takeovers, resulting in reflexive hostility.

c. Domestic political pressures in the U.S.:

• American politicians faced pressure to appear tough on communism, leaving little room for diplomatic engagement with Castro’s regime.
• The risk of appearing "soft" on a revolutionary leader so close to U.S. shores heightened the stakes.

d. Militarized responses:

• The failed Bay of Pigs invasion (1961) and covert operations such as Operation Mongoose escalated tensions and radicalized Castro further.
• These actions solidified Cuba’s perception of the U.S. as an existential threat, driving it to seek military protection from the Soviet Union.

By treating Castro as a communist adversary from the outset, the U.S. effectively created the conditions for its own prophecy to come true. The rejection and hostility left Castro no choice but to turn to the Soviet Union, which welcomed him as a strategic ally in the Cold War.

?

Cuba and the Soviet Union: A Forced Alliance

The United States’ miscalculations and aggression pushed Castro into the Soviet orbit. The Soviets provided what the U.S. would not:

• Economic lifelines: The USSR purchased large quantities of Cuban sugar and extended financial credits, stabilizing the Cuban economy after U.S. sanctions.
• Military support: The Soviets supplied weapons and military training, bolstering Cuba’s defenses, especially after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.
• Ideological alignment: Under the pressure of U.S. hostility, Castro openly embraced socialism in 1961, cementing his alliance with the Soviet bloc.

This alliance culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. This moment starkly illustrated how poor decisions and a lack of strategic foresight could escalate into global catastrophe.

?

System Dynamics: Determinism and Contingency

The Cuba-U.S.-Soviet dynamic is a textbook case of the interaction between the deterministic and contingent layers of the international system. As I have described in my research on war dynamics, the international system operates at two interconnected levels:?

1. The underlying system: This level - I refer to as the 'underlying' system-level - is characterized by more deterministic patterns, such as power shifts and conflict cycles, which can often be identified and analyzed with a certain predictive value. For example, the four accelerating war cycles in the Europe-dominated system from 1480 to 1945 culminated in a systemic transition to a global order in 1945.
2. The contingent system: This level involves short-term developments, political decisions, and ideological movements, offering degrees of freedom within the constraints of the underlying system. While actors can exercise agency, their choices are ultimately limited by systemic forces.
3. Cuba as an example:

• The U.S.’s rejection of Castro reflected short-term ideological and economic concerns within the contingent system.
• However, this decision failed to account for the broader systemic implications, such as the global Cold War dynamic, where creating enemies only destabilized the system further.

?

Lessons for Today’s Global Transition

Today, the world faces another systemic transition. As I have argued in "From Decline to Renewal: Towards a Sustainable International Order", we are in the final phase of the first global war cycle since 1945. This transition is marked by geopolitical instability, failing international institutions, and rising regional conflicts.

While the transition itself is inevitable, because that transition is implicit in the underlying more deterministic system, the outcome - potentially a new world order based on different values - remains undecided. It is, so to speak, not relevant to the underlying system on the basis of which values and ideologies that world order is organized in the contingent system, as long as it fits within the framework of the underlying system.

The role of the United States and its allies in this transition has, unfortunately, started on the wrong foot. A series of poor and inconsistent foreign policy decisions has already undermined the values that should form the foundation of a future version of the United Nations.

This is evident in the blatant double standards guiding their choices: while the U.S. and NATO initially championed their unwavering support for Ukraine, they are now shifting toward "palliative assistance" to Ukraine, effectively pushing Ukraine toward forced peace negotiations with Russia. This outcome reflects the failure of "as long as it takes" rhetoric, reduced to the sad reality of half-hearted aid and inconsistent strategy.

In contrast, Israel, accused of war crimes and genocide, continues to receive unlimited support from the United States and its allies, including The Netherlands, despite mounting evidence of atrocities, including over 45,000 deaths. This uncritical support starkly contrasts with the diminishing aid provided to Ukraine, exposing a troubling moral inconsistency. Such decisions erode the credibility of the very values that a new iteration of the United Nations should embody; values rooted in justice, equality, and the consistent application of international law.

In today’s context, the stakes are even higher, given the interconnected nature of global power and the presence of advanced technologies, from artificial intelligence to advanced weaponry.

Strategic thinking and long-term planning - as well as a basic understanding of the interplay between the underlying more deterministic system and the contingent system, are therefore essential to avoid repeating such miscalculations.

The current trajectory of U.S. and allied policy highlights the urgent need for a coherent and principled approach. Without this, the decisions being made today risk undermining the foundation of a stable and inclusive global order. Poorly considered actions, as history shows, can spiral into crises that destabilize entire systems. As the world navigates this critical phase, it is imperative to align short-term decisions with long-term goals, ensuring they support the vision of a sustainable and value-driven world order, rather than merely reacting to immediate pressures.

Strategic Thinking for the Future

To shape an inclusive, stable world order, decisions must:

• Be grounded in historical understanding: Recognize the interplay between deterministic and contingent systems and learn from past transitions.
• Incorporate scenario analysis: Evaluate the long-term implications of actions on both levels of the international system.
• Focus on values: Define a vision for a new world order (such as a potential UN 2.0) that prioritizes inclusivity, sustainability, and cooperation.

The history of Cuba demonstrates how seemingly minor decisions can spiral into global crises. As the world navigates this critical phase, the need for strategic foresight has never been greater. Poor choices now could have far-reaching consequences, just as they did during the Cold War, but with even more profound implications for humanity’s future.