The Balance of Power, Restraint, and Authoritarianism

During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war loomed large over humanity. Despite the development of accurate and powerful delivery systems such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), strategic bombers remained a critical component of nuclear deterrence. Their continued deployment was not a sign of redundancy, but a calculated move to diversify deterrence capabilities. Bombers such as the B-52, though not stealthy, played a unique role: they were slower and recallable, unlike missiles, offering decision-makers time and flexibility. Their visibility on radar systems served not only as a tactical threat but also as a psychological message - one that emphasized resolve without the point-of-no-return nature of missile launches. Despite their vulnerability to surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and interceptors, bombers represented a powerful symbol of deterrence, survivability, and strategic ambiguity.

Short- and medium-range missiles, particularly during the height of Cold War tensions, served more immediate battlefield and regional purposes. Their shorter flight times and forward deployment added a layer of pressure to adversaries by reducing reaction time and complicating defense planning. From this perspective, the Soviet Union’s move to deploy such missiles in Cuba in 1962 was understandable. It sought to level the playing field after the U.S. stationed similar missiles in Turkey and Italy. The Cuban Missile Crisis, though perilous, revealed how both superpowers valued deterrence and how much was at stake in preserving credible second-strike capabilities.

The United States’ response to the Soviet deployment in Cuba - through a naval quarantine and stern diplomatic engagement - was an extraordinary gamble. Risking nuclear war to prevent the missiles' operational deployment seemed extreme, but it was a calculated move that ultimately reshaped global perceptions. The U.S. emerged with a sense of dominance, having forced a Soviet withdrawal without appearing to concede anything publicly, even though Jupiter missiles were later quietly removed from Turkey. This American resolve, under Kennedy’s leadership, arguably shifted the trajectory of the Cold War. The Soviet humiliation that followed dealt a psychological blow to Moscow’s prestige and may have planted early seeds of doubt in the sustainability of its ideological and geopolitical posture. One might see it as a first domino leading, decades later, to the collapse of communism.

Yet history could have unfolded differently had the U.S. shown restraint. That restraint, however noble, might have encouraged Soviet adventurism in Europe. The Cold War was as much about perception as about power. The visible strength and resolve of the U.S. helped ensure Western Europe remained politically and militarily outside the Soviet orbit. In that sense, the courage of the Kennedy administration in standing firm, despite risks, helped shape a future in which liberal democracy remained intact in the West.

Having watched the film Thirteen Days, one can appreciate how vividly it captures the tension, complexity, and stakes of the crisis - even if it takes liberties with some historical details. The portrayal of President Kennedy and his close advisors navigating between hawkish generals like Curtis LeMay and the dire consequences of nuclear war provides insight into the razor-thin margin by which catastrophe was avoided. That the Soviet leadership, particularly Nikita Khrushchev, acted with restraint and eventually sought de-escalation was a testament to the rationality that still prevailed, despite ideological divides. Had a more impulsive figure like Stalin or Hitler been at the helm, the world might have tipped into disaster.

Indeed, had Kennedy heeded the advice of hardliners and bombed Cuban missile sites outright, the Soviet response could have triggered direct conflict. The present-day Russia-Ukraine conflict reminds us that conventional wars can still erupt without necessarily escalating to nuclear levels. While the risk exists, mutual assured destruction remains a powerful deterrent for rational actors. In this light, Putin, for all his aggressive posturing and red lines, has not crossed into direct conflict with NATO powers, even when those red lines were ignored or tested.

Nevertheless, Putin’s behavior has eroded his credibility. Despite leading Russia into a prolonged and damaging conflict, he retains firm control - unlike Khrushchev, who was removed by the Soviet Politburo after strategic miscalculations. This contrast raises deeper questions. Why, in a similarly authoritarian context, has Putin not faced internal accountability? Stalin, too, had near-absolute power, but even he faced external constraints, especially in international affairs. He ultimately backed down during the Berlin Blockade and refrained from closing off airspace, which suggests that even totalitarian leaders must contend with limits - whether military, geopolitical, or internal.

Putin's continued dominance despite costly outcomes reflects a system where institutional checks are virtually nonexistent. Unlike the collective leadership structures of the Soviet era, modern Russia has concentrated power in the hands of one man. The media is controlled, dissent is criminalized, and opposition figures have been exiled, imprisoned, or eliminated. Fear and loyalty have replaced accountability and competence. The result is a brittle regime that appears stable but may collapse suddenly when its internal contradictions can no longer be sustained.

Putin’s authority persists because he has eliminated viable alternatives, neutralized opposition, and cultivated a narrative of strength and nationalism. Many Russians may disapprove of the war or the country’s trajectory, but they see no path forward without him. Unlike Stalin, whose rule was checked by external realities and internal party structures, Putin governs in an echo chamber that permits no correction, no dissent, and no relief from the burdens of his decisions.

Ultimately, power without constraint is not strength - it is stagnation waiting for rupture. The Cold War taught the world that even at the brink, rationality and restraint could prevail. Whether today's crises will be resolved with the same measure of wisdom remains an open question.