Max Hastings: Lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis and Thoughts on Modern Foreign Policy and the UK

Max Hastings (London, 77 years old) has the courage, authority and wisdom to say what he wants, even if many do not like it. War correspondent for the BBCwith which he covered the Vietnam conflict, he was director of emblematic newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph —whom he knew how to lead to a centrist conservatism— or the Evening Standard, and is the author of more than 30 books on military history that are as entertaining as they are rigorous. Latest, Cuban Missile Crisis 1962 (Editorial Crítica), an analysis of a moment in history in which intelligence prevailed over instinct and humanity was spared from a nuclear disaster. Hastings draws parallels and lessons from the current crisis in Ukraine. And he is not shy about attacking Brexit or Boris Johnson, whom he had as an employee and for whom he expresses absolute contempt.

ASK. You say that the older you get, the more convinced you are of the fallibility of intelligence services. The missile crisis was a good example.

ANSWER. The worst thing about that crisis is realizing that an event that brought the world to the brink of a precipice was the result of absolute misunderstanding and mutual knowledge. The Americans did not stop looking for the complex reasons that could explain the behavior of the Soviets. There weren’t. What the Russians did was as stupid as it sounded. And yet, the White House team argued for days about what the USSR wanted. The idea that the Soviets were so stupid as to think they could hide these missiles under the palm trees of Cuba was inconceivable.

P. The Americans… and the Soviets miscalculated.

R. We now know that the Russians misread the US attitude at every stage. The ultimate reason they decided to withdraw the missiles was that they were convinced that the White House was about to launch an invasion of Cuba, which It was not true. It’s quite sobering to consider that, even today, big decisions are made with extraordinarily limited knowledge of what’s going on.

P.Are there lessons for a crisis like the one in Ukraine?

R.Russia is different from the USSR. It is more dangerous, the old Soviet Union was managed differently. Khrushchev was the leader, indisputably, but he had to answer to the Politburo. And the Politburo had its own opinions and expressed them. Today there is no longer a Politburo in the Kremlin, and Putin can decide for himself. Sometimes I read, in the conservative press in the West, that Putin is launching a riot with his nuclear threats. It may be true, but can we take that risk? After the missile crisis it became clear that in the nuclear age it is no longer possible to speak of absolute victory and that most conflicts end unsatisfactorily.

P.He has drawn criticism for expressing reservations about the general consensus on what happened in Ukraine.

R.We would all like to see Putin defeated, and Russia bowed down. Russia’s behavior may be horrible to us, but Russia is a reality, with its own opinions. It is clear that it is not up to them to define Ukraine’s role in the world, but neither can we pretend that Russia does not exist. And at the end of this conflict, when some kind of agreement is reached, I will be very surprised if that agreement includes the possibility of Ukraine being part of NATO.

P.The UK has probably been the most radical voice in defense of Ukraine all the way.

R.Much of this is hollow rhetoric. If the British began to demand a sacrifice for Ukraine beyond the current limits, they would begin to complain. Boris Johnson decided to hug Zelensky because he lacks moral principles. He is probably the most selfish human being I have ever met. I don’t think Ukraine cares at all. He hugged Zelensky when his own career was in jeopardy, and upon discovering that he was somewhat popular, he didn’t let go.

P.But Rishi Sunak has not reduced the warrior’s ardor one iota.

R. All of our politicians are very bad these days at having to convey unpopular or difficult things to their constituency. There are already several British leaders who have said that the Russians have to be expelled from the Donbas region or from Crimea. They should measure their words and limit themselves to the formula of “we will fully support Ukraine” without specifying geographical limits. It is absolutely irresponsible.

P. You ask that the voices of countries far from that pro-Ukrainian consensus be heard.

R.We live in a world that is divided into three camps. On the one hand, the G-7; on the other, China, Russia and other autocratic governments; and, finally, what is now called the Global South, even if it is not exactly the south, which refuses to take sides with one side or the other.

P.Isn’t that the Non-Aligned movement of the last century?

R.Yes, but during the Cold War both the US and the USSR were very powerful, and those nations were very weak. They could force them to position themselves, more or less, whether they wanted to or not. That is no longer true. Now, the latter can say that they are not in the game, and it is no longer enough to try to convince them that what the West defends is morally correct. If you want to understand foreign policy, it is key to be able not only to accept the logic of the other party, but also to understand how different it can be. It’s a hard lesson, many of our leaders don’t get it.

P.Do you share the idea of ​​the decline of the UK expressed by many, outside and within the country?

R.I believe that the root of all our problems is in the exaggerated sense of the importance that we give ourselves. I love this country, and I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else. But I have a very clear vision: we are a big economy, yes, but we are no longer important. Before Brexit, supporters of leaving the EU believed that the US would welcome us with open arms and a new trade agreement. I have lived there. It’s not that they don’t like us, it’s that they don’t care about us at all. They like to come to the UK, but not much else for shopping and theater.

P. And Brexit as the origin of many evils…

R. I am a conservative of the more progressive wing. The center where I feel comfortable no longer exists in most countries. In my house we take a rather hard line: since 2016, we have not received anyone who had supported Brexit. I am a Europeanist and a passionate internationalist. Our destiny is next to that of Europe. Nobody dares to say today that Brexit was a catastrophe [Hastings no considera relevante al populista Nigel Farage, que lo dijo hace dos semanas]. No one in the House of Commons has the courage to admit that she was mad.

sign up here to the weekly newsletter of Ideas.