Are We Facing a Nuclear War Crisis Similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis?

October 6, 2022

On October 22, 1962 President John Kennedy made a scary TV address which showed the world aerial photos of Soviet nuclear missile installations in Cuba. He explained that a naval blockade around Cuba would be enforced, and said ominously that the U.S. was prepared to use military force if necessary to neutralize this threat to national security. Following this news, we were all fearful that the world was on the brink of nuclear war.


At the time I was the young wire editor at the Guelph Mercury and watched the chugging Canadian Press machine spew out hourly news of the escalating and threatening situation developing between the Soviet Union and the United States. Nuclear armed B52’s were airborne and the Russian leader was Sabre rattling like his successor today.


But in contrast to today there was direct negotiation between Khrushchev and Kennedy.  Finally, on October 28 Krushchev capitulated. Work on the missile sites was stopped and the missiles would be returned to the Soviet Union. In return, Kennedy committed the United States would never invade Cuba.


So in a situation where Russian President Putin is watching predominantly US armed Ukrainian troops driving his forces out of larger and larger areas of territory he had coincidentally annexed as part of Russia, he is continually threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons. President Biden and the Pentagon warn of “catastrophic consequences” should the Russians make good their threat. The  various scenarios that are possible would all likely-involve major US military attacks on Russian positions in the Ukraine. This kind of escalation could lead to more nuclear deployment. 


Learned opinion on what will happen goes this way: Ukrainian forces just retook Lyman, a crucial rail and transport hub, and this could unhinge much of the Russian defense of northern Donbas. Thus Russia is backed into a tight corner. Having just upped the ante with staged referendums, proclaimed annexations, and televised fanfare in Moscow, Putin may just do something more drastic to demonstrate real strength by making good on his threat to use tactical nuclear weapons.

Or, facing further defeats, much has been written on Russia’s non military strategic powers which he may use: radical warfare including cyber, communications, undersea  cable sabotage, satellite, and pipeline sabotage, and other "unconventional" methods. Equally horrific for the west.


Are we already seeing early signs of escalation, just as in the cold war 60 years ago the photos of missiles in Cuba was the trigger for a huge crisis, photos were posted on the Telegraph World New recently showing  a train operated by the secretive Russian nuclear division and linked to the 12th main directorate of the Russian ministry of defense heading towards the front line in Ukraine. There will be more.


There would also appear to be no viable contact between NATO, the US administration and the leadership in Moscow. And no ongoing talks between Ukraine and Russia. No lines for negotiation, and no reason to believe Putin has any desire to engage. 


We would all do well to listen to Mykhailo Podolyak, Advisor to the Head of the President's Office in Ukraine, quoted from an interview with Wirtualna Polska: "A big agreement on war and peace is impossible as Russia is not interested in it. The Kremlin believes that Ukraine should be wiped off the face of the earth by military means. They also have intentions regarding Moldova, Georgia and Kazakhstan. They want to dictate the rules of the game to Europe. There is no peace in these plans." 


It is clear that even a truce allowing Russia to retain borders of previously occupied territory would be totally unacceptable to the Ukrainian leader. And Putin’s desire to keep the annexed territories is also non-negotiable.


Consider the very different situation which led to the de-escalation of the missile crisis 60 years ago. Kennedy and Khrushchev made real efforts throughout the crisis to clearly understand each others’ intentions, while all the world hung on the brink of possible nuclear war. No such desire exists today. Putin is a pariah and terrorist in the midst of western leaders. French President Macron alone has maintained direct contact with Putin but nothing has come of their conversations. 


Most observers agree that avoiding a serious nuclear escalation in the next months will depend on the ability of Putin to remain in power as his nation is being depopulated of draft age men and increasingly restless with his war, for which he is at last being openly criticized for. 


By Patrick Gossage

Note, this article ran in the Ottawa Life Magazine (OLM)

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts