On Monday, on the way to the Middle East, U.S. President Donald Trump once again stated whether to provide Ukraine with a “tactical axis” missile. “If the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not resolved, I might tell Putin that I might supply the Ukraine with ‘Taxic’ missiles.”Trump also urged Putin. :"If he doesn't, it won't do him any good."
To Trump's latest statements, the Vice-President of the Russian Federation Security Conference, who had previously repeatedly "verbal confrontation" with Trump, Medvedev, the Chairman of the party of unified Russia, responded on 13th, saying that Ukraine was supplied with "tacks" missiles, “It could hurt everyone, especially Trump himself.”。
Obviously, Medvedev’s response was both a warning about the “Tax” missile issue and a “return to the field” for Putin, as Trump said it was “not good” for Putin himself if Putin did not resolve the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
Regarding the relationship between “providing ‘Tax’ missiles to Ukraine” and “possibly harming everyone,” Medvedev said. The nuclear warhead version of the Tomahawk missile is simply indistinguishable from the regular version during flight. The launcher of the nuclear warhead version will not be Ukraine, but the United States.Medvedev asked the question. How should Russia respond?
Obviously, Medvedev’s statement contains three dimensions of meaning: (1) the United States is both the provider and the “launcher” of “war ax” missiles; (2) Russia can only be viewed as “nuclear warheads” without identifying “nuclear warheads” and “conventional warheads”; (3) Russia’s counterattack must be “targeted”, that is, the “reattack” against the United States.
According to a report by the TASS news agency on the 13th, when asked to respond to Medvedev's remarks that "it may cause everyone to suffer," Russian President Press Secretary Peskov said “The operation of such precision missiles inevitably requires the involvement of U.S. experts.Undoubtedly, Peskov also agreed with Medvedev’s “claim.”
While neither Medvedev nor Peskov have explicitly mentioned a “nuclear counterattack” against the United States, common sense suggests that the consequences of “harming everyone” can only be “nuclear war.”
Coincidentally, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov warned on October 7 that if the Tomahawk missile really landed and was used in Ukraine, Moscow would consider deploying nuclear submarines in Cuba.
On the same day in Ryabkov, the State Duma (House of Parliament) approved the "military cooperation agreement" signed between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Cuba on 13 March 2025 in Havana and 19 March 2025 in Moscow, respectively.
Based on the "signals" released by Russia in terms of views, public opinion and law, some experts and big fans in specific public opinion fields asserted that if the Trump administration finally decides to provide "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine, it may force Russia to deploy supersonic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Cuba, thus leading to the recurrence of the "1962 Cuban Missile Crisis."
However, my personal opinion is that for now and then, there will be no "version 2.0" of the "Cuban Missile Crisis" for three reasons: (1) Today is different from the past. The power gap between Russia and the United States is too big to truly form a "confrontation" situation. Moreover, the "outcome" of that crisis still makes Russians "resentful" to this day. (2) Trump is not Kennedy, Putin is not Khrushchev. The "human" factor determines that the United States and Russia will not come to that stage. (3) The harm caused to Cuba by that "crisis" continues to this day. Such "lessons" are enough to make it impossible for Cuba to fall in the "same place" twice.
When the “Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962” occurred, the hard forces of the Soviet Union and the United States were out of line. From the soft power point of view, the United States had NATO organizations, the Soviet Union had the Warsaw Group, all had “camps” Toddis. More importantly, in that sense, the “ideology” dominated by the Soviet Union was on the rise, and the “values” dominated by the United States did not have a clear advantage.
In contrast to today's Russia, even in the case of "wartime economy", the GDP in 2024 was still only one-third of the U.S. GDP, while the Soviet Union at the time was already second in the world.
In military terms, despite the fact that Russia was dubbed the "second military power in the world", a "special military operation" against Ukraine exposed Russia's bottom line.For example, decades ago, "Himas" and "Army tactical missiles" made Russia tense, and now the "Taxic" missiles that make Russia like an enemy are the same weapons decades ago.
To be frank, weapons that can make Russia and the United States to “pull the wrist” are also the nuclear weapons of the Soviet era. However, from the cost of the United States for the maintenance of nuclear weapons alone is higher than the national military spending of Russia, when a nuclear war, “the situation” will be, it is necessary to ask a question.
From the perspective of "soft power", based on this special military operation, Russia is no longer just "against" the entire West, because several votes in the United Nations General Assembly are enough to show that Russia is not "reasonable" on the legal and moral levels. It is precisely because of this that apart from Belarus and North Korea, few "allies" in the international community openly support this special military operation launched by Russia. This is obviously not "in the same breath" as the Soviet Union led a large number of allies back then.
Moreover, the amount of “disbalance” is difficult to describe as “confrontation” and it is obvious that Russia does not have a strategic game with the United States in a “Cuban missile crisis.”
Regardless of Khrushchev's talents, one thing is certain, that is, he is grumpy and "decisions" are often reckless. On the other hand, Putin, apart from the "inappropriate" timing and method of launching this special military operation, has rarely taken measures to make himself strategically "difficult to extricate himself" during his more than 20 years in power. After this "lesson", the possibility of him making another "Cuban Missile Crisis"-style strategic game is slim.
From the point of view of Trump’s personality and strategic literacy, his “difference” with Kennedy is also evident, first of all, he won’t take risks, let alone because of “strategy” putting the United States on the table of “fighting and fighting”. That is to say, he would make Russia feel “no other option” in a “deal” way.
On the issue of sanctions against Russia, Trump has always been "thundering without rain" and has not been "implemented" so far. On the issue of providing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, Trump has been "testing" and trying his best to resolve Russia's "hostility".
For example, he let NATO countries first “buy” from the United States, and then let NATO “as the case may be” turn to Ukraine. That is, while “making money” he also tried to transfer Russian “hostilities” to European countries. In other words, the army’s tactical missiles, F-16 fighter jets were sent to Ukraine, and a more “tacks” could lead to the US and Russia to “wipe out the gun”?
Speaking of the relationship between providing Ukraine with the "Tax" missile and ending the Russian-Ukrainian war, Trump said: "I think that if President Putin can solve this issue (meaning ending the Russian-Ukrainian war), he will appear to be very courageous, and I believe he can do it."
Obviously, Trump is "putting a high hat" on Putin, or has been "coaxing" Putin. Will Trump, who believes in "trading" and is willing to "coax" Putin, make the United States "risk"?
As for Putin, in fact, it is also about Trump to "drop Lee."Putin has not only never "drop" Trump in the open, but also occasionally "promised" Trump, for example, just before he also "drop" for Trump did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
When talking about whether the scene of the "Cuban Missile Crisis" will repeat itself, people are accustomed to talking about what will happen to the United States and what will happen to Russia, but they miss the most important part, namely Cuba's "attitude" and "demands."
In fact, the reason why the "Cuban Missile Crisis" happened in those days was not only the hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union, but also had an extremely important relationship with Castro's desire to use the Soviet Union to force the United States to "compromise" on the issue of subverting the Cuban regime.
The fact is that even though the United States has not "subverted" the Cuban government militarily, the sanctions, blockade and isolation imposed by the United States on Cuba for decades have caused Cuba to suffer unbearable burdens, and this "harm" is still going on. Imagine, is the Cuban government willing to "do it again"? Moreover, if it happens again, the United States will most likely directly "use force" against Cuba.
In the "13-day thrilling" game of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the "powerful" Soviet Union had to take the lead in "compromising" at the last moment. The Russians are still bitter about this, and have been trying to explain that the United States and Russia "both compromised". However, judging from Kennedy's daring to besiege Soviet ships in a "corner" of the Caribbean Sea at that time, the United States also dared to "gamble" at a critical moment, which is not the assertion that "barefoot are not afraid of wearing shoes" in the public opinion field. Based on this, the "wise" Putin will naturally not let the "embarrassing" scene repeat itself.
In fact, judging from Cuba's lessons from the "Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962" and Russia's inability to allow the "embarrassing" scene to repeat itself, this has changed for a time, and now there is no basis for the "recurrence" of the Cuban Missile Crisis unless someone "remembers eating but not fighting."