Review of Simon Miles's Engaging the Evil Empire: Washington, Moscow, and the Beginning of the End of the Cold War (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Tale of Two Terms: The Reagan Diplomatic Transition
2021
Many strategists assumed that the Cold War, in large measure shaped by the nuclear bomb, would be resolved in a string of mushroom clouds. As this chapter will illustrate, that the Cold War ended without such a clash was due in large measure to the efforts of American president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in spurring the process to reduce nuclear arsenals. These two charismatic leaders, who differed in so many ways, were an oddly matched pair who sought to lessen the prospects of a nuclear war. Reagan, the older of the two, was a convinced, outspoken anti-Communist, who came to the White House with little understanding of the Soviet Union and largely uniformed about the intricacies of nuclear weaponry. Without intellectual or analytical pretensions, his fear that these destructive weapons might be used would lead him to urge the development and deployment of a questionable missile defense system and seek a halt to building nuclear weaponry. Gorbachev, a dedicated communist bent on domestic reform, provided the imaginative leadership that redirected Moscow's relations with the West even while it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Overriding the opposition in the Politburo, Professor Robert English has recorded, he sincerely believed "that he could end the Cold War solely by cutting weapons and halting the arms race." Both leaders put great stock in personal contact and their ability to
2014
Although it is undebatable that there were economic factors resulting in the demise of the Soviet Union and its system of Socialist building up in the world, 1 this paper focuses on the personal impact of political leaders, i.e. Ronald Reagan, on the change of political structures during the late Cold War period. The formidable argument is that political leaders can catalyze emergent change-this is in the case of Ronald Reagan and also in the case of Mikhail Gorbachev, Reagan's counterpart. Even economists like David M. Kotz must admit that structural defaults were not the reason alone for the Soviet collapse. 2 Structuralists-whether economists, sociologists or historians-have omitted the impact of personal leadership on policy-making. 3 My methodological approach which is part of a greater research project covers three points: first, political
The rhetoric of presidential summit diplomacy: Ronald Reagan and the U.S. Soviet summits, 1985-1988
2009
The Rhetoric of Presidential Summit Diplomacy: Ronald Reagan and the U.S.-Soviet Summits, 1985-1988. (December 2006) Buddy Wayne Howell, B.A., Baylor University; M.A., Baylor University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Kurt Ritter President Ronald Reagan participated in more U.S.-Soviet summits than any previous U.S. president, as he met with his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, on four occasions between November 1985 and June 1988. Prior to, during, and following each meeting with Gorbachev, Reagan often engaged in the rhetoric of public diplomacy, including speeches, statements, and media interviews. The four ReaganGorbachev summits accompanied significant changes in U.S.-Soviet relations, in the Cold War, and also within the Soviet Union. Many scholars attribute improved U.S.Soviet relations to a change in Reagan’s Soviet rhetoric and policies, arguing that he abandoned the confrontation of his first term for conciliation during his second term. Other scholars argue that Re...
Onur İŞÇİ, “Cold War Triumphalism and the Reagan Factor”
Three decades after Gorbachev's 1986 Glasnost campaign, the sudden death of the Soviet Union still continues to keep diplomatic historians busy with its momentous implications. The mutually excluding political realms of the Cold War forged a conservative American historical discourse, which perceived the Soviet Union as an evil empire. Existing biases against Moscow continued after the Soviet collapse and were conjured up in a new scholarly genre that might properly be termed as "the Reagan Victory School". The adherents of this school suggest that President Reagan's resolve and unsophisticated yet faithfully pragmatic foreign policy designs -the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in particular -became the major factor behind the Soviet Union's demise and America's "triumph" after the Cold War. Looking at several influential monographs on the subject, this paper seeks to demonstrate the well nuanced yet often mono-causal notions vocalized by American scholars of Cold War triumphalism.