NationStates Jolt Archive

The Myth of the Gipper

Reagan Didn't End the Cold War
By WILLIAM BLUM

Ronald Reagan's biggest crimes were the bloody military actions to suppress social and political change in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Afghanistan, but I'd like to deal here with the media's gushing about Reagan's supposed role in ending the cold war. In actuality, he prolonged it. Here is something I wrote for my book Killing Hope.

It has become conventional wisdom that it was the relentlessly tough anti-communist policies of the Reagan Administration, with its heated-up arms race, that led to the collapse and reformation of the Soviet Union and its satellites. American history books may have already begun to chisel this thesis into marble. The Tories in Great Britain say that Margaret Thatcher and her unflinching policies contributed to the miracle as well. The East Germans were believers too.

When Ronald Reagan visited East Berlin, the people there cheered him and thanked him "for his role in liberating the East". Even many leftist analysts, particularly those of a conspiracy bent, are believers. But this view is not universally held; nor should it be. Long the leading Soviet expert on the United States, Georgi Arbatov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. and Canada, wrote his memoirs in 1992. A Los Angeles Times book review by Robert Scheer summed up a portion of it:

"Arbatov understood all too well the failings of Soviet totalitarianism in comparison to the economy and politics of the West. It is clear from this candid and nuanced memoir that the movement for change had been developing steadily inside the highest corridors of power ever since the death of Stalin. Arbatov not only provides considerable evidence for the controversial notion that this change would have come about without foreign pressure, he insists that the U.S. military buildup during the Reagan years actually impeded this development."

George F. Kennan agrees. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserts that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."

Though the arms-race spending undoubtedly damaged the fabric of the Soviet civilian economy and society even more than it did in the United States, this had been going on for 40 years by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power without the slightest hint of impending doom. Gorbachev's close adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:

"It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it."

Understandably, some Russians might be reluctant to admit that they were forced to make revolutionary changes by their arch enemy, to admit that they lost the Cold War. However, on this question we don't have to rely on the opinion of any individual, Russian or American. We merely have to look at the historical facts. From the late 1940s to around the mid-1960s, it was an American policy objective to instigate the downfall of the Soviet government as well as several Eastern European regimes. Many hundreds of Russian exiles were organized, trained and equipped by the CIA, then sneaked back into their homeland to set up espionage rings, to stir up armed political struggle, and to carry out acts of assassination and sabotage, such as derailing trains, wrecking bridges, damaging arms factories and power plants, and so on.

The Soviet government, which captured many of these men, was of course fully aware of who was behind all this. Compared to this policy, that of the Reagan administration could be categorized as one of virtual capitulation.

Yet what were the fruits of this ultra-tough anti-communist policy? Repeated serious confrontations between the United States and the Soviet Union in Berlin, Cuba and elsewhere, the Soviet interventions into Hungary and Czechoslovakia, creation of the Warsaw Pact (in direct reaction to NATO), no glasnost, no perestroika, only pervasive suspicion, cynicism and hostility on both sides.

It turned out that the Russians were human after all -- they responded to toughness with toughness. And the corollary: there was for many years a close correlation between the amicability of US-Soviet relations and the number of Jews allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Softness produced softness. If there's anyone to attribute the changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to, both the beneficial ones and those questionable, it is of course Mikhail Gorbachev and the activists he inspired.

It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagan's and Thatcher's unremitting malice toward the communist superpower.

- William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World's Only Super Power. and West-Bloc Dissident: a Cold War Political Memoir.

wow there are people that believe that??

Yeah I guess that explains why there are chunks of the Berlin wall sitting at the Reagan and Bush senior libraries. Just because you say something isn't true doesn't make it so.

Yeah I guess that explains why there are chunks of the Berlin wall sitting at the Reagan and Bush senior libraries. Just because you say something isn't true doesn't make it so.The orginal poster didn't just "say something isn't true". He/She provided us with a well argued article with particular emphasis on those experts in the field- in particular the ex US ambassador to the USSR. You on the other hand have presented us with a straw man argument about the Berlin Wall. (And I'll think you'll find it was actually the people of East Germany who pulled that down,not Reagan). Do you see the difference?

Reform, Coup and Collapse: The End of the Soviet State (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/coldwar/soviet_end_01.shtml)

The orginal poster didn't just "say something isn't true". He/She provided us with a well argued article with particular emphasis on those experts in the field- in particular the ex US ambassador to the USSR. You on the other hand have presented us with a straw man argument about the Berlin Wall. (And I'll think you'll find it was actually the people of East Germany who pulled that down,not Reagan). Do you see the difference? It's hard to debate somebody who disagrees with your opinion but doesn't provide a reason why. Even if the poster wasn't prepared to state the reasons why they disagreed with the above article, they could've posted a simple link to another source as it would have at least provided some insight into their opinion.

However, saying that "there are chunks of the Berlin wall sitting at the Reagan and Bush senior libraries" is not really stating anything.

wow there are people that believe that?? People really believe that Reagan ended the Cold War? Yeah, there are some delusional people out there who actually believe that.

All Reagan (I'm using Reagan as a term for his govt, cause he obviously had little input into these decisions, especially in the latter part of his second term) did was nearly bankrupt the US by having a rapid blow-out of spending. From his time in office, the US had gone from surplus to a 3 trillion dollar debt. This was (in part) delibrately done in order to force conservative economic idealogies onto future presidents/congress by forcing them to slash social spending and privatise public utilities, which has happened. And the enormous spend-up is happening again. Through-out the nineties the US continued to slash public spending and finally got back to a surplus only to have it disappear completely with the last couple of years.
At the time of Reagan the fall of Communism was used (now its Terrorism) as the excuse for the massive spending on warfare. Yet it's obvious to anyone that the Soviet Union was crumbling without this arms race. The only reason it had survived the 70s was inadverntly due to OPEC and the massive oil price hikes. The extra oil revenue kept the Soviet Union going for a few more years. But as soon as oil prices stabilised by the late 70s and throughout the 80s, the Soviet economy couldn't sustain itself and collasped.

It's interesting that Russia was economically much better off under communism than it is today.

All Reagan (I'm using Reagan as a term for his govt, cause he obviously had little input into these decisions, especially in the latter part of his second term) did was nearly bankrupt the US by having a rapid blow-out of spending. From his time in office, the US had gone from surplus to a 3 trillion dollar debt.
Erm, he didn't inherit a surplus from Carter. Just a point of fact.

This was (in part) delibrately done in order to force conservative economic idealogies onto future presidents/congress by forcing them to slash social spending and privatise public utilities, which has happened.
Actually, no. Social spending went up and there are very few "private" utilities out there. Most utilities are quasi-governmental entities that are "private" in name only.

But that's just a couple nit-picks. Nothing more.

It's interesting that Russia was economically much better off under communism than it is today.


Yes, communism is SOOOO wonderful. Just look at the thriving country of North Korea.

Ooooops. Looks like communism only works on paper you flaming idiot. Why don't you pack up your bags and move there so you can starve to death and do the gene pool a favor.

People really believe that Reagan ended the Cold War? Yeah, there are some delusional people out there who actually believe that.
Yeh supposedly he called them the evil empire and they realised they were and decided to disband.

However, saying that "there are chunks of the Berlin wall sitting at the Reagan and Bush senior libraries" is not really stating anything.

Absolutely! I have a piece of it. Does that make me one of those that ended the USSR! ;)

wow there are people that believe that??

Wow there are people that don't believe that? Duhhhh...try picking up a history book once in a while if you want to know more about your own country.

Yes, communism is SOOOO wonderful. Just look at the thriving country of North Korea.

Ooooops. Looks like communism only works on paper you flaming idiot. Why don't you pack up your bags and move there so you can starve to death and do the gene pool a favor.

Don't be a twit. North Korea is not communism. In fact, there never HAS been a communist state on earth. They were all stalinist or maoist dictatorships.

The only reason the USSR lasted so long- in fact, the only reason it was born in the first place- was because of massive US economic aid. Read some of Antony Sutton's books and look through old Congressional Records and see for yourself. And make sure you actually read the books before dismissing them. Nothing on earth is more idiotic than judging something without looking at it.

Yes, communism is SOOOO wonderful. Just look at the thriving country of North Korea.

Ooooops. Looks like communism only works on paper you flaming idiot. Why don't you pack up your bags and move there so you can starve to death and do the gene pool a favor. LMAO, do you insult everybody when they present you with facts?

The USSR was not North Korea. The Soviet Union was a superpower while North Korea is a small, resource poor nation.

The only reason the USSR lasted so long- in fact, the only reason it was born in the first place- was because of massive US economic aid. Read some of Antony Sutton's books and look through old Congressional Records and see for yourself. And make sure you actually read the books before dismissing them. Nothing on earth is more idiotic than judging something without looking at it. :rolleyes:

Here we go again with your books.

The US ended aid to the USSR at the end of WW2. Why would the US continue to support a rival superpower that threatened its interests globally?

The Soviet Union collapsed because of internal revolt. Global military overextension during the 1970s began causing economic woes for the USSR by the time Gorbachev came to power.

:rolleyes:

Here we go again with your books.

The US ended aid to the USSR at the end of WW2. Why would the US continue to support a rival superpower that threatened its interests globally?

The Soviet Union collapsed because of internal revolt. Global military overextension during the 1970s began causing economic woes for the USSR by the time Gorbachev came to power.

Because we could make a buck or two off of it...

"During the Soviet period, the USSR imported large amounts of grain, soybeans, and soybean meal. During the 1980's, Soviet imports of grain averaged 37 million tons a year, the United States being a major supplier."

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Russia/trade.htm

Because we could make a buck or two off of it...

"During the Soviet period, the USSR imported large amounts of grain, soybeans, and soybean meal. During the 1980's, Soviet imports of grain averaged 37 million tons a year, the United States being a major supplier."

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Russia/trade.htm

Yeh, true. It was during detente that major trade deals and foreign investment possibilities started to spark up. What's your point? - It was beneficial to both nations.

Yeh, true. It was during detente that major trade deals and foreign investment possibilities started to spark up. What's your point? - It was beneficial to both nations.

Because Drabikstan claimed that aid stopped after WW2...

Because Drabikstan claimed that aid stopped after WW2...

Well, its not aid. Its called a trade deal - and it was because of strengthening relations during detente. As for 'aid'. The USSR refused Marshall Aid after WW2, and there were no other instances of aid under Soviet Times given by the Americans. Except Chernobyl.

Because we could make a buck or two off of it...

"During the Soviet period, the USSR imported large amounts of grain, soybeans, and soybean meal. During the 1980's, Soviet imports of grain averaged 37 million tons a year, the United States being a major supplier."

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Russia/trade.htm That's trade, not aid ;)

It's interesting that Russia was economically much better off under communism than it is today.

It was also much better off under Tsarism than it is today. Your point?

:rolleyes:

Here we go again with your books.

The US ended aid to the USSR at the end of WW2. Why would the US continue to support a rival superpower that threatened its interests globally?

The Soviet Union collapsed because of internal revolt. Global military overextension during the 1970s began causing economic woes for the USSR by the time Gorbachev came to power.

You, my friend, are an idiot. I can't think of a better word for someone who dismisses books without reading them. I haven't read the books myself, but I plan to. You've got to be the stupidest person I ever met. :rolleyes:

bump

Drabikstan, it's not just the Sutton books that have the information. It's also in the Congressional Records (which Sutton drew a lot of his information from). I've read through lots of them. If you'd like, I can recommend some specific records.

Because Drabikstan claimed that aid stopped after WW2...

It didn't. I highly doubt Drabikstan has ever looked into old Congressional Records as I have (and as Mr. Sutton did...).

Any idiot knows that Regean didn't win the cold war for us.....The 1980 US olympic hockey team did when they beat the Soviets, duh.

Though I shudder at the implications of Puerto Rico's basketball team defeating the US...Has Puerto Rico won the Cold War between itself and the United States?

I'm glad you base your views on more than just Antony Sutton's books R-B. I have read only one, the "National Suicide" (seemed like the one to read) . For some reason he is seen as a bit hard to quote in studies here. He is said to have this 'conspiracy theorist' aura on him.

I disagree with this. Reagan remained tough, and while it may have prolonged the Cold War, it certainly helped make Russia bankrupt. With his proposal of SDI, the Russians themselves were the biggest believers that it could be done.
More importantly, however, was when Gorbachev took office. Reagan saw the oppritunity and took it. He forged a friendship with the Soviet Union, and fostered a relationship of cooperation in Europe, especially in security issues. I also think that Gorbachev would never get to power if it weren't for the policies of Reagan and Thatcher, which made the West a whole lot wealthier. It made the free market more attractive to Eastern Europe and Russia. While it may not have contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, it did help to end communism.

Reagan didn't do anything. He simply called them the 'evil empire'.

What do you think they realised they were and decided to disband or something?

I disagree with this. Reagan remained tough, and while it may have prolonged the Cold War, it certainly helped make Russia bankrupt. Russia went backrupt in the 1990s after the Cold War had finished

Russia went backrupt in the 1990s after the Cold War had finished
But most of it was from Cold War debt. I'm not saying that a bankrupt Russia is a good thing, but at least it'd mean that the Soviets couldn't manage their military machine. Besides, their financial woes led to the rise of Gorbachev and glasnost.

You, my friend, are an idiot. I can't think of a better word for someone who dismisses books without reading them. I haven't read the books myself, but I plan to. You've got to be the stupidest person I ever met. :rolleyes: Considering some of his books were written by people like Somoza, Batista and McCarthy, I think it's safe to assume many of those books aren't very credible.

But most of it was from Cold War debt. I'm not saying that a bankrupt Russia is a good thing, but at least it'd mean that the Soviets couldn't manage their military machine. Besides, their financial woes led to the rise of Gorbachev and glasnost. Yes and no.

Russia inherited most of the massive Soviet military machine which led to many problems. So I agree that in a way it did inherit an expensive relic of the Cold War.

However, it was Yeltsin's privatizations in the 1990s that led to the economic collapse of Russia. The turmoil and instability that followed the collapse of the USSR caused many of Russia's current problems.

Yes and no.

Russia inherited most of the massive Soviet military machine which led to many problems. So I agree that in a way it did inherit an expensive relic of the Cold War.

However, it was Yeltsin's privatizations in the 1990s that led to the economic collapse of Russia. The turmoil and instability that followed the collapse of the USSR caused many of Russia's current problems.
But in the long run, that helped the Russian economy. The privatized businesses modernized and were very agressive. Today, Russia is back to two-thirds of the Soviet GDP at its peak in the mid eighties.

Yes and no.
Russia inherited most of the massive Soviet military machine which led to many problems. So I agree that in a way it did inherit an expensive relic of the Cold War.
However, it was Yeltsin's privatizations in the 1990s that led to the economic collapse of Russia. The turmoil and instability that followed the collapse of the USSR caused many of Russia's current problems.
Well: the privatisation was done to fast. But you have to take into account that the USSR spen 20% of its GDP on the military. NO COUNTRY CAN SUSTAIN THAT IN THE LONG-RUN. And they did it in the 70s and even more in the 80s. Gorbatshov tried to correct that - and by the way when he offered arms controll to Reagan he accepted that. Actually Reagan made even more far going reduction proposals like the "zero solution" for medium nuclear missiles.
The collapse of the USSR caused the end of old trade partnerships (by customs and new currencies). Aside of the fact that the Komekon (the trade pact of the Eastern bloc) ended. All countries suffered partly from that, even East Germany - though that was compensated by West German money.
Russia suffered the most. And that was the reason for the economic decline in the first half of the 90s. Aside of lower oil prices of course.
However Russia didn´t really collaps - but was close to. Germany for example pumped a lot of money in - via loans and investments - and by doing so helped stabilising Russia. Estimates say: investment and loans go up to 75 Billion dollar from Germany only. Well: that was of course in concern that a destable Russia would be dangerous for Europe and our security. Russia was also included into the G8 to help it finding a new place in the international community.
Well: and there is of course another reason: Energy partnership: Germany gets a third of its oil and gas from Russia.
Russia knows of the importance of the economic partnership between both countries. Mr. Gorbatshov did make actually less problems in 1990 with the German unification than Ms. Thatcher - and to some degree also Mr. Mitterand. Mr. Kohl however assured him that the unified Germany would remain on the course of European integration. So Mitterand managed to turn the corner at the end.

Today, Russia is back to two-thirds of the Soviet GDP at its peak in the mid eighties. Have you got any figures to back up this claim?

The Soviet Union lost alot of production power when it withdrew from Eastern Europe. The collapse of the USSR itself has resulted in major oil and gas reserves being split among Russia and the Central Asian republics. Many of the former Soviet republics are still linked to Russia due to Soviet-era economic infrastructure.

Have you got any figures to back up this claim?
So, we now need to have figures that prove that the grass is green? Jeez, why don't we just debate the color of chloriphyl instead.
The Soviet Union lost alot of production power when it withdrew from Eastern Europe. The collapse of the USSR itself has resulted in major oil and gas reserves being split among Russia and the Central Asian republics. Many of the former Soviet republics are still linked to Russia due to Soviet-era economic infrastructure.
Well of course. With the exception of the Eastern European republics, little if any industry exists outside of Russia.
Also, there is a reason why Russia needed to forfeit its industries, many actually. For one, they were impossible for the Russian government to maintain. Had Yeltsin privatized them, just like everything else, then the ruble would've never collapsed. For another, they were the worst polluters on the planet. The green movement growing in Russia would've stopped them. In fact, they helped to bring the end of the Soviet empire, when they blocked a plan to divert water from Siberia to Central Asia.
But really, why did Russia need all of that production? The Soviets were never much of a consumer market, so all that was needed for the factories to maintain was the massive military. Now, of course, it's gone.

Why should I believe William Blum, whom I've never even heard of?

Know what I believe? I saw Ronald Reagan stand firm against Soviet expansionism. Then I saw him go to Berlin and say, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Then, a couple years later, I saw that very wall torn down.

That's what I believe, not some hack writer I've never heard of.

Why should I believe William Blum, whom I've never even heard of?

Know what I believe? I saw Ronald Reagan stand firm against Soviet expansionism. Then I saw him go to Berlin and say, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Then, a couple years later, I saw that very wall torn down.

That's what I believe, not some hack writer I've never heard of.

Saying "tear down this wall" does not make it so. Posturing does not equate into action. There was far more that happened than that.

Yes, communism is SOOOO wonderful. Just look at the thriving country of North Korea.

Ooooops. Looks like communism only works on paper you flaming idiot. Why don't you pack up your bags and move there so you can starve to death and do the gene pool a favor.



I love how you guys always have the same argument, and that I can disprove it any time it comes up. Communism involves a democracy, or didn't you read any Marx? Well I can sure tell you, I did. What all the so called "communist" countries had was some form of authoritarian dictatorship. It has been shown, that the per-capita income of a country with a dictatorship will always be lower than a country without one.

Also, communism only working on paper eh? Did you ever chance to look at what Lumumba did for the Congo before the US backed overthrow? The reason that communism worked so well there? Lumumba was democratically elected.

Oh, how about our little authoritarian Cuba for a minute? Even though they have only two sellable crops, they enjoy the best health system in the entire Latin Americas. They have a higher per-capita income than Mexico (which was supposed to benefit from all that capitalism and all). 60% of their population is college-educated! And they have managed all this WITHOUT the help or trade of the United States.

Communism a failed system? Hah! It just goes to show you how fast my fellow Americans are willing to buy into that brainwashing that they have been subjected to for this long!

Yeah I guess that explains why there are chunks of the Berlin wall sitting at the Reagan and Bush senior libraries. Just because you say something isn't true doesn't make it so.

I have a chunk of the Berlin wall on my desk. Does that mean that I ended the cold war too?
I actualy do belive that Reagan ended the cold war. But I also think your statement is a lame one.

I love how you guys always have the same argument, and that I can disprove it any time it comes up. Communism involves a democracy, or didn't you read any Marx? Well I can sure tell you, I did. What all the so called "communist" countries had was some form of authoritarian dictatorship. It has been shown, that the per-capita income of a country with a dictatorship will always be lower than a country without one.

Also, communism only working on paper eh? Did you ever chance to look at what Lumumba did for the Congo before the US backed overthrow? The reason that communism worked so well there? Lumumba was democratically elected.

Oh, how about our little authoritarian Cuba for a minute? Even though they have only two sellable crops, they enjoy the best health system in the entire Latin Americas. They have a higher per-capita income than Mexico (which was supposed to benefit from all that capitalism and all). 60% of their population is college-educated! And they have managed all this WITHOUT the help or trade of the United States.

Communism a failed system? Hah! It just goes to show you how fast my fellow Americans are willing to buy into that brainwashing that they have been subjected to for this long!

Communism in theory is actually the best form of government in my opinion, and it actually does work. As Comandante says, their are a few examples, the most notable of which being Cuba of successful communist systems. All that without US trade, quite an accomplishment if you ask me. However, there is one problem with a Communist system, human's inate drive for money and power. It is that drive that drove the Soviet Union into a failed version of Communism (even though it wasn't true Communism, it still is the most well-known country to implement the system). Another thing is that it takes away the idea of doing a better job than anyone else, because everyone gets the same no matter how much they produce. It's unfortunate that it can't all be that way, but capitalism is the dominant system right now because it works best for the people near or at the top, and they want to stay there. Economic equality does breed social equality after all, if everyone shared the wealth, we would all be in a much happier world today. Unfortunately, due to the greed of some, the masses suffer because even if Communism were to rise again in a great way, someone greedy for money and power would ruin it all over again. Humans are imperfect creatures, therefore a perfect system such as Communism is unfortunately doomed to fail eventually... too bad if you ask me

Why should I believe William Blum, whom I've never even heard of? William Blum bio (http://www.speakersandartists.org/People/WilliamBlum.html)

Then I saw him go to Berlin and say, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Then, a couple years later, I saw that very wall torn down. Actions speak louder than words...


Gorby had the lead role, not Gipper

By LAWRENCE MARTIN
The Globe and the Mail

Fiction has its place -- especially at the time of one's passing. And so, the American airwaves glisten these days with tales about how it was Ronald Reagan who engineered the defeat of communism and the end of the Cold War.

It was his arms buildup, Republican admirers say, and his menacing rhetoric that brought the Soviets to their knees and changed the world forever. He was a pleasant man, the 40th president, which makes this fairy tale easier to swallow than some of history's other canards. Truth be known, however, the Iron Curtain's collapse was hardly Ronald Reagan's doing.

It was Mikhail Gorbachev, who with a sweeping democratic revolution at home and one peace initiative after another abroad, backed the Gipper into a corner, leaving him little choice -- actors don't like to be upstaged -- but to concede there was a whole new world opening up over there.

As a journalist based first in Washington, then in Moscow, I was fortunate to witness the intriguing drama from both ends.

In R.R., the Soviet leader knew he was dealing with an archetype Cold Warrior. To bring him around to "new thinking" would require a rather wondrous set of works. And so the Gorbachev charm offensive began. The first offering, in 1985, was the Kremlin's unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests. "Propaganda!" the White House declared.

Then Mr. Gorbachev announced a grandiose plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2000. Just another hoax, the Reagan men cried. More Commie flim-flam.

Then came another concession -- Kremlin permission for on-site arms inspections on Soviet land -- and then the Reykjavik summit. In Iceland, Mr. Gorbachev put his far-reaching arms-reduction package on the table and Mr. Reagan, to global condemnation, walked away, offering nothing in return.

Glasnost and perestroika became the new vernacular. For those in the White House like Richard Perle, the prince of darkness who still thought it was all a sham, Gorby now began a withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. He released the dissident icon Andrei Sakharov and hundreds of other political prisoners. He made big strides on freedom of the press, immigration and religion. He told East European leaders that the massive Soviet military machine would no longer prop up their creaking dictatorships. He began the process of something unheard of in Soviet history -- democratic elections.

By now, the U.S. administration was reeling. Polls were beginning to show that, of all things unimaginable, a Soviet leader was the greatest force for world peace. An embarrassed Mr. Reagan finally responded in kind. Nearing the end of his presidency, he came to Moscow and he signed a major arms-control agreement and warmly embraced Mr. Gorbachev. A journalist asked the president if he still thought it was the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era."

The recasting of the story now suggests that President Reagan's defence-spending hikes -- as if there hadn't been American military buildups before -- somehow intimidated the Kremlin into its vast reform campaign. Or that America's economic strength -- as if the Soviets hadn't always been weak by comparison -- made the Soviet leader do it.

In fact, Mr. Gorbachev could have well perpetuated the old totalitarian system. He still had the giant Soviet armies, the daunting nuclear might and the chilling KGB apparatus at his disposal.

But he had decided that the continuing clash of East-West ideologies was senseless, that his sick and obsolescent society was desperate for democratic air. His historic campaign that followed wasn't about Ronald Reagan. It would have happened with or without this president. Rather, it was about him, Mikhail Gorbachev: his will, his inner strength, his human spirit. As for the Gipper, he was bold and wise enough, to shed his long-held preconceptions and become the Russian's admirable companion in the process.

In the collapse of communism he deserves credit not as an instigator, but an abettor. Best Supporting Actor.