Great historical epochs marked the role of Reagan in ending the Cold War. Many historical explanations have developed and still developing in the honor of Reagan in the Cold War. Notably, a broad array of literature review has been developed in response to this phenomenon. Reagan was the US 40th president and actively fought to end the cold war between America and the Russia. In 1980, he successively won the presidential election. In his presidential leadership, he had implementations in regard to new political developments above various economic policies.

He advocated limited governance with laissez-faire economic modality. However, the general extend in the context of these crucial implementations have left many in question. His re-election adequately stood as a historical mark of ending the cold war. Here, he had ordered a strong military defense to fight the Soviet Union. This was after forgoing the detente strategy. In his public opinion, he portrayed the US enemy USSR as being “evil empire”. He developed a global support to anti-communists associates and movements.

His escalation of the Cold War began when he accelerated the reversal of the detente policy whose beginning was in 1979 after the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union. Via his order, the US buildup a massive military group in which new policies were thereon implemented against the Soviet Union. In his speech to the British Parliament in 1982, Reagan protested on the coming to an end of the Marxism which had characterized the Soviet governance. His oblige was the development of self-expression by the people which would then bring freedom. (Furner, 1997, pp. 70)

Following the long rebellion by Mikhail Gorbachev the Soviet leader, Reagan in 1982 addressed on coming to birth of freedom while at Brandenburg Gate. However, Gorbachev was highly opposed to the downfall of communism in his state. Though strongly embedded to the doctrines of communism, the Soviets were in lieu of understanding what freedom conceived for them. This was the foundation of the activity by Reagan and that freedom was not solely to the benefit of the US and the other world states but also the Soviet inclusive. To the Soviets, the growth in freedom was never a strong support for bringing out changes in their state.

We will write a custom essay sample on
Ronald Reagan and the Cold War
Specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page

order now

However to Reagan, they were unmistakable, as they would still embrace the notion they were rejecting. However according to Gorbachev, the search for freedom was not essentially declining communism and had requested his people to stick on together in seeking the political liberation of communism withstanding. (Robert, 2003, pp. 56) According to Peter Schweizer, Reagan had a long vision towards adequate deal for the Soviet Union in regard to the end of the Cold War. To SchWeizer, Reagan’s attempt had a fundamental consistency in four-decade period.

According to many scholarly literatures, Reagan’s opposition and the negative view towards communism were deeply personal and had a long standing critique in his historical experience of Hollywood infiltration by the Soviet in 1940’s. He had developed hatred to the tyranny as well as the oppressive creed of the Marxism-Leninism. Against this, Reagan had been optimistic and also positive in the view of fountain humanity which to him was adequately exemplified by the US. To Reagan, the weakness of communism was his great challenge. Communism rule was in intimidation and fear.

To him, any policy that had peaceful coexistence or even allied to Soviet Union was highly disastrous. To Reagan, the fear of war by the western especially in aspects of nuclear war would be a basic tool of use by the communism in ruling the world. Through their tactics of “salami slice”, they created bluffing and intimidation in creating gains of their cold war victory. However, Reagan had strong conservation of bringing down the lures of Moscow as well as its allies. This was through the fight against any superficial encroachment of the aspect of communism in either Moscow or the entire world.

To him however, the fight against communism was never a subject of military action. This would be through the aspect of detracting the status of Soviet’s economy. The rule of Marxism was developed under the imagery of materialist philosophy. (Furner, 1997, pp. 71) It had an allegiance claim across the world that it had the structures for plentiful economic produce for the world which would therefore provide the aspect of social justice. However, Regan had the believe that capitalism had the subject of democracy which was more ratified to advantages that the aspect of totalitarian systems above that of economies with central planning.

Reagan had therefore sought out in confronting the Soviet Union with the aspect of economic pressures. Either, he threatened the security status of the soviet system through its support both indirect and also direct assistance by Americans movement towards its attack to Afghanistan. He was still going to implement foreign current issues in sale of gas and also oil which the Soviet had to the international market. A substantive cut in western aid and aspects of technology would still be an adequate tool. (Stephen, 2004. pp 90

Down the line in to the Cold War, Reagan was obliged to a fundamental change throughout the Soviet Union system not just its policies. Accordingly, the use of economic warfare as a strategy was an adequate tool for enforcing such changes. With this, the existing Soviet leadership was to be brought under a new change through recognizing a state of bankruptcy to the communism ideologies which would therefore wave out a political rapprochement for the west. In its attempt, the US would then seek promotion of democracy across the globe through the resilient example of the dictatorship rules by the Soviet Union.

The reformation process by Gorbachev went accidentally to Reagan. The threats induced by Reagan meant retardation in the plans of leadership by the Soviet which implied that such transformations eyed by the Soviet Union were immensely impossible. The political movement by Reagan finally left Gorbachev out of power and the reign of democratic socialism been the vigilant epoch in the history of Soviet Union. The transformation tool for fighting Gorbachev by Reagan was authentic. At the end of the course, Soviet Union was only left in disintegrated unstable states which had unstable nuclear weapons and with fascist oligarchs as their rulers.

According to Left however, unworthy benefit by Reagan in reformation of Gorbachev rule was just a failure. Accordingly, there was a general lose in the war by all, both Gorbachev and Reagan and argued that Reagan never won. (Jean, Roy, 2002, pp. 62) The argument by Left has been echoed by many historians as worth of noting. To him, democratic socialism fought by Reagan was oxymoronic at different levels and that this was a mere fall when many human faces contributed to decision-making.

However, Reagan never denied of his placing pressure towards Moscow for rescue of the Soviet from the communist rule. The close relationship in the European crisis in nuclear missile however has remained debatable to many historians. This is from the wonderful choice of the Soviets not fighting the US with their missiles. According to historians, the Soviet had no war stomach for launching missile fight with the America. (Jean, Roy, 2002, pp. 67) To the America however, they have portrayed a different explanation towards ending Cold War. To them, the Soviet Union containment worked adequately.

To the US, the containment implied bipartisan security policy by the US whose adoption was in late 1940’s and whose pursuit was through successive resolution by the presidential administrators, the Democrat and the Republican. Indeed, the win in the Cold War was in its outlast through attrition but not through maneuvers of brilliant strategies. The best role towards this success was however played by Reagan through the assistance of Acheson, Truman and Marshall. From the US point of view, its foreign policy was never passive as radically portrayed by historians.

However, its strong sense of administration provided a strong defensive contribution through the conception of the defense department. (Keth, Ronald, 1990, pp. 80) According to his conception, this kind of defense was a strong match in lieu of the strengths of the America, which worked towards the weakness of technological disadvantage by the Soviet. (Raymond, 1994, pp. 87) However, the American foreign policy had its establishments of resistance towards the too risky initiatives by Reagan with which its representative had long fought against the direct application of such rules by Reagan.

However, Reagan correspondence was perhaps a rejection by the foreign policy in his move of seeking liberation in the world through the fight against communism. In his attempt however, he had chose to accept disputes that rose within American statesmen in the attempt of the implementation process of his policies in search for democracy. According to Daniel Greenberg a liberal historian, the two contrasting characters of Reagan provided a supportive match towards the end of the Cold War. These were his well-known characters of superhawk and his character of nuclear abolitionist.

According to Daniel, the Soviet rule was developing a dysfunctional imagery with its empire collapsing. This was an advantage to Reagan and his military men. In the Gorbachev’s advisory in 1986 at Politburo, the Soviet would seldom make them to lose. To Gorbachev, the inadequacy of his military missile was a big question to the success of war with Reagan. However, his military administrator Velikhov gave him strength towards their win if only they would add the capacity of the missiles. However, according to Samuel Well a historian of Cold War, Reagan was highly opposed to using nuclear weapons.

This is from the point of view of Reagan that the use of nuclear weapons was morally immoral. (Ronald, 1998, pp. 58) Fortunately, Reagan had the vision of SDI which was a shield aimed at rendering obsoleteness of nuclear weapons. Elsewhere, Reagan’s even had a larger proposal in cut of strategic arms than Gorbachev’s 50% proposal in Reykjavik in 1986. His alternative suggestion was the evasion in use of weapons by both sides. Rather, they should equally build on the SDI system which would look against the revival of nuclear weapons.

However, the rejection of the proposal by Gorbachev at the first instance was a fall by Reagan. To Gorbachev, his accepting of the SDI proposal by Reagan was only if Reagan did not plan either to undertake testing of nuclear weapons within the outer space. Seldom however, such tests were a strong element within the SDI proposal by Reagan. The return of Gorbachev to Moscow was a strong persuasion that Reagan did not intent to strike the Soviet at first. To Gorbachev, Reagan was in a stable point in exercising his economic rigidities and reforms to the Soviet Union as long as he did not mean nuclear weapon striking.

Undoubted assurance to Gorbachev above the external security was the key factor which would imply his continued domestic upheaval. However, this was an adequate ground in the side of Reagan in which case he would use the other testamentary conditions to bring to an end the Cold War. Across his last years in his administration, the proposal of his leadership towards reduction in arms was happily accepted by Gorbachev though pronounced without cynicism thinking that Gorbachev would seldom reject them. From their political antiquity, the leaders subsequently would not do without one another.

To Gorbachev, his need of swift moving from the subsequent holing of his reforms was crucial. Either, the great pressure as exerted by Reagan even forced him a swift move and hence provided an offer of various rewards which was crucial in making the Soviets think about the worth of such cutbacks. (Raymond, 1994, pp. 89) To many historians, Gorbachev’s presence would only have been provided with opposition by Reagan. Otherwise, the likes of defeat by Jimmy Carter and also Walter Mondale by Reagan was a persuasive move towards instituting a strong reinforcement to Gorbachev.

However, the former US leaders would have exercised the same traditional sort of rule which would have been cautious in providing a supportive move towards Gorbachev’s rule. This was primarily evident in 1989 when Sir George Bush went in succeed of Reagan that the relations between the US and the Soviet which had long stabilized got a finite drawback. (Mathew, 1999, pp. 57) Broadly, Reagan’s contribution towards the end of the cold war is echoed by a diverse historical biography. However, the move by Reagan was fundamental and has since then held a global attribute.

Beginning in 1980’s, it was evident that the Soviet had a greater military buildup which even surpassed the US. However, the reliance of qualitative superiority by US in frightening the Soviet was perhaps coming to an end. Indeed, following the consequent buildup of military by Reagan, the Soviet could not continue in a further buildup. The Soviet was plunged into a great problem of high expense on military, poor agricultural status above unplanned manufacturing industry. To Reagan, these were important benchmarks for him to explore the communist’s leadership.

In his persuasion, Reagan requested Saudi Arabia to further increase production of oil into a three times increase in respect to its former capacity. To the Soviet economy, this marked a huge draw back in its economic stability which was anchored on oil production. Through his request of meetings with Gorbachev, Reagan persuaded him on agreements that would ratify agreement on nuclear weapons. To Reagan therefore, the ending communism in the Soviet would only be through a persuasion to the Soviets in allowing free expression and horror of democracy.

Their meeting on June 1987 at the Berlin Wall marked the changing circumstances in the political scenery of the Soviet. Previously, Gorbachev had proposed pursuit of agreements on firearms with Reagan. However, his announcement was never welcomed hopefully by the Soviet statesmen who accused him of providing major concessions offerings to the US. At this meeting, the two leaders signed in the treaty of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) in which case nuclear weapons were to be eliminated.

In his forth visit to Moscow in 1988, Reagan was happily requested by his political competitor Gorbachev to give a speech about free market economy at the Moscow State University. From the developments, the collapse of the Soviet rule was in 1989. (Ralph, 1995, pp. 46) Generally therefore, the question on Reagan’s rule in the Cold War remains undoubted. In his presidential capacity, John Sinkin a historian of Cold War expressed his commendations on the sigh Reagan had against communism which even implied his describing of Soviet as “evil empire”.

His move to avoiding direct attack personifies the dramatic and recommendable approach the leader used in sending out the communist rule. The final success of the Cold War was a condition of better self-expression for the Soviets. His tactics have remained historical paradigms that helped to shape the status of the Soviet above that of the entire world. Generally, the falling communism provided for a more rational pattern of rethinking towards the portfolio of self-expression for the Soviets which even implied a better scope for more rational economy.

To many historians, the role of Ronald Reagan in the Cold War has remained a historical epoch of defining the consequent changing move towards the capacity of nationalism in the broad global imagery. The Soviets were advancing to a greater capacity of free expression which was far motivating towards its economic buildup. This was elsewhere a collaborative move towards rationalizing the freedom of the entire world from the captives of communism which would have been spread by the victory of the Soviet Union in the Cold War,


I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Click here