👤 Ronald Reagan

1981-1989: Reagan’s 2 consecutive terms in office as POTUS
succeeds Jimmy Carter (Dem.) as president, and his two-pronged foreign policy
- before 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: Cyrus Vance was Secretary of State – more accommodating to Soviets
- 1979 onwards: Brzezinski was National Secretary of Defense – hardline
takes a hardline stance on foreign policy + determined to pursue aggressive policies to change Soviet behavior
saw détente as a failure that had eroded American prestige and made them look weak → resulted in ‘misplaced trust’, ↓ power, prestige and influence
- blamed Carter for loss of global power
returned USA to containment and confrontation – a more Truman-Eisenhower-approach
returned USA to negotiating from a position of strength with USSR

Triumphalism

Triumphalist position: that Reagan’s role was key to containing the Soviets and put pressure on them

aka: One Great Man theory

strong rhetorical language against USSR; Reagan’s hardline approach
- referred to the USSR as the ‘evil empire’ – strong rhetorical language against the USSR → Soviet moral bankruptcy of communism
  - or: the USA cancelled the USSR and strengthened the hand of democracy
- upped the ante for both countries
U.S. uses scientific and technological strength & advantage to pressure Russians (e.g. SDI)
- showed U.S. advantage to acquire first strike advantage → frightened the Soviets, because they had no solution to counteract
dramatic increase in military budget (lots of $$$)
- the Soviets weren’t in a position to compete with the vast American budget → had to look for more conciliatory ways (aka détente, compromise and giving in)
  - giving in → America ‘winning’, putting pressure on the USSR
  - exposed Soviet economic weakness – states like Ethiopia were bleeding the USSR dry
  - marked a switch to diplomacy rather than military conflict
all this combines to form the final nail in the Soviet coffin
the Cold War ends and USSR collapses… all because of Reagan
- ??? this is such a Man way of thinking

1981-1982: Response to Poland situation
- 1981 Dec: martial law imposed by Poland to stem growth of Solidarity trade union → arrest of Solidarity leadership
- 1982 Oct: outlawing of Solidartiy leadership
- U.S. imposed economic & trade sanctions on Poland & USSR ^a14c51
  - SIGNIFICANCE: reaffirmed importance of free market, human rights & gave the West the moral high ground (?)
1983: Reagan Doctrine
- Roll-Back
- resistance to Soviet expansionism wasn’t enough; the West had to go on the offensive with a “forward strategy to freedom”
- assistance rendered to anti-Communist insurgents & govts
  - 1979-1989 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; Aided mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan
    - 1986: new lightweight ground-to-air missiles supplied → diminished Soviet air superiority
    - allowed guerillas the benefit of US satellite & communications information
- reassertion of American power in Central America (Grenada, Nicaragua)
- renewal of strategic cooperation with China ([[1949-1976 Communist China’s Foreign Policy and Affairs#1970-1989-triangular-diplomacyyitianxian-一条线-one-united-front|1970-1989 Triangular Diplomacy/yitianxian (一条线), one united front]])

blocked various exports to USSR, including vital grain deliveries
Link to original

Transclude of #^a14c51

after 1985: all restrictions LIFTED, moving into Reconciliation (1985 onwards)

Military offensive (Militarism and arms control)

Summary

focus on restoring American military power

move from defensive to offensive

AIM: argued massive defence build-up would pressure Soviets to keep up → deplete them of resources
1982: increased military expenditure by 13%, then 8% every year after (known as 'window of vulnerability')
1982-1989: 📈 increased military budget from $134b/year to $253b
- largest peacetime budget
- 7% of GDP in 1989
5-year program of $180b to modernise strategic nuclear forces
CIA’s budget increased even omre
refusal to ratify SALT II and negotiate
opposition to Soviet action in Afghanistan, Poland

INF: Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces
Reagan proposed the ‘zero option’, heavily loaded against the USSR
proposals would have:
1. significantly increased U.S. strike capacity
2. essentially removing Soviet nuclear power
the talks were a set-up; the USSR would never accept those terms
1989: severely compromised and handicapped treaty signed

START: Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
U.S. wanted to deploy missiles in Europe → USSR abandoned the talks
- increased tensions → geographic proximity to the Soviet capitals, a security threat
- the Europeans weren’t happy with this – they wanted to reduce tensions with USSR and East Germany
  - obviously the U.S. won’t accept this
for the first time in a decade, the USSR and USA weren’t negotiating
USSR hoped the West could pressure the USA into adopting a more realistic approach to Soviet-American reactions
Reagan blamed the USSR for abandoning talks

SDI: Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars program”)
- $26b five-year project
- a system of defense against WMDs → aimed to make first strike impossible
1983 Mar: Announced a way to repel missiles launched by UISSR – would’ve made offensive nukes redundant
1983 Nov: NATO deployed Pershing II and Cruise missiles – a new generation of nukes that were faster, harder to detect, and very difficult to counter
moved from deterrence by assured defense to by assured retaliation
aimed to replace Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) with Mutually Assured Survival (MAS)
- which was a farce because everyone is going to die once you launch 💀
- “we cherish life and yet we design weapons that will take away life in new, innovative lives” –Mr. Han, 2025
went against anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) treaty agreements signed earlier on
realistically flawed, could never work – but freaked the Soviets out so badly
- USSR saw it as a U.S. plan to eradicate the Soviet advantage + develop American first-strike capability

Soviet perception	U.S. perception
sent shockwaves through the Politburo; they didn’t realize it was fully theoretical and unlikely to work Americans trying to gain an upper hand in military conflict erode balance and ‘get one up’ on the Soviets neutralizes the equilibrium developed over détente	big money involved with many vested interests lots of unfufiled promises and hype