The cover image anchors this chapter summary in Kissinger’s larger study of diplomacy and international order.
In 1994, Henry Kissinger published the book Diplomacy. He was a renowned scholar and diplomat who served as the United States National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. His book provides an extensive sweep of the history of foreign affairs and the art of diplomacy, with a particular focus on the 20th century and the Western World. Kissinger, known for his alignment with the realist school of international relations, inquires into the concepts of the balance of power, raison d'État, and Realpolitik across different eras.
His work has been widely praised for its scope and intricate detail. Yet, it has also faced criticism for its focus on individuals over structural forces, and for presenting a reductive view of history. Also, critics have also pointed out that the book focuses excessively on Kissinger's individual role in events, potentially overstating his impact. In any case, his ideas are worthy of consideration.
This article presents a summary of Kissinger's ideas in the thirtieth chapter of his book, called "The End of the Cold War: Reagan and Gorbachev".
You can find all available summaries of this book, or you can read the summary from the previous chapter of the book, by clicking these links.
Soviet Overextension and the Opening of the 1980s
The Cold War had begun when the United States expected peace after the Second World War, and it ended when Americans were preparing for a long confrontation. Kissinger presents that reversal as one of the most abrupt changes in modern international history. The Soviet empire had seemed to be advancing in the late 1970s, yet within a decade it lost its Eastern European orbit, abandoned most of the imperial reach accumulated since Peter the Great, and dissolved without having been defeated in a conventional war.
The apparent Soviet momentum after 1975 made the coming collapse seem unlikely. The fall of Indochina was followed by American retreat from Angola and deep domestic divisions in the United States, and renewed Soviet activism. Cuban forces, supported by Soviet advisers, operated in Angola and Ethiopia. Vietnam, with Soviet backing, dominated Cambodia. Afghanistan was occupied by more than 100,000 Soviet troops. Iran’s pro-Western Shah fell, and an anti-American revolutionary regime seized American hostages. To many observers, the feared sequence of falling dominoes seemed to be taking place.
Yet Kissinger argues that the same period exposed the Soviet Union’s basic weakness. The Soviet state had survived civil war, international isolation, and Stalin’s terror. It had also survived the Nazi invasion, the American atomic monopoly, and the early Cold War. Those successes encouraged its rulers to confuse survival with strength. After establishing control over Eastern Europe and becoming a global military power, the Kremlin extended Soviet ambitions across distant regions while challenging most other major powers from a fragile economic base. Soviet leaders possessed a formidable military apparatus, but they lacked the economic creativity, social flexibility, and political legitimacy needed to sustain the burden they had created.
In Kissinger’s interpretation, the fatal Soviet error was a loss of proportion. Stalin had understood, at least intermittently, the need to maneuver among stronger powers and to avoid exhausting the Soviet system. His successors misread the West’s caution after Stalin’s death as evidence of weakness. Khrushchev and later leaders tried to go beyond Stalin’s strategy of dividing the capitalist world. They issued ultimatums over Berlin, placed missiles in Cuba, and supported revolutionary expansion in the developing world. These moves made the Soviet Union appear bold and turned stagnation into collapse by creating commitments beyond what Soviet society could carry.
The collapse became visible during Reagan’s second term, although Kissinger gives credit to earlier administrations and to George Bush for managing the final stage. Reagan’s presidency marked the turning point because it applied pressure at the moment when the Soviet state was least able to respond. The result did not come from a single policy or a single leader. It came from the meeting of a long Western strategy, Soviet overreach, and Reagan’s unusual ability to translate American confidence into a sustained political offensive.
Reagan’s Intuitive Strategy and American Exceptionalism
Kissinger treats Reagan as an improbable instrument of strategic success. Reagan had little formal knowledge of history, often relied on inaccurate anecdotes, and showed limited interest in the details of foreign policy. His strength lay elsewhere. He held a few convictions with unusual firmness. Appeasement was dangerous, communism was morally and politically defective, the United States was a force for freedom, and Soviet power was more brittle than experts assumed. These convictions gave his presidency coherence at a time when complicated analysis often produced caution rather than direction.
For Kissinger, Reagan’s simplicity was not the same as irrelevance. In the American system, presidential statements help discipline a sprawling bureaucracy and define public debate. Reagan’s speeches therefore mattered because they expressed a consistent worldview and because he delivered them with genuine conviction. The idea that he was merely the instrument of speechwriters misses the political fact that he chose those advisers, accepted their language, and used it to express beliefs he already held. On certain issues, especially the Strategic Defense Initiative, he was ahead of many in his own administration.
Reagan also understood the emotional basis of American foreign policy. Nixon and Ford had shared his basic assessment that Soviet expansion had to be resisted and that history favored democratic societies. However, their explanation of policy differed sharply from his. Nixon, shaped by Vietnam and by the need to sustain domestic support for difficult confrontations, treated peace efforts as a prerequisite for resistance. Reagan led a country tired of retreat and presented resistance in moral rather than geopolitical terms. Kissinger compares this difference to the contrast between Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson: Roosevelt better understood the mechanics of international politics, while Wilson better understood the moral vocabulary that moved Americans.
Reagan’s version of American exceptionalism was distinctive because he applied it to daily Cold War policy. Earlier presidents had invoked American principles to support particular projects, such as the League of Nations or the Marshall Plan. Reagan turned those principles into active weapons against communism. In his first press conference, he described the Soviet Union as prepared to lie, cheat, and commit crimes for its purposes. In 1983, he called it an “evil empire.” Such language offended many diplomats, journalists, and scholars, who saw it as primitive or dangerous. Kissinger’s judgment is different: the rhetoric worked because it came at a moment when Soviet confidence was already weakening and American society needed to recover the conviction that the ideological conflict still mattered.
At the same time, Reagan’s confrontation was joined to a utopian belief in reconciliation. He believed conflict with the Soviet Union could end through personal contact and moral conversion rather than military victory or permanent hostility. His letters to Brezhnev and Andropov, his hopes for a direct conversation with Chernenko, and his anticipation of a summit with Gorbachev reflected the American conviction that tension is an aberration and that goodwill can reveal common human interests.
This combination produced a strange but effective diplomacy. Reagan saw communism as evil, yet he believed communist leaders could be converted. He rejected balance-of-power pessimism, yet he pursued confrontation more vigorously than his predecessors. He wanted a final outcome rather than gradual management, yet that desire gave him tactical flexibility. According to Kissinger, Reagan’s presidency united two strands of American thought that often pull in opposite directions: the missionary impulse to transform the world and the pacific hope that conflict can disappear once misunderstanding is removed.
Human Rights, Democracy, and the Reagan Doctrine
Reagan’s ideological offensive used human rights as a weapon against the Soviet system. Nixon had raised the issue of Soviet emigration, Ford had accepted the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords, and Carter had made human rights central to foreign policy. Reagan went further by treating human rights as more than a diplomatic concern: they became a means of undermining communist legitimacy. His argument was Wilsonian in its premise: governments based on consent were less likely to wage aggressive war, and democratic institutions therefore had strategic as well as moral value.
The Reagan administration extended that logic beyond the Soviet Union. It promoted democratic reform even in anti-communist authoritarian states. The United States pressed Augusto Pinochet’s regime in Chile toward a referendum and elections, and it cooperated in the removal of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. In Kissinger’s account, this policy carried unresolved implications. A crusade for democracy raised questions about nonintervention, national security, overextension, and the price Americans would pay to promote their values. Those dilemmas would become more important after the Cold War, when the clarity of the Soviet threat no longer organized American choices.
During the early 1980s, however, Reagan focused less on these ambiguities than on stopping Soviet expansion. He rejected the Brezhnev Doctrine, which treated communist gains as irreversible, and acted as if communism could be rolled back rather than merely contained. The United States repealed restrictions on aid to anti-communist forces in Angola, increased support for Afghan guerrillas fighting Soviet occupation, resisted communist movements in Central America, and provided humanitarian aid to Cambodia. Within a few years of the Vietnam trauma, the United States was again contesting Soviet influence around the world.
This approach became known as the Reagan Doctrine. Its purpose was to help anti-communist forces pull their countries away from the Soviet sphere. The doctrine reversed the pattern of the 1960s and 1970s, when the Soviet Union had supported insurgencies against pro-American governments. Now the United States was increasing the cost of Soviet and Soviet-backed interventions. The results appeared in Afghanistan and Angola, then in Ethiopia, Cambodia, and Nicaragua, though some outcomes came after Reagan left office. Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. Cuban forces left Angola by 1991. The communist-backed government in Ethiopia collapsed in 1991. In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas accepted elections in 1990. Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia ended, followed by elections and refugee returns.
Kissinger emphasizes both the effectiveness and the moral ambiguity of this policy. Reagan’s public language celebrated freedom and democracy, but the operational logic was closer to classical realism: the enemy of one’s enemy could become an ally. The United States aided genuine democrats in some places, Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, right-wing forces in Central America, and tribal or regional actors in Africa. The common denominator was opposition to Soviet power rather than ideological compatibility. This strategy helped accelerate the decline of communist confidence, but it also revived a permanent statesman’s dilemma: which means are justified by which ends.
The regional pressure mattered because it changed the psychology of Soviet reformers. What had looked like revolutionary advance in the 1970s increasingly appeared by the late 1980s as a series of expensive failures. Soviet involvement in the developing world drained resources, produced stalemates, and exposed the weakness of centralized decision-making. Thus the Reagan Doctrine did more than impose material costs. It helped persuade parts of the Soviet elite that the foreign policy of the Brezhnev era had bankrupted the system politically, economically, and morally.
Rearmament, European Missiles, and Strategic Defense
Reagan’s military buildup was the most direct challenge to Soviet power. He had long argued that American defenses were inadequate and that Soviet strategic superiority was approaching. Kissinger notes that these fears oversimplified the meaning of military superiority in the nuclear age. Nevertheless, the political effect was decisive. Reagan rallied conservative support for a major buildup and, more important, forced Soviet leaders to confront whether their economy could match the United States in resources, technology, and innovation.
The buildup restored weapons programs abandoned or delayed under Carter. It brought back the B-1 bomber and deployed the MX missile, the first new American land-based intercontinental missile in a decade. However, Kissinger identifies two strategic decisions as especially important: NATO’s deployment of American intermediate-range missiles in Europe and Reagan’s commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI.
The intermediate-range missile issue began under Carter but became a major test of alliance cohesion under Reagan. The immediate problem was the Soviet SS-20, which could strike European targets from deep inside Soviet territory. The deeper issue was political. Western Europe needed assurance that the United States would risk nuclear war to defend Europe if a Soviet attack remained geographically limited. European leaders doubted whether Washington would launch nuclear weapons from the American homeland or from sea-based forces in such circumstances. Placing American missiles on European soil was meant to “couple” the defense of Europe to the defense of the United States by making any Soviet attack on Europe likely to trigger wider escalation.
The deployment also responded to fears of German neutralism. After Helmut Schmidt lost power in 1982, parts of the German Social Democratic Party moved toward positions that worried France and other NATO members. Moscow tried to exploit those doubts. Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gromyko treated opposition to the missiles as a central objective, threatening to walk out of arms talks and warning West Germany that deployment would damage its security. Soviet propaganda supported peace demonstrations and nuclear freeze movements across Europe.
Reagan’s counterproposal, the “zero option,” offered to cancel the American missiles if the Soviets eliminated their SS-20s. Strategically, the proposal raised questions because the American deployment was meant to address alliance coupling, more than the SS-20s alone. Politically, it was brilliant. The idea of abolishing an entire class of weapons was easy for European publics to understand, and Soviet refusal made it easier for Western governments to proceed. Helmut Kohl stood firm in West Germany, while François Mitterrand gave crucial support from France, arguing that decoupling Europe from the United States would threaten peace. The eventual deployment showed that the Soviet leadership could no longer intimidate Western Europe.
SDI posed an even larger challenge. In March 1983, Reagan called for a program that would make nuclear missiles “impotent and obsolete.” The phrase struck at the foundation of Soviet superpower status. For two decades, the Soviet Union had poured resources into achieving strategic parity. Reagan now proposed a technological leap that might either negate that effort or force Moscow into a race it could not afford.
The proposal also challenged the strategic orthodoxy of Mutual Assured Destruction. Since the emergence of large nuclear arsenals, many defense intellectuals had argued that deterrence depended on keeping both populations vulnerable enough to make nuclear war suicidal. Kissinger views this doctrine as a flight from rational defense because it made civilian vulnerability the basis of security. SDI appealed to Reagan because it promised a way out of the choice between surrender and Armageddon. Critics argued that it was technologically impractical, destabilizing, harmful to arms control, or dangerous for NATO cohesion. Kissinger accepts that the experts had many technical arguments, but he argues that Reagan grasped a political truth: leaders who make no effort to defend their people against catastrophe may be judged harshly if it occurs.
SDI’s strategic value did not require a perfect shield. Even an imperfect defense could complicate Soviet planning, raise the cost of attack, and work especially well against smaller nuclear forces. Soviet leaders could dismiss Reagan’s moral language. American technological capacity was harder to dismiss. As with earlier American anti-ballistic missile proposals, the Soviet reaction contradicted arms-control orthodoxy: SDI helped bring the Soviets back to negotiations.
Reykjavik and the Nuclear Paradox
Reagan’s nuclear policy contained a deep paradox. He modernized American strategic forces and challenged Soviet nuclear planning. At the same time, he delegitimized nuclear weapons by repeatedly insisting that nuclear war could never be won and must never be fought. His personal horror of nuclear conflict was not tactical. It drew on a literal fear of Armageddon and a genuine belief that a world without nuclear weapons was both necessary and possible. Kissinger therefore rejects the claim that Reagan’s abolitionist language was merely a cynical cover for an arms buildup.
This sincerity created opportunities and risks. Allies and adversaries who took Reagan’s language literally could question whether the United States would actually use the weapons on which NATO strategy depended. The danger remained manageable because Soviet power was declining too quickly to test the credibility of American nuclear threats. Still, Reagan’s approach worried allies, especially when he appeared willing to negotiate directly with Moscow over the foundations of nuclear strategy without full allied consultation.
The clearest example was the 1986 Reykjavik summit with Gorbachev. Over forty-eight hours, Reagan and Gorbachev moved toward extraordinarily sweeping proposals: a 50 percent reduction of strategic forces within five years and the destruction of all ballistic missiles within ten years. At moments, they even discussed the possible elimination of all nuclear weapons. This came close to the Soviet-American condominium that allies and neutral powers had long feared. If Washington and Moscow had jointly pressed for nuclear abolition, Britain, France, and China would have faced public pressure and diplomatic isolation. They also might have faced pressure to abandon their independent deterrents.
The agreement failed because Gorbachev tried to bind the nuclear reductions to a ten-year ban on SDI testing. Kissinger argues that Gorbachev overplayed his hand. A more skillful tactic would have been to publicize the agreed missile reductions and refer SDI to later negotiations. That would have preserved the dramatic gains and probably created a crisis within NATO and with China. Instead, Gorbachev pressed Reagan on the one point Reagan had promised to preserve. Reagan then did what a conventional diplomat would not have advised: he walked out.
After Reykjavik, the Reagan administration pursued what could be implemented. The two sides moved toward the elimination of American and Soviet intermediate- and medium-range missiles in Europe and toward major strategic reductions. Because the agreement did not affect British and French nuclear forces, it avoided some of the alliance disputes that a more sweeping settlement would have created. At the same time, it began the denuclearization of Germany, which carried future risks for NATO strategy. If the Cold War had continued, Germany might have been tempted toward a more national policy and toward doctrines incompatible with NATO’s reliance on possible first use of nuclear weapons.
Kissinger’s broader point is that Reagan turned a marathon into a sprint. A similar forward strategy might have been too dangerous in the early consolidated phase of the Cold War, when Soviet confidence was higher and allied publics feared confrontation. In the 1980s, however, Soviet stagnation made pressure more effective. Whether Reagan consciously understood the depth of Soviet weakness matters less than the historical fit between his instincts and the opportunity before him. His confrontational style, ideological clarity, arms buildup, and diplomatic flexibility helped push the Soviet system toward decisions it could not sustain.
Gorbachev’s New Thinking and the Search for Breathing Space
Gorbachev entered power in 1985 as the leader of a nuclear superpower, but he inherited a society in economic and social decay. Kissinger describes him as intelligent and polished, a leader of a different generation from the older Soviet figures formed directly under Stalin. His arrival inspired fear because the Soviet Union remained powerful and opaque; it also inspired hope because Western governments had long looked for signs that a Soviet leader might finally choose peace. For a time, Gorbachev seemed to embody that possibility.
Kissinger gives Gorbachev credit for facing problems that were perhaps insoluble. Forty years of Cold War had aligned most industrial powers against the Soviet Union. China, once an ally, had effectively joined the opposing camp. Eastern Europe drained Soviet resources and remained obedient mainly because of the implied threat of force. Third World adventures had become costly and inconclusive. Afghanistan imposed trials resembling America’s Vietnam experience, but on the edge of the Soviet empire itself. Meanwhile, the American military buildup and SDI exposed the technological backwardness of a stagnant Soviet economy just as the West was entering the computer and microchip era.
Gorbachev understood that domestic reform required international calm. At first, he believed the Communist Party could be purified and that limited market elements could revive central planning. In that sense he resembled earlier post-Stalin leaders who sought relief from tension in order to strengthen the Soviet system. The difference was that Khrushchev had believed Soviet production would overtake capitalism, while Gorbachev understood that the Soviet Union lagged far behind and needed a long period of recovery.
To gain that time, he reassessed Soviet foreign policy. At the Twenty-seventh Party Congress in 1986, he moved away from Marxist-Leninist assumptions more radically than any previous Soviet leader. Earlier versions of peaceful coexistence had been justified as temporary respites within a continuing class struggle. Gorbachev treated coexistence as an end in itself. Although he still acknowledged ideological differences, he argued that global survival and cooperation outweighed them. In Kissinger’s interpretation, this was a historic reversal: the Soviet leader replaced Leninist conflict with a Wilsonian language of interdependence and compatible interests.
At first, Western veterans of the Cold War had difficulty believing the change. Soviet bureaucracies continued to operate according to old habits, and arms-control tactics seemed familiar: Moscow still tried to restrict American defenses while preserving offensive advantages. Soviet officials also described “new thinking” as a way to deprive the West of an enemy image and weaken Western cohesion. Yet over time the doctrinal shift became impossible to dismiss. It destroyed the intellectual foundation of Soviet foreign policy by removing the class struggle that had justified confrontation, internal repression, and the permanent mobilization of the Soviet state.
The difficulty was that Gorbachev’s agenda was too large for gradual diplomacy. Soviet policymakers had to manage relations with the Western democracies, repair relations with China, and contain strains in Eastern Europe. They also had to reduce the arms race and reform the domestic system. Any one of these tasks would have been difficult; together they were overwhelming. Arms control, the central language of East-West diplomacy, was too slow to provide the relief Gorbachev needed. Negotiating force levels, verification, and implementation could consume years. After Reykjavik failed, Gorbachev lost his best chance to end or radically slow the arms race quickly.
By December 1988, he moved to unilateral military reductions. At the United Nations, he announced cuts of 500,000 troops and 10,000 tanks. These included major reductions facing NATO and a withdrawal of most Soviet forces from Mongolia. This was meant to reassure the West and China by weakening the image of a Soviet threat. Kissinger interprets the gesture as a sign of weakness rather than confidence. No Soviet leader in the previous half-century could have made such a concession. It vindicated Kennan’s original containment thesis: once the West built and held positions of strength, the Soviet Union would crumble from internal pressure.
China, Eastern Europe, and the Collapse of the Brezhnev Doctrine
Gorbachev also sought to repair relations with China, but Beijing approached diplomacy differently from the Western arms-control process. Chinese leaders did not accept improved tone as a substitute for political settlement. They demanded an end to Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia, Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the reduction of Soviet forces along the Sino-Soviet border. These conditions required concrete changes, not atmospherics. It took nearly three years for Gorbachev to make enough progress for Beijing to receive him.
Even then, events outran him. When he visited Beijing in May 1989, the Tiananmen Square demonstrations were underway. His official welcome was disrupted, protests could be heard from inside the Great Hall of the People, and global attention focused on the Chinese leadership’s struggle to maintain authority. Once again, Gorbachev’s effort to create diplomatic room was overtaken by political forces he could not control.
The greater crisis came in Eastern Europe. Since 1980, Poland’s Solidarity movement had become a durable political force despite General Jaruzelski’s repression. In Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and East Germany, opposition groups invoked the human rights language of the Helsinki process. Communist rulers faced an insoluble problem. To satisfy national publics, they needed to assert more independence from Moscow. Because their populations saw them as instruments of the Kremlin, nationalism alone failed to restore legitimacy. Democratization became the compensation for their lack of credibility, but communist parties were built to seize and hold power rather than compete for it.
The Soviet dilemma was sharper. The Brezhnev Doctrine required Moscow to suppress revolts in the satellite orbit. Gorbachev’s temperament and foreign policy made such suppression increasingly impossible. Intervention in Eastern Europe would have strengthened NATO, preserved the Sino-American alignment against Moscow, and intensified the arms race. Therefore Gorbachev faced a choice between political suicide through repression and the gradual erosion of Soviet power through liberalization.
He chose liberalization. Hungary moved under reformist communists, and Poland was allowed to negotiate with Solidarity. In July 1989, Gorbachev told the Council of Europe that political change inside each country belonged to that country’s people and that interference in domestic affairs was inadmissible. By Soviet standards this statement was extraordinary, because it renounced intervention and the broader logic of spheres of influence. In October 1989, during a visit to Finland, the abandonment became explicit. Gennadi Gerasimov jokingly called it the “Sinatra Doctrine,” meaning that Hungary and Poland could do it their way.
The concession came too late to save communism. Liberalization demoralized the parties that had depended on monopoly power. Once they ceased to be monolithic instruments of control, they lost their reason for existing. Kissinger stresses that Gorbachev never grasped the equation that Yeltsin did: communists could not become democrats without ceasing to be communists.
In October 1989, Gorbachev visited East Berlin for the fortieth anniversary of the German Democratic Republic and urged Erich Honecker toward reform. He still treated the postwar order and the Berlin Wall as part of the structure that had preserved peace in Europe. Four weeks later, the Wall fell. Within ten months, Gorbachev accepted German unification inside NATO. By then, communist governments throughout Eastern Europe had collapsed, the Warsaw Pact was dying, and the settlement symbolized by Yalta had been reversed. The Soviet Union, after decades of trying to weaken Western cohesion, now sought Western goodwill because it needed aid more than it needed its empire.
Perestroika, Glasnost, and the Breakdown of Soviet Authority
Gorbachev’s domestic strategy rested on perestroika, or restructuring, and glasnost, or political liberalization. Perestroika was meant to enlist technocrats and improve economic performance. Glasnost was meant to win support from the intelligentsia and expose the stagnation of Soviet life. The two policies soon collided because the Soviet system had no institutions capable of channeling free expression into stable reform, and its economy had no resources to improve daily life except those tied to the military sector.
The economic problem began with central planning itself. In theory, the plan gave the state rational control over production and distribution. In practice, Kissinger describes it as a vast network of collusion among managers, ministries, and planners. Production units set minimal targets, concealed shortages, and made informal arrangements behind the backs of central authorities. Since goods were allocated rather than purchased, prices failed to measure demand or efficiency. With a large share of the budget used to subsidize prices, corruption became the main substitute for market signals. The authorities who supposedly controlled the system could not see its real condition.
The Communist Party, once an instrument of revolution, had become part of the paralysis. It supervised institutions it did not understand and protected a privileged mandarin class rather than generating reform. Gorbachev first tried to make the Party the vehicle of renewal, but vested interests blocked him. He then tried to weaken the Party while preserving the communist structure. That move destroyed the basic instrument of Soviet rule without creating a reliable alternative.
One part of this shift was Gorbachev’s effort to move authority from the Party into the governmental structure. Kissinger argues that this was a grave miscalculation. Since Lenin, real power had belonged to the Communist Party, while the government implemented decisions. Ambitious figures therefore rose through the Party, while the governmental apparatus attracted administrators rather than political leaders. By moving his base into the state structure, Gorbachev placed his revolution in the hands of officials trained to administer, not to design or command a new order.
Another part was regional and local autonomy. Gorbachev wanted popular support against the Party, but he retained a Leninist suspicion of uncontrolled politics. He allowed elections at local and regional levels while barring national parties other than the Communist Party. This arrangement opened the door to forces the Soviet center could not contain. For three centuries, Russia had absorbed peoples across Europe and Asia without reconciling them to central rule. Once non-Russian regions could elect governments, many challenged Moscow’s authority. Since those regions included nearly half the Soviet population, autonomy became a path toward disintegration.
Gorbachev therefore lost his institutional base without gaining a secure popular one. He antagonized the Party, worried the security services, and failed to satisfy reformers because he could not offer a viable alternative to either communism or centralized empire. The KGB and the military understood the need for reform because they knew the West’s technological lead, but they supported reform only within limits. The KGB would accept openness only so long as it did not dissolve discipline; the military would accept restructuring only so long as its resources were protected.
As the reforms continued, Gorbachev became more isolated. Each concession created a new threshold rather than a stable settlement. By 1990, the Baltic republics were seceding and the Soviet Union was beginning to disintegrate. Yeltsin used Russia’s own assertion of sovereignty to destroy the larger Soviet structure and, with it, Gorbachev’s office as Soviet president. Kissinger’s judgment is that Gorbachev both understood and misunderstood his predicament. He saw what was wrong and failed to identify what should replace it. He moved too fast for the communist system to tolerate and too slowly to control the collapse he had unleashed.
Why the Cold War Ended
By 1991, the democracies had won the Cold War, but the meaning of that victory immediately became contested. One argument held that the Soviet Union had never been a serious threat and would have collapsed regardless of Western policy. Another held that democracy alone won the struggle, while military and geopolitical pressure were secondary or unnecessary. Kissinger rejects both views as forms of evasion. Democratic ideas helped rally opposition, especially in Eastern Europe, but they spread so quickly because communist elites had lost confidence in their own system and because Soviet foreign policy had failed.
Kissinger points out that Marxist and Soviet commentators often recognized the balance of forces more clearly than American critics did. Fred Halliday, writing from a Marxist perspective, saw in 1989 that the balance had shifted in America’s favor and that Gorbachev’s “new thinking” was partly an attempt to relieve pressure. Soviet analysts such as Vyacheslav Dashichev blamed Brezhnev’s leadership for uniting the world’s major powers against the Soviet Union and provoking an arms race beyond Soviet capacity. Eduard Shevardnadze similarly criticized the Afghan war, the feud with China, and the underestimation of Europe. He also condemned the SS-20 deployment, the walkout from arms talks, and the doctrine requiring the Soviet Union to match any possible coalition against it.
These reassessments mattered because they acknowledged that Western policy had imposed costs. If Soviet adventurism had carried no penalty, there would have been no reason for Soviet leaders to repudiate it. The collapse of detente, in Kissinger’s account, came from Moscow’s attempt to exploit the American post-Vietnam trauma and change the geopolitical status quo. Reagan’s pressure proved more than the Soviet Union could bear because it struck a system already weakened by stagnation, imperial burden, and ideological exhaustion.
The ending of the Cold War therefore resembled George Kennan’s original forecast more than either triumphalist simplicity or isolationist revisionism allowed. The Soviet system needed an external enemy to justify internal sacrifice, repression, the security apparatus, and military priority. When Gorbachev replaced permanent class struggle with interdependence, he removed the moral and ideological basis for domestic coercion. Once that basis disappeared, the Soviet Union’s disciplined but brittle society struggled to shift toward compromise, pluralism, and initiative.
Kissinger does not claim that containment was perfect. American policy often overmilitarized the problem and alternated between strategic hardness and emotional hopes for converting the adversary. Individual policies could be criticized. Still, the long direction of American policy was farsighted and remarkably consistent across eight administrations. Had the United States failed to organize resistance when communism seemed to be the wave of the future, Communist parties in postwar Europe might have gained far more ground. Berlin crises might have multiplied, and Soviet leaders after Vietnam might have pushed harder in Africa, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The United States preserved the global equilibrium even when it did not describe its role in balance-of-power terms.
Victory was not the achievement of one administration. It resulted from forty years of bipartisan American effort, seventy years of communist rigidity, and the particular convergence of Reagan’s personality with Soviet weakness. A decade earlier, Reagan’s militancy might have been dangerous; a decade later, it might have seemed outdated. In the early and mid-1980s, however, his ideological militancy rallied Americans while his diplomatic flexibility became acceptable even to conservatives who would have rejected similar concessions from another president.
Kissinger closes with a warning about the limits of that success. The Cold War fit American habits unusually well because it offered a clear ideological challenge and a definite military adversary. Universal principles could be applied more easily when the central problem was Soviet communism. Even then, American policy suffered when broad ideals collided with particular circumstances, as in Suez and Vietnam. After the Cold War, the world no longer had one overriding ideological confrontation or a single geostrategic enemy. Almost every problem became a special case. American exceptionalism had helped the United States prevail, but the multipolar world would require a subtler definition of national interest than the old alternatives of beacon and crusader.
You can read the summary of the next chapter of the book by clicking this link.