was Mikhail Gorbachev who technically ended the unilateral rule by the Communist Party—an idea suggested to him (and which he contemplated) as early as 1985.20
Yet, as Archie Brown notes, despite this monumental move by Gorbachev that ended the unilateral rule of the Communists, “it was no part of Gorbachev’s initial conception to introduce a fully-fledged political pluralism in which the Communist Party would become just one party competing with others.” The reality of the situation was that once Gorbachev began making qualified statements on democracy, the concept of pluralism took on a life and momentum of its own, and though he eventually came to embrace this newfound pluralism, it was a far cry from his original conception.21
Equally significant, while this viral brand of pluralism was not Gorbachev’s initial intent when he began the process of reform, it most certainly was Ronald Reagan’s intent in many of the NSDDs. Indeed, the pluralism that swept the former Soviet Union was an objective of NSDD-32, which set the goal of encouraging democratic change within both the Soviet bloc and the USSR itself. Recall that shortly after the signing of NSDD-32, NSC member Tom Reed had spoken to the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, where he shocked the audience by stating that it was the Reagan administration’s “fondest hope” to “one day convince” the Soviet leadership to “seek the legitimacy that comes only from the consent of the governed.” In addition, this goal was reiterated in the January 1983 directive NSDD-75, which advocated promoting “the process of change in the Soviet Union [and Eastern Europe] toward a more pluralistic political and economic system.” What makes these Reagan administration objectives particularly resonant is that they took place two to three years before Gorbachev had even entered office. Encouraging democracy in the USSR had been a plan of Ronald Reagan.
Reagan watched this plan come to fruition, intuitively understanding the deeper forces at work in the hearts and souls of all people, meaning that each person, in Reagan’s view, possesses a God-given yearning for freedom—including those living in the Evil Empire. As Gorbachev tried to get a grip on the situation, ex-president Reagan, speaking in Cambridge, England on December 5, 1990, demonstrated that he understood better than Gorbachev what Gorbachev’s taste of freedom would bring: “As is always the case,” said Reagan, “once people who have been deprived of basic freedom taste a little of it, they want all of it. It was as if Gorbachev had uncorked a magic bottle and a genie floated out, never to be put back in again. Glasnost was that genie.”22
Now, everything was collapsing around Gorbachev, spinning beyond his control.23 “Attempting to change society,” said Valery Boldin, CPSU official and Gorbachev’s chief of staff, he was “unintentionally” destroying “[our] statehood.”24
THE END OF THE END
By 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev’s star, and his beloved USSR, had been eclipsed by Boris Yeltsin’s Russian Federation. Yeltsin was voted president of Russia on June 12, 1991; its first ever democratically elected leader. Gorbachev, too, had changed the title of his unelected post from general secretary to president. There were now literally two presidents in Moscow sharing the Kremlin—who, or what, would prevail?
The subsequent weeks were a blur, filled with dramatic events all beyond Gorbachev’s ability to forestall, including a failed coup attempt in August. By September, nearly every remaining Soviet republic declared independence, a glorious event for just about everyone except Mikhail Gorbachev, who still hoped the USSR would persevere. Yet, there was no way Gorbachev could stop the flurry of freedom he had unleashed. Among the rebels, on September 6 a defiant Georgia severed all ties with its abusive parent. That same day, the USSR State Council recognized the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and fed up residents of Leningrad restored the city’s original name, St. Petersburg—a move that must have made Lenin howl from his tomb. On November 6, President Yeltsin—now the top dog after saving both Gorbachev and Russia from a coup—banned the Soviet and Russian Communist parties.
In a gesture of major symbolic importance, on December 18, 1991 the red Soviet hammer-and-sickle flag which had flown over the Kremlin for decades was replaced with the flag of the new Russian Federation. It then took Mikhail Gorbachev seven days to do the inevitable: to step down. He called President George H. W. Bush to say: “You can have a very quiet Christmas evening. I am saying good-bye and shaking your hand.”25
That evening, Gorbachev went on television to announce he was leaving his post. He began his December 25 resignation speech by noting that he had stood “firmly…for the preservation of the union state, the unity of the country. Events went a different way. The policy prevailed of dismembering this country and disuniting the state, with which I cannot agree.” He lamented the “breakup” of Soviet “statehood” and “the loss” of, curiously, “a great country.” He also noted, rightly, that his “foremost achievement” was the political and spiritual freedom he brought to Soviet society, and highlighted the “historic significance” of eliminating the totalitarian system and creating a democratic society. He cited two principal reasons for the failure of the Soviet state: the Communist-command economy generally and the “terrible burden of the arms race.”26 The Reagan arms race was indeed devastating.
By resigning as head of the USSR that Christmas Day, Gorbachev also resigned the USSR and provided the time of death of the Communist empire. His peaceful departure reflected the fact that he had no other option, but it was also a sign of his gentleness and unique nature. He was that rarest of Soviet leaders: he walked out of office willingly rather than being carried out horizontally. As Ronald Reagan had frequently emphasized, Gorbachev was a decent man, certainly not a monster like his predecessors.
The symbolism of Gorbachev’s resignation on that special day was rich: The Bolshevik dictatorship, born October 26, 1917, which declared war on Christians and other believers, was ended on the day the world celebrates the birth of Christ. From California, Reagan the Crusader must have relished the spiritual significance of the moment.
THE SDI FACTOR
Soon after Communism’s fall, it became clear that while many of Reagan’s initiatives had contributed to its unraveling, one stood out above them all: SDI. It was a point that a number of high-level Soviet officials have verified since the end of the Cold War. Gorbachev Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh said flatly that programs like SDI “accelerated the decline of the Soviet Union.”27 Ukrainian Alexander Donskiy, a Red Army veteran who served in the prestigious Strategic Rocket Forces division, says that he and many of those who served with him thought that SDI “was possible,” that it could work, and that it “helped destroy the Soviet Union. The economic cost killed us.”28 Vladimir Lukhim, a high-ranking Soviet official, said: “It’s clear that SDI accelerated our catastrophe by at least five years.”29 That is quite a claim to make in regard to a single research program.
Genrikh Trofimenko, head of the Institute for U.S.A. and Canada Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, says that with SDI Reagan merely reacted to a race the Soviets had started, and that Reagan “took up the gauntlet” thrown by Soviet leaders:
So what did President Reagan do, being aware of all this? He said: “If you are that eager to compete, let us then go the whole hog; let’s do whatever one likes best. The United States will continue competition not in offensive ballistic missiles, where you, Soviets, are on par with us. We will move into a realm of strategic missile defense, where we—Americans—have a little bit of something that you, probably, still do not have.” And the whole business of competition, as you know, is to keep ahead. He actually says to Moscow: “You thought you’ve caught up with us in strategic gadgetry and that it is the end of the road. You are wrong—the road is endless. The United States is not defeated. So, let’s have another go at it.”30
Trofimenko says that Reagan responded to the challenge by one-upping the Soviets, with the intent of prompting the USSR to spend itself into oblivion. The USSR, says Trofimenko, did just that. Thus, he asserts, “it
