The ending of the cold war is recorded in history as a period where moral, economic and ethical consideration overruled ideological and cultural inheritance and thus saved the world from another world war. In history and international studies, the end of the cold war is believed to be the year 1989. Ronald Reagan was the president of the United States of America at this time. Ronald Wilson Reagan was America's 40th president. He came to power when the cold war was in place. Over his rule, Reagan came face to face with the cold war. He had to take actions and make decision because his country was at the heart of it all. Overall, Regan's actions by far identify him as having done two important things. First is having won the war and the second is having ended it. Winning the war, in this sense, implies that through his leadership, the United States supremacy was asserted and U.S.S. R had to withdraw the competition for global leadership especially in Western Europe.
In terms of bringing the war to an end, Reagan is credited as having laid the steps which meant that both the U.S.S.R and such communism countries which were charting the path of war deviated and decided on a peaceful settlement. This paper discusses the role played by Reagan in ending the war. The aim is to show that he indeed was part of the process and important decision makers in ending it and was not a hindrance. In the discussion, three theories will be discussed in relation to Reagan's behaviors. First is he liberalism theory which identifies the concepts of self interest as important in the decisions by nations. The second theory which will be related to Reagan's behavior is the liberalism theory which holds that sometimes leaders take the path of cooperation as the way towards lasting benefits to the country and to everyone. As Lnopf (2) states, the end of the cold war was not a path achieved by Reagan alone.
[...] For Western Europe thus, the soviet had become a close brother who was not harming but helping. Reagan knew this. He thus approached the situation with the view of branding the soviet as bad. He competed with her in arms installations in the region and abruptly presented a path for peace. At this time, Reagan left such leaders with no choice. By advancing an incentive towards disarmament, the leaders of the soviet saw all the witty on the part of the president of the United States. [...]
[...] Ronald Reagan was the president of the United States of America at this time. Ronald Wilson Reagan was America's 40th president. He came to power when the cold war was in place. Over his rule, Reagan came face to face with the cold war. He had to take actions and make decision because his country was at the heart of it all. Overall, Regan's actions by far identify him as having done two important things. First is having won the war and the second is having ended it. [...]
[...] For the U.S on the other hand, the belief was different. Reagan did not believe in the cultural fusion of Europe as the path to be followed. Instead, he believed in the use of military balance and the creation of a status quo (Howortb 124). According to him, the independence and freedoms of all persons was to be important than the ideological integration path being charted by the new leader. As a leader, he was destined to be bully on this. [...]
[...] As the leader of this powerful country, he had much at his dispersal. If in his power, he had influenced a path of ending the conflict in a “real then the end of this war would not have come faster as it did nor would it have achieved the ‘end' for which it is described. In this sense thus, and by choosing the path of settlement through diplomacy, Reagan is credited as having ended the war in one important way. [...]
[...] It marked full confidence in the commitment of the now partners and set a compressive plan for implementation for future security through arms elimination. This in mind, it is clear to see the objective of Reagan. As he was negotiating on the ground of missiles, he was bent on making Russia realize that he was ready on the whole concept of having agreement on weapons and having an understanding of each other. He wanted to create trust not only on specific issues of weapon but on the whole issue so that the issue is solved as a whole. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
