[I. M. Trenchant]

Steyn is mistaken in what he says about detente. Reagan practised detente to the hilt in his negotiations with the U.S.S.R. The first thing Reagan did when he became president was to assure the U.S.S.R. that it had nothing to fear from the U.S. Reagan's summits with Gorbachev were not unlike Nixon's 'kitchen debate' with Khruschev in the mid-1950s, the principal difference being that Khruschev had ascended the ranks by his having been the 'butcher of the Ukraine' whereas Gorbachev had no such baggage. In both cases, Reagan and Nixon made it plain that the economic might of the west, most especially of the U.S., would ultimately triumph in the Cold War. The notion that anyone ended the Cold War is a problematic one since here are many more communists in the world now than ever before -- in China. Even in 'democratic' Russia, recent polls indicate that Stalin is still seen in a positive light by 25% of the Russian population. Just as Nixon, as President, had to deal with Mao, the butcher, in order to get the 'ball rolling', and later, as an emissary of Bush I's administration, with Deng, a relative moderate compared to Mao, at the time of the Tiananmen Square, we are now in an era in which there is detente between the western democracies and China, with the expectation that a 'Chinese Gorbachev' will eventually emerge.

[KeyWest]

All of Eastern Europe would disagree with you.

Reagan did bring down the Soviet Empire, and it was not détente that was practiced before him, it was appeasement and fear. Many on the left in this country thought the Soviets had a system of government that was admirable and ours contemptible. Just look at the current Cuban apologists and the anti-war movement.


Reagan turned that all around. He supported a massive military buildup, Solidarity, the afghan war, contra rebels, missiles in Europe, Granada, etc., all opposed by many in the dem controlled congress. That is not détente. That is war by other means.