Which people in
history have an unusually keen sense of political smell and can be called human spirits?
Ronald Reagan was the first leader to make it clear that the Soviet Union might collapse.
He is also a very special leader who has his own views, his views on the world, his views on communism and his views on the Soviet Union.
From Nixon, Ford, Carter to Reagan, what are the common characteristics of these presidents?
They believed that although the Soviet Union had various problems, it could actually exist steadily for a long time by virtue of its planned economy, military strength and domestic political structure. Since the
Soviet Union has existed steadily for a long time, the United States and the Western world should pursue a strategy of engaging with the Soviet Union, and they believe that through moderate contacts with Soviet leaders, they can slowly exert influence after the new generation has grown up, and finally reach a more delicate arrangement. Let the Soviet Union accept more international rules and effectively ease the tension between the American camp and the Soviet camp. Unlike
Reagan, he was the first leader to make it clear that the Soviet Union might collapse, and he firmly believed in it.
This is related to his personal background, especially in the field of religion. From his personal perception and belief, he called the Soviet Union an “evil” empire.
In a sense, he also believes that the “containment strategy” pursued by the United States is actually immoral.
In this respect, he was very similar to John Foster Dulles, because the so-called “containment strategy” was to draw a circle outside the Soviet Union’s camp, surround it and suppress its development, but at the same time it meant to protect the countries and people who had been incorporated into the Soviet Union. It is morally wrong for you to expose them to the influence of a regime that they see as problematic.
To this end, the United States needed to “push back” the Soviet Union and expose it from its influence on other countries and its satellite countries.
For this reason, the United States changed the foreign strategy of the Nixon administration during the Reagan administration.
Nixon’s overall strategy towards the Soviet Union at that time: strength, partnership and negotiation.
Reagan made an adjustment and took out the partnership. What was the first priority?
Realism, the so-called realism is to seek peace with strength, showing a strong and repressive attitude towards the Soviet Union, and realistically dealing with the dangers of the Soviet Union.
The second is strength, and the third is negotiation.
Reagan pointed out that this kind of negotiation between the United States and the Soviet Union is a very special kind of negotiation. In the absence of trust between the two sides, I do not trust you, the Soviet Union, but I negotiate with you. How can we talk about this kind of negotiation?
Such negotiations were bound to come with strings attached, and the Reagan administration’s condition was highly intrusive verification measures.
Now this set of things, during the Trump administration, the controversial Secretary of State Pompeo, basically accepted everything, copied the homework, to put it bluntly, was left over from the Reagan administration at that time. Based on this understanding of the Soviet Union,
Reagan formed a very important strategic document called “NSDD32” (National Security Decision Directives No.32) at the specific operational level. It formed a set of views on the Soviet Union.
NSDD32 First, it believes that the Soviet Union is facing a more serious domestic economic crisis, and the United States should use some means to magnify the vulnerability of the Soviet Union’s economy to increase pressure on the Soviet Union and magnify its crisis.
For example, strengthening the control over the Soviet Union’s technology, controlling the export of technology, lowering and controlling the world’s oil prices, and so on, so as to exert the influence of the United States on the Soviet Union’s exchange of oil for income, which constituted a blow to the Soviet Union.
Second, militarily, President Reagan believed that pressure should be exerted on the Soviet Union. What was the purpose of this pressure?
The purpose is to let the Soviet Union invest its relatively limited resources in the arms race and magnify the economic difficulties of the Soviet Union with crowding out and collateral effects.
This is also a belief since George Kennan that when Western countries, especially the United States, face the Soviet Union, the real greatest advantage is not military strength but economy, and they should maximize their comparative advantages to deal with the threat from the Soviet Union.
Third, in the world, especially in the vast Third World, we should support the rebels of the proxy regimes supported by the Soviet Union, and support the so-called “pro-liberal” regimes threatened by the proxy forces of the Soviet Union. After
this document came out, it had a great impact on the national diplomatic strategy of the United States.
From the perspective of military strategy, the biggest adjustment of the Reagan administration is manifested in three aspects.
First, the overall concept of the US foreign strategy has been revised.
Originally, the overall concept of the US foreign strategy originated from the “one and a half” wars during the Nixon administration. Fight a war of the intensity and level of the European theater of World War II or the Asian theater with an opponent
on a global scale.
At the same time, fighting a “half-field” war in another place is a local war of the intensity of the Korean War. In order to seek military strength,
the Reagan administration escalated the so-called “one and a half” into two wars, that is, two theater wars with two opponents at the same time, and the government began to expand its military.
Second, there has long been a controversy over whether the United States wants missiles or aircraft in terms of its nuclear strike force. During the Reagan administration,
the United States said, “I want it all.”.
The government began to develop the next generation of advanced land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, represented by the MX missile.
At the same time, the research and development program of the new land-based bomber represented by B-1B was restarted.
At the same time, in response to the Soviet Union’s deployment of SS-20 and later SS-24 medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe, the United States-made medium-range missiles represented by the “Pershing I” and “Pershing II” were developed to counter them, and the development of a large number of new weapons such as cruise missiles was also promoted.
Third, as the most famous initiative in the field of arms race, Reagan put forward his own very famous presidential strategic defense plan, that is, the “Star Wars” plan. The cost of the
“Star Wars” program was calculated in trillions of dollars, and the overall concept was astonishing at the time.
He envisions the establishment of a full-range defense system pointing to a ballistic missile from the ground to outer space, from the initial phase of launch to the intermediate phase to the reentry phase. In the process of pursuing the position of strength, the
Reagan administration set the dominant position of American military power as the priority goal to pursue.
One of the most symbolic navies is the very famous navy, the “600 ships” program. With regard to the
strategic nuclear strike force, he reactivated the research plan for the new B-1B bomber, which had been shelved for the time being because of the dispute over missiles and aircraft.With regard to the strategic missile defense system, he delivered his famous Star Wars speech entitled “President’s Strategic Defense Initiative.”.
The speech was of great significance because it was the first time that an American leader had declared that he would develop a super defense system.
This super defense system with active defense capability will build a complete set of defense systems from the ground to space, which can be used by the Soviet Union or any other country to attack the United States with nuclear missiles, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles or submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. In the middle of the outer space flight and the terminal reentry phase of the missile’s ascent phase, omni-directional interception is carried out, and a series of advanced means such as laser weapons, particle beam weapons, plasma weapons, kinetic energy weapons and so on are used in the interception process. The idea of
this defense system was in the process of development at that time, not even a shadow, just a concept, but Reagan all put forward that the United States could form such a defense system, almost that is to say, put a helmet on the head of the United States, a foolproof defense system with approximate coverage of 99.999%.
This has a subversive impact on the strategic stability formed by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which is based on ensuring each other’s destruction.
Because once the system is deployed and the United States has a powerful nuclear Arsenal, the two will have such an effect that the United States can preemptively launch a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. The missile strategy proposed by the United States, the President’s Strategic Defense Initiative, has aroused tremendous repercussions around the world.
It paints an unprecedented picture of high-tech warfare.
At that time, the famous American director Lucas, who directed the Star Wars series, released the classic first Star Wars, in which the laser swords were flying and the laser guns were shooting. It was
directly applied to Reagan’s concept of missile defense, so the President’s Strategic Defense Initiative got a very resounding name — the “Star Wars” program.
In terms of the strategic balance between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the “Star Wars” program was a challenge that the Soviet Union had to deal with seriously. Now we can have a lot of after-the-fact and after-the-fact judgments that the Star Wars program was a hoax and so on. What was the scenario facing the Soviet Union at that time?
The United States wants to “hold an umbrella” or “install a cover” over its head, and the United States also has the largest nuclear strike force in the world. If the United States is allowed to cover this cover, if this cover works in theory, it will have a very serious consequence.
At this time, the United States could do such a thing to the Soviet Union. First, it would launch a round of nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union. Then, after removing 90% of the known Soviet nuclear Arsenal, the remaining Soviet Union would be used as a second strike force. The Soviet Union could not effectively penetrate the defense system of the United States.
That is to say, in theory, suppose that after the defense system is built, the Americans will have an umbrella over their heads. With this umbrella, it is commonly known as “a bald man holding an umbrella — lawlessness.” The United States can beat others around the world, but others cannot beat him.
Up to now, when all countries in the world, including China, understand and understand the US missile defense system, they do not understand it from the defense system itself, but put it together with the entire US military system and the military strategy pursued by the United States, and judge it as an organic part of it. The research and development of the strategic defense system of the
United States had a severe impact on the strategic stability and diplomatic relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. As
we all know, the Soviet Union was forced to face a choice: to compete with the United States and throw money, you develop and I develop.
Soviet R & D is divided into two forces. What is the first one?
The first is to develop a missile defense system.
The second way of thinking is to break the defense, develop advanced missiles with offensive characteristics, improve its survivability, and allow more missiles to survive the first round of strikes.
For the surviving missile, it will enhance its penetration, penetrate the enemy’s defense system, and even in the most extreme case, this missile defense system will bring about a change in Soviet strategy, and the Soviet Union will initiate, establish, or pursue a more offensive strategy.
This will bring about a very embarrassing situation, which is also a problem often mentioned by the critics of the strategic defense system: the establishment of such a defense system will actually have a very negative effect on the strategic stability of the United States and the Soviet Union.
If you really allow the United States to develop in this way, when the United States is about to build or actually deploy the missile defense system, the Soviet Union will launch a wave of surprise attacks, throw all the weapons before they fail, and strike first, that is, it will force the Soviet Union to strike the United States first.
By chance, because of the combined effect of various factors, the United States was lucky to have a Soviet leader named Gorbachev street stall at that time. This man had a certain persistence in negotiating with Western countries and then resolving strategic disputes through negotiations.
Of course, now it seems that this persistence may be caused by a combination of factors.
On the one hand, the strength of the Soviet Union, to put it bluntly, the economic size of the Soviet Union, the domestic production capacity, the relationship with the world, and its own nuclear Arsenal, can not accompany the United States to carry out such consumption.
On the other hand, he does have a certain attachment to negotiating with the United States on a cognitive and conceptual level, and he firmly believes in it.
Judging from our current evaluation and ex post facto evaluation, there are even some naive, even extremely naive and idealistic ideas that the Soviet Union can be persuaded to recognize the sincerity of the Soviet Union by making asymmetric concessions in the course of such negotiations. As the third part of the power policy, the United States pursues the so-called Reagan Doctrine by negotiating
to eliminate the various threats posed by the increasing capabilities of the United States in military power.
This Reaganism refers to the support of all pro-American regimes in all developing countries of the third world around the world against the attacks of Soviet proxies, the support of all anti-American armed forces, and the attack of any pro-Soviet regime, thus forming two very famous cases. US support for Afghan guerrillas during the
Reagan administration. This has been described in movies like
the Rambo series and Charlie’s War. A very interesting point in
Charlie’s War is that at the beginning, the United States regarded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a strategic failure of the Soviet Union. For quite a long time, the
United States deliberately maintained a very limited support for the anti-Soviet guerrillas in Afghanistan. At that time, the CIA pursued a “bleeding strategy,” which they called “Bleeding.”. What is the concept of
“Bleeding”?
Think of Afghanistan as a small wound on the body of the Soviet Union, which is not big but can make the Soviet Union bleed continuously. Over time, the wound will fester slowly. If you don’t expect the wound to be fatal, you will simply drag it.
The United States did not think that it could kill the Soviet Union by supporting the anti-government armed forces in Afghanistan. It did not think so much about holding it back.
Later, after the intervention of members of Congress represented by Charlie, the United States began to provide more money and more weapons to the Afghan guerrillas. There is a famous line in the movie
Charlie’s War: “Charlie, do you remember how much you asked us to dial when you first came to ask us for money?”?
You told us that only $500,000 would be enough, and then there were more and more millions and tens of millions of dollars, and more money went out.
At the same time, it is a very important symbolic symbol in weapons and equipment, and of course, it was later mythologized by the arms industry. What is
this concept?
This concept is that the United States allowed the sale of the so-called “Stinger” to the Afghan rebels, that is, the Stinger shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The sale of the Stinger shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile in the Afghan battlefield has indeed turned the tide of the war to a certain extent in a limited period of time.
At that time, the classic scene faced by the Afghan guerrillas was the scene seen in the third episode of First Blood. The guerrillas had the advantage of geographical location and could indeed launch harassing attacks, but the Soviet Union had the advantage of repression. One of the repressive equipment was the armed helicopter, which flew at low altitude. Fire suppression of guerrilla formations is overwhelming in the absence of special weapons confrontation.
Including the famous scenes in some films like Apocalypse Now in the later period of the Vietnam War. The
American helicopter, with the sound of Wagner’s “Valkyrie”, then ran over the Vietnamese village and fired from top to bottom. The scene was like mowing grass for the guerrillas.
But the Americans gave Stinger shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to Afghan guerrillas, and of course one of the most famous of these guerrillas was bin Laden, and that’s the last word. After
the guerrilla got this weapon, the situation changed. Taking advantage of his familiarity with the terrain, he put a large number of guerrilla bases deep in the canyon. When the armed helicopters went in at low altitude to sweep these bases, the Afghans who were familiar with the terrain ran to the top of the canyon to fight from top to bottom, and directly used shoulder-fired missiles to kill the helicopters. It
is said that after more than a year of exporting this thing to the Afghan battlefield, the effect was outstanding. Soviet armed helicopter pilots basically flew three times and could not come back, so it greatly reduced the probability of the Soviet Union using armed helicopters to suppress the local people.
Although the actual results are not so high, the deterrent effect is quite obvious. Interestingly
, at the end of “Charlie’s War,” which is also a digression, there is a scene where Charlie runs over there and says that Afghanistan had won and the Soviet Union had withdrawn. “I’m going to ask you for another $2 million,”
Charlie said. “I’m going to build some schools and hospitals in Afghanistan and help the local people with education and health care.
“The councilman said,” Forget it, man. The Soviets are gone. Why should we put any more money there?
Then he said, “I heard that in a remote place, a man named bin Laden built several schools.”.
“The councilman took a look.” Who is he?
Let’s go. Let’s go. Don’t do it. The movie screen slowly went black
after one of Charlie’s assistants, in a half-baked tone, quoted the Chinese saying, “Fortune and misfortune depend on each other, but it’s a blessing in disguise.”.
Of course, if you go back in time, if you know about 9/11, you’re going to strangle those two congressmen because you wanted to save $2 million, a lot of things are hard to say.
The second is support for contra guerrillas in Nicaragua.
In this process, Reagan made a very classic move. He wanted to provide funds and weapons for the rebels.
Especially when it comes to funding, where does the money come from? As we all know, the US government is not very comfortable with money. The process has to go through Congress. When Congress approves, the appropriation card is very strict.
So Lieutenant Colonel North, the genius of Reagan’s CIA, thought of a way. He sold American weapons to a country called Iran. After making money, he used the money to fund the contras in Nicaragua to fight against the Sandino regime. This matter later collapsed and became commonly known as “Iran-Contra.” The Iran-Contra affair ended with Reagan’s public apology.
Of course, Reaganism in a broader sense is manifested in his instigation of the Iran-Iraq war in the Middle East and his choice to support Iraq.
Later, when the Iran-Iraq war developed into a ship attack war, the United States provided escort in the Middle East and had a direct conflict with Iran. Then the US Navy, with overwhelming superiority, suppressed Iran at sea, destroyed drilling platforms and destroyed patrol boats.
With this global action, the United States believed that it could support the anti-Soviet forces worldwide through its own shipbuilding program and the defense system of strategic nuclear weapons, thus forming a dominant position over the Soviet Union.
And then forced the Soviet Union to negotiate with the United States in a relatively unfavorable situation.
Reagan believed that this kind of negotiation based on realism and strength was different from the relatively mild global contraction based on the so-called partnership during the Nixon administration.
He could seek greater initiative and force the Soviet Union to make greater concessions to the United States in the course of negotiations.
So is there such an effect?
Based on the fact that he met a negotiating partner named Gorbachev, people found that this effect did appear to a considerable extent.
In the arms control negotiations, one of the most typical examples is that the United States and the Soviet Union finally reached the INF Treaty, and the background of the Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles was actually very simple. At that time, the Soviet Union deployed a large number of medium-range and short-range missiles in Europe, represented by the SS-20 and the following SS-24 and SS-25. Advanced missiles with a single warhead, or three warheads, had a short range, but could cover the entire Western European countries. What is
this missile used to deter?
For deterrence and hedging, the Soviet Union believed that the forward base system of hedging the United States was represented by F-111 tactical bombers deployed in American military bases in Western Europe.
It is a short-range system, its range does not have intercontinental strike capability, can not fly across the Atlantic Ocean, but because Western Europe is very close to the European part of the Soviet Union, it can take off from Western Europe and form an effective nuclear deterrent to the European part of the Soviet Union through the forward base system. To deter all US allies who dare to host the US base system, the two sides are at daggers drawn and the relationship is very tense.
Later, the US side proposed to deploy “Pershing-I” and “Pershing-II” medium-range missiles in Europe, but this was resisted by the local anti-nuclear movement in Europe, and this move to use new nuclear weapons was resisted by the anti-nuclear movement.
At that time, the Soviet Union also supported the anti-nuclear movement in Western Europe to a considerable extent. After a period of stalemate between the
two sides, there was generally a small climax from 1983 to 1985, when NATO conducted a northern shooter exercise and the Soviet Union conducted a live exercise in the Arctic region.
In that military exercise, Soviet bombers launched live nuclear bombs from the air base, and the United States and the Soviet Union ushered in a wave of small climaxes. The small climaxes had to negotiate quickly. What was the result of the rapid negotiations?
It was in the course of the arms control negotiations that the Soviet Union made major concessions.
In fact, the Soviet Union finally accepted an option from the United States during the negotiation of the Intermediate-Range Missile Treaty.
This option is based on the promise of the United States not to actually deploy short and medium range missiles, medium range missiles, including cruise missiles, in Europe. The Soviet Union will not only withdraw but also destroy the medium and short range missiles already deployed in Europe.
At that time, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a negotiation game during the Reagan administration, and Reagan gained two big advantages: First, he used a piece of Star Wars program written on paper to allow the Soviet Union to invest a large amount of resources in the arms control arms race and interfere with the development of the Soviet Union; Second, in the negotiations on the INF Treaty, the United States did not use actual deployment but a paper deployment plan, promising that the Soviet Union would in fact not only withdraw the missiles that had been deployed, but also destroy them later, from the nuclear Arsenal.
Later, a “global double zero plan” was reached, that is, the United States and the Soviet Union each eliminated all medium-range or short-range nuclear weapons in their own nuclear arsenals, and reached a double zero plan on a global scale.
Of course, how many are there in this double zero scheme?
Some people have counted that it accounts for 4% of their nuclear arsenals. 4% is not a lot, but this 4% nuclear disarmament is the first time that the United States and the Soviet Union have completely eliminated a class of nuclear weapons in the arms control negotiations. No matter how many there are, it has great symbolic significance for the arms control negotiations. The Soviet Union, which
looked arrogant and arrogant, was pressed by the Americans to sign the contract under a relatively unfavorable condition. What does signing the contract mean for the United States?
It means that under the framework of Reaganism, not only the anti-Soviet forces were supported in the Third World, but also the forces and groups represented by the Solidarity Trade Union in Poland, which we later called the “color revolution,” were supported in Eastern European countries to promote their domestic development and carry out various impacts and challenges on the Communist regime. Then the United States gave them aid. It is
usually linked to such negotiations and relations with the Soviet Union, to local economic assistance, and to local strategies for developing external contacts. Throughout the Reagan administration,
in short, he achieved a major adjustment of the United States’ strategy toward the Soviet Union, which was manifested in his establishment of three major principles.
The first is realism, the second is strength, and the third is negotiation.
Whether it is the realistic attitude, cognition and strategic orientation towards the Soviet Union, or the shipbuilding plan of military forces based on strength and the strategic defense initiative of Star Wars. Support for anti-Soviet forces
in the Third World was aimed at creating a strategic environment, and the ultimate activity was negotiation. On the basis that the
United States had no practical strategic trust in the Soviet Union, it brought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table by creating an external environment that was more favorable to the United States than to the Soviet Union in terms of strength, and then demanded the Soviet Union to make corresponding concessions in a strong way.
From the development of the whole late Cold War, this strategy is effective.
Because this strategy was effective for the Soviet Union, some people now think that it may be applied to China. Now there is a group of people in the United States, including hawkish representative Navarro and Secretary of State Pompeo. These people are actually more or less influenced by that environment and think that it can be replicated.
But in the process of replication, one of the biggest differences is that China is a completely different opponent compared with the original Soviet Union.
The biggest difference is that China maintains extremely close economic and trade ties and exchanges with the outside world, including the United States.
At the same time, the main driving force of China’s strength growth comes from endogenous economic growth, which not only promotes China’s own development, but also benefits the world from China’s development. Any attempt to replicate the US strategy toward the Soviet Union in the 1980s in 2020 is doomed to encounter a serious setback that has never been imagined in the development of reality.
This also means that after 40 years of development, the international system has entered a new state.
If the United States continues to be observed as simply trying to carry the concepts, ideas, and measures of the “containment strategy” of the 1980s to today, it reflects that after 40 years of development, this superpower has stumbled toward a more embarrassing and delicate stage, which may be called the twilight of hegemony. The
main manifestations are the concept of checks and balances and strategic tools, the options of strategic tools, and the increasing poverty and poverty.
. Focus on not getting lost ~
