ShareThis Page
Paul Kengor: Bush & the call that ended the Soviet Union |

Paul Kengor: Bush & the call that ended the Soviet Union

| Thursday, December 13, 2018 7:03 p.m
President George H.W. Bush gestures during a joint news conference with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in October 1991.

Numerous tributes to George H. W. Bush hailed his crucial role in helping to peacefully close the Cold War and turn out the lights on the USSR. It was the pivotal event of the close of the last century.

As a sign of how much things have changed, I was contacted shortly after Bush’s death by a reporter from Pravda, the longtime mouthpiece of the Soviet empire. The mere fact that Pravda would request my assessment is a striking indicator that the Cold War has long been mercifully consigned to the dustbin of history. In the old days, Pravda would have accused me of “pathological and lunatic anti-communism,” a charge the Kremlin actually leveled against courageous dissidents like Vladimir Bukovsky and Zhores Medvedev. They were literally sent to insane asylums.

But, today, well, these are better days.

Without hesitation, I told the Pravda reporter that Bush is one of the unsung heroes of the end of the Cold War. His single greatest achievement, and perhaps the primary reason for him having been president, was to be there at that critical juncture from 1989-91 when the USSR faded into what eventually became Russia. He was the ideal man for the job after Ronald Reagan left the presidency in January 1989. His foreign-policy experience, credentials and wisdom were essential for the international task at hand. Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin were thankful that Bush was at the helm during that chaotic period that had the potential to not end peacefully.

Of course, that’s no unique insight by me. Many have commented on this crucial function that Bush played. I’ve heard no commentator, however, mention maybe the most poignant Bush moment in the end of the USSR. Maybe that’s because it was witnessed by no one, and only those of us in the strange habit of reading Soviet memoirs would know about it.

The date was Christmas Day 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev called Bush to say: “You can have a very quiet Christmas evening. I am saying good-bye and shaking your hand.”

That evening, Gorbachev went on television to announce he was leaving his post. By resigning as head of the USSR that Christmas Day, Gorbachev resigned the USSR and provided the time of death of the communist empire. He was the last thread holding the tattered mess together.

The symbolism of Gorbachev’s resignation on that special day was rich: The Bolshevik dictatorship, born in October 1917, which declared war on Christians and other believers, was buried on the day the world celebrates the birth of Christ.

Bush was the man who took the call. He took it with grace and (a favorite word of Bush) with prudence (a virtue). He refused to dance on the Soviet grave. Not only was it the gracious thing to do but also the politically smart thing to do. He did not want to antagonize communist forces still at work in Soviet society. Indeed, those forces had attempted a coup of Gorbachev only four months earlier, and the Communist Party would remain the largest party in the Duma throughout the 1990s. Bush played it smart.

In the end, if history remembers George H.W. Bush for only one thing, it needs to be this. It was his greatest achievement.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and executive director
of The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College. His column
appears twice a month.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.