This chapter seeks to uncover the origins of New Thinking, with its focus on peaceful coexistence between the East and the West, disarmament, and non-intervention. It argues that while Gorbachev's predecessors sought recognition for the USSR's greatness in the third world, Gorbachev was generally uninterested in maintaining Moscow's reputation as a revolutionary leader. He recognized the Soviet Union's need for reform and aimed to reshape global politics in a way that would allow Moscow to maintain international leadership without overspending on foreign adventures. With the conclusion of the 1987 INF Treaty, Gorbachev demonstrated that disarmament could save money, lessen the dangers of war, and raise Moscow's global standing. However, disentangling from foreign commitments, especially in Afghanistan, proved more complicated. It took a long time to end the conflict in Afghanistan as Gorbachev weighed the moral liability of continued war against considerations of prestige and credibility.

The epilogue provides an overview of the end of the Cold War. It discusses the Reagan–Gorbachev relationship, their efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons at a remarkable summit in Reykjavik (1986), and the INF Treaty of 1987. The chapter analyzes the reasons for the end of the Cold War and the change in Soviet policy. I argue that although SDI was an important part in Soviet thinking, the key changes effected from 1989 were primarily the result of factors originating in the USSR and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. These were factors largely (but not entirely) independent of the policies pursued by US administrations. They include Gorbachev’s own evolving predilections (reinforced by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster); Soviet high politics; long-term structural problems besetting the Soviet economy; the role of non-state actors; and the courageous efforts of citizens and peace groups across Eastern Europe. The epilogue concludes by highlighting the foreign policy turns of Carter and Reagan, and their significance for the Cold War. I argue that only by examining the full landscape – international and domestic – can we truly understand how US foreign policy is crafted.