SUBJECTIVE READER REVIEW WITH PLOT SPOILERS FOLLOWS:
I'm primarily a fiction reader and exclusively a fiction writer, but 'Three Days In Moscow' intrigued me because it proved to be a telescope into Reagan's incredibly effective dealings with the Soviet Union. My entire 'Goldeneye Series,' including 14 novels, takes place during Reagan's first term and there is much synergy between Will Kavanagh and The Gipper. And guess what, I got it exactly right so far as Reagan's pivotal focus, his management style and the things he felt most important. To sum it up, Ronald Wilson Reagan believed in the exercise of free will, and anything unnatural that precluded that was public enemy number one. The Cold War wasn't an arms race to Reagan, but instead was a gigantic struggle over the ability of humans to exercise free will. Communism probably suppressed this ability more than any other 'system,' so facilitating its end was mission one. He knew that when the Russian people began thinking in terms of exercising free will, the Soviet Union would be no more. And he was exactly right.
Baier took the time to make 'Three Days In Moscow' a biography of Ronald Reagan, correctly presuming that the man could only be understood if one knew of his hardscrabble upbringing. Incredibly his ego absorbed attacks without resorting to spiteful, revenge-focused responses, so he was the polar opposite of Richard Nixon. Perhaps this alone among national political types set him apart--and he took full advantage of Jimmy Carter's shortcomings to defeat him in 1980. Widely ascribed to be the victor in the Cold War, Reagan felt the spectre of mutually assured destruction defied logic, and the arrival of a Soviet politician not tainted by the rule of Joseph Stalin was his conduit to imposing sanity. That and the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka Star Wars, which was his shared vision of a doomsday defensive weapon that drove the Soviets to distraction.
The end of the Cold War could only be achieved if a Soviet political leader 'arrived' on the scene--aka the Soviet Politburo--who had the ability to bend away from the mental intractability seemingly programmed into Soviet leaders. Mikhail Gorbachev was the man who bent away, not for political gain but recognizing a different approach was the Soviet's only hope for improvement of their society. He met Reagan in Geneva in 1985 and over the next 18 months essentially became charmed by the simple decency of the American President. They also became friends, and Gorbachev tried to exploit this for political gain--essentially insuring shared strategic arms reductions if the US would forsake the Strategic Defense Initiative. But Reagan refused to bargain on SDI, somehow knowing the Soviet counter-effort it's mere spectre produced would weaken their bargaining position. By 1987, Gorbachev was being squeezed in the vice of the Politburo hardliners and the rest of Russia demanding he hasten perestroika. In 1988 he finally gave in to shared strategic arms reductions with the SDI ghost firmly in place. Many equate this final resignation to signal the end of the Cold War, but Gorbachev didn't envision that the Cold War was the only thing buttressing the Soviet Union's reason for being.
Boris Yeltsin's ambitions ultimately forced him to recognize that without the all-consuming fear of suppression the Soviet system imposed, the Soviet Union's foundation crumbled. In perhaps one of his most famous declarations, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear this wall down," few could know that less than two years later Gorbachev refused to act when Berliners did exactly that. By this time Reagan was in retirement in California, but at his funeral in 2004 his two closest friends were present to properly eulogize the 'Great Communicator,' Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev.
Baier makes an unspoken argument that once they met, Reagan and Gorbachev's souls were joined and the irresistible gravity that Reagan resonated led the path to the end. I think that's fair, and Reagan felt it completely worthwhile, as it achieved his highest goal--for humans to become closer to achieving free will. Bret Baier's only a fair writer--he's a newsman--so 'Three Days In Moscow' was not the compelling page turner to me, although many others disagreed. He did however succeed in elevating Ronald Reagan to one of the greatest chief executives this country has ever known. So Bret achieved that goal, and provided keen insights into what made the man as well. So buy this book and read it, and perhaps gain an appreciation of Ronald Reagan's talents for the first time.