Reagan's role has too often been filtered through the winners' point of view and inflated. Even his new arms race, claimed by Triumphalists to have been the external factor that brought the Soviet Union to its knees, exacted an almost insignificant reaction from the Kremlin. Latter depictions have focused on Reagan's initial hard-line stance, and created a landscape wherein Gorbachev stood uniquely against Reagan; a vision that blind sides the myriad of factors more powerful than that of two personalities. The Cold War´s official end of superpower hostilities through negotiations in 1990 can be seen as merely a second détente. A conflict born from the geopolitical rivalry of two new “superpowers” who were launched onto the world stage in World War Two, the Cold War had to end with the dominance of one superpower´s influence over the other. Thus the Cold War ended, if at all, with the disintegration of the USSR in 1991. Reagan as an individual was one of the least significant factors in ending the Cold War. The causes for the collapse of the USSR were essentially internal. It was Gorbachev who sought to restructure everything without touching the Leninist foundations of the Party´s leading role; he became the man who gave people glasnost in the hope that the mass´ ambitions would coincide with his, and when they did not, he made the unwilling but revolutionary choice of letting people do it “their way” in what came to be known as the “Sinatra Doctrine”. He unleashed the resentment and longing for change that a cumbersome, corrupt Soviet machine had built up through the decades, a dissatisfaction that took the form of popular protest, becoming the force that would physically roll down the Iron Curtain. Perhaps Reagan's greatest contribution was that smallest to the East European tide of popular protest; to fuel internal dissatisfaction through a constant barrage of western propaganda via radio broadcasts such as "Voice of America". All in all, his role was to feed a fire that was already feeding itself.