Antonius von Borcke, Principal und Verhandlungsexperte bei Egger Philips, schaut souverän und zugewandt
in die Kamera. Er trägt ein hellblaues Hemd und ein olivfarbenes Sakko.

The summit meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in November 1985 marked a turning point in the Cold War. In a period of global tension, dialogue became possible again in Geneva. The summit stands for negotiation as an attitude: for the willingness to listen where distance had previously prevailed. Dialogue gave rise to new opportunities for cooperation and the first signs of trust.

The Geneva Summit

November 19, 1985

Balken

In November 1985, US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev met in Geneva. It was the first summit meeting between the two superpowers in more than six years and a cautious new beginning in times of Cold War armament.

The world was in a phase of renewed confrontation. After escalating conflicts, trust between East and West had almost disappeared. The arms race had reached a new intensity, and the danger of a nuclear conflict seemed real. At the same time, the Soviet Union was facing considerable economic and social problems. Gorbachev’s accession to power in the spring of 1985 raised hopes for political openness. His programs of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) suggested that change was possible, first internally and then also in relations with the West.

Against this backdrop, Reagan and Gorbachev met for personal talks in Geneva. For two days, they discussed arms control, disarmament, human rights, and regional conflicts. No concrete agreements were reached, but the meeting changed the dynamic. After years of interruption, communication replaced confrontation. Both sides began to exchange not only positions but also perceptions. The Geneva summit thus marked less a diplomatic breakthrough than a change in attitude: the resumption of dialogue as an independent action. In an atmosphere of mistrust, conversation itself became a form of movement. Negotiation here was not seen as an exchange of interests, but as an attempt to gradually rebuild trust.

Two years later, this process led to the INF Treaty, which abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons for the first time. The decisive impetus for this came from Geneva: from the courage to end the silence.

Balken

The Geneva Summit in light of the Harvard Circle

Dare to build trust

The meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev took place at a time of deep mutual mistrust. But the decision alone to meet in person became a sign of political movement. Negotiation here did not mean immediate agreement, but rather conscious work on a damaged relationship. Dialogue became a prerequisite for change. Not because trust already existed, but because it needed to be established.
Surprisingly quickly, the two heads of state developed a personal rapport. Observers reported smiles that seemed more sincere than diplomatically calculated. Reagan, who until then had been seen in the East as an unyielding hardliner, suddenly appeared approachable. The relationship shifted, making further steps possible in the first place.

Exchanging perceptions instead of just discussing politics

The Geneva summit not only opened up new talks, but also a change in perspective. Reagan and Gorbachev met as human beings, not just as representatives of hostile systems. Their talks broke through stereotypical images of the enemy and enabled a cautious readjustment of their views of each other. This turned the negotiations themselves into a space for changed perceptions and opened the door for later rapprochement.

Behind the demands lay common interests

Even though the official positions seemed irreconcilable, both sides were united by their desire to avoid a nuclear conflict. The talks in Geneva made it clear that both sides feared escalation and were interested in stability. Once interests were openly stated rather than concealed, negotiations could begin.

Dialogue as a workshop for new options

No agreements were signed in Geneva. But new options emerged: regular talks, bilateral working groups, informal channels. In a phase of rigid bloc logic, this opened up a creative space in which political possibilities could be reconfigured beyond zero-sum thinking.

Balken
Sources & Further information