What if Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II hadn't decided to destroy the Soviet Union to end the "Cold War"?

As late as 2005, scholarly books were being written and published extolling the extraordinary virtues and prophetic gifts of the great Western leaders who brought the Soviet Union to its knees. After all, the West "won" the Cold War. That proved, for all time, that the West was superior, and always would be. Never again would dictators threaten the world. Never again would the world be threatened with the possibility of nuclear war. It had been proven, for all time, that "democracy" was the proper system of government for the entire world, and that Capitalism was the proper economic system. Communism was dead, because Communism didn't work. Now, these books were still being written just a few years after the schizophrenic seventeenth son of a wealthy Saudi construction contractor managed to almost singlehandedly bring the entire U.S. to its knees in 911. And, after the U.S. had involved itself in two unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively. However, just a few years later, with the rise of Vladimir Putin, and increasing aggressiveness in Communist China, it was becoming quite clear that Communism was far from dead, and that the collapse of the Soviet Union had led to precisely what most people had always said that it would -- increasing world instability and increasing danger of nuclear confrontation, worldwide. Indeed, many American leaders were already regretting the demise of the Soviet Union, and looking wistfully back to the comparative stability and predictability of the Soviet regime. The fact is, the contemporary Communist-Capitalist distinction is simply a restatement of the distinction between centralized and decentralized social systems, a distinction that is quite literally as old as time. And, neither is necessarily better than the other. Sometimes centralized systems work well, and sometimes decentralized systems work well. Depends on situation and circumstances. Now, I'm not disputing that the USSR was on the wrong track for sure, by the 1980's. Among other things, its leaders had no idea what they were doing, at all. So, there was certainly going to be some kind of a readjustment. However, I think it's likely that the attitude of Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II did have something to do with the fact that the USSR not only lost Eastern Europe, but also lost so much of its territory, that Russia had controlled for centuries. So, let's suppose that these "visionaries" didn't set about destroying the USSR, as their primary goal. How would this have changed things? Would Russian territorial integrity have been maintained? Would this have been a good thing for the world?