That article reads as if Schweizer either misnamed it or he's on an adoring Reagan love trip at the expense of Kennedy.
Assuming what he has to say about the Soviet archives is correct, so what? I agree with the Laos portion, and who could argue Bay of Pigs being anything other than a fiasco, but as far as the rest, who KNEW back then what the author speaks about so smugly now?
When the Berlin Wall began going up Kennedy states it isn't worth thousands dying. We may read historically that the Soviet's weren't prepared to escalate to armed conflict on the issue, but was that such a foegone conclusion at the time? Enough to crow about the mistake Kennedy made? Nope.
Schweizer contrasts Kennedy's actions with Reagan's post missile crisis proposal that we crank up the arms race and defeat communism. That's great. It certainly had a bearing when it did occur, but could that outcome have been forseen with any real certainty outside those viewing the matter primarily on faith? Was the Soviet Union of '62 the exact same Soviet Union of '82?
Judging by the story it appears we don't have Reagan to thank for the eventual demise of the Soviet communism, but the Soviet's bewilderment at dealing with someone with a obsession like Reagan's. It appears is them recognizing that if push came to shove that Reagan might very well consider discovering whether nuclear winter was simply an unrealistic sci-fi scenario that made them pause and quake in their boots.
We all lucked out, IMO, that the Soviet's didn't have a Reagan of their own in charge while Reagan was our leader.