Reagan ‘Disappointed’ by Soviets but Is Still Hopeful

President Reagan was “disappointed” by what he viewed as an Easter propaganda ploy by new Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev, but he does not believe hopes for a summit have been dampened or that tensions between the superpowers have increased, senior aides said Monday.

U.S. and Soviet officials, they insisted, have been meeting more frequently in the last few days in an effort to improve relations between Washington and Moscow.

Administration officials, both here with the vacationing President and in Washington at the State Department, shrugged off with minimal comment a harsh Soviet denunciation of Reagan’s cool response to Gorbachev.

The Soviet leader announced a moratorium on Soviet deployment of medium-range missiles and proposed that the United States halt further siting of medium-range missiles in Western Europe. The Soviet news agency Tass called Reagan’s reaction “dangerous and irresponsible.”

An effort clearly was made by the Administration on Monday to stem the escalating rhetoric between the two sides and to stress the positive elements of Gorbachev’s acceptance of summit talks.

“We said what we said (Sunday). Got nothing to add,” White House spokesman Larry Speakes emphasized to reporters when he was asked for the Administration’s response to Tass’ latest anti-Reagan statements. “You can’t ‘whoop’ this horse any more.”

One White House official, speaking on condition he not be identified, said that for now the Administration is willing to give Gorbachev “the benefit of the doubt.” This view would assume that the new Soviet leader, in his Pravda interview published Sunday, was attempting not only to sway Western European opinion against U.S. missiles but also to impress hard-liners in the Kremlin.

“This is a man who has got to solidify his job, get his feet on the ground and play to his own constituency,” the official said.

But the Administration decided Sunday to immediately come down hard on Gorbachev’s missile moratorium to leave no doubt how Reagan felt about it and to try to block any Kremlin propaganda victory, the official said.

“What this reflects to us is that the Soviets have not changed their attitude regarding U.S.-Soviet relations,” he said. But the official added that “unless the rhetoric heats up more,” it should not dampen prospects for a summit.

National security adviser Robert C. McFarlane, interviewed on the NBC-TV “Today” show, said “there’s a basis for hope” regarding a superpower summit. “What we’re trying to do now is define some areas where we can resolve some problems,” he added.

At the State Department, spokesman Bernard Kalb said the Administration welcomed as “positive” Gorbachev’s favorable response--the first in public--to Reagan’s summit invitation.

But that was only a minor part of a Gorbachev interview devoted primarily to arms control. What the Administration on Monday continued to dismiss as inadequate was Gorbachev’s “good will” gesture of halting Soviet deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles aimed at Western Europe.

Gorbachev also urged Reagan to freeze deployment of U.S. medium-range missiles in Europe, something the President refuses to do on grounds it would perpetuate a Soviet 10-to-1 warhead advantage.

‘We’ll Keep Working’

Both McFarlane and Kalb, using similar language while nearly 3,000 miles apart, said that Gorbachev had “reiterated a discredited proposal first raised over three years ago” by the Soviets.

“The President was disappointed,” McFarlane said, “but we’ll keep working and hope that we can get serious negotiations at Geneva where they ought to be and out of the headlines.”

Outside the Administration, Reagan’s decision to immediately dismiss Gorbachev’s Easter overture drew mixed, though generally favorable, reviews.

Robert E. Hunter, director of European studies at Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of the National Security Council under President Jimmy Carter, said that Reagan did “absolutely the only thing he could have done.” He said that Gorbachev’s plan clearly was an effort to drive a wedge between Washington and its allies and, as such, the President had to “turn it down before it gained any standing.”

Similarly, former Carter Defense Secretary Harold Brown said that the Administration handled the situation correctly, although its tone might have been less harsh.

“Clearly, this proposal on intermediate-range nuclear forces is merely a restatement of what they (Soviets) were saying before and probably designed to influence the Europeans,” Brown said. “I don’t think we could have come back with a counteroffer because I don’t think you can negotiate these things in public.”

But John D. Steinbruner, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, criticized the Administration for being too categorical in its rejection of Gorbachev’s arms control proposals.

“They ought to get out of the habit of summarily rejecting everything the Soviets propose,” Steinbruner said. “The Administration left a hint that they were a little afraid of the proposal.”

Times reporter Norman Kempster in Washington contributed to this story.