Soviets Upbeat in Iceland, Drop ‘Imperialist’ Charges : Seek ‘Green Light’ for a Full-Scale Summit

Soviet officials gave an upbeat preview of the superpower meeting here this weekend, saying its chief aim is to “turn on a green light for a full-scale summit.”

A Kremlin spokesman, dropping the usual charges about “U.S. imperialist policies,” said the United States and the Soviet Union are equally interested in achieving constructive results.

Regional conflicts, the officials said at a news briefing, should not be allowed to block agreements at the highest level.

“Reykjavik is a moment of truth,” said Nikolai Shishlin, an official of the Central Committee of the Communist Party acting as a Soviet spokesman here.

“Reykjavik is a meeting which will demonstrate the readiness of both sides for constructive and full-scale negotiations to be held,” he added.

“As far as (Soviet leader) Mikhail S. Gorbachev is concerned, we are sure he will do all in his power to achieve reasonable compromise solutions,” Shishlin said.

Yevgeny Primatov, a Soviet analyst of international affairs, mentioned disputes with the United States over Afghanistan, Nicaragua and the Middle East as the three regional conflicts with the greatest potential danger to peace.

But Primatov did not repeat the usual Kremlin accusations that the United States was the chief backer of Afghan rebels who oppose the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul or President Reagan’s increased support of contras battling the Sandinista regime in Managua.

Rather, Primatov blamed Pakistan and Iran for fomenting counterrevolution in Afghanistan. Eventually, he added, all Soviet troops in Afghanistan will be withdrawn, with the first units coming out in the near future.

Mild Tone Adopted

The intervention by an estimated 118,000 Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan, begun in late 1979 to support a pro-Soviet leader, has been a leading cause of tension between the two superpowers.

It was evident that the Soviet representatives had decided to take a mild tone toward Washington on the eve of the weekend meeting between the two leaders.

Gennady I. Gerasimov, Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman, agreed that the message was upbeat. “Why not? It could be a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.

Shishlin even expressed no concern about the fact that Iceland is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and has a NATO air base at nearby Keflavik.

“This is no worry for us,” he said, in contrast to Moscow’s usual complaint that the Soviet Union is ringed by American bases.

An analysis written recently by Igor Pavlov for the Novosti press agency, for example, said:

“Our people condemn the policy of surrounding the Soviet Union with military bases, all the more so since many of these bases carry American nuclear weapons.”

The Soviet mass media also reported that such weapons, or at least aircraft capable of carrying them, may be stationed in Iceland.

Alexander Bovin, a commentator for the official newspaper Izvestia, also took an unusually conciliatory tone in discussing claims by Nicaragua that Washington had an official connection to a plane carrying arms to contra forces that was shot down in the Central American country.

Instead of backing up the contention by the Soviet ally, however, Bovin quoted a denial by Secretary of State George P. Shultz that the plane was dispatched by the U.S. government.

Even when a questioner asked about a U.S. disinformation campaign against another Soviet ally, Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, Bovin gave an atypical soft answer.

“It’s true, the practice adopted by the United States is an obstacle on the way to strengthening the atmosphere of trust between our two countries,” he replied.

When a skeptical reporter asked why the Soviets were taking such a positive approach to the United States in contrast to past condemnations, Shishlin expressed surprise at the question.

“Do you want us to speak against the United States?” he inquired. “Evidently you are trying to get beyond the limits of the press conference.”