Skeptical U.S. Aides Ponder Kremlin ‘Gift’ of Troop Cut

Defense Department officials and congressional leaders Wednesday reacted skeptically to Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s surprise announcement of unilateral cuts in Soviet troops, tanks and artillery.

A senior Pentagon official called the Soviet move “promising” but said the U.S. government will have to study what lies behind Gorbachev’s words before deciding whether his proposed action significantly changes the military balance in Europe.

Other U.S. military sources expressed concern that Gorbachev’s “gift” to the West will lull allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into complacency and reductions in their military spending.

A Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department will have no official comment on the Gorbachev announcement, leaving all statements to the White House and the State Department.

Privately, senior Pentagon officials expressed admiration for Gorbachev’s skill in using the United Nations stage to make his dramatic declaration. But they remained cautious about the ultimate military impact of the move.

“It sounds promising, but the (U.S.) government is going to have to be very deliberate about this,” a high-ranking Defense Department official said, requesting anonymity.

“Clearly, in raw numbers it could be considered a first step, but considering the remaining tanks and aircraft, you still have a pretty significant imbalance favoring the Soviets. We’re still going to have to negotiate the asymmetrical cuts that would bring on a true non-threatening balance of forces,” he said.

Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “We welcome those expressions, and we will be monitoring the actions in the Soviet Union to see that they (carry out the reductions). If they do, it is a significant move.

“Clearly, the Soviet Union does not need the overwhelming numbers that it has in its armed forces. If its policy is truly a defensive one, then Mr. Gorbachev’s statement lends credence to that,” Crowe said at a news conference in Oklahoma City.

Fred C. Ikle, who retired earlier this year as undersecretary of defense for policy, said defense specialists are waiting for concrete evidence that Gorbachev intends to follow through on his words and reverse the offensive nature of Soviet forces.

He said the numbers of troops and equipment are impressive, but if the Soviets eliminate only their worst-trained troops and their oldest tanks and artillery pieces, almost nothing would be gained.

“This isn’t hard evidence yet. This is a speech,” Ikle said. “But if this speech is translated into policy decision and shows up as removal of forces and units and the dismantling of equipment, then we would have the evidence” of a change in Soviet military posture.

“Everyone is skeptical because we don’t know how Soviet politics and policy will evolve,” he added.

One Pentagon analyst active in shaping the U.S. position in the forthcoming conventional arms talks welcomed the proposal as “a sign of seriousness on the Soviets’ part” that will serve as a good training ground for the negotiations.

‘Wart on a Pickle’

“The six divisions (to be demobilized) do not eradicate our concerns. That’s a wart on a pickle,” said the official. “But that doesn’t mean they’re not welcome. They can help us work out how we go about making reductions in the context of conventional stability talks” slated to begin early next year.

The official added that “the trick is to make sure that these reductions don’t become an end in themselves,” justifying troop reductions or budget cutbacks on the part of the United States or its allies.

On Capitol Hill, Gorbachev generally drew favorable reviews, mixed with caution about his intention to follow his words with actions.

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) welcomed the Gorbachev announcement but added: “While these proposals are commendable, they must be considered in view of overall levels of forces in Europe and the offensive structure of Soviet forces.

“I look forward to the reinvigoration of superpower efforts to negotiate a more stable conventional balance and to significantly reduce strategic nuclear arsenals.”

Senate Majority Whip Alan Cranston of California, the Democrats’ No. 2 official, was more sanguine, telling reporters:

“Gorbachev’s speech could be the end of the Cold War, the end of the arms race, the end of the danger of nuclear war and the end of the burdens that we and they carry on military preparedness.”

Responding to questions, however, Cranston said: “I don’t think we can discuss American troop reductions in Europe until we see exactly what the Soviets do. But this could lead to the possibility of less of a burden for the United States and its allies in Europe, because if the Soviets make significant reductions, perhaps we could also make some matching reductions.”

Most other lawmakers were less optimistic.

“Mr. Gorbachev has promised a lot, but can he deliver?” wondered Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.). “Only his actions--not just words--will tell the world whether his U.N. speech will become a one-of-a-kind Christmas gift or just another stocking-stuffer.”

Remaining Might

The proposed reduction, Dole noted, “doesn’t sound like much to the military commanders around the world . . . who have to face the remaining might of the Red Army.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) said the numbers are misleading. “We don’t fight wars by the numbers. Perhaps the most significant segment of Gorbachev’s speech was his promise to reorganize Soviet forces in Eastern Europe so they are ‘clearly defensive.’ . . . A reorganization that removes the Soviet offensive capability declaws the Russian bear and is far more important than numbers on a chart.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), a member of the Armed Services Committee who has specialized in conventional arms reductions, added: “I think it’s a significant move. How significant depends on some unknowns, including where the troops are located in those countries, whether they are forward-deployed or rear-echelon troops.

“The forward-deployed troops are most threatening to the West. The types of equipment are important, too--whether the most modern or least modern is being eliminated,” Levin said.

Times staff writers Melissa Healy and William J. Eaton contributed to this story.