U.S. Fears End to Soviet Reforms : Superpowers: A conservative backlash against Gorbachev could impede arms talks. Officials warn that events in Azerbaijan and Lithuania imperil his plans.

Bush Administration officials are increasingly pessimistic about Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s political prospects and have begun to fear that a conservative backlash in the Soviet Union will harm U.S.-Soviet relations and impede arms control negotiations.

“There’s enormous uncertainty . . . about Mr. Gorbachev’s fate and the fate of his efforts at reform,” Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said in an interview. “We don’t have any idea what is likely to be the political situation inside the Soviet Union a few years down the road.”

“Gorbachev is under tremendous pressure,” another senior official said. “I happen to think that they will demonstrate less flexibility (in upcoming arms control talks) than they have before . . . because I think they’ll be under more of a gun at home not to be the ones to be conceding.”

Senior Administration officials have long warned that, while Gorbachev appears secure in his position of leadership, the chances of success for his ambitious program of political and economic reforms seem dim.

In a series of interviews this week, several top officials said that recent events in the Soviet Union--the insurrection in Azerbaijan, demands for secession by Lithuania and increasing political polarization in Moscow--have driven them to conclude that the reform program, known as perestroika , is in greater danger than ever.

And, for the first time, officials have begun to worry out loud that the failure of perestroika also may mean a chilling of the U.S.-Soviet relationship after a year of marked improvement.

“We ought to lock in (arms control) agreements while we have the opportunity to lock them in . . . because we don’t know how much time he’s got,” said a senior Bush adviser, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name.

Asked whether the escalating disorder in the Soviet Union has reduced his estimate of how much time Gorbachev may have, the adviser replied emphatically, “Yes--and if it hadn’t, I wouldn’t have been awake.”

For his part, Cheney said: “Gorbachev has been such a crucial part of the improvement in (U.S.-Soviet) relations. . . . To contemplate a Soviet Union beset by all those problems with someone else at the helm gives you pause.”

Most other officials, however, said they see no sign that Gorbachev is in serious danger of being replaced.

State Department officials cited Gorbachev’s troubles as a reason to seek quick agreement on arms control issues. But Cheney, considered a leading hard-liner in the Administration, said Gorbachev’s travails should focus attention on the need to prevent Congress from seeking major cuts in the defense budget.

Military Power Cited

“The reason people care as much as they do about what happens inside the Soviet Union is because they (Soviets) possess enormous military power, especially nuclear capability targeted against the United States,” Cheney said. “There is no reason to anticipate that under any scenario, they’re going to surrender or give up that basic nuclear capability.”

CIA Director William H. Webster echoed Cheney’s caution at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. He said that while the Soviet military threat to the West has clearly diminished, the Soviet Union still retains formidable military might.

“Overall, the conventional threat to the United States and our alliance partners in Europe has decreased as a result of changes in Eastern Europe and Soviet force reductions,” Webster said. “. . . Notwithstanding the crisis affecting the country as a whole, Soviet strategic (nuclear) forces remain unimpaired.”

He said that Gorbachev, under pressure from Soviet conservatives, has slowed reform efforts in some areas but appears to be committed to a sweeping program of liberalization.

“A major reversal of his policies could only come with his removal,” Webster said. “While this does not seem likely now, there could be no doubt that mounting turmoil and greater economic distress will be of great concern to hard-liners and many others in the Soviet Union as well.”

Other officials agreed that there is no sign that Gorbachev is in imminent danger of being overthrown.

“It’s premature to write his obituary,” one said. “In terms of easing him out through raw political power in the Politburo (of the ruling Communist Party), I think he’s in reasonably good shape. It’s from the bottom that the risk comes.”

And for the moment, they said, Gorbachev appears determined to continue trying to enact his reforms--including allowing the Soviet Union’s three Baltic states--Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia--to seek independence through negotiations.

But some officials described perestroika as already a virtual failure--”dead in the water,” said one--and predicted that Gorbachev may be forced to abandon many of his reform proposals as he struggles to manage what he has already let loose.

For its part, the Bush Administration plans to press ahead with proposals for arms control and economic cooperation agreements with the Soviet Union, in part to help Gorbachev shore up his authority at home.

“We’ve said we ought to help him, and that’s fairly unanimous,” one senior official said. “At least it’s unanimous now, because the President has made it very clear that that’s his policy.”

Baker is scheduled to visit Moscow on Feb. 6-7 to discuss the remaining sticking points in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) and other U.S.-Soviet issues.

Cheney, who last year predicted Gorbachev would fail in his reform efforts and be replaced by a leader more hostile to the West, said the unrest in Azerbaijan deepens his doubts about the Soviet leader’s ability to remain in office.

“What I said (last year) was that Gorbachev was likely to fail in his effort to bring about this transition in the Soviet Union. I certainly haven’t seen anything in the last 10 months to change that judgment,” Cheney said.

“My comments were geared specifically at the economic situation, the enormity of the task he’s set for himself. The nationalities problems and they way they’ve developed just add to his burden,” he added.

U.S. Defense Budget

Cheney said Congress should take note of the continuing Soviet turmoil as it considers the Administration’s defense budget request starting next week. President Bush is proposing a 2% after-inflation decline in military spending for the fiscal year beginning next October, but critics in Congress and elsewhere are calling for deeper cuts because of the diminishing military threat from the Soviet Union.

The defense chief, asked whether he would point to Gorbachev’s internal problems in defending his $292-billion budget request on Capitol Hill, replied: “Sure. Here’s a guy who’s in the streets of Lithuania pleading with the Lithuanians, ‘Please don’t take your marbles and go home. We want you as a part of the Soviet Union,’ who a week later has to send thousands and thousands of troops into Azerbaijan to put down a rebellion against central authority.”

He said that the problems in Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Baltic states “appear to be threatening the basic integrity of the Soviet Union itself” and that the United States cannot afford to embark on unilateral disarmament given the “enormous uncertainty” about future leadership in Moscow.

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, agreed that the Soviet turmoil would slow those in Congress who are pressing for cuts much larger than the 2% real reduction Cheney has proposed.

“The cuts will be somewhat deeper, but it will stop the amendments of those who want 6% or 7% in real terms. We’ll all be a little more cautious because of the unrest and because we don’t have START or CFE in place,” Dicks said, referring to treaties on strategic arms and conventional forces in Europe, now being negotiated.

An adviser to a key Democrat in Congress suggested that Gorbachev’s problems present an opportunity for further reductions in U.S. defense spending because the Soviet Union would be “less likely to lash out internationally” in light of the internal strife.

Cheney curtly dismissed that argument, calling it “a serious misreading of the history of the Soviet system.”