U.S., Russia Clash Over Peacekeeping Role : Bosnia: Moscow wants to send a larger force, share in command and have U.N. foot the bill.

The Clinton Administration is facing a potentially serious snag in its efforts to police a new Bosnian peace accord: a dispute with Moscow over the role of Russian troops in any peacekeeping operation.

Although a meeting of U.S. and Russian defense ministers Sunday ended amicably, the two sides are still divided over several key issues, including who should command the operation and how many troops Russia should send.

Analysts said that whether--and how--these differences can be resolved could affect not only the peacekeeping effort but U.S.-Russian relations for years to come.

U.S. Defense Secretary William J. Perry told reporters after a North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting last week that the negotiations provide “the first test” of whether NATO and Russia can work together on broader European security issues.

The U.S.-Russian dispute has three basic elements:

* Who will command the 55,000-member international peacekeeping force and, particularly, who will issue orders to Russian units taking part in the operation?

The Clinton Administration, wary of sharing authority after three years of frustration under a “dual-key” command structure that required NATO and U.N. agreement, wants NATO to run the peacekeeping operation, guaranteeing that U.S. generals will be in charge.

But Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin, already under pressure at home for acceding too much to Western demands, would find it too difficult politically to make Russian troops subservient to NATO, the nemesis of the former Soviet Union.

* How many soldiers should Russia contribute to the Bosnian peacekeeping operation, what type should they be and what role should they play?

Russia wants to increase its troop strength in Bosnia-Herzegovina from about 2,000 to 20,000. And it wants to send combat forces that can play a high-profile role.

But Washington, fearful of a large Russian presence, wants Moscow to deploy no more than a couple thousand more soldiers, mostly to fill support and logistic jobs.

* Who will pay for the Russian deployment? Cash-strapped Moscow wants the United Nations to foot the bill. U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said Monday that the United Nations does not have enough money to pay for peacekeeping forces, and Washington argues that each country that sends troops to Bosnia must pay its own tab.

As might be expected, Perry and Gen. Pavel S. Grachev, Russia’s defense minister, each brought a satchelful of proposed compromises to Sunday’s meeting, but none of them seemed to bridge the gap.

A U.S. suggestion that Russian troops retain a separate command structure whose actions would be “coordinated” with NATO authorities was rejected because it would effectively place Russian units under allied command.

So was a Pentagon proposal that Russian troops limit their role to engineering duties and mine-clearing activities to make sure they would not conflict with strict peacekeeping operations, which would be run by NATO.

And while Perry readily agreed to stop calling the peacekeeping contingent “a NATO operation”--instead, it is being labeled I-FOR, for Implementation Force--he rejected requests that Russia assume joint command of the effort.

“I do not want to underestimate what we were not able to agree on,” Perry said after his session with Grachev. “. . . Our view is that political guidance for this operation should come from [NATO], and it is quite clear that the Russians do not agree with that theory.

“But,” he added, “we have agreed to work together to find a resolution to that problem.”

Later this week, a high-level Russian delegation headed by Col. Gen. Pavel Shevtsov, a senior official of the Russian general staff, will visit NATO headquarters to discuss the planning and report back to Grachev and Yeltsin.

Grachev will be in the United States in late October, and he and Perry hope to have a formula worked out in time for Clinton and Yeltsin to endorse at a meeting later this year.

U.S. officials said that Washington will not delay deployment of the peacekeeping force even if the allies and the Russians remain divided over how to proceed. “The Russians know we’re going to do it anyway,” one official here said.