SOVIET PUBLIC TREATMENT OF PRESIDENT REAGAN NOVEMBER 1980 - MAY 1984

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 67
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 15, 2013
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 1, 1984
• Content Type: MEMO

F1310
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
1,016.6*-NIE UNLIT
APPENDIX E
1 June 1984
FB 84-10030
emor
Soviet Public Treatment of President Reagan
November 1980 - May 1984
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
? This report is based exclusively on material carried in
foreign broadcast and press media. It is published by FBIS without
coordination with other U.S. Government components.
NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions
STAT
Titles in this document are unclassified.
All other portions are classified
Confidential except as marked.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FOR OFRI! tilSE ONLY
FBIS SPEC. MEMO
1 June 1984
FB 84-10030
Soviet Public Treatment of President Reagan
November 1980 ? May 1984
Introduction
The treatment accorded an American president in Soviet authoritative
statements and media commentary can be a sensitive barometer of Soviet
expectations for Moscow's relations with Washington. Historically, Soviet
efforts to promote improved relations have been accompanied by restraints on
public criticism of presidents and their policies. By the same token, harsh
public attacks on presidents have been made during periods when the Soviets
seemed to believe that no improvement in relations was possible or
advantageous.
Soviet public treatment of President Reagan has proved to be no exception to
this pattern. Twice since November 1980 Moscow has significantly moderated
its propaganda line to test the prospects for reduced bilateral tensions.
Commentary during the last two months has been harsh, however, and gives
no hint that a third Soviet effort of this sort is in the offing.
Pattern of Statements
The first Soviet effort to improve relations with the current Administration
came immediately after the November 1980 elections. Soviet media pictured
President-elect Reagan in positive terms, asserting that he had moderated
anti-Soviet views expressed during the campaign and raising the possibility
that he would reverse the deterioration in bilateral relations that had occurred
during the period of the Carter Administration. Faced with continued
criticism after the Administration took office, Moscow abandoned such
professed optimism in low-level media comment, resorting to strident censure
of the Administration and to direct, if somewhat less harsh, attacks on the
President himself. Soviet political leaders continued to abide by their normal
strictures against attacking a U.S. president directly, although by May 1981
they were strongly indicting President Reagan's policies.
This pattern of leadership and media comment continued until Brezhnev's
death in November 1982. It was broken only by a month-long interlude of
more moderate comment late in 1981, after agreement was reached to begin
Fr k "LAMSE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FOR ANNE ONLY
talks on limiting intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) and before U.S.
sanctions were adopted in response to the imposition of martial law in Poland.
A second, more tentative Soviet effort to promote improved U.S.-Soviet
relations came after Andropov's accession to power. Soviet leaders and
specialists on the United States muted their anti-U.S. rhetoric, which had
become particularly harsh in the last months of the Brezhnev regime, and ex-
pressed receptivity to any U.S. gestures for improved relations. This selective
restraint on criticism?routine Soviet propaganda was little affected?lasted
only from November 1982 until early spring 1983, when contention over INF
and other issues took its toll.
In the aftermath of the shooting down of a South Korean airliner last
September, Soviet leadership statements and media commentary on the
President became more abusive than at any time in the last two decades. This
harsh rhetoric continued into 1984. Only in the final days of the Andropov re-
gime did Soviet leaders appear to indicate a desire to lower the decibel level of
their polemics against the President. The usual strident invective was missing
from Andropov's 25 January Pravda interview in response to President
Reagan's 16 January speech expressing interest in U.S.-Soviet dialogue, and
routine Soviet propaganda became marginally less sharp in its criticism of the
President.
Although Chernenko's accession to power in February 1984 brought a brief
period of moderation in Soviet leadership polemics against the President and
his Administration, this restraint disappeared more quickly than had been the
case after Brezhnev's death. As early as 23 February a Pravda article by De-
fense Minister Ustinov excoriated "U.S. leaders" for pushing mankind
"toward a nuclear catastrophe." By late March, even Chernenko, the Soviet
leader who had been least critical of the United States in February and early
March, began attacking the Administration in harsh terms. Routine Soviet
propaganda also became more strident, and in the last two months some
commentary has approached the level of abusiveness that was common last
fall.
Different Voices
Soviet statements about the Administration are made at three levels of
authority: the top political leadership, midlevel officials with ties to the
fflAt'USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Fr a RALBSE ONLY
leadership, and routine media commentators. The behavior pattern of each of
these groups has distinguishing features:
? Although it authorized media attacks on the President, the leadership itself
conspicuously avoided attacking him directly until 1983, thereby observing
its traditional posture of standing aloof from the extremes of the polemical
fray. Even in his strongest criticisms of U.S. policy, Brezhnev attacked U.S.
"ruling circles," "Washington," and "the line of the United States and those
Who follow it" without naming the President. The Soviet leadership broke
this pattern last September in the wake of U.S. charges that the Soviet
Union had knowingly shot down a passenger airliner. Andropov's January
Pravda interview and statements coming after his death have returned to the
more familiar pattern of sharply attacking the Administration but avoiding
the extremes witnessed last fall.
? Midlevel offiaials and political commentators (for example, Aleksandr
Bovin, Georgiy Arbatov, Vadim Zagladin, and Nikolay Shishlin) have been
less restrained than the leaders in blaming the President for the U.S. policies
they have so sharply condemned. They have also provided the most sensitive
indicator of changing Soviet perceptions about the direction of bilateral
relations, registering in their comments apparent fluctuations in Soviet
expectations regarding U.S.-Soviet cooperation.
? Routine media commentary has been the least sensitive barometer of
changes in the atmosphere of U.S.-Soviet relations. When President Reagan
was elected, this low-level propaganda was more optimistic than some Soviet
political observers. But as Soviet assessments of Administration policy
toward the Soviet Union hardened, the propaganda assumed a hostile tone
which has continued despite some fluctuations in intensity.
This report presents a compilation of significant Soviet statements about
President Reagan from the time of his election in November 1980 through
May 1984. It is intended to provide a comparative baseline for use by analysts
in judging future Soviet statements about the President. The compilation of
statements is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
USE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FIRtfrit UsUSEL'ONLY
FBIS SPEC. MEMO
1 June 1984
FB 84-10030
Soviet Statements on President Reagan
November 1980 ? May 1984
This compilation is divided into two parts. The first section presents
authoritative statements, including those by top political leaders.
The second presents assessments by well-connected midlevel officials
and a small sampling of routine Soviet media commentaries.
Authoritative Statements 1
Midlevel and Routine Media Commentary 33
oVaiTALIFLONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FAUSNLY
Authoritative Statements
Premier Nikolay Tikhonov, October Revolution anniversary speech (Pravda,
7 Nov 80)
Regarding our relations with the United States of America, just as with
any other country which belongs to a different social system, they can
only be built up on the basis of equality, noninterference in internal
affairs, not causing harm to the security of one another. . . .
I would like to express the hope that the new Administration in the White
House will manifest a constructive approach to questions or relations
between our countries.
General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, Kremlin dinner speech (Pravda, 18 Nov
80)
Much in the development of the international situation will, of course, de-
pend on the position of the United States. A new president has now been
elected there. I shall not dwell on what was said by him and his
supporters and opponents in the heat of the election struggle. I can only
state with full responsibility that any constructive steps by the U.S.
Administration in the field of Soviet-American relations and urgent
world problems will meet with a positive response on our part.
TASS statement (Pravda, 3 Feb 81)
Soviet leading circles have taken note of a new anti-Soviet hostile
campaign being unfolded in the United States. This time they ascribe to
the Soviet Union involvement in "international terrorism." Such inven-
tions could be simply ignored as a new primitive trick by professional
anti-Soviets if not for the fact that this campaign was started by high-
ranking officials of the American Administration including U.S. Secre-
tary of State A. Haig. His statements, made at a press conference on
28 January this year, and subsequent additional comments made by
another official representative of the U.S. State Department, clearly
indicate that this is not a matter of some occasional unhappy expression
but a deliberate political subversion. . . .
Soviet leading circles would like to hope that they in Washington will give
serious thought as to what the continuation there of the campaign hostile
to the Soviet Union can lead and will take measures to stop it.
raPidAc.
its if OU1M.
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Brezhnev, speech to 26th CPSU Congress (Pravda, 24 Feb 81)
Unfortunately, the previous Washington Administration by no means
considered the development of relations and of mutual understanding.
Attempting to exert pressure on us, it began to destroy all the positive re-
sults which had been scored with no little difficulty in Soviet-American
relations over the preceding years. . . .
Even after the change of leadership in the White House, candidly
bellicose calls and statements are being heard from Washington, calls and
statements which seem to be specially intended to poison the atmosphere
of relations between our countries. In any case, we would like to hope that
those who now determine U.S. policy will ultimately be able to look at
things more realistically
The present state of relations between us and the sharpness of interna-
tional problems demanding solution dictate the need for dialogue at all
levels and, what is more, an active dialogue. We are ready for dialogue.
Experience shows that the decisive link here is meetings at the highest
level.
Brezhnev, speech in Kiev (Pravda, 10 May 81)
There are quite a few sober-minded people among those who today shape
the policy of capitalist countries. They understand that the emphasis on
strength, the emphasis on war in relations with the socialist world is
madness in our day and age, that there is only one reasonable road?
peaceful coexistence, mutually advantageous cooperation.
But there are also such statesmen in the bourgeois world who, judging by
everything, are accustomed to thinking only in terms of strength and
diktat. They actually regard the attainment of military superiority over
the Soviet Union as their main political credo. The solution of interna-
tional problems by way of talks and mutually advantageous agreements
appears to be way down their list of priorities,,if they give serious thought
to this at all.
Among them there are also those who openly state that peace is not the
most important matter, that there are things more important than peace.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
ONLY
Just think, comrades: Can one imagine a more horrendous position, a
more cynical disregard for the destinies of peoples, including one's own
people, for the lives of hundreds of millions of people! . . .
This is not to mention how absurd are any plans which are intended by
means of threats, economic blockade or military aggression to impede the
development of socialist countries or the struggle of peoples for national
freedom and social justice. . . .
As for the Soviet Union, it is not the first time that we are hearing inven-
tions about our policy, slander, and threats. But we do not give in to
intimidations.
Marshal Viktor Kulikov, first deputy minister of defense, and commander in
chief of the Joint Armed Forces of the Warsaw Pact Nations (Krasnaya
Zvezda, 21 Jun 81)
If you look at the statements of the leaders of the present U.S.
Administration, you cannot help noticing in them a similarity with the
aims set by the Hitlerite leadership in attacking the Soviet Union.
Speaking at Notre Dame in June, R. Reagan said: "The West will outlive
communism. . . . We will write it off as a sad, unnatural chapter in the
history of mankind."
Defense Minister Dmitriy Ustinov (Pravda, 25 Jul 81)
The ruling circles of Washington have decided to overturn all the positive
elements in Soviet-American relations achieved during the seventies and
to break down the approximate equality in the military sphere between
the USSR and the United States.
Without putting forward any positive initiatives the Reagan Administra-
tion has taken a standpoint of unconcealed anti-Sovietism. At the same
time it is grossly interfering in the affairs of other states and is high-
handedly dictating its demands to them. . . .
The ruling circles of the United States are intensifying international
tension and exacerbating Soviet-American relations. . . .
Washington, once again, as a decade ago, is trying to speak to the Soviet
Union in the language of "cold war." At the same time, its disregard for
agreements which were reached between our two countries in the field of
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
arms restriction is demonstrated. A. Haig states: "We are not very
concerned about the understandings of 1972, although they were agreed
by both sides."
Brezhnev, interview with Der Spiegel (Pravda, 3 Nov 81)
Unfortunately, the leading powers of the West, above all, the NATO
bloc, do not show so far a serious interest in talks on all of these questions
that are vital to mankind and its peaceful future. Some people there are
by far more willing to speak not on detente, but on confrontation; not on
peaceful mutually beneficial cooperation, but on the use of trade to
military-strategic ends; not on agreements on the basis of equality and
equal security, but on diktat from the positions of military supremacy; not
on the elimination by joint efforts of seats of conflicts, but on the creation
of ever new military bases, on the buildup of their military presence in
various parts of the world; not on curbing the arms race, but on
"rearmament"; not on a limitation or prohibition of some or other types
of weapons, but on the creation of ever new, even more destructive means
of mass annihilation of people.
This way, unfortunately, they not only speak, but also act in practice.
You, certainly, understand that I have in mind, above all, the policy of
the present U.S. Administration, the way it was manifest both in
statements by high-ranking statesmen of that country and, which is even
more important, in their practical deeds.
All of it is actually an opposite to detente, blunt disregard for the striving
of all peoples for lasting peace. And it is, certainly, profoundly deplorable
that the leaders of one of the world's biggest powers have deemed it
possible to build their policy on such a basis. . . .
President Reagan has recently expressed the readiness of the United
States to discuss with the Soviet Union also other problems, which cause
differences between the two countries. We welcome such readiness, as we
have always considered talks to be the most appropriate method of
resolving international problems. The main thing, of course, is that
appropriate practical deeds should be matched to correct words.
And it would be better to abandon dreams of ensuring military suprema-
cy over the USSR.
ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
0
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
snieNLY
Ustinov, October Revolution anniversary speech (Pravda, 7 Nov 81)
The Washington Administration is with increasing frequency resorting to
frankly inflammatory language. High-ranking U.S. representatives, with
cynical disregard for the fate of the peoples, state that there are allegedly
some things more important than peace. . . .
The preservation of peace is inseparable from the curbing of the arms
race?from stage-by-stage disarmament. Important steps in that direc-
tion were taken in the seventies. But the present U.S. Administration is
intent on casting doubt on all the positive things that have been jointly
achieved in the field of Soviet-U.S. relations. It openly declares its
intention to speak to the Soviet Union from positions of strength.
TASS statement on U.S. stance on Poland (Pravda, 14 Jan 82)
The United States and its NATO allies are continuing attempts at
crudely interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state?the Polish
People's Republic, at whipping up international tensions. This has been
most clearly revealed also in the statement, which was? issued on
11 January by the foreign ministers of the North Atlantic Alliance.
It is well known that the whole of this disgraceful farce has been initiated
by the U.S. Administration. Its style is felt both in the impudent
distortion of facts, the high-handed tones, and excessive political
ambitions.
Yes, Washington makes no little effort to try to bring abut a turnaround
in international politics from detente to confrontation between blocs.
Why is it done? It is not too difficult to answer this question.
What it amounts to is above all an attempt at crowding socialism and im-
pairing the positions of the USSR and other socialist countries on the Eu-
ropean and world scene. Certain figures of the imperialist camp are day
and night beset by nightmares because socialism is growing stronger. The
international positions of socialism rely on the existing balance of forces
in Europe and in the world, and are guaranteed by the might of the so-
cialist community.
of, 4400.1E
E ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
?
I _ SE,ONLY
.064?
ORLI
rr7* L USE
Marshal Nikolay Ogarkov, first deputy minister of defense and chief of the
General Staff (Always In Readiness To Defend The Homeland, Moscow:
Voenizdat, approved for publication 26 Jan 82)
World imperialism, and particularly U.S. imperialism, is seeking to
extend its tentacles into every part of the world. Militant U.S. circles
have openly adopted a course of policy aimed at undermining detente,
engagement in a massive arms race, and active preparations for nuclear
war. The various actions and acts of sabotage against the USSR and the
other nations of the socialist community and against progressive forces
throughout the world which they are presently conducting are of a
coordinated nature and are joined together by a common scheme; The
main goal which the U.S. imperialists have set for themselves is gradually
and sequentially to weaken and undermine socialism as a system, using
any and all methods and means, and ultimately to establish their world
domination.
? This is not a new phenomenon. History has seen many claimants to world
domination. Napoleon persistently sought to achieve world domination, as
did Hitler at a later time. The outcome of their ambitions is well known.
An even harsher outcome may await these latter-day claimants.
Brezhnev, Soviet Trade Union Congress speech (Pravda, 17 Mar 82)
The newly fledged devotees of cold war and dangerous balancing on the
brink of a real war would like nothing better than to tear up the legal and
ethical norms of relations between states that have taken shape over the
centuries and to cancel their independence and sovereignty. They are
trying to retailor the political map of the world and have declared large
regions on all continents as zones of their "vital interests." They have ar-
rogated the "right" to command some countries and to judge and
"punish" others. Unembarrassed, they publicly announce, and try to
carry out, plans for economic and political "destablization" of govern-
ments and states that are not to their liking. With unexampled cynicism
they gloat over difficulties experienced by this or that nation. They are
trying to substitute "sanctions" and blockades for normal communica-
tions and international trade, and endless threats of armed force, not
short of threats to use nuclear weapons, for contacts and negotiations.
6
11F4,arITPRIA._fl pro" n
IT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
qsUsEneilLY
It is simply astonishing to see it all. And you cannot help asking yourself:
What is there more of in this policy?thoughtlessness and lack of
experience in international affairs, or irresponsibility and, to say it
bluntly, an adventurist approach to problems crucial for the destiny of
mankind? Not in our country, but in the columns of respectable organs of
the U.S. bourgeois press this policy was described as "a course to political
disaster." It is hard to deny the validity of this description.
Brezhnev, Pravda interview (Pravda, 18 Apr 82)
? I already spoke on the value of an active dialogue with the United states
at all levels, especially emphasizing that the decisive link here is summit-
level meetings. Today we also support such meetings. It is understandable
that a meeting between the U.S. President and myself must be well
prepared and conducted properly, not just in passing in connection with
some international forum or other.
Yuriy Andropov, Politburo member and chairman of the KGB, Lenin
anniversary speech (Pravda, 23 Apr 82)
The imperialist bourgeoisie; frightened by the upsurge of the antiwar
movements, is making ever-wider use of the weapons of lies and
sophisticated deception. What is Washington doing now? One hysterical
propaganda campaign replaces the other. People are at one moment being
persuaded of a Soviet military threat, then lied to unscrupulously about
the lagging behind of the United States, intimidated with international
terrorism, fed cock-and-bull stories about events in Poland, Central
America, South and Southeast Asia. . . .
Attempts are made to make use of diplomatic talks themselves in order to
deceive the public, among them talks on the limitation of arms and on dis-
armament. The impression is created that often they are entered into only
to create illusions and, by lulling public vigilance, continue the arms
race. . . .
Brezhnev, Komsomol congress speech (Pravda, 19 May 82)
President Reagan, on his part, has now declared that the United States is
ready for the resumption of the talks. In our opinion, this is a step in the
right direction. It is, however, important that the talks should begin
immediately in the right key.
,,,,OAGREENE(ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
ASFAHLY
In the same speech the President said that the United States at the talks
would be in favor of substantial reductions. Well, we have always been in
favor of substantial reductions of strategic arms; there is no need to
persuade us in this respect.
But if one looks at the essence of the ideas voiced by the U.S. President on
such reductions, one notes unfortunately that the American position is
absolutely unilateral in nature. Above all, because the United States
would like in general to exclude from the talks the strategic arms it is now
most intensively developing.
Brezhnev, speech at Kremlin meeting of military commanders (Pravda, 28 Oct
82)
The ruling circles of the United States of America have launched a
political, ideological, and economic offensive on socialism and have raised
the intensity of their military preparations to an unprecedented level. . . .
The masses of people on all continents angrily protest against Washing-
ton's aggressive policy which is threatening to push the world into the
flames of a nuclear war. The adventurism, rudeness, and undisguised
egoism of this policy arouse growing indignation in many countries,
including those allied with the United States. . . .
TASS report of 15 November 1982 meeting between General Secretary
Andropov and Vice President Bush (Pravda, 16 Nov 82)
In this respect Yu. V. Andropov stressed that the Soviet Union, consis-
tently carrying out a policy of peace, is prepared to build relations with
the United States on a basis of full equality, noninterference, mutual
respect in the interests of the peoples of both countries, and normalization
[ozdorovIeniye] of the international situation.
Tikhonov, Kremlin dinner speech to U.S. trade delegation (Pravda, 19 Nov 82)
We are meeting with you at a time which is not the best for Soviet-Amer-
ican relations. Their climate has considerably cooled and, to be frank, not
through our fault.
tiHtte.,
ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
TrONLY
The official stand taken in the United States towards the Soviet Union,
naturally, is also reflected in trade between our countries. All sorts of dis-
criminatory measures, attempts to use various sanctions, embargoes, etc.,
against our country do not, of course, inspire kind feelings, but rather un-
dermine the confidence of Soviet foreign trade organizations in the
American market. . . .
The Soviet Union has been and is for normal, and even better, friendly re-
lations with the United States. There were such relations in the past, and
they can again become a reality. This would meet the interests of our
countries and the interests of universal peace. I am confident that this is
precisely what our peoples wish. They wish lasting peace and mutually
beneficial cooperation.
Andropov, speech at CPSU Central Committee plenum (Pravda, 23 Nov 82)
All are equally interested in preserving peace and detente. Therefore,
statements in which the readiness for normalizing relations is linked with
the demand that the Soviet Union pay for this with preliminary
concessions in different fields do not sound serious, to say the least. We
shall not agree to this and, properly speaking, we have nothing to cancel:
We did not introduce sanctions against anyone, we did not denounce
treaties and agreements that were signed, and we did not interrupt talks
that were started. I should like to stress once more that the Soviet Union
stands for accord but this should be sought on the basis of reciprocity and
equality.
In our opinion the point of talks with the United States and other
Western countries, primarily on questions of restraining the arms race,
does not lie in the statement of differences. For us talks are a way of join-
ing efforts by different states in order to achieve results useful to all sides.
The problems will not disappear by themselves if the talks are held for the
sake of talks, as it unfortunately happens not infrequently. We are for the
search on a healthy basis, acceptable to the sides concerned, for a
settlement of the most complicated problems, especially, of course, the
problems of curbing the arms race, involving both nuclear and conven-
tional arms. But let no one expect unilateral disarmament from us. We
are not naive people.
We do not demand unilateral disarmament from the West. We are for
equality, for consideration for the interests of both sides, for honest
agreement. We are ready for this.
9
pF17.1 45, tL
? tl?OR? 0it:Akit
E ONLY
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Ustinov, TASS interview (Pravda, '7 Dec 82)
[President Reagan] said in his speech of 22 November that the Soviet
Union now has a clear, margin in practically any type of military power.
Such assertions are not in keeping with reality. They are calculated at de-
ceiving the public and have the purpose of justifying the United States'
unprecedented military programs 'and aggressive doctrines. It is regretta-
ble that such attempts to convince people of the existence of what does
not exist in nature are made by the leader of a great power whose very po-
sition presupposes realism and responsibility in assessing reality... . .
At the same time, the President's speech contains an attempt to sow
distrust in the Soviet Union's stand. He stated that the Soviet Union
violates the unilateral moratorium it announced on the deployment of its
medium-range missiles in the European part of the USSR. I state quite
definitely that the USSR is true to its word.
Andropov, Pravda interview responding to President Reagan's Open Letter
(Pravda, 2 Feb 83)
I must say quite definitely that there is nothing new in President R.
Reagan's proposal. What it is all about?and this all the world's news
agencies have immediately taken note of?is the same "zero option."
That it is patently unacceptable to the Soviet Union now is already
generally recognized. Really, can one seriously speak about a proposal
according to which the Soviet Union would have to scrap unilaterally all
- its medium-range missiles, while the United States and its NATO allies
would retain all their nuclear weapons of this category?
It is precisely this unrealistic position Of the United States that has
blocked, and this is well known, progress at the talks in Geneva. That now
the U.S. President has reiterated again this position indicates one thing:
The United States does not want to look for a mutually acceptable accord
with the Soviet Union and thereby deliberately dooms the Geneva talks to
.
We have believed and still believe that summit meetings have special
significance to resolving complicated problems. This determines our
serious approach to them.
1411 4atilY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Val V
For us this is not a matter of a political or a propaganda game. A meeting
between the leaders of the USSR and the United States aimed at finding
mutually acceptable solutions to urgent problems and at developing
relations between our countries would be useful both to the Soviet Union
and to the United States of America, to Europe, and to the whole world.
But when the U.S. President makes the meeting conditional on .the Soviet
Union's consent to the patently unacceptable solution to the problem of
nuclear armaments in Europe, proposed by him, this by no means testifies
to the seriousness of the American leadership's approach to the whole of
this issue. This can only be regretted.
Andropov, Pravda interview (Pravda, 27 Mar 83)
The President pretends that? almost a thousand medium-range nuclear
systems of the United States and its NATO allies do not ostensibly exist
in the zone of Europe, and that it is unknown to him that NATO has a
1.5-1 advantage over the USSR in the aggregate number of nuclear
warheads on those systems.
The President not only keeps silent about all that. He tells a deliberate
untruth [on govorit zavedomuyu nepravdu], asserting that the Soviet
Union does not observe its own unilateral moratorium on the deployment
of medium-range missiles. . . .
The incumbent U.S. Administration continues to tread an extremely
perilous path. The issues of war and peace must not be treated so
flippantly. All attempts at achieving military superiority over the USSR
are futile. . . . It is time they stopped devising one option after another in
search of the best ways of unleashing nuclear war in the hope of winning
it. Engaging in this is not just irresponsible, it is insane.
Andropov, speech to CPSU Central Committee plenum (Pravda, 16 Jun 83)
This period is marked by a confrontation, unprecedented in the entire
post-war period by its intensity and sharpness, of two diametrically
opposite world outlooks, two political courses?socialism and imperial-
ism. A struggle is going on for the minds and hearts of billions of people
in the world. And the future of mankind depends in no small measure on
the outcome of this ideological struggle. . . . It is no less important to
skillfully expose the lying, subversive nature of imperialist
propaganda. . . .
11
17) rTf,r1rll
QFFICIA;, i
ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
fr7.0E9c4P?
N,4i1,.
%IONIA
On the one hand, as has already been said, the aggressiveness of
ultrareactionary forces led by U.S. imperialism has sharply increased.
Attempts are being made to reverse the course of events at all costs. Of
course, this policy will not bring imperialists success but, being adventur-
istic, it is extremely dangerous to mankind. This is why it is meeting with
powerful opposition on the part of the peoples, which, undoubtedly, will
grow even further.
In the present-day capitalist world, however, there are also other trends
and other politicians who take a more realistic account of the internation-
al situation.
Foreign Minister Andrey Gromyko, TASS interview (Pravda, 22 Jun 83)
Naturally, a [summit] meeting which could produce major results for
both bilateral Soviet-U.S. relations and the international situation would
be useful.
Quite a few words are now being said in the West, particularly in
Washington, about a Soviet-American summit. An outsider can even get
the impression that Washington is indeed giving serious thought to Such a
meeting. But if we look into the crux of the matter, the situation,
regrettably, is different.
Obviously, proper preconditions are needed to hold a meeting of the top
leaders of the two major powers. First, it is necessary to have a certain de-
gree of mutual understanding on major issues which are fundamental to
the state of relations between the two countries and the overall interna-
tional situation. There dig() is a need for the desire of both sides actually
to strive for positive developments, or even better, for a breakthrough in
their mutual relations.
If we consider the state of affairs from this point of view, it becomes clear
that the discourses of American figures on a meeting are not backed by
anything. U.S: policy on relations with the Sciviet Union does not pursue
any constructive goals at all, of which American leaders make no secret.
Moreover, it is oriented in the totally opposite direction.
When there appear in American politics real signs of a readiness to
conduct affairs in a serious and constructive manner, the question of the
possibility of a summit will appear in a different light.
12
gAksir-MNLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
1
rmoktprfigtALL
rUW,
Welt!
TASS statement on Korean airliner incident (Pravda, 3 Sep 83)
The intrusion into [Soviet] airspace by the aforementioned plane cannot
be regarded in any other way than a preplanned act. It was obviously
thought possible to attain special intelligence aims without hindrance
using civilian planes as a cover.
More than that, there is reason to believe that those who organized this
provocation deliberately desired a further aggravation of the international
situation striving to smear the Soviet Union, to sow hostility towards it
and to cast aspersions on the Soviet peace-loving policy.
This is illustrated also by the impudent, slanderous statement in respect
to the Soviet Union that was made instantly by President Reagan of the
United States.
USSR Government statement on Korean airliner incident (Pravda, 7 Sep 83)
The assertion of the U.S. President that Soviet pilots knew that it was a
civilian aircraft are absolutely not in keeping with reality. . . .
It is the sovereign right of every state to protect its borders. . . . So the
U.S. President makes himself out as an ignoramus saying, as he did in his
address on 5 September, that the Soviet Union "arbitrarily proclaims" its
borders in the airspace [sic].
But the point here, of course, is not the ignorance of one U.S. official or
another. The point is a deliberate preplanned action in an area that is
strategically important to the Soviet Union. The instigators of that action
could not help realizing what its outcome could be, but went ahead with a
major intelligence operation with the use, as is now becoming clear, of a
civilian plane, deliberately exposing its passengers to mortal danger. . . .
This conclusion is confirmed by all subsequent actions of the U.S
Administration. Its leaders, including the U.S. President, launched a
malicious and hostile anti-Soviet campaign over a very short time, clearly
using a prearranged script. Its essence has been revealed in its most
concentrated form in the televised speech of U.S. President R. Reagan on
5 September?to try to blacken the image of the Soviet Union and
discredit its social system, to provoke a feeling of hatred toward the
Soviet people, to present the aims of the USSR foreign policy in a
distorted perspective,-and to distract attention from its peace initiatives.
13
r,FeAr64.47nikt
ig ? '1-";
F.
ONLY
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FEHRgili gni
The entire responsibility for this tragedy rests wholly and fully with the
leaders of the United States of America.
Ogarkov, article (Izvestiya, 23 Sep 83)
The struggle for peace in our times has acquired special significance.
That is due primarily to the sharply enhanced aggressiveness of interna-
tional imperialism, Zionism, and reaction headed by the United States. In
recent years their actions have been significantly reminiscent of fascism's
actions in the thirties. Having adopted flagrant lies and slander, the
United States and its allies have launched a global offensive against
socialism on all fronts, initiating, as they openly assert, a new "crusade"
against us. The Washington Administration is nurturing sinister plans.
Expatiating on its alleged adherence to peace, the U.S. Administration,
through its defense secretary, blasphemously states that "the path to
peace is marked by preparation for war." The "Directive in the Defense
Field for Fiscal 1984," drafted on instructions from thet.S. President, is
evidence of how far the U.S. "hawks" have gone. This official document
sets as its main aim "the destruction of socialism as a sociopolitical
system." That's all! There is no need to explain this'gibberish. Commen-
tary is superfluous, as they say. We can only marvel at the sheer
ignorance and self-sufficiency of the transatlantic strategists, so infinitely
far removed from a knowledge of the elementary foundations and laws of
the development of human society.
AndrOpov, statement (Pravda, 29 Sep 83)
? The Soviet leadership deems it necessary to inform the Soviet people,
other peoples, and all who are responsible for determining states' policy of
its assessment of the course pursued in international affairs by the current
U.S. Administration.
In short, it is a militarist course that represents a serious threat to peace.
Its essence is to try to ensure a dominating position in the world for the
United States of America regardless of the interests of other states and
peoples. . . .
When the U.S. President bombastically declares from the UN rostrum
his commitment to the cause of peace, self-determination, and sovereign-
ty of the peoples, these rhetorical declarations can convince no one.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
IA ONLY
If anyone has any illusions about the possibility of an evolution for the
better in the present American Administration's policy, recent events
have dispelled them once and for all. The Administration is going so far
for the sake of achieving its imperial objectives that one cannot 'help
doubting whether any restraints [tormoza] at all exist for Washington to
prevent it from crossing a line before which any thinking,person ought to
stop.
The sophisticated provocation organized by the U.S. special services
using a South Korean plane is also an example of extreme adventurism in
policy. . . .
In their endeavor somehow to justify their dangerous, misanthropic
policy, they are heaping mountains of slander on the Soviet Union and so-
cialism as a social system, and the tone is being set by the U.S. President
himself. It must be frankly said that it is an unseemly spectacle when,
having set themselves the aim of denigrating the Soviet people, the
leaders of a country like the United States resort to what is virtually foul-
mouthed abuse mingled with hypocritical sermons on morality and
humanity. . . .
Now Washington, in addition to morality, is also flouting elementary
rules of decency, displaying disrespect not only for statesmen and states
but also for the United Nations. . . .
Of course, malicious attacks on the Soviet Union arouse in us a natural
sense of indignation, but we have strong nerves, and we do not build our
policy on emotions. It is founded on common sense, realism, and profound
responsibility for the destiny of peace.
Ustinov, article (Pravda, 19 Nov 83)
The aggressiveness of ultrareactionary imperialist forces increased sharp-
ly when the R. Reagan Administration came to power in the United
States. They have declared a "crusade" against socialism.. .
The R. Reagan Administration, in blatant contradiction with this
commitment, is now stating its "right" to inflict a first nuclear strike in
the hope of victory. . . .
-747,7 711
FOtt,140-k;
4ry LY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
The Washington Administration's war preparations are accompanied by
shameless anti-Soviet hysteria. Discarding all decency, top U.S. officials
are slandering the USSR, its people and policy, and the socialist way of
life. Lies, disinformation, juggling with facts, and provocations are being
brought into play. It is with the aid of such methods that Washington fig-
ures, heating up the international situation, are counting on ensuring the
unobstructed implementation of their course aimed at an unrestrained
arms race. This policy on the part of the White House leaders does not
consist solely of emotions or rhetoric: It is a consciously and coldly and
deliberately implemented long-term strategy aimed at broadening con-
frontation and thus increasing the danger of war.
Andropov, statement (Pravda, 25 Nov 83)
The leadership of the Soviet Union has already apprised Soviet people
and other peoples of its assessment of the present U.S. Administration's
militarist course and warned the U.S. Government and the Western
countries which are in agreement with it about the dangerous conse-
quences of that course. . . .
The Soviet leadership appeals to the leaders of the United States and of
the states of West Europe to weigh up once again all the consequences
with which the implementation of the plans for the deployment of the new
U.S. missiles in Europe threatens their own peoples and all mankind.
We are already living, even now, in a peace that is too fragile.
Responsible statesmen must therefore evaluate what is taking place and
make a rational decision. Only human reason can and must safeguard
mankind from the awesome danger. We call upon those who are nudging
the world along the path of an ever more dangerous arms race to
renounce the unrealizable calculations of achieving military superiority
by such a path with the aim of dictating their will to other peoples and
states.
Gromyko, speech at Conference on Disarmament in Europe (Pravda, 19 Jan
84)
Instead of conducting talks and displaying a desire to work for accord, the
U.S. Administration has chosen a course of breaking the existing
alignment of forces. . . .
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
The incumbent U.S. Administration is an administration thinking in
categories of war and acting accordingly. . . .
What is needed is deeds and not verbal equilibristics, the resort to which
has been made particularly often in Washington lately. They clearly are a
sign of short-term considerations, and people already know sufficiently
well the worth of such tricks. No matter how hard one tries to lie?be it a
crude lie or a virtuoso one?this will change nothing in the actual state of
affairs. What is needed is a turn of substance in policy?from the policy
of militarism and aggression to a policy of peace and international
cooperation.
Andropov, interview (Pravda, 25 Jan 84)
Interstate relations have found themselves in an atmosphere of dangerous
tension. The leaders of the United States, the U.S. Administration, bear
full responsibility for this turn of events. . . .
So, one may ask, why is the present situation in the world being
deliberately distorted in the statements of American leaders? First of all
to try to dispel the concern of the peoples, which has been mounting with
every day, over Washington's militaristic policy and to undercut the
growing resistance to this policy. . . .
There is no need to convince us of the usefulness and expedience of
dialogue. This is our policy. But the dialogue should be conducted on an
? equal footing and not from a position of strength, as it is proposed by
Ronald Reagan. The dialogue should not be conducted for the sake of di-
alogue. It should be directed at the attainment of concrete accords. It
should be conducted honestly and no attempts should be made to use it
for selfish aims.
The American leadership, as all signs indicate, has not given up its
intentions to conduct talks with us from positions of strength, from
positions of threats and pressure.
General Secretary Konstantin Chernenko, Central Committee plenum speech
(Pravda, 14 Feb 84)
Nowadays, in the age of nuclear weapons and super-accurate missiles,
people need [peaceful coexistence] as never before. Deplorably, some
udfAci. I. VC
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
O4AsSfflLY
leaders of the capitalist countries, to all appearances, do not -clearly
realize, or do not wish to realize that.
We can very well see the threat created today to humankind by the
reckless, adventurist actions of imperialism's aggressive forces?and we
speak up about it, drawing to that danger the attention of the peoples of
the whole earth. We need no military superiority. We do not intend to
dictate our will to others. But we will not permit the military equilibrium
that has been achieved to be upset. And let nobody have even the slightest
doubt about that: We will further see to it that our country's defense ca-
pacity be strengthened, that we should have enough means to cool the hot
heads of militant adventurists.
Gromyko, speech delivered at Andropov's funeral (Pravda, 15 Feb 84)
Our country has put forward a series of major initiatives of principled im-
portance. Their aim is to strengthen peace. For this it is necessary first
and foremost that the attempts to tip the existing military-strategic
equilibrium be renounced, that the nuclear arms buildup be stopped and
that efforts be made to limit and reduce these weapons. Those who are
pursuing a policy of militarism, the mad arms race, and interference in
the internal affairs of other countries should renounce this policy and
substitute for it a policy of peace and cooperation.
Ustinov, article for Armed Forces Day (Pravda, 23 Feb 84)
Mankind's development along the path of democracy and socialism does
not suit the most reactionary imperialist circles. They are deliberately
exacerbating the international situation. The American imperialists in the
grip of class hatred have proclaimed the Soviet Union to be "the focus of
evil" and, ignoring the lessons of history, have declared a "crusade"
against the USSR and world socialism. In practice the United States is
today playing the role of chief organizer of the imperialist policy of
aggression. All Washington's actions in the political, military, economic,
and ideological fields are subordinated to the course aimed at establishing
world domination and primarily at achieving military superiority over the
USSR and the other Warsaw Pact countries. To this end the United
States has unleashed an unrestrained arms race and is commissioning
more and more new systems of nuclear and conventional weapons,
spending enormous sums on this. . . .
18
Fe
LANKY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FnP lirrfr,141
ROAM WU
Disregarding generally accepted norms of international law, the U.S.
Administration is declaring whole regions of the globe to be "zones of
U.S. security" and flouting the sovereignty and independence of other
states' peoples. The United States' naked aggression against Grenada,
undeclared wars against Lebanon and Nicaragua, overt support for
reactionary dictatorial ,regimes in ,Central and South America, Africa,
and Asia, and the campaign of threats against socialist Cuba will go down
as. pages of shame in U.S. history... . .
In an attempt to dull the vigilance of peoples alarmed by the U.S.
Administration's militarist course its official representatives have begun
to adopt the garb of "peacemakers." But the peoples cannot be deceived.
They can see increasingly clearly that the present U.S. leaders' words are
at variance with their actions. They, are continuing to push mankind
toward a nuclear catastrophe.
Gromyko, election speech (Sovetskaya Belorussiya, 28 Feb 84)
The world situation remains complex, sometimes tense. The source of the
tension is aggressive imperialist circles' adventurist actions. The present
U.S. Administration has set itself the aim of disrupting in the United
States' favor the existing military-strategic equilibrium, achieving for the
United States dominant positions in the world and by relying on force,
dictating its will to others. It is trying to climb to the top of the world and
issue commands to everyone from there.
The policy of the senseless arms race and flagrant pressure, including the
use of armed force against sovereign states, is aimed at achieving these
aims. This aggressive political course is shaking the foundations of peace.
The already enormous arsenals of nuclear weapons which the NATO bloc
possesses in Europe are no longer enough for Washington politicians.
They have decided to increase them.
The danger of mar has increased substantially as a result of the
deployment of new, U.S. nuclear weapons in West Europe. These actions
destroyed the Geneva talks aimed at limiting and substantially reducing
nuclear arms. . . .
19
F iDERIVIIMLONLY
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
For some time now allegations have circulated to the effect that nothing
special is happening in the international situation, that the world has
become more secure with the U.S. missiles in Europe. The aim of this de-
liberate distortion of reality is obvious?to lull the vigilance of the
European and world public.
All indications are that not the least role here is played by considerations
dictated by the election campaign in the United States. The candidate
from the Republican Party now in power would very much like to look re-
spectable in the eyes of public opinion. Otherwise, who knows, the
electorate may vote for the other party's candidate. . . .
It is not our choice that the state of Soviet-American relations is
characterized by tension. None other than the present American Admin-
istration has worsened and exacerbated them by its actions.
This Administration has done considerable work to upset and, what is
more, destroy what its predecessors did. It has worked, if I can put it this
way, with a big stick, striking out now at one and now at another
agreement. In fact, little remains of what was done earlier by both
sides?the Soviet Union and the United States?in their common
interests.
If prizes were given for this destructive work, or undermining agreements
aimed at strengthening the cause of peace, then of course the present
Washington Administration could with reason claim the prize.
Of course, it is easier to destroy and easier to overturn agreements which
were achieved by others. No special effort is required for this. All that is
needed is a sizable dose of recklessness and irresponsibility.
In Washington today it is possible to hear even at an official level
statements in favor of improving relations between the USSR and the
United States. But it is hard to trust these statements. The U.S.
Administration has repeatedly demonstrated how cheaply it values
statements of this sort.
Of course, I would like to hope that the recent statements will not be
empty talk and that they are not a sop to the election situation. Of course,
we will judge whether the United States has serious intentions by its
practical actions.
20
F2iiRD EOM'
.1\
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FPAINIArticrittfliY
Ustinov, election speech (Moskovskaya Pravda, 29 Feb 84)
The Soviet people and all peace-loving forces of the planet are deeply con-
cerned over the complication of the world situation. The cause of this is
the aggressive, imperialist policy of the United States. The United States
is unleashing armed conflicts in different parts of the planet. Imperialism
is striving to liquidate the national liberation and democratic movements
and is interfering openly in the internal affairs of sovereign states by
using armed force, provocations, terror, and subversion.
The United States has launched an unprecedented arms race and is
spending fabulous amounts of money on it. . . .
The deployment of the new U.S. first-strike nuclear missiles (Pershing II
and cruise missiles) in West European countries creates particular alarm
among the world public. These actions by U.S. and NATO leaders have
posed an additional threat to the security of the USSR and its allies and
have made it impossible to continue the Geneva talks on the limitation of
nuclear arms in Europe.
The-Washington Administration is trying to claim that security in Europe
has supposedly become stronger as a result of the deployment of these
missiles. This is a blatant lie. The purpose of such claims is to distract the
world public's attention from the dangerous consequences of the White
House's adventurous course.
Nor do the U.S. Administration's assertions that the new arms are being
deployed because the United States lags behind the USSR in that sphere
correspond with the real state of affairs. They do not correspond with re-
ality in the slightest. Approximate parity in the military-strategic sphere
exists between the USSR and the United States.
Chernenko, election speech (Pravda, 3 Mar 84)
The past few years have seen a dramatic intensification of the policy of
the more aggressive forces of U.S. imperialism, a policy of blatant
militarism, claims to world dominance, resistance to progress, and
violations of the rights and freedom of the peoples. The world has seen
quite a few examples of the practical application of this policy. These in-
cluded the invasion of Lebanon, the occupation of Grenada, the unde-
clared war against Nicaragua, threats to Syria, and finally the turning of
21
CNLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
.rnirTaRTWFV.A.f V
ruh tha-hoint ztz-uNL
West Europe into a launching site for U.S. nuclear missiles targeted at
the USSR and its allies. . .
Far from all the leaders of Western countries and influential political
parties approve the adventurism of the U.S. Administration. It worries a
considerable segment of the U.S. public itself as well. They are realizing
ever more clearly there that the intensive militarization and the aggrava-
tion of the international situation have not brought nor are going to bring
the USA military superiority and political achievements. They only lead
everywhere in the world to the escalation of criticism of Washington's
belligerent course. . . .
? Regrettably, the United States has turned its participation in talks on this
subject into a tool of propaganda to camouflage the arms face and cold
? 'War policy. We will not participate in this game. The Americans created
obstacles to the talks both on "European" and on strategic nuclear
weapons by deploying their missiles in Europe. It is the removal of these
obstacles (which would also remove the need for measures taken in
response) that offers the way to working out a mutually acceptable
accord.
The U.S. Administration has lately begun to make peaceable sounding
statements, urging us to enter into a "dialogue."
Attention was drawn worldwide to the fact ,that these statements are in
sharp conflict with everything that the present United States Administra-
tion has said and, which is the main thing, done and continues doing in its
relations with the Soviet Union. Assurances of its good intentions can be
taken seriously only if they are substantiated with real actions.
Chernenko, speech at dinner for Ethiopian leader Mengistu (Pravda, 30 Mar
84)
In order to camouflage its policy the American Administration is now
? trying in every way to pass itself off as a "lover of peace." However, ev-
eryone can see the real value of such posturing. Recently the Soviet
Union expressed readiness to reach agreement with other nuclear powers
to jointly recognize norms regulating relations between them which
should eventually contribute to the reduction and subsequent liquidation
of nuclear armaments. How did the United States respond to this? I must
say that no reply has come from Washington to this proposal.
- 22
:-.FtIRP,?,;P:RWo.tvgAti's Y
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
F.- FoPEffpps7arittsi v
.?Uil uu .vJii;':1...?q0,?.YL.,.. Vu.
The value of the lofty phrases about U.S. readiness to work for lessening
international tension and to act in a spirit of restraint and nonuse of force
or the threat of force can be clearly seen from the example of Nicaragua,
against which the American special services and their hirelings are
waging an undeclared war. They are committing acts of violence and are
killing peaceful civilians. Does Washington really think that its policy of
state terrorism and intervention in the affairs of sovereign states will be
interpreted as "peacemaking" efforts? It is profoundly erroneous to think
SO.
Chernenko, Pravda interview (9 Apr 84)
[The situation in the world] remains very dangerous. And this is explained
by the U.S. Administration's continued gamble on military force, on the
attainment of military superiority, on the imposition of its order of things
on other peoples. This was confirmed once again by President Reagan's
recent speech at Georgetown University.
Even if sometimes peace-loving rhetoric is heard from Washington, it is
impossible, however hard one tries, to discern behind it even the slightest
signs of readiness to back up these words with practical deeds. . . .
Our contacts with the American side also show that no positive changes
have taken place in the position of the United States on these cardinal
questions [of arms control].
Those who circulate [the idea that the USSR is waiting for the outcome
of the presidential election there] either do not know or, most probably,
deliberately distort our policy. It is a principled policy and is not subject
to transient vacillations.
Throughout the history of Soviet-American relations we have dealt with
various administrations in Washington. In those cases when realism and a
responsible approach to relations with the Soviet Union were shown on
the part of the U.S. leadership, matters, it can be said, proceeded
normally. This had a favorable effect on the general situation in the world
as well, but in the absence of such a realistic approach our relations
worsened accordingly.
23
!AY
, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FOrittir
Statement of the National Olympic Committee of the USSR (TASS, 9 Apr
84)
U.S. President Reagan submitted to the IOC written guarantees of the
U.S. Government's respect for the traditions, rules, and provisions of the
Olympic Charter. Facts show, however, that these obligations and
guarantees are not respected in a number of major matters. The U.S. Ad-
ministration is trying to use the Olympic Games on the eve of the
elections for its selfish political ends.
A large-scale campaign against the Soviet Union's participation in the
Olympic Games has been mounted in the USA. . . . In particular, a
coalition called "Ban the Soviets," enjoying the support of the U.S.
official services, has been set up. Open threats of physical victimization
and provocative actions are made to sportsmen and officials of the USSR
and other socialist countries. Slanderous allegations are being made that
the participation of a Soviet delegation in the Olympic Games would
presumably threaten U.S. security.
Tikhonov, speech to Supreme Soviet (Pravda, 13 Apr 84)
The measures we take to strengthen our defense are a logical response to
the reckless attempts by militarist circles in the United States and other
NATO countries to upset the military-strategic balance. We state that
this will be maintained whatever the conditions. Security?both ours and
that of our friends and allies?will remain reliably safeguarded.
Vladimir Dolgikh, candidate member of the CPSU Central Committee
Politburo, Lenin anniversary speech (Soviet domestic radio, 20 Apr 84)
We . . . now have to conduct our course in the international arena in a
complex and very dangerous situation.
The origins of its sharp exacerbation are to be found in the aggressive pol-
icy of the imperialist circles of NATO, above all the United States.
? Under the flag of the struggle against communism, the present White
House Administration is opposing freedom and progress everywhere. It is
making open claims to world domination. It is waging an unrestrained
arms race that is fraught with the threat of a nuclear conflict. The United
States is declaring more and more areas of the world to be in the sphere
2.4
F giCgaga?aliaLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
F6is
1LY
of its vital interests. It is fanning hotbeds of war and violence. It is
brazenly trampling on the rights of entire peoples. Not confining itself to
blackmail and threats and crude interference in the affairs of sovereign
states, Washington is also resorting to direct aggression. Suffice it to
recall the piratical attack on Grenada, the barbaric actions of the U.S.
brass hats in Lebanon, and the incessant acts of state terrorism against
Nicaragua, against which an undeclared war is in effect being waged. . . .
In the capitalist countries, representatives of very different sections of the
population are jointly participating in a mass antiwar and antimissile
movement that is unprecedented in its breadth. The voice of the
nonaligned movement is making itself heard ever more loudly and
authoritatively in the struggle for peace. Concern at the increase in the
danger of war and, sometimes, criticism of Washington's bellicose course
are also increasing among state and public figures in the West, both in
Europe and in the United States itself. All this shows how deep the roots
of detente are. It makes it possible to hope that it will ultimately be possi-
ble to redirect the current, dangerous course of events toward the
strengthening of peace, limitation of the arms race, and development of
international cooperation. . . .
President Konstantin Chernenko, speech at dinner for Polish leader Jaruzelski
(TASS, 4 May 84)
. . . Those who today are at the helm of government in the United States
declare their intention to conduct external affairs from positions of
strength. . . .
Unprecedented large-scale programs of the arms race, first and foremost
the development and deployment of nuclear weapons, have been put to
the service of this imperial course of achieving military superiority and
imposing one's writ on other nations.
Having gone ahead with the deployment in West Europe of U.S. missiles
aimed at the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, Washington and
those in NATO who follow it unconditionally deliberately frustrated the
process of the limitation and reduction of nuclear armaments by depriv-
ing the talks on both strategic arms and on nuclear arms in Europe of
their subject matter.
R. 1160,v iF urAtitalevis? 0 AN LY
_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FEITOPFIRRIECY
And are not the large-scale programs of militarization of outer space
aimed at promoting the self-same goals of world domination? They are
now discussing these programs in Washington virtually every day and
arrogantly, refusing even to enter into talks with the Soviet Union on this
problem.
The U.S.A. is speeding up the productiononodernization, and stockpiling
of chemical weapons, those abominable means of killing people. To
camouflage its real stand, it had begun deceitful maneuvers at the
Disarmament Conference in Geneva. But if the rhetorical shell of its so-
called "new" proposal on the prohibition of chemical weapons is cast off,
there is an obvious desire to legalize, under the pretext of verification,
U.S. intelligence gathering activity. It is impossible to detect any positive
shifts in the U.S. position on this problem.
There is every reason to state that a similar U.S. policy of military
buildup is distinctly visible in many other areas of the arms race, whether
in nuclear weapons or in armaments referred to as conventional.
All sorts of advertising tricks are being used to cover up the course of con-
ventional buildup. The West's latest proposals at the Vienna talks on the
limitation of armaments and armed forces in Central Europe constitute
just a new packing for the old position, which has already deadlocked
those talks.
In the recent period, mostly after the deployment of new U.S. missiles
started in West Europe, appeals for contacts and talks have begun to be
issued by Washington and some other Western capitals. However,
regrettably, there is nothing concrete behind those appeals. He who could
hope that realism and rationality are making their way here at long last
would be profoundly deceived, which, perhaps, is precisely what the
authors of these appeals would like to happen.
4
The proposals put forward for discussion bristle with so many provisions
and conditions patently unacceptable to the other side as to confirm that
these proposals are not meant for serious, businesslike talks. The Soviet
Union for its part is prepared for dialogue. But we stand for a dialogue
filled with real content. A possibility for the resumption of talks on
nuclear armaments can only be opened if the U.S. side removes the
obstacles raised by it here and restores the previous situation.
finfAlr
cl&LuO
ir
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
rPROMIT-Ntr
t UP
NiY
USSR National Olympic Committee statement (TASS, 8 May 84)
As is known, in its statement of 10 April 1984 the National Olympic
Committee of the USSR voiced serious concern over the rude violations
by the organizers of the games of the rules of the Olympic Charter and
the anti-Soviet campaign launched by the reactionary circles in the
United States with the connivance of the official authorities, and asked
the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to study the obtaining
situation. . . .
Disregarding the opinion of the IOC the United States authorities
continue rudely to interfere in affairs belonging exclusively to the
competence of the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee. It is
known that from the very first days of preparations for the present
Olympics the American Administration has set course at using the games
for its political aims. Chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria
are being whipped up in the country. . . .
In these conditions the National Olympic Committee of the USSR is
compelled to declare that participation of Soviet sportsmen in the games
of the 23d Olympiad in Los Angeles is impossible. To act differently
would be tantamount to approving of the anti-Olympian actions of the
U.S. authorities and organizers of the games. . . .
Ustinov, article (Pravda, 9 May 84)
Imperialist, reactionary circles are trying to ignore the lessons of the past
and are nurturing plans for unleashing new wars and military conflicts.
The aggressiveness and adventurist policy are manifested particularly
blatantly in the actions of the present U.S. Administration. The United
States has proclaimed a "crusade" against socialism in order to abolish it
as a sociopolitical force. To this end, Washington has resolved, come what
may, to break the military-strategic equilibrium and to achieve military
superiority over the USSR and the socialist community. An unprecedent-
edly large-scale arms buildup has been planned for many years ahead,
and nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are being
stockpiled. Washington has embarked on the militarization of space. New
first-strike nuclear missile weapons are being deployed on the territory of
a number of West European states.
.45
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FRRaiaaraEraNLY
The aggressive U.S. actions are also borne out by the fact that it is
thwarting the talks On questions of arms limitation and is refusing to
observe, and indeed is even violating, previously concluded agreements.
Marching along the path of preparation for war, the imperialist circles
are seeking to conceal and camouflage their aggressive policy, by every
means. Various "peacemaking" speeches have recently begun to be
delivered. Their aim is clear?to mislead the peoples of the world with re-
gard to the true intentions of the extreme reactionary U.S. forces and
their stooges.
In an attempt to justify the buildup of military preparations, the United
States is using the myth of the "Soviet military threat," which it
fabricated itself, and is expatiating on the extreme need to defend its
"vital interests" in almost all regions of the world. On these phony
pretexts, it is expanding its military presence many thousands of kilome-
ters from its own territory, seeking any opportunity to aggravate interna-
tional tension, fuel military conflicts, and then, by threatening to use or
by using its own armed forces, is trying to channel them to its own
predatory imperialist purposes. This is confirmed by the rampaging in
Lebanon, the aggression in Grenada, the undeclared war against Nicara-
gua and Afghanistan, the interference in El Salvador's internal affairs,
and the overt threats to Cuba and Syria. Terror and subversive activity
against other states have become a component of the present U.S.
Administration's foreign policy.
The reckless, adventurist actions of imperialist reaction pose a threat to
all mankind. They carry within them the danger that world war and
nuclear catastrophe will be unleashed.
Chernenko, reply to letter from U.S. scientists on weapons in space (Pravda,
20 May 84)
Some people . . . would like to turn space into a bridgehead of aggression
and war. It is clear from U.S. announcements that it plans to deploy anti-
missile weapons in space, give scope to the operation of various sorts of
antisatellite systems, and deploy super-new types of weapons designed for
dealing strikes against targets on land, in the air, and at sea.
The Soviet Union is a firm opponent of competition in the race of any
kind of armaments, including space weapons.
. rivl ? 41r PrIfi,U,
? ?kf.,' u,
E elLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
fl. NLY;is
uuti.
At the same time it should be understood that in the face of a threat from
space the Soviet Union will be forced to take measures in order to
guarantee its security reliably. Calculations that it is possible to lay the
road to military superiority through space are built on illusions. However,
they do not want to give up such calculations and this is fraught with ex-
tremely dangerous consequences. To prevent such a train of events, before
it is too late, is the direct duty of responsible state figures, scientists, of all
who are really concerned for the future of mankind.
The Soviet Union again confirms that it is ready to make maximum
efforts to see that sinister plans for transferring the arms race into space
do not become reality. It is our conviction that a policy aimed at safely
protecting space from the deployment of weapons should be the compul-
sory norm of conduct of states, a universally recognized international
obligation.
We are resolutely against the development of large-scale antimissile
defense systems, which cannot be regarded otherwise than as calculated
for the unpunished implementation of nuclear aggression. There is a
Soviet-American treaty on antimissile defense, without time-limit, ban-
ning the creation of such systems. It must be strictly observed. The
solemn renunciation of the very idea of the deployment in space of
antimissile systems would meet the spirit and letter of this treaty and the
task of ensuring a peaceful status of outer space in the interests of all
mankind. Such a step would be interpreted everywhere in the world as a
manifestation of genuine concern for the peaceful future of mankind.
The matter of banning antisatellite weapons is also urgent. Deployment
of such weapons would result in sharp destabilization of the situation, to
an increased threat of sudden attack, and would undermine the efforts for
ensuring trust between nuclear states.
Gromyko, speech at luncheon for West German Foreign Minister Genscher
(TASS, 21 May 84)
The United States Administration is absolutely clearly banking on
confrontation and arbitrariness in international relations, on breaking up
in its favor the existing military equilibrium.
rpn
iDILY
FOR y
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
(1101COFFIdIALi
Ojet r ,
ti
Now it appears that in the West, too, many have come to realize that the
torpedloing of the talks on nuclear arms in Geneva was programmed in
advance. This was done by those who were bent on one thing?to deploy
at all cost in NATO West European countries their first-strike nuclear
missiles against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. That is
how they exploded the talks. They tried to feign grief at this but nothing
came out of it. Their pretense is too obvious.
They try to cover up their actions with talk like the end of the world has
not come and a "new glacial period" has not set in. But this is a sham, ar-
tificial optimism. Is it not clear that the appearance in Europe of new
American missiles has drastically aggravated the nuclear threat. And this
threat continues to grow with every new missile that is being deployed, in-
cluding on the territory of the FRG.
Chernenko, remarks to West German Foreign Minister Genscher (Soviet
domestic radio, 22 May 84)
During the talk, Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko reaffirmed the invari-
ability of the USSR's course for guaranteeing peace, curbing the arms
race, and averting a nuclear catastrophe. He drew attention to the serious
growth of the danger of war, especially following the emergence in West
Europe?including the territory of the FRG?of new U.S. first-strike
missiles. In connection with this, it was stressed that if the United States
and NATO continue to step up the nuclear threat, adequate countermea-
sures will steadfastly be implemented by the Soviet Union and its allies.
They will not permit any military superiority over themselves. However,
building up the military confrontation is not of our choosing.
. The USSR is in favor of radical limitation and reduction ?of nuclear
weapons in accordance with the principle of equality and identical
security. . . .
It is the Soviet Union that advocates meaningful dialogue and puts
forward specific proposals aimed at reaching practical agreements. The
U.S. Administration is aware of the Soviet proposals. The USSR
proposes to the United States, in particular, that negotiations should be
started on preventing the militarization of space, and that the negotia-
tions on a total and universal ban of nuclear weapons tests should be re-
sumed, with the participation of Britain.
? Figi 6r ONLY
LOALiiiltf
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
17'mFF qtrIYONLY
..1?1 g Judri .
We have called upon the United States to bring into force, finally, the So-
viet-U.S. treaties of 1974 and 1976 on limiting underground nuclear
explosions. The USSR also persistently raises the question of a mutual
freeze on nuclear arsenals. A negative answer is invariably given to all
these proposals by the American side. In other words, Washington is not
interested in negotiating. The usefulness of dialogue is discussed there
only in general terms, nothing more.
Editorial article on U.S. chemical weapons convention proposal (Pravda,
27 May 84)
The Soviet Union has . . . made considerable efforts to secure progress in
resolving the tasks of banning chemical weapons within the framework of
multilateral forums?the United Nations and the Geneva Disarmament
Committee. The document "Fundamental Provisions of a Convention on
the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of
Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction" submitted by the Soviet
Union in the summer of 1982 took account of the viewpoints of many oth-
er states. This document, which received a broad positive assessment, 1
provided an opportunity to achieve a speedy mutually acceptable accord
on banning chemical weapons and establishing reliable verification of its
observance. In February this year the Soviet Union made yet another
important step, proposing the establishment of permanent monitoring of
the process of the destruction of chemical weapons.
The United States has a different approach. Having made extensive use
of toxins in the Vietnam war, the United States continues even today to
allocate this means of mass destruction an important place in its
aggressive military plans. It took the United States over 50 years to
accede to the Geneva protocol. While being compelled to participate in
multilateral talks on banning chemical weapons, it nevertheless dodges
the reaching of an accord in every way, often retreats from its own
positions, and complicates the solution of already complex questions. . . .
For several months extensively publicized statements were made in the
U.S. capital that the United States would be submitting "constructive
proposals" on banning chemical weapons to the Geneva Disarmament
Conference. But when the United States presented its much-publicized
draft convention it immediately became clear how far removed it was
from promoting the achievement of an accord. Moreover, any unpreju-
diced person familiarizing himself with the American draft convention is
PTA"
31
dwAIL
ENONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
left in no doubt that it is compiled in such a way as to make it deliberately
unacceptable to all who are interested in seeing that there is no room on
earth for chemical weapons.
This applies primarily to the verification provisions contained in the
American draft. The verification system it envisages would,mean in
practice free access for verification officials to any chemical enterprises
irrespective of whether they have anything to do with the production or
storage of chemical weapons.
Gromyko, speech during visit by Australian Foreign Minister Hayden (TASS,
29 May 84)
Peoples of the Soviet Union and Australia, who fought against the
common enemy in the years of World War II, want to live in peace, and
peace is the main achievement of mankind. Our meeting gives us an
opportunity to compare the positions of the Soviet Union and Australia on
international problems, to exchange views on possible ways of alleviating
the dangerous tension existing now in the world. To this we are prompted
by all mankind's worry for its future, for its very existence which has nev-
er before been subjected to such a serious threat.
What are the reasons for this situation? They lie in the imperial,
hegemonist course of the USA in world affairs, its stake on the
acquisition of military superiority. That is the policy proclaimed in
Washington, that is the policy made there. All over the world more and
more people whose convictions are often different from ours come to
realize where the danger of war has built its nest, from where it threatens
peace. In these circumstances the Soviet Union considers it to be its duty
to take all necessary response measures of a defensive nature. No more
than that but no less either.
32
17AL 'UR ONLY
F E
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
0
rAJW:10,
"
..:A?.9
Midlevel and Routine Media Commentary
Oleg Anichkin, CPSU Central Committee official (Soviet domestic radio,
14 Nov 80)
Reagan is in favor of stepping up American military might and the
achievement of U.S. military supremacy.. . .
At the same time his advisers direct attention to such points. The nearer
Reagan has approached the White House, the more moderate have been
his enunciations. One can suppose that this process will continue.
Georgiy Arbatov, director of the USA and Canada Institute (Soviet television,
29 Nov 80)
It has become clear in any case that both Reagan and many in his
entourage have come to some serious conclusions during the course of this
campaign. The shift to the center has begun. This is generally typical of
U.S. political life. Whichever candidate stands away from the center will
shift. If he is left of center, he will drift to the right. If he is right of cen-
ter, he will drift slightly to the left remaining at some distance, but even
so will approach the center. Reagan is a rather experienced man in this
respect. I would like to say that I have heard and read in the foreign press
that as a film actor he is a man without much experience. However, it is
difficult to judge from the past. There were excellent presidents who were
former loggers. . . .
The fact itself that moderate statements are made seems important to me,
because quite a few obstacles were left over from the election campaign.
This certainly does not mean that we will be rancorous and will not let
anything pass, including what was said in the heat of the election
struggle. We have already said publicly that we will not act like that.
However, even words are deeds to a certain extent at present, because
they influence atmosphere and climate. Atmosphere and climate are
rather important in politics and any beginnings depend on them.
Aleksandr Bovin, Izvestiya political observer and reputed adviser to Presidents
Brezhnev and Andropov (Soviet domestic radio, 7 Dec 80)
Reagan, of course, realizes that he cannot get away from continuing talks
with the Soviet Union. But, by all accounts, it seems to me, in general,
.RTZ LTA LV
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
[e-mail](PLONLY
la
that a harder line U.S. policy is at hand, particularly where it concerns,
for example, the problems of disarmament and military detente. It seems
to me that soon we will have to confront a harder line of this kind and
preparations for this should be made, although in general I do not exclude
the possibility that after a while everything may return to the beaten
track, as we say.
Vitaliy Kobysh, CPSU Central Committee official (Literaturnaya Gazeta,
1 Jan 81)
Reagan, with his reputation for being a politician belonging to the
extreme right wing of the Republican Party, has formed his cabinet from
people of basically moderate views. . . .
When "taking over," every new administration strives to show that it is
different from the previous one and that its policy will meet the country's
interests to a greater degree. Statements by Reagan and some of his
closest assistants indicate that? they consider the status to which the
Carter-Brzezinski administration has reduced Soviet-U.S. relations to be
abnormal and that they see the normalization of these relations as the
next U.S. Government's foremost priority. At the same time they stress
that they will pursue a "tough policy"; in other words, they will act from
a "position of strength." We will see how all this will appear in practice.
TASS report on President Reagan's 29 January press conference (Pravda,
31 Jan 81)
Referring to the Soviet Union's policy, the U.S. President permitted a
number of premeditated distortions in his assessment of the aims and
character of the USSR's international activities. He said, in particular,
that up to now detente has been a one-way street which the Soviet Union
has used for the achievement of its own aims, and that detente is more fa-
vorable to the Soviet Union than to the United States. . . .
In an unworthy manner Reagan went on to talk about some sort of
insidiousness in the Soviet Union's policy which allegedly aims to
establish a worldwide socialist or communist state. . . .
Concerning one of the important problems, the SALT II treaty, the
President committed obvious distortions of the treaty's essence.
F LY
NI Iry
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FOR FER@Kut, Lfre,?1,1g
Anichkin (Soviet domestic radio, 6 Feb 81)
On the whole President Reagan [at his press conference on 29 January]
said nothing new in comparison with what he said during the election
campaign. He attributed to the Soviet Union designs to establish world
domination and to set up a worldwide socialist or communist state. Then
he declared that the Soviet Union is using detente for its own ends and
has allegedly turned it into a one-way street. All of this is untrue. . . .
It is one thing when minor politicians are talking in this spirit; it is
another when such words are being pronounced by the President. After
all, it is a question of the deliberate distortion of Soviet policy. . . .
In the words of The Washington Post, Reagan had adopted a tone which
is very strikingly different from the Republican and Democratic adminis-
trations of the 60's and 70's. The President, the same newspaper writes,
spoke of the Soviet Union in terms that recall the most difficult times of
the cold war.
"I. Aleksandrov," pseudonym used in officially inspired articles (Pravda,
25 Mar 81)
Regretfully, from their very first public statements and 'practical steps the
leaders of the new U.S. Government appear to be bent not on rectifying
but on multiplying the errors of the previous administration, on facilitat-
ing not a lessening of international tension but its growth. . . .
The leaders of the Washington Administration and some hawkish
lawmakers are now engaged in a competition of belligerent phraseology,
are trying to outdo one another by the hugeness of military programs.
Bovin (Soviet television, 29 Mar 81)
I now think that the essential outlines of the new foreign policy course, of
Reagan's foreign policy, have now become sufficiently visible. It is a
harsh, conservative, power policy, it is a policy whose cornerstone
comprises extremely primitive anticommunist concepts. In general the
views of Reagan and his supporters on world developments are extremely
simple: Anything they do not like, anything that is contrary to the
interests of imperialism, they say is all the result of the insidious actions
of the Soviet Union. From this primitive package a simple conclusion is
p Flf".
0,0?"9,vhost8,421.1JELy
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
drawn: The time for playing at detente is over, it is necessary to rearm
immediately, it is necessary to strive for military strategic superiority
over the Soviet Union, and on this basis impose the will of America the
Great on the whole world.
Well, this is approximately the philosophy. Let us now examine the
practice. We all know that during the past decade, let us say, despite all
the difficulties and complexities, between the Soviet Union and the
United States there became established a fairly well-developed structure
of mutual relations which was formulated in dozens of different agree-
ments. Now the new Administration is beginning to break up this
structure and deal a mean blow to its foundation, the process of strategic
arms limitation.
Arbatov (Pravda, 4 May 81)
Most observers agree that, even by late April, no in any way coherent
U.S. foreign policy has emerged?at any rate when it comes to actions.
There have been plenty of words and rhetoric?so much that the
Administration itself has more than once had to backpedal. But can
words and rhetoric be regarded as policy?
They probably can be, in some respects.
First of all, they can shed light on political views and intentions. In this
light the "noises" from Washington are almost unambiguous: They
indicate a desire to accelerate the arms race in every possible way and to
secure military superiority, a wish to switch relations with the USSR and
the other socialist countries onto the road of confrontation and power
struggle, to rule according to whim the fate of the countries that have lib-
erated themselves from colonialism, to dictate unceremoniously to the
allies. The very fact that the people who have come to power in the
United States talk at length and insistently of these desires and intentions
cannot be left out of account. The fact must be viewed as an objective re-
ality. But another fact remains no less a reality?the fact that intentions
and wishes alone are not enough to constitute a policy. Politics has been
and will remain the art of the possible. And the possibilities, the realities
of the modern world certainly do not leave a great deal of room for the
imperial ambitions which people in Washington are today going on about
with new force.
36
FOR gfr4tiirA EMPTNLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
(1; er:11
rv? e tEitme4 t
_ ?ONLY
a
The question whether the new U.S. Administration has formulated its
foreign policy should be left open, I think. Some may hope that it has not
been formulated yet, others may think differently. It is clear, however,
that the continuation of the existing situation would itself pose grave
dangers, particularly the attempts to transform bombastic propaganda
slogans into practical policy premises. All this is dangerous not only for
other countries but also for the United States itself and for its national in-
terests, which need more than ever before a realistic, sober analysis.
Leonid Zamyatin, chief of the CPSU Central Committee
Information Department (Soviet television, 16 May 81)
On many questions the foreign policy concept of the
Administration has already been formulated. . . .
International
new Reagan
On the basis of speeches, although at times you could say they are quite
saturated with anti-Soviet rhetoric, and on the basis of documents which
have already been published, it can be definitely concluded that the new
U.S. Administration has chosen a sharp whipping up of the arms race as
its course. The new Administration considers that opposition to the Soviet
Union?as its leaders, the leaders of the United States, say?in the
economic, political, and other fields is its main foreign policy concept.
Besides, they maintain that this opposition must be on a global scale.
Reagan recently said: I do not wish to live in a world where the Soviet
Union is first. What does this mean? If these words of Reagan's are
translated into another language?into the language of politics from
everyday language?this means that the United States has chosen
military supremacy over the Soviet Union as its political concept; that it
is rejecting the policy of peaceful coexistence, the policy of detente; and
that it is making a stake on sharply raising the military presence of the
United States in various parts of the world, including along the perimeter
of Soviet borders. It is also attempting, by increasing its military
potential, to put pressure on the Soviet Union.
Arbatov (Soviet television, 31 Oct 81)
If we are to speak about American policy, then of course we can say that
the most extremist views have prevailed in the question of military
spending, and generally in American behavior in the international arena.
Well, of course, many say that maybe these people bark more than they
37
rafUrariTROS
a Li.
"ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
bite. It is still difficult and too early to judge. But they do in fact bark a
lot, and a lot of militaristic talk can be heard coming from Washington
every day. This is not just talk. There are military appropriation decisions
on military programs, certain U.S. positions and actions on various
continents, and interference into the affairs of a number of countries?all
of this has become a, reality. Therefore, we are undoubtedly seeing a
period which gives cause to remember the cold war and to suspect that
quite a lot has been done to sweep aside all the positive things that were
accumulated at the expense of great labor in international relations and
thus a big step has been taken toward a cold war. . . .
So things in the economy are not turning out quite the way the President
figured, and to a certain extent this can be a limiting factor for many far-
reaching American plans. . . .
All of these realities are just beginning to appear?after all this
government has not been in power very long?and these political and
social mechanisms, which demand some kind of accommodation on the
part of the Administration, have just been set in motion.
Of course, there are people there who . . . it is difficult to imagine that
they can reform. But overall?and we have seen this in history more than
once?even the most conservative politicians have been sufficiently
pragmatic in understanding what can be done and what cannot be
done. . . .
Even in America, they are beginning to somehow understand that the
question is becoming extremely acute, that some kind of reaction to it is
necessary, that in Europe and the world as a whole?and even in the
United States, as a matter of fact?some sentiments are appearing.
Bovin (Soviet domestic radio, 29 Nov 81)
In fact, what did this Reagan speech of 18 November mean? Does it, to
some degree. . . signify a reassessment of the U.S. position, or . . . is it an
attempt to gain a political alibi with respect to the pressures being exerted
by America's allies in Europe? As for which of these elements was more
evident in the speech, this is an open question both for us and for Europe.
We will find out when the talks begin.
'Fcci.giotauzi.OHLT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
-
? F 'Fr Cdi-fl CRY
Nikolay Shishlin, CPSU Central Committee official (Soviet television, 5 Dec
81) ?
Regarding the fact of an alteration in the U.S. foreign policy course
taking place, an alteration in the U.S. foreign policy course beginning to
become perceptible?this is true. . . . It seems that in this respect in
particular we are right in talking neither of a cosmetic operation nor of a
break with past policies, but rather of a certain alteration in course, a cer-
tain adaptation of American policies to reality.
Bovin (Soviet domestic radio, 20 Dec 81)
One of the main problems for Europe at the moment is the problem of the
so-called Eurostrategic weapons. . . . One can view these [INF] talks in
different ways. On the one hand, the talks have a specific object?
medium-range weapons. But their principal significance is the fact that
after a whole year of agitation and alarm and hysterical kinds of
statements by Washington, generally speaking things there are quietly
beginning to stabilize.
0 TASS report on U.S. sanctions after the imposition of martial law in Poland
(Pravda, 30 Dec 81)
The U.S. Administration has taken a provocative step the purpose of
which is to poison the international climate even more, to exacerbate
tensions, to worsen confrontation and toughen the militarist foreign policy
course. . . .
President R. Reagan has published a statement, announcing the introduc-
tion of a whole number of unilateral discriminatory measures with regard
to the Soviet Union, ranging from a suspension of Aeroflot service to the
USA to a review of bilateral Soviet-U.S. agreements in trade and
scientific-technical cooperation, agreements signed by the Government of
the United States.
To justify this crude diktat with regard to a sovereign state unprecedent-
ed and absolutely inadmissible in universally accepted international
practice, the head of the U.S. Administration has resorted to direct
forgery and lies, maintaining that the Soviet Union allegedly "interfered"
in Polish affairs and bears "direct responsibility" for the situation in
Poland.
9
'On El isir
LoftipilitAls tyONLT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FIUSE
ti oL,
Arbatov (Pravda, 1 Jan 82)
1LY
"Seeking a crisis" is precisely how Washington's stance regarding 'Poland
? can .be described. . . . Attempts are being made to "internationalize" the
crisis and to exploit the events to still further exacerbate the international
situation and relations with the USSR in particular.
The question naturally arises of the true motives and true aims of the
campaign unleashed by the United States over the events in Poland. . . .
I want immediately to stipulate that in mentioning the present leaders, I
mean not only the President and his most influential ministers but also a
broader stratum of the Washington bureaucracy, above all the stratum
comprising the deputy and assistant cabinet members, the President's
chief advisers and entourage, the heads of a number of departments, and
so forth. . . . And with the utmost responsibility I would venture to claim
that as a group, this "second echelon" is in considerable part composed of
extremists representing the far right wing, extreme militarist flank of the
U.S. ruling class. . . . A whole series of conclusions can be derived from
all that is known of these people. One is that they are people who rose to
prominence on a wave of crisis and feel like 'fish out of water outside a
crisis. . . .
? A certain circle of American figures now needs a crisis as a condition of
its political success, even political survival. And it is apparently prepared
to go to any lengths for the sake of that.
Aleksandr Kaverznev, Soviet television political observer (Hungarian domestic
radio, 18 Feb 82)
We are of the opinion that the coming years will be difficult. In the begin-
ning, when the Reagan Administration came to power in the United
States, we had certain hopes that the President would not implement the
policy he announced during his election campaign. We hoped that life
would oblige him to see many things in a different way. But now we are
forced to conclude that for the entire duration of the Reagan Administra-
tion we can hardly expect a different U.S. policy.
F.
40 ,
'il-rYkriP4S4
Ly
L Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
(( Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
L.t
st, ONLY
Shishlin (Soviet domestic radio, 11 Apr 82)
Reagan, it must be said, has garnished these rather bellicose statements
with the somewhat curious assertion that he, the President of the United
States, is willing to meet Leonid Ilich Brezhnev in the summer at the sec-
ond special session of the UN General Assembly ,on disarmament. And
there is a rather strange contradiction here. Actually, the idea of a
summit meeting?a Soviet-American summit meeting?was proposed
over one year ago from the platform of the 26th party congress. In that
time, the Soviet Union has covered a considerable part of the distance to-
ward finding ground for mutually acceptable solutions in the interests of
improving Soviet-American,relations. We saw nothing of the kind from
the American side. And now into the midst of these rather definite
statements, which can only be called militaristic, he inserts the claim that
he is ready for a Soviet-American summit meeting.
Ernst Genri, prominent journalist (Literaturnaya Gazeta, 14 Jul 82)
Consequently, has the failure of Hitler's blitzkrieg against the USSR
taught the U.S. militarists nothing? By all accounts, this is exactly the
case and must be taken into account. It is not hard to understand what is
guiding the Pentagon's thinkers.
They are not taking the failure of the Hitlerite adventure into account
simply because there has been a revolution in military hardware since
then. It is now proposed to deliver a surprise strike against the USSR not
by means of tanks and conventional aircraft, but by nuclear missiles and
other "super weapons" which can fly thousands of kilometers in a few
minutes.
Arbatov (Pravda, 16 Jul 82)
U.S. policy would be good to the extent to which it is not allowed to be
bad, safe (not only for us but also for America itself and its allies) to the
extent to which it is not allowed to become dangerous. It will not be al-
lowed to evolve in those directions by economic and political realities, by
the policies of other countries, by the Americans' common sense and by
the striving of the peoples for self-preservation. I hope that these factors
will be enough for the continued political processes to bolster the realistic
principles and to return American policy to an understanding of not only
the existing contradictions but also of very serious and vitally important
UPE ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
-FRIFFICA112-2'.0 EY
common interests, the interests of peace and survival, which require not
only talks but also agreements as well as the overall improvement of
relations between the two countries. What if this does not come to pass? I
personally would find solace in the thought that a time will come and it
will be possible to say: It is not with this Administration that history be-
gan, and it is not with it that it has ended.
Vadim Zagladin, first deputy chief of the CPSU Central Committee Interna-
tional Department (Czechoslovak domestic radio, 30 Jul 82)
Reagan and his Administration?and I deliberately do not say the United
States since there are various internal groupings?Reagan and his
Administration represent that part of the capitalist world of monopoly
capital, which is convinced that the solution of questions of the future, of
problems of mutual relations between the two systems, can be achieved
only by means of force. Circles currently in the leadership of a substantial
part of European countries take a completely different viewpoint. It is not
easy for them but they give preference to a peaceful development of
relations and to solving questions by competition in a peaceful
atmosphere. . . .
Extreme views exist; there are people who say that the situation is so com-
plex and difficult that there is no way out, that only the worst can be ex-
pected, that we are on the very threshold of war. That of course is an ex-
treme view and is incorrect because there are a number of positive
factors; the head-on struggle and existing equilibrium of forces is a
guarantee that we can advance and not allow imperialism to realize its
plans.
On the other hand there are some people who say that there have been all
kinds of crises; this will pass, too. We are strong; we have the strength of
the Soviet Union, the strength of the socialist countries; it will all pass of
its own accord. It will not pass of its own accord; of course that, too, is
incorrect.
Yes, without doubt we are capable of defending ourselves, of rebuffing
the imperialist wave, but that depends on us, on the situation of our
countries and in our countries, on the unity of our countries and their
joint activity in the international arena.
r FBRra, A8114211.0u1sEREFINI
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Efl
4eit
Bovin (Izvestiya, 6 Aug 82)
In general it is hard to deal with the Americans now. They dissemble,
twist and turn, say one thing and do another. They have many ambitions
and a great deal of self-esteem. They have little responsibility. But what
can you do? We do not choose our partners, they are given us by destiny,
by history. We have to talk and negotiate with them although, to be
frank, I do not believe that any serious agreement can be reached with
the Americans as long as Reagan is in the White House.
Vladimir Ostrogorskiy, commentator (Moscow radio in German, 22 Aug 82)
If Reagan knew history better and made its lessons his own, he would not
harbor any illusions, since there were people before him who, like Hitler,
had a special liking for using the miraculous weapon of inflammatory
propaganda on the air. It is typical for aspirants to world domination to
rely on miraculous weapons. It is, however, well known how they usually
have ended.
Bovin (Izvestiya, 5 Nov 82)
Now let us allow the skeptic to have his say. He is bound to ask: Are we
not overestimating our own strength? Can international security and
international cooperation seriously be expected when the world is divided
into opposing sociopolitical systems? Is the "Reagan phenomenon" an
accident? The questions are not farfetched. The difficulties are indeed
huge. Militarism and aggressiveness are inherent in imperialism. We do
not choose our partners; fate, history hands them to us.
All that is true. Nonetheless, the hope is realistic. The hope is realistic be-
cause the forces advocating that detente get a "second wind" represent a
real, weighty factor in world politics. The Soviet Union is a mighty power.
People across the Atlantic cannot help but take this into account?
whatever team is assembled in the White House, it is still not a suicide
team. The socialist community and the communist and workers' parties
are with us. Dozens of nonaligned states advocate detente and disarma-
ment and oppose the division of the world into military-political blocs.
The antinuclear, antiwar movement is gaining unprecedented scope and
its social and political spectrum is becoming increasingly broad. . . .
43 ? ?
rFiST
'? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
"Flirts&
I repeat, we would like to reach agreement, even with Reagan. What if
this does not happen? We will wait.
Shishlin (Soviet domestic radio, 21 Nov 82)
Actions for the benefit of peace would carry a lot more weight than
conciliatory words. If we were to see a real shift in the American position
at the talks that are being held on strategic armaments, on European ar-
maments, on conventional armaments in Central Europe?that would
surely be more substantial than the words spoken by the American
statesmen. So the situation remains pretty difficult. . . .
Pravda editorial (Pravda, 21 Nov 82)
Judging by international reactions, Andropov's meetings with foreign
delegations gave new impetus to people's hopes for the maintenance and
development of the detente process. The Soviet Union is always ready for
honest, equal, and mutually advantageous cooperation with any state
which wishes it, particularly with the United States. Normal, or better
still, friendly Soviet-American relations would accord with the interests
of both peoples and of world peace.
Gennadiy Gerasimov, Novosti deputy chairman (Soviet television, 28 Nov 82)
The events of the last weeks in Moscow, by the very nature of things,
have caused a certain pause in international relations. The world has been
watching Moscow to see what will happen and, in its turn, Moscow has
been watching the world attentively, too. American Senator Robert Dole,
a prominent figure in the Republican Party?Reagan's party?has been
in Moscow during these days. He stated that he observes an advancement
by the Reagan Administration toward a new beginning?that is how he
expressed himself. Some observers have begun cautiously seeking signs of
a thaw, even a weak one, in American-Soviet relations.
Arbatov, speech to U.S. trade delegation (Literaturnaya Gazeta, 8 Dec 82)
In the last few days many people's hopes regarding the prospects of
Soviet-American relations have revived. The dramatic nature of the
moment, when events are prompting reflection on the most serious
problems perturbing people, may even have helped in a way. . . .
44
af l'EF4SPIFYCLIV
%sR 411 E 2\1 u
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
r.rec trefroq$Em ,istortimg v ?
rutii tAIL
Something seems to be beginning to change for the better. Something has
happened and something positive too. I think it is a good thing that
ASTEC has met. It seems to me that it is an important event and shows,
that 'many Americans (and Soviet people, too, of course) understand the
fundamental interests of their countries and "gas for pipes" deal. We
assessed positively the American leaders' expression of condolences on the
death of Leonid Ilich Brezhnev and the fact that the U.S. President
personally visited the Soviet Embassy and sent the U.S. vice president
and secretary of state to Moscow. We have carefully followed the words
spoken in this connection, and the positive [khoroshiyel words we have
greeted positively.
But if I were asked if I could assess these facts as evidence of the
abandonment by the United States of a policy that in our country?I
must be frank with you?is seen as a policy of cold war and as a course of
a headlong arms race and of unbounded?mortal, as the saying goes?en-
mity? [sentence as published] Or is what has happened in the last few
days merely a maneuver aimed at reassuring the public at large and the
allies so that they do not prevent this policy of total enmity from being
pursued in the future? If I were asked those questions, I would honestly
say that as yet I have no answer.
Bovin (Soviet television, 30 Dec 82)
It is difficult to escape the impression that the opponents of detente in
Washington are gradually beginning to give ground. I would even risk
making the following conclusion: The isolation of Reagan and his policy is
growing both within the United States and outside it. Evidently, we can
assume that this will force the White House to intensify its maneuvering.
But at the moment it is difficult to say whether this will affect the essence
of the foreign policy course or only its form, as has already been the case.
Commentators Aleksandr Korshunov and Oleg Blinov (Soviet domestic radio,
12 Jan 83)
At the end of his [latest radio] speech, Reagan stated the readiness of the
United States?and I quote?to sit down at the conference table with the
Russians to discuss practical measures capable of resolving the problems
and leading to a more durable and genuine improvement of relations
between East and West. If this is really so, then one can only welcome the
U.S. President's utterances. The Soviet Union believes that the path
45
tT,"7 Ell
r..
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FEIRWI
R AIZZYCLY .
, toward mutual talks is open and that our two countries could make an im-
portant contribution to the cause of creating a climate of mutual trust,
mutual understanding and cooperation in the world.
Valentin Zorin, Soviet television political observer (Moscow radio [in English]
to North America, 3 Apr 83)
But the leaders in Washington are not only rude and tactless in their po-
litical styles, they also break another unwritten rule of statesmanship. It
is unfortunate when the mass media juggles with facts but it is
inexcusable when leaders in positions of utmost responsibility resort to
overt lies. There have been many instances when the current leaders in
Washington have flagrantly distorted the truth and deliberately lied to
the public. That was the case in the most recent statements made by Pres-
ident Reagan about Soviet policy.
Kobysh (Literaturnaya Gazeta, 6 Apr 83)
[In his] 1 April speech and in previous speeches, R. Reagan cast aside all
Easter rhetoric and explained quite clearly and bluntly that the Adminis-
tration that he heads, far from intending to renounce its military
preparations on a monstrous scale and its hegemonist aggressive course,
actually contemplates something still more sinister. Playing with words,
he presented to the public in the guise of "ABM defense" the announce-
ment that the United States is embarking on the implementation of a vast
new, purely aggressive program of military preparations, mainly covering
space. This announcement was further evidence that the present U.S.
Government is not simply preparing for nuclear war, but has set a course
toward unleashing such a war.
Valentin Falin, Izvestiya political observer (Izvestiya, 14 Aug 83)
And what does the U.S. leadership think now? It links the maintenance
of peace between our states to the United States' acquisition of military
superiority in addition to the USSR's renunciation of a socialist social
system. In other words, the Soviet Union must learn to be at the United
States' beck and call or it will only have itself to blame. It is perfectly ob-
vious that this view has nothing in common with the "Basic Principles of
Mutual Relations between the USSR and the United States" which the
U.S. leader sealed with his signature in May 1972. . . .
46
NaRugem.rsomyolly
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
rgrg
L,itkReer44ilYtILS.EL
True, for some time now representatives of the present administration
have been going in for soft-pedaling. They have been transforming R.
Reagan from a dashing mindless horseman into a soft-hearted "peace
champion." A broad stream of misinformation is being broadcast in
which they want to whitewash the U.S. stance at the talks on nuclear
arms in Europe and on strategic arms limitation and reduction.
Arkadiy Sakhnin (Literaturnaya Gazeta, 5 Oct 83)
Under pressure from the peoples, imperialism seemed to accept the
incipient detente. But it could not keep it up. What do you mean,
detente?! So much power! Must rule the world!
A familiar turn. We heard it from the madman [Hitler]. It was also heard
by a smart master of ceremonies, an actor from the "General Electric
Theater" television program. He was advertising washing machines and
detergents. He got it into his head: A career can be built around this tune.
He selected the words to the tune and rehearsed the pose of sovereign. He
uttered: "I will not end the ideological 'drama.'" Those who writhe with
pain at the sound of the word "peace" liked the pose. They liked the
words, too. They decided to give it a try and brought the actor in for a
test. They hauled him off the theatrical and onto the political stage. On
the small stage, to start with. The familiar tune sounded louder, the
words more threatening. The test was successful. On to the big stage.
This is how the second plenipotentiary of imperialism to lay a claim to
world - domination appeared on earth in our days. He picked a team
worthy of himself and settled into the White House.
Today the Second Pretender holds in his hands not a bomb but a nuclear
missile. He is waving it about on land, on the water, under the water, and
in the sky, and is carrying it into space. . . .
Take the plugs out of your ears, Reagan. Time to think about God. That
is what religious people would say. But we are realists: Think about
Nuremberg.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FOtil7rper,nRgg
Oa y
Aleksandr Yakovlev, director of the World Economics and International
Relations Institute (lzvestiya, 7 Oct 83)
There can be no doubt that the current U.S. President is exerting an ex-
tremely destructive influence on the international situation. His personal
contribution to bringing the danger of war closer is great, and he bears
the responsibility for the very rapid demolition of the structure of
international cooperation built by the efforts of many countries on the
platform of deepening and strengthening peace. . . .
As the Los Angeles Times notes, Reagan does not have an inquiring
mind. Eyewitnesses invariably stress that he has more horses in his
stables than books in his library. He believes in flying saucers, assiduous-
ly reads horoscopes, and believes in the actions of secret evil spirits.
Aleksey Leontyev, Krasnaya Zvezda commentator (Krasnaya Zvezda, 15 Oct
83)
In an attempt to somehow justify their adopted course of war prepara-
tions, the new aspirants to world domination?in that sense too the heirs
of the raving Fuehrer?excel in slander against the Soviet Union and
resort virtually to foul-mouthed abuse alternating with hypocritical
homilies about morality and human rights, with the White House
incumbent himself setting the tone.
If we are to believe Reagan, America is ruled by "the most noble," "the
most magnanimous," and "the most philanthropic" gentlemen. But there
is no mention of the fact that each of these gentlemen possesses heaps of
dollars in his bank account, acquired from the drudgery of modern-day
slaves, taken from widows and orphans, and collected from the corpses of
soldiers who have perished in the dirty wars and criminal adventures of
the United States.
Bovin (Otechestven Front, 1 Dec 83)
When the Americans agreed to detente and when they held constructive
talks with us, this was an attempt to adapt their policy to the changes in
life and in the world that had emerged. Now the reverse process is
occurring?Reagan is trying to adapt the whole world to the interests of
the United States as he understands them. Such an approach, however,
again undermines the realistic basis for any constructive agreements.
Evidence of this is the failure of the Geneva talks.
48
rortilrrrIng,fil
'tt.....!! PARAW nueLIT I 1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
o
V.41* F7y
The dominance of a conservative, reactionary, and archaic ideology in the
United States, an ideology which is being transformed to politics, is the
main obstacle for regulating disputed problems. I think that Reagan
cannot change himself. . . . Since Reagan will probably stay in the White
House for another four years, it is my belief that for that period of time
we will not succeed in reaching an agreement on anything meaningful.
We will, of course, conduct negotiations, we will try to sign agreements
and we will probably even succeed somewhere on the political fringes.
However, I think that concerning the main and basic issues we will have
to face a game of nerves, confrontation, and conflicts for another four
years. This is not a very optimistic prospect. I would very much like to be
wrong but I can draw no other conclusion at present.
Fedor Burlatskiy, Literaturnaya Gazeta political observer and CPSU Central
Committee official (Literaturnaya Gazeta, 4 Jan 84)
It is impossible to deny that a serious turnabout occurred in U.S.
geopolitics on the threshold of the eighties, or that the United States has
completely rejected the very idea of detente and has embarked on the
path of global confrontation with the Soviet Union. . .
It is well known that this shift is basically linked with the arrival of Presi-
dent Reagan in the White House, a man with extremely reactionary
views representing the interests of the "iron triangle"?the military
business, the Pentagon, and the militarist wing in the U.S. Congress. . . .
? [Whether the present militarist course in the United States is irreversible]
is a very complicated question. Much depends on whether R. Reagan
manages to win the forthcoming U.S. election in the fall of 1984. Much
also depends on the correlation of forces within the framework of the U.S.
economic and political elite and on public opinion in that country.
R. Reagan is hastening to consolidate the basic foundations of militarism
for the future. He is inflating the military budget and planning programs
for new types of weapons. Nonetheless, political forces in the United
States and the U.S. people still have not had their final say. I am
convinced that ordinary people in the United States fear thermonuclear
war no less than other people in the world.
49 . ?fir.10.
r"r"Zilif*,,.rOVe I.
g
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
TASS report on President Reagan's State of the Union Address (TASS,
26 Jan 84)
President Ronald Reagan made a traditional "State of the Union"
address to a joint meeting of the two houses of Congress. His statement,
made in a spirit of electioneering, was an attempt to picture in a favorable
light the results of his three-year rule and justify his policy, marked by
extreme aggressiveness in the international field and total disregard for
the needs of the common people in the home policy field.
The foreign policy section of the President's State of the Union address
was notable for demagogy and hypocrisy. The President was trying to
justify his militaristic policy by claiming that "the United States is safer
. . . and more secure in 1984 than before", albeit, in real fact, the threat
to general security, including to the security of the United States itself,
has increased. And the leaders of the United States bear all responsibility
for such a turn of events.
Ii
1
1
Yuriy Kornilov TASS commentator (TASS, 30 Jan 84)
1
The U.S. Administration speaks a great deal about "the need of a 0
dialogue." Yet, it deadlocks, disrupts, and blocks all the talks on the
problems of curbing the arms race. . . .
Our hands are clean, and we have never been aggressors, U.S. President
R. Reagan pointed out recently at the Congress in the State of the Union
message. This is an obvious lie. In the past six years alone the U.S.
Administration resorted to armed actions or the threat of force against
other states 38 times. . . .
The thing is that from whatever point of view we assess the situation, it is
more than obvious: The allegedly "peacemaking" tricks of Reagan and
his team, brought about by the purely time-serving considerations, have
nothing to do with the real foreign policy pursued by Washington, which
is based today, the same as before, on the desire to make history reverse
its course, to reshape the political map of the world.
oPilisEif ONLY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
rflIF9,f
N
Ql4/
Eduard Mnatsakanov, Soviet television political observer (Soviet television,
29 Feb 84)
It looks as though Reagan's people are working on preparations for . . . a
stunning finale [to the election campaign], but the plans for this are
stunningly primitive: simply turn things upside down, call black white and
vice versa. And so much chauvinist demagogy is being poured over
millions of Americans that it makes one recall the times of German
history at the beginning of the thirties.
Bovin (Czechoslovak domestic radio, 2 Mar 84)
During his entire three and a half years in the White House Reagan
spoiled practically everything he could. But now something rather
peculiar is beginning to happen. Today Reagan is preparing himself for a
new election and has realized the necessity of altering his image. No
longer does he want to be seen as a warmonger. . . . The fact is that the
words now being delivered by the U.S. President do not correspond to his
actions. . . . My own impression, however, is that the Americans are not
ready for such a dialogue and that so long as Reagan is in the White
House we will not reach an agreement with the Americans on anything
solid. . . .
The question of [a summit meeting] is. . . complicated, for, above all,
thorough preparation would have to precede it. Second, if I may be frank,
I would not even want such a meeting to take place, because, after all, in
the current situation it would mean throwing a lifeline to Reagan, and I
think that there is no need to do that
Leonid Ponomarev, TASS commentator (TASS, 20 Mar 84)
Large-scale propaganda of nuclear war has become an integral element of
the policy of the present U.S. Administration which preaches not only the
admissibility and the moral justification of a nuclear conflict but also the
certainty of a U.S. victory in it.
Kornilov (TASS, 20 Mar 84)
It is common knowledge that Washington has made militarist plans for a
"limited" nuclear war although it is perfectly obvious that nuclear
holocaust, wherever it might spring from, will not spare the United
51
r417. arrrImp,. ?
(Oft- MINA.
L_ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
_ #fiwigwte. clourmuy
States. It is Washington's strategists who are making plans for the first
"disarming" nuclear strike, which can only be viewed as an attempt to
tailor Hitler's delirious "blitzkrieg" idea to the realities of the nuclear
age.
Bovin (Izvestiya, 21 Mar 84)
Reagan and his advisers realize that the dangerous formula "Reagan
Means War!" is being bandied about. It is no accident that the President
has been saying so much about peace, negotiations, and disarmament in
recent months. The image of the wild cowboy is hurriedly being replaced
by the image of the wise statesman concerned to avert a war. What if the
voters do not believe it? . . .
Reagan's immense strength is his personal attractiveness, his ability to be
just the way people want to see him. In the television age this is not just a
"subjective factor" but the most objective and politically significant
reality. The indomitable optimism, the ostentatiously emphasized confi-
dence, the permanent mask of the regular, good-natured guy?all this
impresses the "average American." Much is said and written about the
fact that Reagan is not weighed down by erudition and culture, reads vir-
tually nothing, spends his evenings in front of the television, does not
overwork himself, confuses facts, names, and events, and so on. And here
is the paradox. What is a minus from the standpoint of a more or less de-
veloped political culture becomes a plus in the eyes of that "average
American" who is pleased that the President is not some intellectual or
Harvard know-it-all, but a down-to-earth, unsophisticated guy like
himself. . . .
In my opinion, conservatism in the United States has already peaked.
Reagan's mass base is starting to contract. In an attempt to get control of
the situation the President is moving away from conservative rhetoric
increasingly often and toward political pragmatism.
Georgiy Shakhnazarov, president of the Soviet Association of Political Science
(Soviet domestic radio, 23 Mar 84)
In the words of a Canadian journalist, the people in European countries
believe in the majority that under Reagan the threat of war is no less than
under Genghis Khan.
r"71
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
firltptVAluilp:911 y
-a4L
Anatoliy Krasikov, commentator (TASS, 5 Apr 84)
Nowadays the entire huge military machine of the United States prepares
to repeat what was done by Hitler and his Wehrmacht. Only the scope of
this preparation is immeasurably greater. Washington opens up new
fronts of the arms race one after another and dreams of war going beyond
our planet and out into space. Like Nazi Germany's leaders at their time,
the White House leaders nowadays accompany preparations for war by
stirring up hatred for the Soviet Union.
TASS report on President Reagan's press conference (TASS, 6 Apr 84)
It is noted by observers . . . that since the times of Hitler's Reich no gov-
ernment has so openly set the task of liquidating lawful regimes in other
sovereign states and so cynically declared its intention to use the force of
arms, armed intervention and blockade for subversive purposes.
Sergey Kulik, TASS commentator (TASS, 11 Apr 84)
In one day, Ronald Reagan signed two documents. In one . . . the
President, in the bombastic style which is all his own, laid himself out to
lend credibility to his Administration's alleged commitment to the rule of
law and democracy. In the second document, circulated in the form of a
U.S. State Department statement "On the International Court in The
Hague," he refused downright to recognize international law.
Many mass media organs and prominent U.S. politicians note that by its
posture vis-a-vis the International Court in The Hague, Washington had
actually admitted pursuing subversion against the lawful government of a
sovereign nation, mining its ports and sinking vessels with peaceful cargo,
subversion authorized, according to an admission by today's Washington
Post, by Reagan personally.
Vladimir Kudryavtsev, Izvestiya political observer (Izvestiya, 11 Apr 84)
The actions of the U.S. Administration's leading trio?the President, the
secretary of state, and the secretary of defense?are absolutely full of
ultramilitarism, lightly powdered with an ostentatious "love of peace."
F1, ,v7TA r pny
.46r6i5Fri4 6,64;4
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
PACARLsiliCELT
Reagan's speech at Georgetown University and Secretary of State
Shultz's speech at a session of the so-called "Trilateral Commission" in
Washington promise a repetition of what has already taken place and an
expansion of what is now being done by terrorist methods elevated to the
rank of state policy. . . .
Summing up briefly the essence of the recent speeches in this sphere by
Reagan and Shultz, it boils down to this: The United States is now
officially striving to cast aside everything that hinders its armed assertion
of its "leading role in the world," that is, to free itself from the operative
provisions of international law and the directive decisions of the United
Nations. We do as we please?that is the "moral" that guides the present
U.S. Administration.
Sergey Losev, director general of TASS (Ogonek magazine, 14 Apr 84)
The American Administration's destructive approach to the problem of
restricting the arms race fits into the framework of Reagan's policy of a
? "crusade" against socialism and against the sovereignty and freedom of
peoples. Terror, arbitrariness, and interference in the affairs of sovereign,
independent states have been elevated to the level of state policy by the
present U.S. Administration. Since the times of the Hitler Reich no
government has so openly set the task of the forcible liquidation of lawful
regimes in other sovereign states. Claims to international brigandage?
that is the meaning of the American President's arguments that "peace
based on force is by no means a slogan but a fact of life."
Viktor Olin, commentator (Moscow Radio World Service in English, 16 Apr
84)
The United States Administration persists in relying upon military
strength, on achieving a military superiority, on imposing its system on
other nations. The policies of the Washington Administration also cause
serious concern because of their historical associations. Nazi Germany
too adopted the strategy of a blitzkrieg and justified its attack on other
countries by speaking of the need to deal preemptive strikes. Militarist
Japan was following the same doctrine in attacking Pearl Harbor. Such
methods brought no success to past exponents of international terrorism,
but they did cause the suffering and death of tens of millions of people.
Today, in the nuclear age, their consequences could be immeasurably
more tragic.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
ocr,flppp,,0 [fp
FORIOFFIGAth0E4P,
TASS commentary (TASS, 3 May 84)
rYAW1 V
Pn,Lf
President Reagan's visit to the PRC has drawn to a close. The U.S.
Administration was striving to use it to the fullest possible extent as an
election-year visit and for the realization of its hegemonistic plans in the
Asian and Far Eastern region. . . .
r
Reagan and his Administration, taking account of the continuing election
campaign in the U.S.A., wanted to use the "China factor" to the full to
further its plans, to play the "China card," above all, in the context of
confrontation with the Soviet Union in the Asia-and-Pacific region, to
broaden out, in Reagan's words, areas of coinciding and parallel interests
with China, to carry on with the coordination of actions with China on a
series of issues in the international arena.
The American President was in every way trying to give his talks and, es-
pecially, his public statements, a provocative anti-Soviet orientation. This
came as a fresh confirmation of the militarist course steered by the U.S.
Administration and of its reluctance to seek agreement with the Soviet
Union, including on disarmament issues. In doing so, Reagan speculative-
ly assured the Chinese leadership that the U.S.A. would never consent to
sign an agreement with the Soviet Union on the reduction or elimination
of nuclear armaments in Europe, if the Soviet missiles deployed in Asia
remained unaffected. . . .
TASS report (TASS, 6 May 84)
R. Reagan, the United States President, has come forward with a new
demagogic statement timed for the beginning of the second round of the
Stockholm Conference on measures for strengthening confidence, securi-
ty, and disarmament in Europe. . . .
Reagan also touted other U.S. pseudo-initiatives, including the draft
treaty on chemical weapons tabled at Geneva whose purpose is to
camouflage the Pentagon's policy of stepping up the rate of Production,
updating and stockpiling this monstrous means of dealing a strike against
people. The U.S. draft is aimed, under the pretext of monitoring, at
legalizing U.S. intelligence-gathering activity. . . .
rEft orrryq
ur 1%.-em y
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
RF,77671!IA11 a..trtv
? y ?61,.
Reagan's assurances of the wish "to hold serious talks" look particularly
flimsy against the background of the course he has mapped out for the
militarization of space, signifying an undermining of the whole process of
limiting nuclear weapons.
Vikentiy Matveyev, Izvestiya political observer (Izvestiya, 8 May 84)
The U.S. leaders, having wrecked the Geneva talks through their actions
by way of unleashing a dangerous new round of the nuclear arms race
and having ignored the will of the vast majority of the population in the
FRG, Britain, and Italy, where the deployment of the new American
missiles has begun, would now like to weaken the wave of criticism of
them by stubbornly repeating statements in favor of a "resumption of the
Geneva talks."
On the eve of the resumption of the Stockholm Conference's work,
President Reagan spoke again, expatiating on the "desirability" of talks
on medium-range missiles. Yet a few days earlier he was demonstrating
his anti-Soviet obsession to the whole world with his calls to knock
together a "front" whose creation was striven for in the thirties by
inveterate reactionaries in the West together with the fascist
aggressors. . . .
TASS report (TASS, 10 May 84)
President Ronald Reagan of the United States made a televised speech
devoted to the policy of the United States in respect to Central America.
A shameless lie from beginning to end?this is how one can characterize
his speech that is yet another exercise in demagogy, slander, whipping up
of anticommunism, chauvinism and hatred for other countries and
peoples, in preaching openly state terrorism and war. In effect Reagan
called military interference and aggression in Central America with the
aim of suppressing the revolutionary and national-liberation movement,
that has spread throughout that region, a "legal right and moral duty" of
the United States.
TASS report on U.S. Olympic ceremony (TASS, 15 May 84)
Addressing a White House ceremony on the occasion of the arrival of the
Olympic flame in Washington from New York, President Reagan was
hypocritically speaking about his Administration's adhefence to the ideals
5 ?
r LOA qfif Mum.LI
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
- IR& GragliVi.";EYLiiiALY
of the Olympic movement and "observance of the Olympic Charter."
President Reagan claimed that he and his Administration have done their
utmost to ensure a warm reception for all states at the Olympic Games.
But what sort of a "warm reception" for the athletes can it be, if, judging
by the press reports, Peter Ueberroth, the president of the Los Angeles
Olympic Organizing Committee, himself, turned to the authorities with a
request that he and his family be ensured security in connection with the
outrages of fascist-type and terrorist groupings in Los Angeles?! And the
American press refutes the hypocritical statements by the U.S. President.
TASS report on Administration stand on MX, INF (TASS, 15 May 84)
Speaking at a press conference on Monday, President Reagan presented
Congress with an ultimatum, demanding from it approval for the White
House's plan to spend in fiscal 1985 3.1 billion dollars to build another 40
modern MX first-strike, intercontinental ballistic missiles under the
program "to rearm America." According to him, there is no more
important problem on the agenda of his Administration than the
fulfillment of the strategic modernization program, on which more than
180 billion dollars are .going to be spent and which is aimed at achieving
military superiority over the USSR.
Last year the Administration pushed through Congress appropriations for
the manufacture of 21 MX missiles. All in all, 100 such missiles are going
to be deployed in Nebraska and Wyoming. Washington at that time used
an outright lie in claiming that approval of its plans by Congress would
"stimulate" efforts to control nuclear armaments. Reagan resorted to this
tactic again: "Without . . . the MX the incentive for the Soviets to return
to the negotiating table is greatly reduced," he claimed. Observers point
out that practice has demonstrated the utmost fallacy of these calcula-
tions because every spurt of Washington in building up its nuclear arms
arsenals aggravates the military and political situation in the world and
lessens the chance of progress in arms reduction.
During the press conference the President again hypocritically appealed
to the Soviet Union to return to the negotiating table of the Geneva talks
although they had been scuttled by the deployment of new U.S. nuclear
missiles in West Europe by the United States and its NATO partners.
The Soviet Union's position on this issue is well known: The possibility to
? 57
n nrrrnattl
1.01SAFt5149usMititit
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
FERIRgeisGi
?kFq, y
reopen the talks on nuclear armaments can appear only if the US. side
removes the obstacles of its own making and restores and predeployment
situation.
Trying to justify his position, which is dangerous to the cause of peace,
the President again distorted facts and indulged in outright slander. For
instance, he claimed that the United States did not start wars but
maintained its might to deter aggression and safeguard peace. That was
said by the same man who personally ordered a piratic act of aggression
against tiny Grenada, sanctioned the CIA's "secret war" against revolu-
tionary Nicaragua and the mining of the civilian ports of that country,
and directed the U.S. armed intervention in Lebanon.
TASS commentary (TASS 23 May 84)
As a result of these [Soviet] measures, the security of the United States
has diminished, of course. However, the Reagan Administration's spokes-
men, who at one time deceived the U.S. people in the question of the cor-
relation of the military power of the USSR and the USA with a view to
stepping up the arms race without hindrance, are now misleading their
own population by belittling the importance of Soviet military counter-
measures?so as to conceal the dangerous consequences of the deploy-
ment of U.S. missiles in West Europe. . . .
The Pentagon spokesmen nevertheless note that the travel time of the
missiles on new Soviet submarines to targets in the United States has de-
creased from 20-25 minutes to 5-7 minutes. This alone already means
that Reagan's calculations to make the Russians go to sleep with a
thought that the United States will deliver a nuclear strike against them,
have failed. Such plans of Washington are unrealistic. Retaliation for an
aggression is inevitable.
Burlatskiy (Literaturnaya Gazeta, 23 May 84)
During my recent trip to the United States, I gained the impression that
the political pendulum, which for four years now has been pushing the
country's present leadership solely in the direction of militarism and
adventurism, has reached its culmination point. The United States has
undertaken open, armed interference in Lebanon, mined the ports in
Nicaragua, and begun implementing the "Star Wars" program.
FFbrtioClitiltada. DRY
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
v9I
iNrrtnr-1.1?
47? o7,,q
All this has frightened Americans. Not only the public, but Congress as
well, seem to have realized clearly for the first time that the President
really is capable of involving the United States in a war?a "small one"
to start with, like the one in Vietnam, and then, by way of escalation, pos-
sibly even a large one. . . .
The President has spent billions of dollars on consolidating U.S. security.
As a result of this, however, the country's security has weakened while
the threat of war has increased. He has repeatedly resorted to military
force in different parts of the globe. And he has suffered one defeat after
another, as was clearly evidenced by events in Lebanon. The intoxication
of the "victory" over tiny Grenada failed to capture the imagination of se-
rious and thinking people in the United States. The President proclaimed
the resumption of the arms limitation talks process. But he wrecked
Geneva and has turned out to be the only U.S. leader whose term in office
did not contain the conclusion of a single agreement in this sphere.
Finally, he has brought relations with the Soviet Union to their lowest
level.
These results of the President's military and foreign policy are forcing
many representatives of the country's elite to recall Talleyrand's memora-
ble saying: "This is worse than a crime. This is a mistake!" And although
the average American is highly impressed by strong policies and a
"strong president," he is now saying more and more often: Stop, this is
impractical! Practical politics is the art of the possible, not just of the
desirable. . . .
I asked one of the famous U.S. political scientists in confidence: What is
the psychological explanation for the incumbent U.S. President's fond-
ness for nuclear games? One gets the impression that some kind of
mysterious force seems to attract him to them. "Yes, yes, I myself have
thought of this," my interlocutor said. "And what strikes me more than
anything else in this connection is our President's statements about the in-
evitability of Armageddon, the 'end of the world.'"
According to religious beliefs, Armageddon is the place where the final
battle between the forces of good and evil will be fought. At that moment
God will take the affairs of mankind in his hands and he will walk the
earth and punish the sinners.
rIlf**?111i 11411(77:.? V
t ' ak441,4A
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
F*FiNrg
kst)
This is what R. Reagan said to correspondents of a television company:
"It could be that our generation will be the one to witness Armageddon."
An anticommunist complex multiplied by a superstition complex and
added to a boundless faith in the military-industrial complex?are these
not rather too many complexes for just one man? . . .
60
FreiRgfREtiEF
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/16: CIA-RDP09-00997R000100400001-4