Americans and the rest of the world are experiencing a wave of euphoria over recent events in the Soviet Union that is totally understandable. The hard-line opponents of change have been vanquished; the forces of reform have been legitimized and strengthened.

There are several positive aspects to what has happened.First, the Soviet Union has taken a giant step out of its dark past and is on the road - nobody knows how rocky or how long - to democracy.

Second, with the pending decentralization of power, the Soviet Union is becoming smaller and less threatening. Its foreign policy will likely be far less expansionist.

Third, its domestic problems will necessitate cutbacks in military spending. Though the Soviet Union will remain a formidable nuclear power, its capacity to project military power will be much reduced.

Fourth, its economic policies have failed and will no longer beckon the socialist-inclined leaders of the Third World.

While all these developments should be cheered, there are a fair number of negatives to be pondered.

First, the Soviet Union as we know it is headed for disintegration and therefore instability. There are some ugly tensions between republics, between various republics and the Russian center, and even within some republics themselves.

Second, none of the political events of recent weeks has in any way changed the stark economic crisis facing the Soviet people. There are widespread shortages. People are fed up and angry with their leaders.

Third, the angry mood may permit a hunt for scapegoats that is a contradiction of the democratic direction in which the country is supposed to be heading. Yeltsin, for example, has not shrunk from taking action against newspapers and news organizations that offend him.

Fourth, the dispersal of the huge Soviet army is a problem. Is the army to be split up, with units allocated to the seceding republics? And what of the nationwide command structure and support system on which the army depends?

View Comments

The same kinds of questions revolve around the disposition of the Soviet navy and air force. The allocation, control and use of these units is something of acute interest to the West.

Fifth, and particularly critical, is the disposition of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons. Will some of the nuclear arsenal come under the control of individual republics? Moscow's leaders say no, that they will remain under control of the Russian Republic.

Sixth, there are uncertainties about the future leadership of whatever kind of nation the Soviet Union ultimately becomes.

As important as Gorbachev and Yeltsin may be, in the end it is the course the people of Russia and its associated republics set for the country that will be decisive.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.