98 
forth, without any precise indication of its scope and limits. Identifica- 
tion of a significant change in the wording of such pronouncements 
would require systematic analysis which has yet to be undertaken. 
Meanwhile, three works published in the wake of the 24th Party 
Congress provide contradictory evidence. Marshal Grechko’s “On 
Guard for Peace and the Building of Communism’’, which is tied 
directly to the Congress decisions, places primary emphasis on combat 
readiness for general war and discusses international commitments 
in terms of other socialist states.** ‘Military Force and International 
Relations’’, is also linked with the Congress. Edited by V. V. Kulish 
of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations 
(IMEMO), it makes specific reference to the increased importance 
attached to the role of a Soviet military presence in restraining imperi- 
alism in various regions of the world. In contrast, “International Con- 
flicts”, a joint product of IMEMO and the Institute of U.S. Studies, 
but a self-styled “scholarly work,” refers to the U.S. Navy’s role 
in the Middle East conflict and the Bangladesh crisis, and makes 
no mention of the presence of Soviet naval forces in either case, 
or of direct Soviet military involvement in Egypt. And finally, Wein- 
land has drawn attention to what seems to be a subsequent adjustment 
by Grechko of his 1971 position, bringing him to acknowledge a 
greater role for the armed forces beyond the borders of the Soviet 
bloc.’ 
It seems clear that the 24th Party Congress endorsed an increased 
emphasis on the role of a Soviet military presence in distant parts 
of the world. But this does not necessarily imply an increased readiness 
to commit Soviet forces to combat in support of Soviet interests in 
these areas. An interesting development in the last 3 years has been 
the appearance in conflict zones of troops from North Korea, North 
Vietnam, and Cuba, manning the more sophisticated Soviet weapons 
systems on behalf of Soviet client states or movements.” It would 
appear that these forces, drawn from the “world revolutionary move- 
ment,’’ have taken over and considerably extended the limited combat 
role previously played by Soviet personnel in Korea, North Vietnam, 
the Yemen and Egypt.** The Soviet Union continues to provide mili- 
544. A. Grechko, “Na Strazhe Mira i Stroitel’stva Kommunizma”, Moscow 1971. A 112-page 
booklet designed for “ta broad range of readers’”’ which “describes the great historic mission of the 
Soviet Armed Forces, and the increased tasks posed for them .. . by the 24th CPSU Congress” 
(JPRS translation No. 54602, Dec. 2, 1971). 
55V_V. Kulish, “*Voennaya Sila i Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenniya’’, Moscow, 1972, pp. 135-137 
(JPRS translation No. 58947, May 8, 1973). For pertinent quotations see R. Weinland, “Soviet Naval 
Operations” (op. cit.), note 4, pp. 385-386; V. V. Zhurkin and Ye. M. Primakov, “Mezhdunarodnye 
Konflikty”, Moscow 1972 (JPRS translation No. 58443, Mar. 12, 1973). These two works were 
published by the same house, and released to the press within a month of each other 
(August/September 1972). The authors of the Kulish book are members of the military-political sec- 
tion of IMEMO. The Khurkin-Primakov book represents the preliminary stage of a long-term project. 
56In an informal memorandum, Weinland compared an article by Grechko in May 1974 with the 
general trend of earlier statements, including a comparable article in May 1973. Weinland identified 
a distinct shift in emphasis in Grechko’s description of the role of the armed forces toward direct 
support of Soviet foreign policy. John McDonnell notes that Grechko’s 1974 article followed the 
same general line as that of A. A. Yepishev (Chief of the Main Political Administration of the Armed 
Forces), in a book released to the press at the end of 1972. A. A. Yepishev, ““Moguchee Oruzhie 
Partii’”’ (Mighty Weapon of the Party), Moscow 1973 (JPRS No. 60713); A. A. Grechko, “On Guard 
Over Peace and Socialism,” Kommunist, No. 7, May 1973 (JPRS No. 59348); A. A. Grechko, “The 
Leading Role of the CPSU in Building the Army of a Developed Socialist Society,” “Voprosy istorii” 
KPSS, No. 5, May 1974 (FBIS “Daily Report”: Soviet Union, Vol. III, No. 105, May 30, 1974). 
57The United States may have set the fashion by using South Korean troops in Vietnam. 
'*This development may stem from the unsatisfactory Soviet experience in Egypt between 
1970-72. The Soviet Union has also facilitated participation by Arab forces (other than Egyptian and 
Syrian) in the Middle East conflict zone. 
