For more than four decades, the essence of United States foreign policy toward the Soviet Union could be stated in a single word: containment. The goal was to block the spread of Soviet Communist ideas with American democratic ideals and Soviet forces, if necessary, with American forces.
''beyond containment'' and work cooperatively with Moscow in trade, arms control, regional disputes and other matters.
Now, the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union as a superpower-and the abandonment of communism-fundamentally alters the U.S.-Soviet relationship, creating a foreign policy void that Bush needs to fill.
''The whole foundation of U.S.-Soviet policy has changed, and with that we`re going to have to change fundamentally the way we have been dealing with the Soviet Union, or perhaps the former Soviet Union,'' said Kim Holmes, director of foreign policy and defense studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.
What lies beyond ''beyond containment?'' How far should the U.S. go in helping a nation that has more than 10,000 strategic nuclear weapons capable of destroying the West? For that matter, who`s in charge in the Soviet Union these days? And who will be in charge tomorrow?
Those kinds of questions underlie the visit last week by Secretary of State James A. Baker III, the most senior American official to arrive in Moscow since last month`s failed coup by Communist hard-liners set loose the powerful forces of reform.
Ironically, at this moment of triumph for America`s post-Cold War foreign policy, the caution shown by the Bush administration risks making it look nostalgic for the old Soviet Union, whose strong central government provided a clear and accountable-if not always cooperative-negotiating partner.
Bush`s delay in formally recognizing the independence of the Baltics, for instance, drew criticism that he seemed to pay more attention to helping his friend Gorbachev save face than to rewarding the struggling Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians who kept their dreams of independence alive for half a century.
But in Moscow last week, Baker said the U.S. can live with whatever political structure is agreed upon between the central government and the 12 remaining Soviet republics-so long as it is reached peacefully, democratically and respects current borders, human rights and international obligations such as arms control treaties.
Those five principles, Baker told government officials and reformers, provide guidelines for the Soviet Union`s political transformation-as well as a standard of accountability for the West in judging the nation`s changes.
The administration-and other Western governments-are only beginning to grapple with the dimensions of the historic developments in the Soviet Union, where events seem to be moving at doubletime to make up for 74 years of Communist repression and lost opportunities.
Baker found Gorbachev interested in clearing away the ''old agenda'' of issues spawned by superpower rivalry-for instance, the Soviet leader promised to sever military and economic support for Cuba-and to move on to a ''new agenda'' involving European security and mutual reductions in defense spending.
''We believe that the current situation . . . creates and opens up new opportunities'' for cooperation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Gorbachev said.
The Soviet Union, nearly bankrupt and unable to feed itself, remains a superpower only by the sheer terror of its nuclear arsenal. It has repudiated its own failed ideology, and abandoned seven decades of expansionism.
The nation`s disintegration into rival republics sharply reduces its ability to exert any deliberate influence on the rest of the world. And the nature of its threat toward Western Europe comes not from Red Army troops but the possibility that millions of Soviet refugees will flee to the West in search of food and jobs.
There is agreement in allied capitals that the most urgent need is to provide a safety net in case, as many fear, the Soviet economy collapses this winter. And Baker, in his meetings, assured leaders that the U.S. and its Western allies are prepared to help the nation deal with anticipated shortages this winter of food, medicine and other necessities and to provide ''technical assistance'' with economic reforms.
The secretary of state was more cautious, however, about providing commitments for the billions of dollars in longer-term economic aid that the Soviets think they need to bring about their economic transformation.
The administration wants to see the new economic reform plan, which is expected to be completed within the next few weeks, before making any decisions.
But with the Soviets moving quickly on economic and political reforms, the Bush administration may find it difficult to duck that issue much longer, particularly with pressure from Germany and other European nations that advocate aid now.
Administration officials say they are being cautious because the current situation is not without its risks. ''Because things are in flux, we need to be flexible enough to adapt to that flux,'' said a senior State Department official in Moscow.
Certainly there are some who wonder whether the Soviet Union can indeed shake off the legacy of 1,000 years of authoritarian rule, or whether some other force-such as extreme nationalism-will seek to replace communism.
But there are also political risks for the Bush administration if it seems stingy, indifferent or inflexible and this historic moment of opportunity is lost.
disintegration of the Soviet Union-coupled with its economic collapse-may trigger ethnic conflicts leading to the kind of civil war now devastating Yugoslavia.
Baker pressed Soviet officials for assurances that safeguards are adequate to prevent the thousands of battlefield nuclear weapons deployed in Russia, Ukraine and central Asia from becoming bargaining chips in struggles between the republics or with the central government.
While Bush maintains a special admiration for Gorbachev, the political upheaval across the USSR has driven the administration to speed up its strategy of reaching out to pro-reform leaders at various levels of Soviet society, recognizing the increased dispersion of political power in the country.
U.S. officials believe Gorbachev has regained much of his power, which seemed so tenuous following the coup`s collapse, through his uncertain partnership with Yeltsin, the man who led the opposition that brought down the coup leaders.
Gorbachev has ''very large authority now, but what happens in the future nobody knows,'' remarked Eduard Shevardnadze, former foreign minister and now a leader of the Movement for Democratic Reform.
Baker is meeting not only with Gorbachev and Yeltsin and the reform-minded mayors of Moscow and St. Petersburg, but on Sunday he is to fly to Central Asia to meet with Kazakhstan`s powerful president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.
And as the Soviets put together a new union treaty, one in which the central government yields much of its power to the republics, this may be the shape of future diplomacy.
''It`s possible that, over time, the Soviet Union will become just another country,'' said Terry Deibel, professor of national strategy at the National War College in Washington.