Bertrand Russell, once the Don Quixote of logical analysis and now the Mother Goose of international politics, comments here on the Cuban and the Sino-Indian crises, the parts he played in both, the almost hour-to-hour developments of each, and the correspondence he exchanged with the press, with Kennedy and Khrushchev, with Nehru and Chou En-lai. As everyone knows, Lord Russell has a passion for peace and consequent passion for simplicities: nuclear war, or indeed any East-West confrontation, is unthinkable; therefore, when the chips are down, better to be red than ead. As everyone also knows, Lord Russell has been and still is anti-Communist, but he contends that since Stalin the war mongers are no longer in the Kremlin but in the Pentagon. It's a curious commitment and it leads to curious conclusions. Thus in ctober it was ""American madmen"" who brought the world to the brink, demanding the removal of Cuban missile bases, and it was Nikita, that ""one sane man"", who saved us ll by agreeing to remove them. But, one might well ask as Lord Russell never does, why did the dove-like Premier install them in the first place if not to attempt a balance-of-power coup? Similarly with the Chinese. They were the aggressors, but they won the olive branch by a subsequent withdrawal of troops, while India, according to Russell, became markedly bellicose. Yet India has long been the prime example of neutralism, (which Russell favors), and look what has happened. Further, s it really sophisticated to go on spouting the Party Line, that the Cuban revolution was an agrarian one, when so much documentation has shown that it was largely middle class revolt, later to be betrayed by Castro, who had, by his own admission, every intention of betraying it no matter what the modus vivendi from Washington might e As usual, Lord Russell writes with fervor and finesse, yet if his exhortations are noble, his assumptions are naive. Controversial.