To recite the particulars of recent Soviet successes is hardly reassuring.

Six years ago French Indochina, though in troubie, was in the Western camp. Today Northern Vietnam is overtly Communist; Laos is teetering between Communism and pro Communist neutralism; Cambodia is, for all practical purposes, neutralist.

Indonesia, in the early days of the Republic, leaned toward the West. Today Sukarno's government is heavily besieged by avowed Communists, and for all of its ``neutralist'' pretensions, it is a firm ally of Soviet policy.

Ceylon has moved from a pro Western orientation to a neutralism openly hostile to the West.

In the Middle East, Iraq, Syria and Egypt were, a short while ago, in the Western camp. Today the Nasser and Kassem governments are adamantly hostile to the West, are dependent for their military power on Soviet equipment and personnel; in almost every particular follow the Kremlin's foreign policy line.

A short time ago all Africa was a Western preserve. Never mind whether the Kikiyus and the Bantus enjoyed Wilsonian self-determination: the point is that in the struggle for the world that vast land mass was under the domination and influence of the West. Today, Africa is swerving violently away from the West and plunging, it would seem, into the Soviet orbit.

Latin America was once an area as ``safe'' for the West as Nebraska was for Nixon. Today it is up for grabs. One Latin American country, Cuba, has become a Soviet bridgehead ninety miles off our coast. In some countries the trend has gone further than others: Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela are displaying open sympathy for Castroism, and there is no country -- save the Dominican Republic whose funeral services we recently arranged -- where Castroism and anti Americanism does not prevent the government from unqualifiedly espousing the American cause.