The US Council on Foreign Relations has adopted a resolution demanding to blackball Russia from the Big Eight, to refuse it hosting the summit in St.
Petersburg, to ostracize Russia in politics and economy.
The Department of State in its annual report resents the unsatisfactory condition of democracy in Russia.
Many European Council activists criticize Russia with not less zeal.
There are attempts to enlist Russia among 'pariah states' together with Belarus, North Korea and Iran.
It appears that certain powers are interested in formation of a new anti-Russian coalition and the turn from the surreptitious 'cool' war against Russia to open cold war.
How can we account for the new confrontational anti-Russian tendencies in the policies of the USA and European countries? There are no valid proofs for Russia's forsaking democracy.
Perhaps what arouses protest is Putin's attention to consolidation of power, minding Russia's national interests - abandoned in B.
Yeltsin's era - and pursuit of more independent and sovereign policy? Or the exclusion from Russian politics of oligarchs and the antinational lobby, which threatens to 'nullify the achievements' in loosening the solid state system of the Soviet-times Russia?Or more control over denigrating and manipulative journalism in some politically engaged Russian TV channels, which keep up the traditions of anti-Russian propaganda of Yeltsin's times?Or is there a fear that Russia, having resurrected, like phoenix, from the post-Soviet ashes, will become an impediment to somebody's aspirations for global dominance? Or is it because some political hawks have taken on Russia as the familiar old-time 'enemy image' and are now refurbishing this image in order to divert the public attention from their own aggressive dealings? All these reasons may have combined to produce the apparent toughening of Western course towards Russia, sometimes bordering on open hostility.
The usual 'trump card' for the USA is the play-up of human rights and personal liberties abuse issues.
It is well known that sometimes 'human rights' have beenplaced above sovereignty of nations and served as a justification for interference in their internal affairs and even military aggression against them with the purpose ofestablishing puppet regimes there.
The tragic example of Yugoslavia is very representative, as well as the US-inspired coups in many post-Soviet republics.
Under the slogan of human rights defense and implantation of democracy the forces are brought to power which are favorable to the USA and hostile to Russia.
'We have witnessed a Rose Revolution in Georgia, an Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, a Purple Revolution in Iraq, a Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon -- and these are only the beginning...
America is standing with these democratic reformers because we know that the only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom.
And by extending freedom to millions who have not known it, we will advance the cause of peace and make America more secure', said G.
Bush in his address to the Academy's Class of 2001.
America does not only 'stand with these democratic reformers', who are always victorious, however few and unrepresentative.
In most cases it stands behind them, because these revolutions are in America's national interests.
So what are the national interests of the USA? As it follows from the policy statement of neoconservative US administration, the USA is entrusted with a unique role for the creation and expansion of the world order serving security, well-being and high principles - to read 'American security, American well-being and American high principles'.
How about security and national interests of other nations, different from those of the USA? How about their well-being? They seem to be nonexistent for the American elite.
In reality, what is hidden behind the prate about American values, USA's messianic role as the disseminator and propagator of human rights priorities (a-la in America), is Washington's geopolitical interests.
Yes, human rights are an important social and humanitarian value.
Freedom has been a driving force behind mass and individual movements for their social, political and national self-assertion.
However, the single-minded speculation on this value to achieve self-seeking goals is inadmissible.
Playing this card with geopolitical purposes yields high political and strategic dividends to the USA.
But so far no one has noticed that the foundation of this game is rather shaky.
There is a civilization value necessary for the healthy development of societies, which is much more important than human rights.
It is morality, both in ordinary day-to-day life, and in politics.
Morality is closely connected with moral - the norms of morality, historically developing in the community, fixed in individual and public conscience, and reflected in Scriptures, such as the Ten Commandments in Christianity, in constitution acts and other public documents.
Observing the norms of moral entails the ethical conduct, both of individuals, and governments.
In general and easy terms, morality may be described as non-detrimental attitude and behavior towards а) oneself, б) fellow creatures, в) community, г) nature.
Morality presupposes observation and respect for the moral norms, such as human dignity, honor, justice, adherence to truth, kindness and humanity, law-abiding, national and religious tolerance.
It is incompatible with striving for domination, exploitation and oppression, corruption, criminality, lying to and manipulation of the public, egotism.
At the same time, social systems revolving around money, with the 'dictatorship' of profit -where human relationships are measured with money and money-grabbing is not bridled by any moral law - may not be the basis for morality.
And where there is no morality, there can be no genuine rights and liberties, beneficent for the development of the communities in each country and the world community at large.
If human rights and liberties are specified as the predominant philosophical category without thorough historical, social and ethical analysis of a community; without tying those rights up with obligations and responsibilities of an individual for his society, nation and conscience - the human rights struggle may turn into a vicious and antisocial weapon.
Actually, it is beneficial for the world elite, who strives to create the conditions for the dominance in the world, omniscient military control, making profit out of other nations' resources, etc.
The antisocial power of overstretching the human right issue was well demonstrated by B.
Yeltsin's regime in Russia in the 1990s, when the failure of socialist reformation was followed by the restoration of capitalism in its worst and wildest form.
The rights and liberties slogan was widely used by various rogues to ensure for themselves the freedom of robbing the nation, grabbing the public assets and unhampered export of capital and valuables to foreign countries.
The government connived at this by granting them impunity for criminal machinations and even murders, so rampant during the criminal war for property redistribution.
So the individual rights and freedoms emancipated from morality give full scope to abuse and arbitrary behavior, no matter whether this happens in the West or in the East.
Yeltsin's policy in Russia and abroad was flagrantly immoral; there are scores of examples of this.
But it especially concerns the foundations of people's existence and vital functions.
'While three thirds of Russia's revenue is created owing to natural resources, 15 percent of the population have misappropriated the assets that are God-given, not man-made, and by definition cannot be owned by them.
The unprecedented crime was committed in Russia, abetted by Yeltsin's government ', said Academician Dmitry Lvov at the 2006 Christmas Educational Readings.
Morality in international relations, which is lacking in today's world politics, is of paramount importance.
Fates of nations, wars and peace depend on it.
Only moral politics can bring peace and public good.
General Ludwig Beck, one of Hitler's top officials in fascist Germany, who later headed the conspiracy against Hitler, warned in 1938 that Hitler's adventurous plans for subjugating 'inferior' nations would lead to national disaster.
'It would be a sin and crime against history to turn the rich variety of neighboring nations into the desert-like uniformity of a world empire.
The violation of moral laws by any country should be subject to retribution', he wrote.
These words may well be addressed to the present-day US leaders.
They ignore morality in international affairs, because it does not fit in their plan of creating a uniform world empire on the basis of 'American values' - above all the proclaimed values of individual freedoms and rights.
Yet the supremacy of this value is impugnable, if only because the stock principle 'It is forbidden to forbid' may become profoundly immoral.
Let us think, for example, of sanctities' caricature wars, capable of raising the gall of entire religious communities.
The European Union and Washington keep Russia at bay on the assumption that 'European civilization values are alien' to it - meaning primarily the value of individual freedoms and rights.
Under the pressure of Western propaganda which revolves around human rights, the Russian politics and mass media took the timid and nearly servile position of deep defense.
But this inferiority complex is falsehood; it is imposed by the politicians unfriendly to Russia as a psychological provocation.
Russia can launch a counter-offensive and accuse NATO of violation of moral and ethic norms, reveal the double standards of its policies concerning human rights and bring to light its real hidden motives.
Recently the Human Rights Council has been instituted by the UNO.
It would be fine if this respectable international organization also institute the Council for Moral Observation Control.
The attrition of morals has become a genuinely global problem, both for individuals and governments; disdain for moral causes warp of social development and poses a threat to world security and peace.
This problem should be tackled head on.