Leading article: No sense in revisiting the politics of the past

One way or another, the best-laid plans for Group of Eight summits have a habit of going awry. And this year is no exception. While climate change, Africa and combating terrorism are on the agenda, the context is that of doom-laden headlines sounding the alarm about a new Cold War. This is because Vladimir Putin, who was on best behaviour as the host of last year's meeting in St Petersburg, has ratcheted up the rhetoric over US plans to station parts of its anti-missile defence system in central Europe.

Interviewed at the weekend, Mr Putin warned that if the US proceeded, Russia would respond. That could include targeting Russia's missiles on Europe, as they were during the Cold War. He suggested that the asymmetry created by one side possessing a missile defence system increased the possibility of nuclear conflict. This is not the sort of scenario that encourages a good night's sleep.

The missile defence question is, of course, rather more complicated than this slanging match would suggest. While the US insists that the installations to be sited in Poland and the Czech Republic are directed not against Russia, but against missiles from "rogue states" (i.e. Iran or North Korea), this is - understandably - not how Russia sees them. And the keenness of the Polish and Czech governments to be involved undoubtedly owes something to their experience of the Cold War. There is more than a whiff of old thinking on both sides.

While this latest flare-up between Russia and other G8 members may have been sparked by US missile defence, however, this is not only, or even mainly, what it is about. It is about the widespread western disappointment with recent developments in Russia and Mr Putin's irritated and high-handed response. In his pre-G8 interview, he was on top, undiplomatic form.

He parried criticism of human rights violations in Russia by lambasting the US for Guantanamo and torture - thereby underlining how far our own conduct has undermined our cause. He condemned what he called the harsh treatment of demonstrators in Europe by police, and dismissed accusations that he was retreating from democracy as "complete rubbish". He was, he said, the world's one remaining "absolute, pure" democrat. As for Britain's demand for the extradition of the man suspected of Alexander Litvinenko's killing, this was, he said, "pure foolishness" on Britain's part.

The tenor of Mr Putin's answers left the impression that he simply does not care about outside perceptions of Russia. Yet the West has justified concerns, and would be derelict in its duty if it did not voice them. The list is long and growing longer. On human rights and democracy, on media freedom and the killing of opposition journalists, on the violent dispersal of political demonstrations and the retrenchment of the former KGB (now the FSB), Russia seems to be going backwards. The fear is that, newly confident from the oil windfall, the Kremlin has us literally over a barrel.

In an open letter to G8 leaders that we publish today, a recent fugitive from Putin's Russia warns of plans by the Russian security services to hijack next year's presidential election and warns that there could be bloodshed in Russian streets. Mr Putin, says Yelena Tregubova, should be made to choose: either Russia meets the standards of human rights and democracy that prevail elsewhere in the G8, or it should forfeit its membership.

There was always a question about Russia's place in the G8, and it makes little sense to revisit the politics of the past. The more pertinent question now relates to the usefulness of the grouping in its present composition at all. But, in this respect, Ms Tregubova is right: the latest tensions between Russia and the West is about much, much more than missiles.

Interesting? Click here to explore further