In its broadest, bluntest attack to date on President Carter and his administration, the Kremlin today accused the United States government of "deliberate worsening" of relations with the Soviet Union by slowing strategic arms race and seeking to establish an "aggressive" anti'Soviet alliance with China.
The Soviet denunciation, contained in a lengthy article in today's editions of Pravda, the party newspaper, offers a damning view of virtually the full range of Carter administration policies with the Soviet Union.
Rebuking Carter personally for his recent Annapolis speech, the article said he "failed" to clarify the U.S. position on its relations with Moscow. It declared his address was filled with "unconcealed attacks at the Soviet Union . . . so preconceived and distorted a description of Soviet realities as one has not encountered since the Cold War."
The article constitutes the most authoritative Soviet comment thus far on the current state of relations between the two superpowers. It comes at a time when the White House is struggling to clarify its views of Soviet responsibilities on a collection of troublesome major issues, from Strategic Arms Limitation (SALT) to military intervention in Africa, from conventional force levels in Europe to Kremlin supression of human rights activists here.
Analysts here had been waiting since the Carter address to a graduating class at the Naval Academy June 7 for this kind of exhausitive Soviet reply. Washington foreign policy experts are certain to be alarmed bythe Pravda article, which warns that "it is impossible to press for such aims proclaimed by the U.S. President as strengthening peace, limiting arms and normal relations with the Soviet Union and at the same time to whip up an anti-Soviet hysteria, to try by means of attacks on the U.S.S.R. to solve one's problems -- both external and domestic and even personal ones.
"The present course of the United States is fraught with serious dangers . . . for the entire course of development of international relations. We hope for the speediest realization of this truth in Washington."
In his Naval Academy address, Carter declared that the United States is deeply concerned by Soviet military activities in Africa and elsewhere and said these were incompatible with the American view of detente. While underlining continued support for a new treaty with the Kremlin limiting strategic weapons, Carter said the Soviets "can choose either confrontation or cooperation. The United States is adequately prepared to meet either choice."
Seldom in recent years has the Kremlin spoken so disparagingly on so wide a range of United States policy initiatives. The atmosphere between Moscow and Washington has steadily deteriorated since the Carter administration took office and the president first made support of human rights activists here a matter of his personal concern.
Since then, the administration and the Kremlin have struck sparks repeatedly on a variety of questions.
The only major policy dispute between the capitals not touched by Pravda was the Middle East, where the Kremlin and the United States have clashed on how best ot achieve peace between Arabs and Israelis.
The article is without doubt the product of the highest ruling circles of a government which deliberates and decides in secret and uses the state-controlled press to make its views known. The Pravada attack continues and Broadens the sharp response that first came to the carter speech last week and has been continuing ever since.
The denunciation continues the Kremlin view that Zbigniew Brezezinski, Carter's natioinal security adviser, is especially responsible for what it sees as an increasingly hostile American approach to the Soviet Union.
Saying that the Carter speech "was read in the Soviet Union with attention and objectively assessed," Pravda added: "Nor were the positive remarks it contained left unnoticed, which indicated that the U.S. leaders cannot but take into account that detente enjoys sufficiently broad support in the country's political circles and among the American public."
But, said Pravda, "if this speech is to tbe taken for a program> as it was publicized, it increased the doubts about the course taken by the U.S.A."
The article cited Carter's "confrontationoor cooperation" lines and said "to address the matter this way is to address it wrongly. The Soviet Union has long ago and unequivocally made its choice in favoar of peace and co-operation.
"Yet, the way this question is posed by the U.S. president may only indicate that it sis exactly the U.S.A., to be more precise the present administration, which has not yet made the final choice, or rather, is trying to depart from the principles of relations worked out earlier together with the U.S.S.R. which include the recognition of the fact that in a nuclear age there is no acceptable alternative to peaceful coexistence.
Noting that the Soviet Union is equal to the United States in strategic power, Pravda charged that "American and NATO leaders" harbor hopes of achieving superiority.
It said that the "attitude to disarmament negotiations may be regarded as an acid test in clarifying the true intentions of the sides." Pravda complained that Washington had snubbed a June 8 proposal by the Soviets for new, more equal force levels in Europe, where Soviet armed might is said by analysts to heavily outweigh the Western powers.
Instead, asserted Pravda, the NATO powers "to the accompaniment of a deafening campaign about a Warsaw pact buildup, adopted a longterm program of military construction. How can such an approach facilitate the success of the talks?"
On SALT, Pravda noted that both the United Stated and Soviet Union had already reached agreement "on an overwhelming majority of question". But it accused the United States -- specifically Carter and Secretary of State Cyprus Vance -- of "not displaying readiness to discuss the still unresolved issues" during recent talks in Washington with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko.
Gromyko, recently returned from the United States and a special session at the United Nations on disarmament, has presumably briefed the other members of the Soviet leadership on the substance of his Washington talks.
Pravda also asserted that Carter had not adequately attempted to lead the fight for ratification of a new Salt agreement in Congress and to shape American public opinion to accept the general terms of the treaty.
"On the contrary," it complained, "in this complicated situation many government leaders are busy stirring up mistrust towards the Soviet Union, spreading lies about the 'Soviet military threat.'"