G8 Power Chess

[Lynne]

Tony Blair at the G8 Summit has shifted his mode of speaking, now he is leaving government to a way that admits the hypocrisy and the fact that what happens politically is down to cold hard facts of interest. Well he can now, He can do whatever as it is Brown left. Power is the currency and, it is an admittance that we are weak against a power and whilst the government can create other states, there are other states that they cannot to this with because basically they have too much influence and are to powerful. However if you are lesser power, we will take it upon ourselves to appoint ourselves judges of you. For only those that are weakened in power be judged. We will also not apply this to ourselves either. We persecute and vilify a state if it is too our advantage in the pursuit of power and we will ourselves commit exactly the deeds at which we accuse them.


Mr Bush, simply confuses me, I have to say he does the art of making no sense that really you are left, puzzling how he can still do it, when he must be able to see how illogical what he saying is. His claim that his missile defence system that he wants to have based in the Czech Republic and Poland is not going to affect Russia, due to the fact that he claims it will not be capable of protecting multiple attacks is based on the fact that as Russia is going to not be threatened as it could do such an action and there should be no issue. Now, does that mean that if Iran where creating nuclear weapons as they claim they are, then why would they not just do multiple attacks? As should they not be protected from so called rouge states from that also. The term rouge state is a term applied to those that are not playing to the people who think they are the boss of the playground. My, what if Iran and Korea both attacked at the same time…what a conundrum


The west is fearful of a strong Russian economy in the position to invest in their shores and instead of it being that the west gains the profit from the capitalist market, Russia now after recovering from the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union is simply playing the game they have played all along. The talk is not of a Russia fearful of losing the west’s investments in Russia, but one that is saying that we will invest in your countries and you will need us for your economies, because otherwise we will simply cut you out of the market.

The fact that Russia has played the cards, of if we are friends with the west and this missile defence system is to be to our advantage in protection as well then having us as a partner by having facilities with us is good for all and would abolish the threat that we would think it would be for purposes against us.




This is a time that is very important. Whilst at home in Russia and elsewhere also in the US and the UK, dissent and exposing government corruption and hypocrisy is as guilty in both parts. It is not nations as peoples who benefit from it. Yes there will be an element in any society when an economy becomes stronger who benefits and in some parts that is enough to quell social dissent. Russia is no greater an evil that the US…The US simply does not want to concede it is the sole power that sets the world agenda.

It is evident too, how they both have there eyes on future economic trends and the fact that China and India, but most importantly China for the fact that it has power not only in being a permanent member of the UN, It has population, social control, army, technology, and it is economically building and is no longer outside the marker. The difference between China and Russia is that Russia as a major provider of natural gas has the role of seller and as China is developing it has to think about balancing the fact of pleasing that market, which in looking at future predictions will be stronger than Europe, who it can more afford to take such actions such has it did with the Ukraine and with Belarus and also with changing the deal with Japan in favour of China. There is a limit though to how much power the US and Russia wished these countries which are still classed as developing and in that are not applied the same restrictions on emissions in regard to discussions on climate change as them. Saying that until these countries also take their part in tackling climate change then there will still be an issue is very familiar, to the argument used against them; that without the major emitters cutting down there will be an issue. It is though only an issue when the issue can be used against someone else in order to prevent them reaping the same rewards.


It appears that protesters wishing to protest against Russia are having more luck. A twenty year old man was able to throw leaflets at Putin whilst he was giving a speech. It is notable we have not seen that when Bush and Blair speak. Whilst the west condemns Russia for its lack of political freedom, why is it that here in the west we prevent protesters from letting those at the summit hearing them? Fences erected, terror used as an excuse. Is it not right that these leaders hear the people that they supposedly are meant to represent?