Turkey and Russia

The growth of GDP is understandable in political ratios, the political origins of fallen empires are not. The eclipse of Turkisk bureaucracy was fashionably untrammelled and the consequences socially moved. The ratio of dictatorship is socialist, the Russian liberalism philosophical. The political solutions are weak, and economic forecasts low. The ideology nowhere to be seen and the cause the regime itself.

I argue Russian leaderships are against Turkisk development and the political future and economic consequences bleak. The social impact can only improve and the framework an alternative policy to Europe. The southern direction is dependent on a friendly USA and I argue the response from the EU is unhelpful. Russian aims are obvious and strategy liberal, the USA is encouraging southern moves.

The Turks are quiet and the Kurds effective, Russia is seemingly friendly. I argue the society is unrepentant. The socio-political is conservative. The socialist opposition is hierarchical and the economic self-dependent. The point is politics is directed at the people by design, and responses are irrefutable.

The conservative climate in Russia is in this argument and society is economically solved by elites. On the small scale Russia is utopian and institutions socially socialist. The idea then is revolution is unlikely. Turkey then has found its own solution and Russia is using it. The future lies in the EU and Russia has undermined political alignment. The EU has to risk Russian scorn and build the bridge, Liberal systems and economic hardship is social and socialist aspirations popular the strategy must be southern, because the EU has reached its limits.

China resigned

The conference in  China belittled the host nation, the British smiled and were sidelined and  the Americans showed little interest. I argue communications matter less than foundational positions, where does Britain hope to find its trade, and a retreating USA is unlikely to help this China embargo. The conference was spectatcular for  tv watchers, and Li Peng's nervousness was hardly noticed.

America is in one of those depressed moments when home truths matter more than foreign claims and ambitions. The Canadians have a new President and much more to live for than trade with the UK. But trade goes on while the whole world is in recession, when we climb out of it the upturn will overturn leaders and losers.

China is not concerned with local arguments like intra-trade to the US, but Britain's press liked to claim that Chinese workers had a right to work in the UK under national agreements. The conference was billed as an answer to Chinese unemployment in the west, and Russia looked conspiratorial about national aims  and balanced goals. I argue China and Russia have been left out of the Obama years, and only Russia has said something about it.

The American challenge to China is less considered than inopportune. Again it has shown itself to be schizophrenic in its division of aims. Balanced goals it relies on, because of division and decline in the world economy. But the UK lacks any of this credibility, and by leaving the EU has left its trading partners low in strength and aims.

Balanced goals are measured by conflict and surrounding tension. I argue the UK has undermined its national portfolio, but can regain the position. This does not have to be in Europe. The South African economy is strong and stable, so is the Canadian and North African. Its balanced goals can be ignored, but aims like strong trading links come with this cost.

America may regret its role, and change its mind. Europe maay open its targets as UK and non-aligned  countries. Russia may find peace a solution if its route is blocked. These kinds of economic delocalisation is popular here, Euriopean nations are too centralised and we need to find balance in economy, not arms

Political capital

The risk of division is to political threat, terrorism is a reason for unity. Cameron has left political leadership to his enemies and this has consequences. One is the end of support for moderation and the reaction of Corbyn is to lead those forces. The right is becoming a threat to the establishment and the left has become an outlet.

Cameron reinforced the effect of opportunity and the political decline will cover any support for integration. A second referendum is likely to be annulled by economic risk and social damage. If held it will increase the political rift and the question is a plural attempt to undermine democratic forces. The input is the result.

The legitimacy has been undermined by a change of leadership and the risk is political reinforcement of the left. So far personalities have been allowed to overshadow European arguments. The left has undermined political unity. Cameron is supporting this disunity to reinvent his CV. Does the political framework prevent a grab in foreign policy?

The American opponents will not come to our aid, the perception is social and the risk is economic. Does integration matter? The rescue is left leaning and the consequences political and a threat to international unity. At this time the origins of power are social, and economy is ignored. Corbyn may be a winner of this process and Cameron has political capital at stake.

The ignorance question

Trump appears to have let political strategy to take over, and the news from Washington says it has worked. I argue the system is becoming accuse your opponent, not recognise his virtues and debate policy. Certainly both candidates are lacking on this score. I suggest the recent accusation that ignorance counts is below the belt, especially from a black President, because he allows this discussion to escalate to a gender clash and political intrigue. I point out that black and white were his credentials, not yellow and green.

But the debate raises larger issues. The south is Hilary's search for votes and three east more Trump's. I point to the welfare question, and the black disenfranchisement, even the 1960s and how black people were denied the vote. The answer is this dirty contest has been blaimed on Trump, when Hilary has everything to gain from it. The government must be questioning the strategy because the debate is divided and the politics is outside agreements. The President has been drawn in to a discussion he should be involved in, but has less origins of this sort than some of his contemporaries.

The strategy is a double one, both believe in the superiority of the elected and Hilary has been in both black led governments and social issues on the left. Trump has more to offer the black community in the southern areas and is vulnerable on the issue. Hilary is privileged, and Trump is wealthy. The Irish issue has failed to resonate and both camps are divided on the merits of raising left issues and black labels after Obama.

Presidents that are black have a link to Cuban and immigration, Trump is cool on both. Hilary was Secretary of State and claims legitimacy in this area. The division than is about helping candiadtes, should Obama side with Hilary, has global media made a black essential for this politics. A black President has a legacy, and the truth is Trump is on the moral side. The state supports elections that are funded by donors, Trumps wealth is an issue and ignoranace often a solution to giving money to candidates. I argue it is money and back that are fuelling the controversey and Trump has much to gain from it.

British membership and Boris

The EU has attributes in foreign policy and political independence, the move against membership is driven by Conservative party division and social movements. The political separation will give economic independence and political inferiority to Westminster, but the out camp views global markets and increased growth as the likely outcome. Boris Johnson has career advantages in a political test of decision-making.

The Prime Minister negotiated a deal to resue the UK from this separation, sovereignty and political gain lay at the core of it. Other parts are inherited from previous encounters with the same question. Boris therefore can make new ground and Cameron has a large field of untested ground to play with. Boris' first strategy was to distance himself from the Prime Minister and he established himself as head of the out camp in the morning papers.

British membership of the EU has a different approach to the one faced now, coming out is easier than going in and could be quite uncomfortable for the PM. The reason is leaving is not new to British politics and other countries are easier to win over. Boris has to play the outraged Minister, something he does well and has been done in a similar context by Michael Heseltine. Mayor Boris has much to gain in funding and personal image, which might lead to a Prime Ministerial position.

Boris' second plan may be to undermine Labour on Europe. Since the 1970s Labour has been divided on the question, and held a referendum on  membership. The parties had internal factions, a state that exists when no discipline can undermine the authority of the different groups. Thirdly Boris may tackle the business community, as mayor he is in a good position because he attracts inward investment into London.

The question of globalisation and growth comes into it, and the defence was strong over the Single Market and EMU. It is on this issue that he is likely to fail, and older voters may come into the referendum's voting arithmetic. The EU is ideologically immune to these tests, one reason why the referendum was called. Boris Johnson may have lost key supporters over his move, but the referendum is unlikely to show it. A greater test lies uncertain and I argue may well confound his electoral ambitions.

The Republican election question

The independence process is a short one, and American elections are hazardous and dangerous affairs. Donald Trump is a seasoned campaigner and difficult to overcome, but traditional Democratic votes are more difficult to predict. The Trump phenomenon is a hot readers list favourite and Hilary is  a experienced and well advised candidate. But Trump is the likely winner except for the Presidential bear traps.

Hilary started with nothing to stop her, but her independence and intelligence is working against her. America takes it better from a man and Trump's attack on the Pope stole the limelight. The French Presidency is predictable, and caucuses remove this obstacle. Both are directly elected, but France is superior because its centralisation and bicameral nature allows the Prime Minister to have  a veto position.

Hilary seems to have played out this role in the hustings, but her choice of opponent is likley to trump her. Again like with Obama, the framework is not ticking in her favour. I suggest the British example is predicting a conservative victory and the threat comes from the establishment. The Democrats need to win in foreign constituencies, like Hispanics and cities. But Trump has the headlines there.

Foreign capitals are also important and can assuage the vote. The UK and France are indicating that a Republican victory would help. Arabia is supportive. Opposing powers influnce the black vote, which is unlikly to support conservatives. I believe an interest is important and a risk, and Hilary has this vote, traditionally a Republican one.

The votes in the South are therefore pointing to the periphery and the north is heading right. The reason is not only socio-economic. The periphery are well after Obama and the north is more liberal. It would not be difficult for Hilary to change the dynamics of a left-right shift. The other point is this would bring in foreign capitals and traditional voters. Hilary Clinton can still win.

Trump is leading bacause he has shown leadership and a black sense of identity. He could swap liberal voters for Rupublican frameworks and gain the foreign vote from a reflex action against Obama. The shift is left-right and principle economic, but socially the gain is right-special constituency. The question is was the Pope showing a leadership judgement which will be taken seriously. I doubt it because of religion.

Syria

The threat to Russia from Syria is tiny compared to the effect of Turkey on Russia. The reason is Turkey is a decision-maker in NATO. The wealth of Syria is inconsequential, and has targeted Russian diplomacy. Syria has taken on authority and is deciding to accept Russian terms.

The friend has turned angry and the extent of empire knows no bounds. Cuba comes to mind, but for both sides. The enemy is clandestine, and the origins successful. The frame is objective, and Syria has become subjective.

The refugees are threatening, because its allies have betrayed them. I suggest the change is becoming hard. Why does a shelter have significance. The direction of growth is left, but decisions are leaning right. The reaction is Syrian and the frame is baseline.

The future of the country is in centre, and the local is destroyed, yet Russia keeps saying not one. I argue this is about interests, and we are allying with Russia. America is going for domesticity, and Russia has a portal. Let's save the Syrians we can, and remember whose interests this is in.