It has the same concise agenda that includes major subjects of paramount importance for the world - climate change, poverty in Africa, socially acceptable forms of globalization and issues of regional security - Kosovo, Iran and the Middle East.
It differs from the previous summits in the higher level of confrontation. The eight leaders have very divergent positions on almost every item on the agenda.
Climate change is one of the most disputed issues. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and Germany and a number of other European countries demand a new agreement with even tougher restrictions on hothouse emissions - cutting them down by half by 2050.
The United States, which has not signed the protocol, is against this. George W. Bush is trying to replace the idea of a new agreement with a conference of 14 countries on environmentally clean technologies, but this initiative has not met with enthusiastic support.
The G8 countries are seriously divided on Kosovo's future status. Russia is against the plan that would tear it off from Serbia by giving it artificial independence. There is no agreement on the Iranian nuclear program - some countries, including Russia, believe that further toughening of sanctions against it is counterproductive and would like to continue the talks.
But the highest point of confrontation is not mentioned in the official agenda although it is hovering over the summit like a thunderous cloud. This is the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West, primarily the United States.
It seems only recently Moscow and Washington were exchanging assurances of strategic partnership. But in June 2007, they are lashing out at each other before the eyes of the jittery world. At a conference in the Czech Republic Bush said that Russian democracy was derailed, while Vladimir Putin told journalists from G8 countries that the U.S. ABM elements in Europe might upset the global strategic balance.
Some Russian experts are blaming this return to unfriendly rhetoric on objective factors, for instance, the nuclear arsenal from the Cold War era. No matter what policymakers may say, it is probable that American and Russian deterrents continue to be targeted against each other. In a bid to justify the existence of nuclear weapons, generals from both countries are pressing their commanders in chief, the presidents, into periodic exchange of loud criticism.
But this argument is not convincing. Nuclear arsenals existed five and ten years ago but did not prevent Russia and the United States from uniting in the face of international terrorism. Quite the reverse, the chill is occurring at a time when American strategic weapons are undergoing a major metamorphosis that few have noticed. For the first time in history, inalienable components of the U.S. nuclear potential may appear in Europe. Deployment of interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic may change the entire configuration of world security, dooming Russia to countermeasures.
In Moscow's view, the United States has failed to explain why its ABM components designed to rebuff a hypothetical attack by Iran or North Korea should be placed near Russia rather than the potential enemies, all the more so since they have no means of attack, that is, missiles with a range of 5,000 km-8,000 km.
Moscow is adamant that the American ABM system in Europe is targeted against Russia and creates an illusion of protection in American eyes, thereby enhancing the risk of a nuclear conflict. It is also bound to trigger off a new round of the arms race.
Moscow is also perplexed by the conduct of the European Union. It regards low-quality Polish meat (as it has transpired Germany does not want it, either) as a good excuse to remind everyone of European solidarity. But the idea of two EU newcomers to host elements of the U.S. nuclear potential in Europe does not prompt the EU to discuss the principles of solidarity.
That said, neither Bush, nor Putin consider today's differences a disaster, but are trying to use every opportunity to reach a compromise. They will look for them in Heiligendamm.
Regrettably for both leaders, their wings are cut. This is the last G8 summit for Putin and the one but last for Bush. Both leaders feel the implacable approach of the presidential race when international problems are relegated to background and domestic attitudes come to the fore.
The prevailing attitudes in Russia are as follows - we are too soft on America; we are being ignored and circled with bases and missile silos. Similar nationalistic slogans are gaining momentum in America as well. The summit in Germany will show whether the leaders will manage to protect mutual interests of strategic partnership.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
