Russia attempts to block IMF lending to Ukraine as Russian separatists violate ceasefire.

Link: Russia attempts to disrupt Ukrainian IMF loan.

It took two months for Russian-backed separatists to violate the latest ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.  The only surprise was that the ceasefire lasted as long as it did, but we can probably blame the delay on Russia's current pre-occupation in Syria.  The government of Ukraine and the various Russian-backed separatist groups in the east have agreed to two previous ceasefires, at least by my count.  In every instance, the apparently inevitable violation was committed by the separatists, which begs the obvious question: why does Kiev keep making agreements with these jerks?  Simply put, Ukraine has no choice.  President Petro Poroshenko has yet to implement any personal strategy for resolving this conflict.  Every decision from Ukraine's corner has been made by Kiev's European allies.  Ukraine is in no position to ignore the "advice" put forward by the U.S., French and German diplomats, and we all know that these three would just as soon see Ukraine completely overrun with Russians before agreeing to any type of aggressive military action.  Not that the Ukrainian Army is in a position to conduct a serious offensive in the southeast.  Repeated requests for military aid, to the U.S. in particular, have been denied, as the U.S. strives to encourage a more "peaceful" approach the to crisis.  Russia has taken full advantage of the prostrate policy currently put forth by the Europeans and the Obama Administration to occupy strategic villages and all-but off the vital port city of Mariupol from the rest of Ukraine.  During the last three years, Russia and her surrogates in eastern Ukraine have been able to dictate the time and pace of negotiations and military action to suit Russia's international strategy.  Expect the Ukrainian separatists to step-up military action in an attempt to occupy as much territory as possible before the election of a new, less-accommodating administration following the November 2016 presidential elections in the United States.

It appears that Russia's very recent diplomatic effort to interfere with Ukraine's relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has failed.  Russia has been known for this type of occasional diplomatic overreach, and who  can blame Moscow for trying?  Internationally, Russia continues to court various U.S. allies.  Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to enhanced military ties with the Emir of Kuwait, and Putin's envoy to Afghanistan has announced preparations to sell Hind Attack Helicopters and small arms to Kabul.  Russia has also reached out to Tunisia and Algeria, expressing the desire for increased cooperation in the fight against international terror.  The U.S. Department of State will respond to these overtures with some belated offer of aid or a concession on a trade treaty,  but the real problem for the United States has nothing to do with a Russian agreement with Kuwait or Helicopter sales to Afghanistan.  The fact is, Russia is running diplomatic circles around the U.S., and is showing no hesitation to flirt with long-time U.S. partners.  In the past, the United States would have reacted swiftly to Russian diplomatic advances to an ally by taking the same action.  The Bush or Reagan presidencies might have responded by agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine, or by increasing the presence of U.S. troops in eastern Europe.  At present, the U.S. has no response to these Russian overtures.  Russia continues to express an interest in forming a security alliance of sorts vis-à-vis Syria, to include the U.S. and its allies.  Washington DC has responded in a positive way to this potential agreement, but many suspect it is nothing more than a Russian distraction.   

The migrant crisis becomes an international problem.

Link: Austria welcomes new migrants from Syria.

At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience.  We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others.  The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media.  The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria.  The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem.  Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?"  In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked.  Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live?  Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states.  Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause.  These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?

I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants.  The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings.  Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem.  The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico.  We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway.  The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family.  This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system.  Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change.  Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry.  The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth.  The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families.  Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa.  The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice.  But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation.  This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself.  Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.

In reality, it may be too late for the United States.  President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States.  Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party.  But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees.  The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people.  Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis.  But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria.  The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft.  Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest.  South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited.  Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War.  The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees.  The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.

Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees.  Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life.  But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source.  Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence?  Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines.  Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort?  In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption.  Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another.  Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account.  If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs.  We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home.  The same is true for Mexico.  I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again.  But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.

It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor.  I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week.  But what about next week, and next month?  What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands?  The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling.  They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off.  Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?    

Are you telling me that some countries still have colonies? Shame!

Links: A. Territories Under the Jurisdiction of Other Countries.
           B. Where on the Globe are the Remaining Colonies?


Were you aware that two cities on the north Mediterranean coast of Morocco are actually part of Spain?  Ceuta and Melilla are leftover remnants of the days when Europe almost went to war over Morocco just prior to the first World War.  I highly recommend visiting these cities, which truly are neither Spanish or Moroccan, but an exotic, spice-filled hybrid of both.  And since you are going to be in the neighborhood, why not take a little tour of Morocco itself?  You won't be sorry.  Historically, Morocco existed as part of the French colonial empire, and the stories of Ceuta and Melilla, and of Spanish General Francisco Franco and his northern-Morocco based army of Falangists crossing the Straits of Gibraltar to begin the Spanish Civil War, are fascinating on their own.  In the early 1960's, when two million Frenchmen called Algeria home, many people don't realize that somewhere between two-hundred and three-hundred thousand French citizens were living in Morocco.  Does France have any colonies left in Africa?  Does anyone have any African colonies still on the books, so to speak? And Asia, are any European nations still getting free rubber and petroleum from the Far East?  I love maps and Geography, with History coming a close second, so I was able to make a close guess before examining the two links that I have provided.  For the sake of keeping this post simple and fun, lets follow the established definition of "colony", and let's start right at home, with the United States.

With consideration to populated areas only (the United States has research facilities at various small island clusters, including Palmyra Atoll, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef and Midway, Wake, Baker, Jarvis and Howland Islands), the United States administers the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the territory of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands, and the Territory of Guam.  When I was in High School and originally discovered that the United States administered so many far-flung areas around the world, I was amazed.  And to think that the U.S. overseas empire once included Cuba, Haiti, and the Philippines!  Most of the territories listed above were Pacific Ocean nation-states that had been occupied by the Japanese and liberated by the U.S. during World War Two.  Over the decades, the relationships have occasionally been contentious, but as of 2015, everyone seems to be satisfied, at least for the moment.  The U.S. taxpayer dishes out quite a bit to keep these naturally unbalanced (fish, bird shit, and more fish) economies afloat, but these communities have and continue to provide the United States with a number of invaluable benefits, for research and military purposes.  The United States conducted weapons testing near some of these areas, and an elaborate effort has been underway for some time to clean up the mess that was created.  The one wild-card in the mix is Puerto Rico, which on occasion has flirted with both becoming the fifty-first state and also with becoming an independent nation.  Something to note: with the exception of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, all of the overseas U.S. possessions are in the Pacific Ocean.

Canada has no colonies, unless you consider the Province of Nunavut to be an occupied nation, as many of the indigenous peoples do.  We can pass over Mexico and South and Central America, as Ecuador's claim on the Galapagos Islands and Chile's on Easter Island are considered directly connected to the mainland.  Very few European nations continue to administer foreign lands.  Portugal, once one of the world's greatest colonial powers, now counts the Azores as its last remaining foreign dependency (it is considered an autonomous region of Portugal and its inhabitants are Portuguese citizens).  Spain has cast off all of its former possessions, as has Italy, Belgium and Germany.  The Netherlands continue to administer the Caribbean Islands of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, an arrangement totally acceptable (and beneficial) to the local population.  I find Denmark to be a fascinating country.  This relatively small, Baltic state has authority over the North Sea-located Faroe Islands (a very modern European population of roughly fifty-thousand, that collects revenue from fishing), and also Greenland, or Kaalallit Nunaat, which is jointly administered by both Copenhagen and Nuuk.  Denmark has been both deliberate and patient with the slow integration of the native peoples into self-government.  In fact, it appears as if the native population (a small Danish minority exists) are finding the current arrangement to be most beneficial. 

The United Kingdom and France appear to have more overseas "dependencies" than anyone else. The U.K. continues to effect some authority over the Caribbean communities of the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos.  All of these states have self-rule, with an appointed British governor to represent the best interests of the English Queen (Elizabeth II, not Elton John).  The British occupy two distant regions that have been the cause of some controversy: the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar.  For a century, the British administered the Falklands, without a word of complaint from Argentina, the nearest country as-the-crow-flies.  The Falklands aren't the most hospitable islands, as the climate is cold and blustery, and the land won't grow much of use. But the Falklands are located in a bit of a strategic location.  In the 1980's, in an effort to encourage a wave of national pride, a military junta in charge of the Argentinian government invaded the Falklands, changing the name to Las Malvinas. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister at the time, so suffice to say that the Falklands were back in British control within six-months to a year.  The issue still rankles some Argentineans, although I don't see the argument.  I find the continued British presence in Northern Ireland to be much more debatable, but much more complicated for this post.  The British also continue to occupy Gibraltar, which is part of mainland Spain (as Ulster is part of mainland Ireland).  The Spanish have made countless requests for the return of Gibraltar, and on occasion have implemented temporary blockades.  But Gibraltar has proven to be a priceless possession over the centuries, especially during the two World Wars, and the British have no intention of giving it up.  The Channel Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man may all be closer to mainland France than the U.K., but they are thoroughly British, to the point that the French would never consider asking for them back.

France has a very complicated, sometimes tragic history involving its colonies.  In most instances (not all), France attempted to introduce the populations of its colonies to France as an ideal to be replicated.  Cities were built in the French pattern (Hanoi, Saigon, Brazzaville, Algiers, Tunis, Abidjan, Damascus), the French language was widely instituted, and French history, literature and art became staples of education.  In most places, the transition was gradual, and the French footprint is still quite visible today.  In fact, a number of potential independent nations have elected to stay part of France, including Guadalupe, Martinique, Reunion, Mayotte, and French Guiana.  During the past fifty years, French occupation of New Caledonia and French Polynesia has at times been contentious.  In both instances, France poured more money into the local economy and legislated expanded home rule.  New Caledonia is a difficult situation because the French who trace their heritage to the mainland constitute almost as large a percentage of the population as the indigenous peoples.  New Caledonia is an undiscovered jewel in the South Pacific, just northeast of New Zealand.  Probably because of distance, it has only become popular with French tourists, even though it is home to arguable the most tropical landscapes and beaches in the Pacific. French Polynesia is occasionally criticized for the urbanization of the capital city Pape'ete on Tahiti.  Well, if you don't care for lots of people in your tropical vacation, then just hop the ferry to Moorea or Bora Bora; you can't lose.  France has always been dedicated to bringing economic success to its foreign dependencies.  French Guiana benefits tremendously from the French Ariane Space Center that is located in Kourou.  When France abandoned its claim to Indochina (Vietnam), the French government relocated a number of Hmong tribesmen to Guiana, where they have thrived.

I consider Bouvet Island, Jan Meyer, and Svalbard to be integral to the geography of Norway, just as I consider Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Keeling, Coral Sea Islands, and a few other small islands to be directly connected to Australia.  New Zealand does administer the Cook Islands, but only as a welcome support for the small indigenous population.  I did not include Gaza or the West Bank in this discussion because it was not appropriate.  For all intents and purposes, Gaza is occupied and administered by Hamas and the West Bank by the Palestinian Authority.  If they would take a little of the foreign donations that end up lining people's pockets (or in the case of Hamas, buying weapons), and focus on infrastructure, job creation and community development, we would all be better off.  But destroying Israel remains the end goal of all endeavors, and until that changes, then Israel will be obliged to treat the West Bank and Gaza as occasional occupied territories.  Jeez how I hate war.

 

Why should the West be concerned with the intentions of the Islamic State in Africa? (Part I)

Links: A. The Islamic State in Africa
           B. So this is the latest version of the Caliphate.....

We've already addressed the presence of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in Africa in a number of posts. FYI, I'm one of those bloggers who analyzes statistics, and I'm well-aware, that for my core audience, anything having to do with the continent of Africa is about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.  Its vital to me that my blog remain relevant; unfortunately, that requires continued efforts to increase my audience, but it also obligates me to discuss all theaters of conflict.  No doubt this includes both North and Sub-Saharan Africa.  North Africa is rather simple to break down, and I usually include it with the Middle East anyway.

Egypt.  This particular piece of Mediterranean-bordered geography is important because Egypt shares a border with Israel, and has a huge, well-equipped and well-trained army.  And in spite of the best efforts of the current government, Egyptian society is inundated with extremists.  The Muslim Brotherhood, which commands a shockingly impressive number of supporters, is lurking around every corner.  Egypt also borders Libya.

Lybia.  When Libya started to crack at the edges, Muammar Gaddafi looked to the West, particularly to the United States, for assistance in creating some level of order.  Gaddafi had recently taken the first step and reached out to the West and the United States.  But the Department of State under Hillary Clinton never seemed prepared for any contingency.  When she accepted the position of Secretary of State, the Department itself was meant to be a vehicle for her star-studded arrival at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in 2016.  A review of foreign affairs during the Clinton tenure at Foggy Bottom makes it clear that the only events, issues or summits that were worth our attention were the ones that allowed Hillary to shine.  It's as if the entire State Department morphed into her make-up closet.  As for developments in the real world, our entire diplomatic posture was reactive.  Again, except for the New Start Treaty, and a handful of other expertly-crafted engagements, the State Department just waited for things to happen, and then looked to the White House for direction.  Gaddafi was left out in the cold, and the opportunity to create something positive for the Libyan people, from the people of the United States, never materialized.  We sat back and watched Gaddafi get butchered, and a flock of nasty extremists move in to fight over what's left of Libya.  The night of the Benghazi incident, the State Department claims that efforts were made to contact the Libyan government.  WHICH ONE?

Tunisia.  Tunisia is very important.  The people of Tunisia fought and sacrificed to keep their nation from falling into the talons of extremists.  The removal of the ruling family, which had become so corrupt that certain members of the ruling family actually considered the Gross National Product (GNP) of Tunisia to be their own personal ATM account, was absolutely essential.  Since independence from France, the governments of Tunisia have always been at least a little corrupt, but they also exhibited a love of country that allowed for most of the GNP to be used for the good of the state.  Because Tunisia had good roads, nice resorts, and well-maintained historic sites, revenue from tourism continued to support economic growth and job creation. But recently, things had begun to get a bit out of hand.  Tunisia deserves an honest, Democratic government, and their relatively low population removes a major stress faced by many of Tunisia's neighbors.  But one threat that won't go away without a fight, is the presence of Islamic extremists.  Last week they shot up the Bardo Museum in Tunis and killed a bunch of European tourists.  The government of Tunisia, fresh off free and fair elections, needs the support of the United States and the international community now more than ever.

Morocco & Algeria.  At present, both Morocco and Algeria enjoy the security of effective, no-nonsense security forces.  The military in both countries, which traditionally seconds the security forces, are both disciplined, well-equipped, well-trained, and loyal to the government.  Hell, for all practical purposes, the military IS the government in Algeria.  But don't quote me, please.  I'm a huge fan of King Mohammed VI of Morocco.  Like his father, he has a keen sense of politics in the Islamic world, and manages to avoid really pissing off anyone.  Mohammed VI is as progressive as it gets for a Muslim regent, and he considers his inherited position to be a full-time job which he takes with the utmost seriousness. Algeria's economy can rely on oil for the foreseeable future, but Morocco imports $38.7 billion worth or goods every year, and exports only $16.8 billion.  Thank goodness for the relatively low population growth rate and high revenues from tourism.  But the pseudo-fascist government in Algiers and the monarchy in Rabat must look at the same map I have provided (link B).  Both Morocco and Algeria are part of the Caliphate, baby.  Realistically, the armies of either Morocco or Algeria could defeat the IS in a conventional war.  But the trick is, the IS won't limit itself to a conventional war.  The IS will engage in every type of warfare at its disposal.  The tourists will stop coming to the beaches of Morocco after a few well-placed incendiary devices and blown people to pieces.  And the Algerian government will lose its cash cow if the IS can successfully capture or blow up a refinery here and there.  And if this conflict grows to the point of endangering Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, then the IS will have grown into a military force to be feared.

North Africa is very important to the conflict that currently is being waged in Iraq and Syria. The IS is in Egypt, it is in Libya, and it is in Tunisia.  I guarantee you that operatives are in place in Algeria and Morocco, recruiting, reminding poor, jobless young men about the lifestyles of the rich diplomats and generals in Algiers, and the sinful lifestyle of the monarch in Rabat (it has long been suspected, and in fact, discreetly accepted that King Mohammed VI lived a homosexual lifestyle in Europe before the death of his father.  He has since married and fathered and heir, which at this point is all anyone seems to care about).

Click here to continue to Part II of this post. 

Just How Many Muslims Have Immigrated To Europe, Anyway?

Link A. Immigration To France, Wikipedia
         B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
         C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
         D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia

The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated.  When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible.  With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research?  Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities?  Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories?  Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt?  Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back.  A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater.  The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years.  Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe.  For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe).  During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased.  But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe".  Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).

The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism.  Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well).  North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia.  In most instances, they put down roots and had children.  In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies.  For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies.  England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea.  Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese.  Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome.  As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation.  Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer.  Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism.  And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today.  In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off.  Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing.  This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.

In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim.  Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind.  Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing).  As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic.  Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls.  Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well.  No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity.  But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source.  Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism?  Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well.  These young men and women have no distraction.  They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go.  And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night.  The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy.  If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.

Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago?  Those kids had nothing to do.  Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States.  The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority.  And sex?  It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination.  What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe.  We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are.  The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology.  That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage.  These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well.  We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers).  Has it been so long since we were at that age?  The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become.  You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five.  There is a reason for that.

Forget Crimea And The Black Sea...What About Russian Naval Bases In The Mediterranean?

Link: A. Russian Naval Plans In The Mediterranean
          B. Yes Virginia, There Is A Syrian Navy

I spend so much time reading and thinking about the conflict in Syria, I have allowed myself to fall into a two-dimensional trap.  The United States and allies are conducting an air campaign in Syria in an attempt to diminish the fighting capacity of certain Islamic terrorist groups.  Concurrently, efforts are underway to train and equip the "Free Syrian Army", which will serve as the closest thing to a ground element that the United States and her allies have.  I have heard rumors that we've already trained non-U.S. ground units who are now already in combat.  This would make sense, given that the Free Syrian Army has orders to only engage the enemy from a defensive posture.  Another rumor is making the rounds of various U.S. military bases and facilities around the world, and this one dwarfs anything we have heard to date (no, they are not bringing back Little House On the Prairie).  Allegedly, the Administration has accepted the need for U.S. ground forces in Iraq in order to prevent the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL or IS) from eventually occupying

both Baghdad and the vital oil refinery at Baiji.  I have been hearing this rumor for some time, and it is evolving into a whispered roar.  As far as I am concerned, there is not a shred of truth to the rumor.  However, the small person I had hired to hide up Biden's ass and take discreet notes during Cabinet meetings, was discovered and promoted to the new Ebola Czar.  So your guess is as good as mine.  To be honest, I can't imagine the Administration engaging in such an obvious about-face.  But hey, politics is bizarre.  President Obama may get kudos for allowing his policy to evolve.  With regard to the Syrian campaign, I believed that the conflict was permanently limited to a ground and air conflict.  I realize Syria has a small coast (193 kilometers) which includes two decent sized cities, Tartus and Latakia.  It's my

understanding that the area around Tartus and Latakia is littered with ruins from the days of ancient Sparta, Athens and Troy.  Soon the tourists may hear a new language be spoken among the sightseers: Russian.



Let me clarify an important point: I do not expect the Syrian conflict to become a three-dimensional with an attack on Tartus by the three pedalos that make up the IS Navy.

But I needed a smooth avenue on which to introduce the subject of Russian interest in Mediterranean ports.  We have spent some time commenting on the Russian desire to turn the Black Sea into Lake Putin, but the specter of Russian warships with a home on the Mediterranean is much closer to reality.    In fact, the Russians have already started to use the reasonably modern facilities at Tartus.  I have opined that one of the handful of reasons why Putin will not allow Bashir al-Assad to fall from power is the Russian's need for an ally with a port large enough for expansion.  Tartus certainly fits the bill, although other locations have been mentioned as well.  Occasionally someone will mention the possibility of a Russian naval facility in Libya, but who knows when the camel traders, with AK-47s under one arm and Qurans under the other, will grow tired of creating martyrs.  Alexandria, in Egypt, was looking like a promising destination before Mohamed Morsi was whisked away to jail.  For many years I waited, expecting the Algerian military (Algeria's true boss) to fall totally into the lap of Russia (the Algerians have traditionally purchased Russian-made military equipment).  I was being very naïve.  The Algerian government has contracts with half the oil companies in Europe and the United States, and lately has actually started purchasing more U.S. military equipment.  Malta might as well be a Channel Island, alongside Jersey and the Isle of Man, and the rest are non-starters: Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, France, Italy, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon and Israel.  Most of the countries on the preceding

list have very little love for Russia, and the others do not have the right harbor for what the Russian Navy requires.  Cyprus though, is a bit of a mystery.  Until recently Cypriot banks were awash with laundered Russian cash, and the Russians really seem to enjoy the little island full of Greeks and Turks who really, REALLY hate each other.  Cyprus has a number of locations that would suit the Russian navy to a tee, but it is unlikely that the UK, who for some reason continues to act as stepfather to the Cypriots, would allow Russian submarines in Larnaka.

I never second-guess Putin's ingenuity (or his ability to blackmail and bribe), and he very well might negotiate himself into a naval port facility in one of the above-named locations.  But for the moment, it isn't necessary.  Assad has given the Russians the keys to the port of Tartus.  The modest, but well-maintained, Syrian Navy keeps its few Russian-made frigates, missile craft and patrol boats at Tartus, which provide an invaluable opportunity for the Syrian naval personnel to work together with the Russians (watch out, Syrian naval commanders: the last time the Russians showed up wearing smiles, the entire Ukrainian navy was swallowed up overnight).  If Assad manages to keep his job (or another Ba'athist butthole takes it), the Russian Navy should have a free hand to construct a modern naval port facility at Tartus, complete with both Marines and a land-based naval air detachment.  Although the Russians have had friends all over the middle east for more than the past half-century, this is the first time that I can recall the Russians openly stating their intention to make full naval use of Tartus.  The presence of all those Russian nuclear submarines does not sit well with me, and you can only imagine the hissy fit being thrown by the Green Party political representatives throughout EU countries.  However, a full-blown Russian fleet in the Levant will accomplish something positive for us over here in the West:  Whoever takes the White House in 2016 won't be able to ignore the reconstituting of the Russian war machine.

Who's At The Door, Ebola or Al-Qaeda?

Links: A. French Troops Battle Terrorists In Northern Mali
           B. France Retaking Its Former Empire

You have to feel for the poor people of Mali.  The country is landlocked and would probably be a complete desert if it weren't for the Niger River.  Mali shares a border with Cote d'Ivoire

which, until recently, allowed Mali access to the second busiest port in West Africa (Dakar being first).  Unfortunately, in 2002 Cote d'Ivoire's turn came up on the African civil war Merry-Go-Round, which split the country between north and south and lasted until 2011.  The conflict has ended and Cote d'Ivoire has recovered in record time. The roads between Mali and Cote d'Ivoire are again full of trucks carrying goods between Bamako, Mali and the port of Abidjan; although, sadly the condition of the roads leaves a lot to be desired.  For roughly a decade Mali was solely dependent upon its road and rail (gulp!) links to the west: namely, Dakar, Senegal.  In 2012, Mali suffered through the Tuareg Rebellion.  The nomadic Tuareg people of northern Mali (Tuaregs are also present in southern Algeria and northern Niger), revolted in reaction to feeling marginalized by the government in Bamako and the mining activity, which they claimed damaged pastoral grazing lands.  It didn't take long for the world's favorite parasite, Al-Qaeda (in this incarnation, Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb - AQIM), to join the rebellion alongside the Tuaregs.  Not surprisingly, AQIM quickly pushed the well-meaning Tuareg aside and began to threaten other interests (read: French) further south (which included the occupation of Tombouctou).  The French Army arrived in January 2013 and one month later the issue was resolved.  The French military has always come to a fight ready to win both quickly and completely.  I remember when the United States military carried the same reputation. 

Ibrahim Boubacar Keita,
President of Mali

The Tuareg Rebellion cost Malian President Amadou Toure his job; the transitional military government kept its word and respectably clean elections were held in August 2013.  Ibrahim Boubacar Keita was sworn in on September 4, and he has done a superb job to date.  The Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Liberia brought the attention of the world to west Africa.  Mali has a long border with both Guinea and Liberia, and given the state of Mali's infrastructure (and low international expectations), great concern was expressed that Mali would also suffer an outbreak.  President Keita put national sensitivities aside and asked the United States and Europe to send medical experts.  The International Red Cross (IRC) was already in place, and all necessary authority and support was given by the Malian Ministry of Health to facilitate the education and preparation of both cities and rural communities.  Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) arrived, as did the Center for Disease Control from Atlanta and the World Health Organization (WHO).  Mali already had capable, modern hospitals in Bamako and Sikasso, and the Center for Tuberculosis and AIDS Research (SEFERO).  Screening facilities and Isolation Units were set up at all border crossings and Ports of Entry.  Heeding the request made by President Obama, Mali has kept open its border posts with Liberia and Guinea (despite intense pressure put on President Keita from internal groups).  To date, Mali has registered only one positive case of Ebola, and that was the tragic instance of a now-deceased two-year old child from Guinea who was transported across the border by her grandmother after the death of her mother.  No doubt additional confirmed cases will occur, but all in all, Mali has set an example for other nations (not only third world) to follow when bordering a contagious viral outbreak.

Again, exhibiting a willingness to take advantage of every opportunity, AQIM has made its presence known again.  I've heard it said that after the nuclear apocalypse, the only things left alive will be cock roaches and Cher.  Well, lets add AQIM to the list.  These nasty, parasitic desert rats dug some deep tunnels to escape French and Malian justice, and now the resources of the government are tied up not only in combating the threat of Ebola, but also in trying to build a durable, functioning transportation network to support a growing economy.  Earlier in the year, the Chinese had come around, promising all sorts of goodies.  In fact, China and Mali had negotiated Chinese financial sponsorship of an $11 Billion new railway system to replace the existing rail to Dakar (built in 1884; last real servicing completed in 1924) and to build an entire new railway from Bamako to the port city of Conakry, Guinea.  Sadly, in the last few weeks the Chinese have started to hedge on their commitment, issuing a statement that discussions took place but no obligations were agreed upon.  Bullshit.  The Chinese economy has started to show signs of trouble, which would make reconsideration of expensive foreign projects only routine.  Eleven billion dollars is nothing to the Bank of China, but it could actually change the lives of 15 Million Malians.  What is my interest in this situation?  I love west Africa.  I'm half-French and I truly enjoy the Francophile community.  And everyone, who is willing to do their part, deserves an opportunity.