The refugee issue underscores political division within the European Union.

Last Monday, December 19, less than one week before Christmas, an act of terror perpetrated at a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany, reminded us that the struggle against Islamic terrorism has not abated.  In a scene rememisent of the terror attack in Nice, France last year, a large truck was driven into a cafe/market area which was packed with people enjoying the holiday festivities.  Parents, spouses and children of the victims are left to answer the question, "why"?  Everytime you turn on the news, one talking head after another is attempting to explain the motivations behind violence committed against civiliams; what a colossal waste of time.  Regardless if its ISIS or Al Qaida, Boko Haram or Al Shabaab, Islamic terrorism has is intended to intimidate, frighten and murder Christians, Jews, and on the Indian subcontinent, Hindus.  Terrorism for the sake of Islamic Extremism is not a recent development, but the frequency with which these groups are able to strike in Europe and the United States is disturbimg to say the least.  No doubt Donald Trump appealed to many voters when he promised during the recent presidential campaign to aggressively combat ISIS.  Over the next year, voters in France and Holland will have the opportunity to decide if the current batch of Prime Ministers and Presidents have been doing enough in response to these attacks.  The refugee issue, which is directly related to concerns regarding terrorism, is presently the hot-button issue in Europe.

The continued presence of ISIS (and other Islamic extremist groups) in Syria has created a monumental refugee crisis.  The Obama Administration has been useless with regards to ending the conflict or addressing the refugee crisis.  The Syrian conflict has destroyed almost every urban community outside of Damascus, and the inhabitants have been forced to leave their homes.  The European Union has responded to this development by opening its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees.  Not to be outdone, the Obama Administration agreed to resettle large numbers of refugees in the United States.  The decision to create humdreds of thousands of new Europeans and Americans has been met with a great deal of opposition in both the United States and various nations in Europe.  It has become obvious that ISIS and other terror groups have been planting operatives within the refugee population.  The resettlement processes in Europe and the United States have no effective method of identifying the throngs of refugees who continue to show up on the borders of Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and Greece.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has led to campaign to open Europe's borders, is hoping against hope that the person who committed this most recent attack, won't in the end be identified as a recent refugee; I would advise her not to hold her breath.

The organizations and political leaders who argue for quick resettlement of the Syrian refugees are justifiably trying to avoid a human catastrophe.  But the answer to this problem should never imclude comprimising the security of persons in North America and Europe.  Settimg up quota systems to pressure European governments to quickly resettle thousands of people will only create another kind of human catastrophe.  Another issue which seems to get swept under the carpet is the cost of resettlement.  Barack Obama has left the American people with a twenty trillion dollar national debt.  The EU is facing a major economic crisis in Italy, and France, the second largest economy in the EU, is dealing with a crippling unemployment problem.  Many middle and lower income folks in Europe and America are asking the question, "just when did this become my problem?"

The permanent solution to the refugee crisis is to end the conflict in Syria.  This goal could have been accomplished years ago if Obama would have had the courage to militarily combat ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  Russia has stepped in, but will commit itself only as far as its proxy Bashar al-Assad is concerned.  Regardless, one cannot escape the fact that Syrians should live in Syria; it's their home.  A decided military effort achieved by a military coalition can only be achieved by a leader with great determination, courage, and influence.  The conflicts in both Syria and Iraq can only have a military solution, but the good news is that a military solution is possible.  Destroying ISIS and resolving the Syrian Civil War will end the refugee problem.  Does Donald Trump have what it takes to forge a solution?  He certainly believes he does; but for the rest of us, action will speak louder than Twitter.

France, Germany pressure Kiev to grant autonomy to separatists, as conflict escalates.

Link: Poroshenko meets with Hollande, Merkel in Berlin.

Today, Ukrainian President Poroshenko traveled to Berlin for consultations with German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande to discuss the rapidly unravelling "Minsk II" accord.  As anticipated, in recent days, separatist forces have launched numerous attacks against Ukrainian positions.  On August 10, separatists used tanks and heavy artillery in an attack on Ukrainian forces 20 kilometers east of the Donetsk-Mariupol Highway, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring installations continue to track "Grad" multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) strikes along much of the frontline in Donetsk Oblast.  On August 16, separatists launched an artillery barrage on the northeastern outskirts of Mariupol.  It is widely suspected that the upturn in violence is an effort on the part of the separatists to influence Kiev, as negotiations continue in Minsk and now also in Berlin.  The Russian-backed separatists hope that the more pessimistic the current military situation appears, the more likely that Kiev will be more flexible when it comes to negotiating the issue of autonomy for Donbas.

It is also widely accepted that both Hollande and Merkel will pressure Poroshenko to yield on the issue of autonomy for Donbas.  Again, just another example of the complete lack of conviction and courage on the part of European leaders when faced with military aggression.  If history has taught us anything, it is that a bully, regardless of the size of the playground, will continue to terrorize until he is confronted by a united opposition.  Poroshenko has no choice but to follow the advice of his benefactors (I would include President Obama on this list, but I'm not really sure where he has been lately...probably putting the final touches on his Amnesty Executive Order Action); without the continued support of Europe and the United States, Ukraine would be totally occupied by the Russian Army by the end of next week.  Back to the present: if Poroshenko grants autonomy to Donbas (without a plebiscite, mind you....shades of Austria, 1938), no doubt the separatists and Russia will control whatever elections come next, and those "elected" will uniformly support the annexation of Donbas by Russia.  Remember this blog post from August 21, 2015: if Poroshenko approves any form of autonomy for sections of Eastern Ukraine, those areas will eventually be swallowed up by Russia, a la Crimea.

Why are the European leaders so reticent to militarily confront Putin?  They must realize that this is a problem they will be forced to deal with sooner or later, and later will always be more difficult.  If the EU decided to support Ukraine militarily, and German, Polish, French and Italian Air Forces enforced a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin would be obliged to either back off, or actually go to war.  I don't believe the Russian Air Force is in any state of readiness to confront the combined Air resources of Europe and the United States.  Also, why not "loan" Ukraine a few hundred LeClerc Heavy Battle Tanks, and maybe a few Leopard as well.  This will be akin to the leaders of free and democratic Europe drawing a line in the dirt, and telling Putin, "you've gone far enough; don't cross this line".  If I were Poroshenko, I would ask Hollande to imagine what it must have been like for France when Germany "stole" Alsace-Lorraine in 1871?  Or remind Chancellor Merkel of Russia's stranglehold on East Germany.  Allowing a foreign country to invade and occupy Ukrainian territory should be unacceptable not only to Poroshenko, but to the EU as well.  Our position on this issue is not unique; many other blogs and learned analysts are warning that Russia will not stop its efforts at expansion with the annexation of Donbas, anymore than Putin quit with Crimea (which, considering how little it is mentioned by Hollande and Merkel, is obviously a Fait Accompli).  When will they learn?