Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Europe - More rewards for failure?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Putin outwits EU politicos at every turn

    The elite politicians within the numerous bureaucratic layers of the European Union’s administration have demonstrated their tardiness and limited abilities to cope with unfolding situations of the Ukraine crisis and other demanding situations in Europe. However the new EU High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Frederica Mogherini seems to be displaying more tenacity than Baroness Catherine Ashton who seemed to be a typical always behind the curve EU politician.

    Jean Claude Juncker the President of the European Commission this week gave an uninspiring speech were among other topics he voiced that the EU should do more to assist the “refugees” now arriving daily in huge numbers seeking a new life within the EU. He referred to the Geneva Convention of Human Rights likening the “refugees” to those journeying throughout Europe resulting from World War 2. I believe Juncker’s reasoning is wrong.

    The reason I have inserted “refugees’ in quotation marks is because I believe a small proportion of these are migrating because their lives are at risk in their homeland or that they are facing persecution based on the WW2 experience where a foreign invader had occupied their land, stolen their animals and foodstuffs, burned their homes and/or taken many of their neighbours away to concentration camps or for summary execution.

    For the Syrian situation I believe that the real refugees fled long ago and they now exist in the numerous UN overseen refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and elsewhere. I believe the majority of other Syrian migrants lived in lesser effected zones closer to Damascus because even during war they had sufficient time to sell family jewellery, cars and other possessions in order to fund their journey. It is estimated that such migrants are spending up to 5000 Euros per person to pay for people traffickers to assist them cross the Mediterranean Sea and other land frontiers. Arriving at EU shorelines in numbers averaging 800 per day they overwhelm the hard pressed EU frontier agencies who then allow them to leak beyond their borders northbound. Other migrants are coming from Iraq, Afghanistan or revolution torn, or dysfunctional corrupt African states. However they are similarly sufficiently funded for the journey and all contradict the principle for asylum seekers in that they should claim sanctuary at the first safe country of arrival. Indeed, they resist any form of proper registration as they don’t wish to claim sanctuary in Greece or another poorer southern European state but admit they want to go to Germany, Sweden etc either because they believe they will get more help and money there, or because they have relatives there.

    However, Juncker sees the world through rose coloured glasses and advocates showing compassion requesting that the migrants be spread among the various states of the EU. He cannot see that his behaviour amounts to an invitation for those that have not yet left to embark on their journey as soon as possible as Europe will receive them all with open arms. Many EU states are hesitant to respond to this and others are resisting such requests.

    Meanwhile Putin is allegedly increasing military support for his friend Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad who has been able to maintain his war against the non Allewite or Sunni/ other factions with whom he has never maintained popularity with the aid of Russian supplied arms. It’s anticipated that Putin will supply tanks and guns manned by better trained Russian soldiers to support Assad. This will not only increase tensions between the Kremlin and NATO/EU but will intensify the Syrian war theatre removing western already weak media attention away from the Ukraine crisis. Furthermore it will intensify the exodus of Syrians towards the trek for richer pastures increasing the burden upon the EU with the greater prospect of disunity occurring within the member states. Whilst I may detest Putin I must give him credit for creating misery,dysfunction and malcontents wherever he chooses to create it.

    Comment


    • #32
      The Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as the inspiration for the ECHR, European Convention on Human Rights, one of the most significant agreements in the European Community. The Convention was adopted in 1953 by the Council of Europe, an intergovernmental organization established in 1949 and composed of 47 European Community Member States. This body was formed to strengthen human rights and promote democracy and the rule of law. The Convention is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

      There are 30 articles of human rights, one which states that asylum is a universal right.

      However, currently it does seem rash to accept such a large influx of migrants w/o the ability to screen them and differentiate the refugee, the job seeker and the terrorist. It is obvious that the Dublin rule has many weaknesses and should be amended posthaste.

      GG, I also think you are giving Putin too much credit. Whether in Ukraine or in the Middle East, he did not create the problems. He is merely acting the amoral opportunist and exploiting the circumstances to his immediate advantage. In the end he will likely screw himself. His shenanigans in Syria or Ukraine will eventually just backfire.
      Last edited by Hannia; 12th September 2015, 02:27.

      æ, !

      Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp

      Comment


      • #33

        Andrew Foxall: Don't trust Putin on Syria
        Sept. 14, 2015, Andrew Foxall INTL NY TIMES


        Edel Rodriguez

        LONDON — SYRIA is being destroyed. The civil war, now more than four years old, has left the country in ruins. The implacable Islamic State controls vast areas of the north and east, and the barbaric regime of President Bashar al-Assad maintains its Damascus stronghold.

        The Western powers — the United States and Europe — have no good options to combat the Islamic State, but they can’t do nothing. Either they must work with Mr. Assad’s regime to combat the jihadists, or ignore its existence and undertake military action alone to push back the jihadists. Thus far, though, the American-led air campaign against the Islamic State has done little to halt its advances.

        This stark choice is a result of the failure of recent Western policy. One person who understands this better than most is the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.

        On Sept. 4, Mr. Putin announced that Russia had been providing military aid to Damascus against the Islamic State — support that has recently been ramped up. He also called for “some kind of an international coalition to fight terrorism and extremism.” This is in keeping with Moscow’s Syria policy, which has been consistent since 2010: Block any American-backed move to remove Mr. Assad from power and instead force the West to embrace him as a partner.

        Russia has been isolated by the West because of its actions in Ukraine, but now presents itself as an unlikely savior — an indispensable partner in the West’s efforts against Islamist extremism.

        We’ve been here before. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Mr. Putin was the first world leader to speak with President George W. Bush. Days later, Mr. Putin promised Russia’s support for the American-led coalition against the Taliban in Afghanistan, urging others to join Russia in “fighting international terrorism.”

        Islamist terrorism is an issue close to Mr. Putin’s heart; it helped him rise to power in the first place. Over several weeks in September 1999, a series of bombings destroyed four apartment buildings in Moscow and two other Russian cities. Almost 300 people were killed, with hundreds more injured.

        Islamist terrorists from the southern Russian republic of Chechnya were blamed for the attacks. Given that pretext, Russia’s traumatized public readily acquiesced when Moscow began a second war in Chechnya. A few months after the invasion, Russia’s then relatively unknown, recently appointed prime minister, Mr. Putin, was swept into the presidency.

        There are issues, however, with the official narrative. Critics point to evidence that the apartment bombings were carried out by Russia’s Federal Security Bureau, or at least with F.S.B. involvement.

        Less than a week after the fourth bombing, a fifth bomb was uncovered in the basement of a building in another Russian city. It was disarmed before it could explode, and the bombers were arrested and identified. They turned out to be not Chechen terrorists but F.S.B. agents. Mr. Putin, himself a former head of the F.S.B., dismissed the notion that the bombings were a state-sponsored plot.

        Yet suspicions that Moscow manipulates terrorism for its own purposes have re-emerged. In July, Novaya Gazeta, one of Russia’s few remaining independent newspapers, reported that the F.S.B. had been controlling the flow of jihadists from the North Caucasus to Syria, where many joined the Islamic State. The newspaper’s investigation found that the F.S.B. had established a “green corridor” allowing Islamist radicals to travel via Turkey, since Moscow would rather have these jihadists fighting in Syria than in Russia.

        So much for leading the international effort against terrorism. Yet, that same month, President Obama said he was “encouraged” by a call from Mr. Putin to discuss Syria, and that this “offers us an opportunity to have a serious conversation.” Mr. Obama should not be fooled.

        Mr. Putin’s master plan for Syria — promoted by his foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov — is clear: that the Western and Arab countries, which form the present anti-Islamic State coalition, should join forces with Mr. Assad, together with Kurdish and Iraqi troops; Iran, Hezbollah and Russia may also join this alliance. The coalition would obtain a formal mandate from the United Nations Security Council and then defeat the jihadist insurgency.

        Russia would then bring Mr. Assad to the negotiating table and oversee a political transition that preserves his regime. Mr. Putin plans to address the United Nations General Assembly later this month about this plan.

        In promoting a rapprochement between Russia and the West over the Islamic State, Mr. Putin hopes to rehabilitate himself, just as he did after Sept. 11. Back then, Mr. Putin convinced the West that the threat it faced in Afghanistan and elsewhere was the same as Russia faced in Chechnya. By doing so, Russia’s president was able to tamp down Western criticism of Russia’s brutality in Chechnya.

        The Kremlin saw the West’s enthusiasm for cooperation as weakness. It led Mr. Putin to believe that he could act however he liked in Russia, and get away with it. That belief still prevails — but no longer applies only to Russia.

        If a new rapprochement on Syria goes ahead, Ukraine would be conveniently forgotten. This would risk undermining the West’s Ukraine-related sanctions, and provide Mr. Putin with tacit recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s dominance of eastern Ukraine.

        Russia would thus have triumphed over the world order imposed by the West after the end of the Cold War. America’s enemies, from China to Iran, would see this as an invitation to redefine their relationships with Washington.

        The West should consider all options on Syria — including an international coalition with Russia against the Islamic State. But if that is the chosen course, the West must doubt that Mr. Putin can be trusted, that intelligence shared by Russia will be credible, or that the Kremlin can help negotiate a diplomatic settlement in Syria that the West and its Arab allies can support.

        Georgia and Ukraine show what happens when the West does not block Russia’s coercive diplomacy. We must not let Mr. Putin dictate the terms of cooperation. To do so risks repeating past mistakes. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/op...yria.html?_r=1

        æ, !

        Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp

        Comment


        • #34
          The elite leadership of the EU never fails to amaze me with their incompetence. Jean Claude Juncker's instructions that EU member states must take their share of accommodating the "refugees" has fallen on death ears and Germany's Chancellor Merkel has made the biggest gaff of her political career by saying "Germany welcomes refugees" days before her border authorities closed their Schengen border. Some times I wonder how can it be that a humble nobody as myself can foresee the actuality of the forthcoming situation yet these highly advised career politicians seem to be living in some remote cloud cuckoo land.

          I have just read that the EU elite idiot's latest response is to warn those hard pressed states currently being overrun with thousands of new arrivals every day that if they do not comply with EU instructions they will be denied EU financial support funds to help them cope with their crisis. However, given that EU taxpayers never had the opportunity to vote for them in the first place it would too much to expect an environment of democratic decision making. Nigel Farage, the leader of the British UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) must be overjoyed at the EU's deepening demise as the situation developing will convince more Brits to vote for "Brexit" (departure from EU) when the British have a referendum to be held before the end of 2017.

          http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6acc6...#axzz3m5tLjje6

          Comment


          • #35
            EU state leaders should not blame one another

            As the disorder of the so called "refugees" continues in Europe individual states find themselves inundated with thousands of migrants. Many states started by saying they will assist the migrants, but then under the weight of their numbers said that they cannot cope and then closed their borders. As I have written previously the EU elite politicos have responded badly thus far to this situation, but the advisers to all governments now under threat have also slept on the job.

            These thousands of migrants did not suddenly appear from nowhere and reports of their numbers arriving at southern Europe's borders have been in the public domain for weeks. It is therefore disappointing that so many politicians have been so lethargic in their forward planning. From readily available internet information I have reason to believe that there are now upwards of 3000 migrants between Istanbul and the Turkey/ Greece border and that Turkey is now closing its border to stop migrants passing.

            Migrant crisis: New routes sought amid impasse in Balkans - BBC News

            Turkey to Remove Refugees from Border Region by Week’s End, Edirne Governor Says - Novinite.com - Sofia News Agency

            Comment


            • #36
              The Kremlin sponsored "news" broadcasters RT, Sputnik and Ruptly are having a wonderful time covering the EU's refugee crisis, and why not because it is after all an excellent opportunity to show the incomptence of the mostly highly paid politicians in the world. This a non politicized and factual report from Ruptly:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwCGZmUlJP8

              Comment


              • #37
                Eastern Europe is not selfish

                This comment within the Guardian newspaper from Marcin Zaborowski is one with which I have sympathy:-

                Why eastern Europe’s resistance to refugee quotas is not ‘selfish’ | Marcin Zaborowski | Comment is free | The Guardian

                Comment


                • #38
                  excerpts:

                  Last year, in the Czech Republic and Estonia, Ukrainians were the No. 1 national group seeking asylum. In Poland, Spain, Latvia, Cyprus and Iceland, they were second. Germany saw the largest raw number of Ukrainians wanting asylum, 2,705, but the nation is also the favored destination of immigrants from many other nations, including 41,100 from Syria.
                  -----------------------------------------------------
                  In 2014, of the 2,985 Ukrainian asylum applicants whose cases were processed in the European Union, only 150 were granted full refugee status; 2,335 were rejected; and the rest got other forms of protection — an acceptance rate of only 22 percent.

                  Ukrainian Migrants Fleeing Conflict Get a Cool Reception in Europe NY TIMES MAY 30, 2015
                  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/wo...rope.html?_r=0

                  æ, !

                  Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Yes, a different tale when Ukrainians sought asylum. The numbers from Syria are huge and impossible to take in.



                    See whats been posted in the past day.


                    Contact forum moderators here.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The "what to do next" EU scenarios

                      After Jean Claude Junker's (President of the European Commission) speech requiring EU states to show compassion and show a welcome to the "refugees" quickly turned into an invasion as several thousands of migrants arriving at Hungary's southern border forcing them to erect barbed fire fences, there is finally a realization by other EU elite politicos that compassion may not be the answer.

                      Yesterday at a meeting of Europe's top politicians compassion was being replaced by the actuality of the potential millions of migrants making their journey northwards to greener pastures in the coming months. Donald Tusk, President of the Union Council (another EU President, how many does it need?) started to reflect what those few sensible people on internet social media have been saying for days, that the EU must develop a meaningful strategy to deal with this problem

                      We can now see once again how the EU is staffed by a bunch of 2nd grade politicians who are always behind the curve and whose intervention is often more damaging than helpful in response to any situation. Was it surprising that in hacked telephone conversation of US politicians discussing Ukraine's Maidan crisis the words "F***k the the EU was overheard".

                      EU Tusk: Migrant 'chaos at external borders must end' - BBC News

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        It's was certainly Nuland's way of saying she preferred the United Nations as mediator, instead of the European Union. She was dismissively referring to slow-moving European efforts to address political paralysis and a looming fiscal crisis in Ukraine.

                        Unfortunately it was the blunt nature of her remarks early February 2014, that still seems exceptional, a yr and half later.

                        I take it you were/are in agreement w/her?

                        æ, !

                        Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hannia, of course I'm in sympathy with Victoria Nuland's position regarding her non diplomatic comments concerning the EU's tardy response to the unfolding Ukraine crisis. But what a propaganda advantage to Russia's SBU (former KGB) for being able to hack the telephone conversation and leak it out into the public domain.

                          As far as the EU's handling of the "refugee" crisis, the fat lady hasn't even started singing yet!

                          Refugee crisis: EU splits exposed at emergency summit – as it happened | World news | The Guardian

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Gotno Gizmo - 9/25/2015
                            As far as the EU's handling of the "refugee" crisis, the fat lady hasn't even started singing yet!

                            Holder of Syrian passport found in Paris passed through Greece
                            REUTERS ATHENS Nov 14, 2015

                            The holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday night's attacks in Paris passed though Greece in October, a Greek minister said.

                            "The holder of the passport passed through the island of Leros on Oct. 3, 2015, where he was identified according to EU rules," said Greece's deputy minister in charge of police, Nikos Toskas, in a statement.

                            A Greek police source said the passport's owner was a young man who had arrived in Leros with a group of 69 refugees and had his fingerprints taken by authorities there. Police declined to give his name.

                            Toskas did not know if the passport was checked by other countries through which the holder possibly passed on his way to France. The police source said French authorities had asked other countries in Europe, including Greece, to check on the passport.

                            Holder of Syrian passport found in Paris passed through Greece | Reuters

                            æ, !

                            Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Terror in Paris - Europe’s response to the Paris attacks is different this time - “Je suis Charlie” was about free speech—but now the issue is migrants
                              Nov 14th 2015 | Europe THE ECONOMIST

                              IN JANUARY 2015, after 16 people died in a series of incidents in Paris—including an attack on Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper—Europe erupted in spontaneous demonstrations. People marched in protest against an assault on a fundamental principle of European civilisation: freedom of expression. Millions turned out for rallies across the continent, toting signs bearing the message “Je suis Charlie” in identification with those killed at the paper, which often caricatured the Prophet Muhammad. Many cautioned against letting the attacks turn public sentiment against Muslims in general, whether immigrant or native-born. In Germany the reaction of Horst Seehofer, the chairman of the CSU (the Bavarian sister party of Germany's governing Christian Democrats), was typical. Denying any links between terrorism and immigration policies, he called on Germany’s anti-Islam Pegida movement to cancel a planned demonstration, and said he was pleased that all German parties had “refrained from deriving political capital from the attack.”

                              After Friday night's attacks in Paris, however, for which Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility, Mr Seehofer took a rather different line. The jihadists’ attacks illustrated the need for “stronger control of Europe's external borders, but also of national borders,” he said; it was a matter of “restoring law and order in Europe.” Bavaria’s finance minister, Markus Söder, also of the CSU, agreed: “Paris changes everything” he declared, adding that the attacks meant the end of “the time of uncontrolled immigration”. Within hours of the attacks, CSU leaders were exploiting them as part of their effort to undercut Chancellor Angela Merkel and force her to slow the influx of migrants from the Middle East.

                              The contrast was telling. In the aftermath of Friday’s attacks, which killed at least 129 people in locations around Paris, European leaders again issued statements of sympathy and outrage, while their citizens turned out en masse with flowers and candles to show solidarity. But where the “Je suis Charlie” demonstrators resisted linking terrorism to immigration or Islam, the mood this time has been more ambivalent. By targeting a well-known press outlet and a Jewish supermarket, the Charlie Hebdo killers allowed Europeans to frame their outrage around positive ideals: freedom of speech and of religion. But the latest attacks seemed to hit public spaces at random—a Cambodian restaurant, a football stadium, a concert hall. And some Europeans inevitably began linking the violence to the issue which has dominated their politics for the past six months: the wave of refugees streaming into their continent from the Middle East.

                              Je suis Charlie 2? Pas exactement
                              The most explicit linkage came in Poland, where the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party won a landslide election victory in October, aided in part by fear of migrants. In a hasty op-ed on Saturday morning, the incoming PiS minister for European affairs, Konrad Szymanski, wrote that after the Paris attacks he saw “no political possibility” of implementing the European Union’s new scheme to redistribute asylum applicants among member states. “Poland must retain full control over its borders, asylum and immigration policy,” Mr Szymanski wrote.

                              Germany, which expects to take in more than 1m asylum applicants this year, has fought hard for the redistribution policy, which the European Commission approved in September over the bitter objections of several member states. A Polish refusal to implement it would trigger a huge argument. (A German state assembly member from Saxony, Gerd Lippold, tweeted angrily that if everyone in Europe thought the way Mr Szymanski did, “walls will soon be going up between Germany and Poland against auto thieves”.) Beata Szydlo, Poland’s incoming prime minister, refused to support Mr Szymanski’s line, and Mr Szymanski then backed off, saying Poland could accept the deal if it were accompanied by “security guarantees”.

                              But similar arguments were voiced in other central and eastern European countries, many of which voted against the migrant-redistribution deal. In the Czech Republic, Andrej Babis, the flamboyant finance minister and media billionaire who is the country’s most popular politician, said he thought it would be necessary to close the external borders of Europe’s Schengen zone. The president, Milos Zeman, who has expressed concerns that Syrian migrants in the Czech Republic might stone unfaithful women to enforce Sharia law, said the attacks were part of a war for “the future of European civilisation”. The fact that one of the Paris attackers was carrying a Syrian passport was seized upon by those opposed to accepting asylum seekers. Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, noted triumphantly that he had warned other European leaders of “enormous security risks linked to migration. Hopefully, some people will open their eyes now.”

                              In other countries, expressions of genuine sympathy were quickly linked to various political or diplomatic agendas. In Moscow, where citizens have ample experience of Islamist terror, the French embassy was flooded with gifts and flowers. But Vladimir Putin, the president, made sure that his condolence message to the French president, François Hollande, also made the case for ending Russia’s international isolation: “Fighting this evil requires the real unity of the forces of the whole international community.” In Turkey (pictured), thousands of sympathisers marched to demonstrate solidarity between Paris and two other cities that have recently been hit by IS terror attacks: Ankara and Beirut. Meanwhile the president, Tayyip Recep Erdogan, insinuated that it was time to abandon the notion of “my terrorist is good, yours is bad”—clearly referring to the Kurdish militias that Turkey is battling (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK), which are regarded as allies by the West in the fight against IS.

                              Western Europe's right-wing populists also seized upon the Paris attacks as evidence for their own agendas, just as they did with the attacks against Charlie Hebdo. Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-immigrant firebrand whose party is currently leading in the polls, called on the Netherlands’ prime minister to seal the country’s borders. “He who sows the Koran reaps the jihad,” tweeted the predictably obnoxious Filip de Winter of Vlaams Belang, the Flemish far-right party. But such provocations failed to make much impact. Belgium was preoccupied by the news that three people said to be associated with the Paris attacks had been arrested outside Brussels. Its interior minister, Jean Jambon, vowed a “root and branch” cleanup of the neighbourhood of Molenbeek, where the suspects lived. It was the same neighbourhood where suspects associated with the Charlie Hebdo attacks had been tracked down and shot by police in January.

                              Even so, in some of the places where the attacks might have been expected to inflame the migrant debate, they have not—or, at least, have not done so yet. Just as the attacks were beginning on Friday, Sweden and Denmark were embroiled in a chaotic tit-for-tat squabble over controlling migration inflows. Sweden, which takes in more refugees than any other country in Europe on a per capita basis, announced on Thursday that it was introducing border controls, threatening to trap many asylum seekers who had been heading there in Denmark. The Danes, who have long had some of the toughest immigration policies in Europe, responded the next day with 44 measures to dissuade migrants from coming, mainly by cutting benefits.

                              But neither the Danish People’s Party, the main Danish anti-immigrant group, nor their Swedish equivalents, the Sweden Democrats, have used the Paris attacks as a propaganda tool. The mood in both countries has been one of respect and non-partisan sympathy, just as it was after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Of course, anti-immigrant parties may simply be holding their fire, confident that images of Islamist terror will heighten resistance to immigration without the need for them to say anything.

                              It is heartening that Saturday’s popular demonstrations of solidarity with France, and European leaders’ messages of support, were full of calls, even if vague ones, not to allow terrorists to divide Europe’s citizens against each other. Yet with border controls going up in one European country after another, it will be hard to maintain that they have not.
                              Europe’s response to the Paris attacks is different this time | The Economist

                              æ, !

                              Hannia - Hania - Mighthelp

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                The folly of compassion

                                I have been arguing about the folly of compassion over the current "refugee" crisis even before Jean Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel the Chancellor of Germany gave their "we must welcome them" speeches. The rule about political asylum was written around the concept of individuals fleeing for their safety and could never have been intended to apply to a mass exodus as we are currently experiencing. The process of investigation right of asylum, if properly enacted cannot possibly be applicable to such huge numbers, but the politicians such as Juncker, Merkel and Hollande following the "popularity" flow of the compassionate unknowing and knee jerk sympathy idiots, showed great stupidity by not calculating the huge onus upon their own resources to take such a stance with a complete disregard for the implications of such a position to take.

                                It was observed that huge swathes of young single men were in that number and this also should have flagged up warnings, as it was already known that they were coming from zones of high militant terrorist infiltration. Only Hungary took the safest and most practical position in my view, by assessing that it would be an intolerable and unwise position to receive them and has built robust fences around its border to keep them out. Now some other eastern European states are starting to do the same because they can see that the endless rounds of talks with the EU elite politicos are doing little to achieve any change of the situation on the ground.

                                I have posted an image shown below (I think I got it from this website) with opinions on this topic elsewhere on the internet. I do believe that Putin joined the war in Syria, not only to help his ally Bashar but to divert the media away from Ukraine, but more importantly to engineer a situation whereby he could seek greater accommodation with the west. His political machine is already voicing on a regular basis that the only way the middle east terrorism can be halted is by a unified approach to this solution by cooperation by ALL countries working together. Putin's plan is going very well so far and O'Bama along with other western politicos are compromised in their future positions.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	AAABloodbath.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	97.0 KB
ID:	219352

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X