Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.
--------
Question: The Guardian view on talks between Angela Merkel and David Cameron. If politics were like boxing , meetings between national leaders would be arranged according to weight . In the asymmetrical world of international relations, however, disparity is the norm rather than the exception . So it is with Angela Merkel and David Cameron , who confer together in London on Wednesday . The chancellor is the heavyweight contender , while the prime minister would rate as middleweight at most . The difference, unfortunately, is not just a reflection of the strength and size of the two countries concerned . It is also a measure of the stature of these two politicians . Mrs Merkel's characteristics - her steadiness, her careful thinking through of problems, her solid control of her party, her reluctance to move until she is sure of the right course, her refusal to play to the gallery - enhance Germany's influence in Europe and the world . With Mr Cameron, the reverse is true . He has charm and a certain decency , but he is too easily blown off course by adverse winds arising within his own party and outside it . This has led him to take positions on Europe and immigration that could have been expressly designed to reduce our influence on our neighbours, ones that could lead to Britain departing the European Union . That would leave the United Kingdom in an isolation which it can be guessed Mr Cameron does not want but which he could nevertheless end up having brought about . So it is that , as our former Berlin correspondent argues, he looks to Germany for rescue, hoping that Mrs Merkel's government will help craft changes in European regulations that Mr Cameron will then be able to present to his own party and to voters attracted by Ukip's nostrums as helping Britain control the flow of immigrants . Whether such changes actually would have that effect in any longer term is another matter . Mr Cameron may not care too much about that, wanting only the appearance of concessions to help him out of the political corner into which he has painted himself . Contrast Mrs Merkel's forthright remarks on the anti-Islamic demonstrations with which Germany is currently coping, with Mr Cameron's skirting of the moral aspects of the immigration debate to see the difference . Mrs Merkel has to manage a crammed portfolio of European problems . Britain's difficulties are not at the top of the heap . The most important general issue she faces is whether to stick with an unalloyed austerity programme that is becoming more and more politically explosive in southern Europe . The most immediate specific question is how to cope with a possible change of government in Greece . A more fundamental problem, in terms of the dynamics of the union, is how to prop up the old partnership with France . And the most obvious external problem is how to manage Ukraine and Russia . Here, at least, Britain and Germany seem to be on the same page . Mrs Merkel is the strongest and most important leader in Europe . She is hardly beyond reproach . The contradiction in her position is that at home she essentially governs as a social democrat, yet she operates as a neoliberal hawk abroad . Her austerity drive can be said, at the very least, to be causing as many problems as it solves . Her insistence on reform in Greece is vague when it should be detailed, leading to the suspicion that the problem is that, in German eyes, Greece can do nothing right . Domestically, she often manages to "solve" political problems by simply sitting them out , while her parliamentarians squabble and everyone gets bored of the subject and moves on . That is how she dealt with the scandal of the NSA monitoring her mobile phone : she largely kept quiet when many were hoping that she would raise her voice more loudly . But in broader foreign policy matters, that is not a working strategy in the long run . Her dealings with Russia's President Vladimir Putin over the past year show signs of a learning curve : she has been not just quiet but quietly firm . The world is still waiting for her to show similar leadership in the eurozone crisis . But at least she is in a position to do so . Mr Cameron, however, has all but written himself out of the European script . He is not a problem-solver, as Mrs Merkel is or could be, but a problem in himself for Europe, and yet another cross for the chancellor to bear .

Answer: Mrs Merkel is the strongest and most important leader in Europe


Question: Five ways Obama could make Castro pay Cuba's $6 billion debt to Americans. In his half century reign of terror, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro committed manifold atrocities . Documented evidence reveals him to be a ruthless tyrant who endlessly abused the most basic of human rights -a man who played a pivotal role in bringing the world to the precipice of nuclear annihilation for 13 harrowing days in October of 1962 . Beyond his crimes against humanity and the callous suffering he inflicted on the people of Cuba, he ruined the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans . He stole their land, homes, bank accounts, possessions and businesses . He absconded with their property under the guise of "nationalization." But he is, in truth, a thief . Will his victims now be fairly compensated or otherwise see the return of their confiscated property in the wake of America's first steps toward rapprochement with Cuba? The answer is both legal and political . President Obama holds the key . So, don't get your hopes up . The Theft . In the first half of the 20th century, Americans and U.S  businesses dominated Cuba . They accumulated vast holdings of property and operated many of the most lucrative businesses . All of that ended with the Cuban Revolution in 1959 . Castro "nationalized" U.S.-owned industries and seized much of the island's private property from Americans . There was no restitution . One legal scholar called it the largest uncompensated expropriation by a foreign government in history . The U.S  retaliated with an embargo, prohibiting all trade . But the Americans who were expelled from Cuba were left holding titles and deeds to homes and businesses to which they had no access . Their property rights were dissolved , and any legal judgments obtained were unenforceable against an isolated nation that refused to recognize any authority other than its own . Thousands pursued legal recourse and sought reparations under indemnification programs established by Congress . Others filed lawsuits and secured judgments . But Castro didn't care . He repudiated the legitimacy of the restitution programs, the valuation of losses and the legal authority of the courts . This , even though Cuba admits their renegade nationalization was, and is, compensable . So what , then ,  does Castro consider fair compensation? Judging from his payouts to other aggrieved nations, it is mere pennies on the dollar . How do you value dirt? In 1961, the U.S  Commerce Department valued American property seized by the Cuban government at roughly $ 1 to 1.8 billion . Nearly 6-thousand claims were legally certified . Other published reports placed the theft as high as $ 9 billion . But the truth is, it's impossible to know -especially inasmuch as the value of everything plummeted the moment Castro took control of the island . What would the same confiscated properties be worth in today's dollars? $50 billion? $100 billion? How about nothing at all? Given how the Castro brothers have driven their economy into the ground, making Cuba one of the poorest nations in the world , valuation could be closer to dirt than dollars . Which invites another question : assuming a monetary value could somehow be devised, how would Cuba pay for it? With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Castros lost their financial benefactor . The island is blighted and broke . Even if it offered government bonds as compensation , are they worth the paper upon which they are written? How could they be secured? Reclaim the property? Theoretically, it is possible for the confiscated property to be reclaimed someday by the original owners . But that would require a dramatic Cuban transformation from socialism to democracy where private property ownership is permitted . In a recent speech, Cuban President Raul Castro insisted Cuba would not renounces its core socialist ideals as part of the deal he negotiated with President Obama to renew diplomatic relations . Even if some semblance of democracy were to be restored to Cuba in the distant future , what remains of the stolen property? No one knows how many of the private residences that were seized have been divided or fallen into decay . Some may no longer exist . And what of the current occupants? Would they allow themselves to be kicked out? The same may be true of the many farms, industries and commercial businesses that were confiscated and have been put to other uses in the last 5 decades . Yes, they have development potential in an open, free market society . But ,  again, the future of Cuba is nebulous . How realistic is the return of these vast holdings under a continuing Castro regime? What Obama should do . As a first condition to normalizing relations, President Obama should demand that all American victims of stolen property be compensated equitably . He is already obligated by law to do this under the Helms-Burton Act . But Obama has a propensity to ignore or overrule with impunity those laws he regards as misguided or inconvenient . This is one law he should follow . A second condition should be the establishment of a commission of judges with legally binding authority to render compensation decisions . Several reparation models can be studied and replicated, notably the tribunal that dispensed claims in post-unification Germany . President Obama has the power and leverage to force the Castro regime to capitulate if Cuba wants to end the sanctions and restore economic relations . But so far, he has uttered not a word about a desire to do so . And when it comes to negotiations with adversaries, Obama tends to give away the store .

Answer: Beyond his crimes against humanity and the callous suffering he inflicted on the people of Cuba, he ruined the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans


Question: Sony scraps 'The Interview': Dark day for America when we cave over silly Seth Rogen comedy. Exactly what country are we living in? How the hell could Sony give in to the demands of terrorists? And make no mistake about it... The hackers who broke into their computer systems are just that: Terrorists . Sony is a commercial enterprise and it has the prerogative to scrap the release of "The Interview." But Sony is also the face of the United States in this heated relationship with North Korea , and the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists . Neither should Sony . It's a dark day for America when we cave over a simple, silly Seth Rogen comedy . It's embarrassing . It's humiliating . It's exactly what these hackers wanted , and it creates an open season for anarchists . I can' t help but think of that brilliant scene in Steven Spielberg's much maligned but hilarious World War II comedy "1941," (1979) when Toshiro Mifune, playing a Japanese submarine commander, is under orders to destroy Hollywood from off the coast of Los Angeles . Mifune beams with pride after destroying the Ferris wheel at the Santa Monica pier . He thinks his mission is a success . He thinks he's conquered America -- just as North Korea probably thinks it has conquered us . But in a way it has . Have at it, guys . Sony has just created a ridiculous, yet dangerous, precedent . Watch the first episode of the brilliant British series "Black Mirror"(which debuted in 2011 and is currently streaming on Netflix) to see just how this situation played out and will continue to play out within our society . In the episode, a British princess is kidnapped, and the ransom demand calls for the prime minister to go on live television and have sex with a pig . The world stops ; the masses are enthralled ; the news and social media go to town with the juicy fodder . Some cheer the prime minister's humiliation , some are disgusted , some are apathetic . But beneath it all, society is brought to its knees -- and the Twitterverse welcomes it because it is a damn good spectacle . "Black Mirror" -- the first episode, especially -- was incredibly prescient . Sony Pictures' "The Interview" is just a movie . It may be just a stupid comedy , but it is still a work of expression -- free expression! -- something that separates us from them . George Washington said,"If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." For anyone to silence our creative voice is just wrong . Laughably wrong . That is why Sony should not buckle to the pressure of these vile threats . I understand that people may have been afraid to go to the big chain theaters to see "The Interview," and I respect their desire to protect themselves and their families . Sincere props, though, to the Alamo Drafthouse in Dallas/Fort Worth for announcing they would show the equally controversial film "Team America: World Police" (2004) in place of "The Interview." Thursday afternoon, Paramount announced that they would not publicly screen the movie ,. Sony should seriously consider releasing the Seth Rogen-James Franco (and phenomenal Lizzy Caplan) comedy on-demand for a number of reasons :. One : Sony and all involved will get their incredible payday . Has any recent film received more free hype than "The Interview"? Two : No theater will be harmed , even though theaters will lose potential revenue from the film . Three: Most importantly , Sony -- and we, the United States -- will not give in to this ludicrous and obnoxious threat from an impotent and juvenile country . This is America . We stand by our freedom . Even if it's a stupid comedy .

Answer:
And make no mistake about it... The hackers who broke into their computer systems are just that: Terrorists