We need a debate on immigration in Europe.

As with most other European countries, one of the main topics of debate in the recent Swedish general elections in September was immigration. The issue has lodged itself at the epicenter of public debate across our continent for a long time now.

It has been a main factor in major developments in Europe like Brexit, the rise of populism and so called "radical" parties and political movements, the rift between the old 15 EU member states and the Visegrad group, as well as the North-South division when it comes to dealing with the refugee and immigration crisis.

Our leaders might prefer blaming Russia, China or the Trump administration for the misinformation or propaganda war that fuels the rise of populism, however one cannot ignore Europe's internal issues; and they mustn't be blamed on any external factor, if we want to deal with them successfully.

Accusing others for your problems, no matter how substantial evidence you have, should not prevent you from taking stock and responsibility for your own mistakes and actions; something that the European leadership often tries to do.

The immigration problem in our continent is not anything new. It has been brewing for decades now, however the European elites and media chose to ignore and avoid it, hiding themselves behind the often illogical political correctness policies.

Yet when you do not give a chance for such issues to be debated and discussed openly, in fear that you may offend certain groups of people or that you will be branded as racist, you only brush the problem underneath the carpet. You are not dealing with it, you are just kicking it further down the road for others to take responsibility.

Nowadays in the era of social media, voters but also young individuals will try to discuss issues that affect their communities in various online portals. If they lack the right information, or if their concerns are not met or answered by their politicians, or if at least they are not exposed in an open debate in the main stream media, they are going to express their views on these web-pages.

And this is exactly where radicalized individuals exist and thrive, behind the anonymity that the internet is offering them, that enables them to offer their distorted views as answers to the people who genuinely wish to discuss their ideas and concerns. 

Wouldn't it better to have open debates on our media, schools and educational institutions, political parties' membership or any other civil society platform, on issues that affect us and our children; like immigration, EU membership, the adoption of the euro, our country's integration into the European family, racism, culture, multiculturalism and so many more.

Our continent was always multicultural, since the Roman times. Free movement from Europe to the Middle East plus North Africa and vice versa, meant that people from other races inhabited our continent since antiquity.

But in modern times it has become an issue and a topic of debate, only after the ‘50s, when many of the Western former colonial powers, invited workers from their one-time territories to settle in their countries. Soon after, they sought to attract "guest workers" from countries like Turkey and Morocco, but prepared poorly to integrate them as they did not expect them to stay permanently.

As result, many of these immigrants found themselves living in ghettos or in tight ethnic social circles, often being alienated from their host country and its other communities. The failure of the old 15 EU member states to deal with their immigration problem, fuels in fact the resistance of the new Central-Eastern European countries of the block to follow their example. They reject the Western multicultural social model because they see only its failures, not the advantages.

Yet it doesn't have to be this way. They can learn from the Western states' mistakes and do not repeat them. But this will require not fences and coming in direct clash with the EU itself, rather the formation and adoption of a comprehensive, fair and functioning immigration and integration policy, that will avoid the shortcomings of other countries, by examining them first.

Almost all immigrants that arrive in their new adoptive country are ambitious and have much to offer in terms of knowledge and skills, if we only attract the right ones that we need for long term or permanent settlement, while perhaps offering short term contracts to seasonal low skilled workers. It is really frustrating that we treat issues such as these with the complex of our bygone colonial history, the fear of being branded racists or xenophobic.

The reality is that we cannot absorb all immigrants, without totally dismantling the social fabric of each country, with serious economic and political consequences. Thus the refugee crisis puts out ability to cope and adapt to the test. Some countries such as Germany and Sweden, tried to show how open and progressive they are, by taking in the largest amount of refugees.

The recent election results and polls though, signify a concern in both nations about the future of such policies.

We may choose to ignore the shift in the public opinion, try to blame internet trolls, but that would discredit the concerns of the ordinary European; and that is not a sign of a true democracy.

Having endured austerity and a very crippling economic crisis, it is understandable that people feel that changes are out of their control, there is a sentiment of mistrust and betrayal and thus they feel disconnected from the establishment parties.

They are seeking solutions from new parties, which naturally act opportunistically and take advantage of the citizen's concerns, by simply addressing them. Our governments might brand this as populism, but it is evident that it works, so why haven't they managed to get rid of their institutionalized political correctness and becoming more accountable and transparent about the policies they chose to adopt?

Yet not all immigrants are refugees. Apart from the Syrians that are fleeing a war torn country and deserve to be accommodated- not only by Europe, but the whole of global community- many others are joining the queue to enter our continent. They come out of hope and desperation. They are attracted by our living standards, which are even after the crisis, still among the highest in the world. 

However one cannot ignore that another reason that Europe is so attractive to immigrants, is its colonial legacy. Since a lot of them have a European language as their first or second official back in their native, while still being raised in a post colonial mentality and educational system, is it any wonder that they feel more connected to Europe than any other region of the world?

In addition, when Western culture is the predominant one though Hollywood movies and stereotypes, how can a young Asian or African not be dreaming in living in a Western nation, since we promote our way of life through advertisements, trade, films and our overall cultural domination?

Finally, since we are promoting and priding ourselves as open, equal and welcoming society, why then we find it so hard to accept the fact that others see us as a beacon of hope and opportunity, just as America was long before us? 

The recent divergence of Europe towards a more conservative, xenophobic and euro-skeptic stance, puts a question-mark on how open are we as a society, how prepared are we for a globalized, multi-polar world and signifies an identity crisis. We are simply not sure what we want to be, or which role do we want to play in the globe for the future.

  

That is understandable, as European nations have walked a different path in history. Some where conquered and oppressed by different countries, while others were the oppressors or the invaders. Some only managed to form a state quite recently, while other nations have been empires or kingdoms for much longer.

Some have had a more peaceful history than others by maintaining neutrality, while the different ideological and religious divisions have created a variety of mentalities, sensitivities and approaches in our continent. 

However we should not destroy what we have achieved so far, just because we feel insecure. The reason we are still one of the most prosperous continents, is exactly because we have established the biggest market in the world, we have opened our borders to each other and the world and have abandoned- well to a certain extent- protectionism.

Immigrants are needed to fill the jobs that we are not willing to do and to sustain the very generous welfare system that we all enjoy. The alternative model would be that of Japan, which offers close to no social welfare benefits, yet it is a very homogeneous nation, for the time being at least. Instead of scapegoating them for our problems, perhaps we should simply re-evaluate the policies we have adopted so far, streamlining them to a pan-European common immigration policy.

If we continue to maintain so many loopholes for people to enter Europe, without however any proper integration policy, all we are doing is worsening the problem. We are encouraging more people to live on the fringes of our societies, often unemployed or cut off from equal opportunities and relying on social welfare. 

It is no wonder then that radicalization of certain immigrant communities, or rising xenophobia in the native population take hold and they make matters worse. Combined with an economic crisis and an increasingly competitive continent, in an increasingly competitive world, these issues can not be ignored.

We have been disregarding the weakest and most vulnerable in our societies, both native and migrant, making them feel left behind. Not everybody is equipped to catch up with the changes, like our older generation. In addition, we have been slashing the opportunities of our youth, forcing them into unemployment and a bleak future in order to save the banking sector. 

All the above add to the toxicity of European politics. If we want to succeed in creating and above all maintaining an open, democratic and liberal community of nations, then we cannot ignore these issues any more.

We will have to adapt and reform our societies, educational systems, job market and economy, or people will increasingly opt for political parties that will promise changes, even though they cannot deliver them.

On the issue of immigration we will have to learn from the mistakes of the past. If you think that you are promoting a tolerant and progressive image, by allowing too many immigrants to enter in your workforce, yet without a sustainable plan to integrate them, then the only thing that you will achieve is clashes and the opposite of what you hope for; the image of an intolerant society.

Problems will always arise, but we will have to anticipate and face them, not avoiding them in fear of offending people. Plus we will have to be bold and resourceful. We could establish a number of EU work permit embassies abroad, so people can enter Europe legally, bypassing criminal gangs that smuggle them into Europe for profit. Safeguarding European borders will need a stronger policing or security force, thus coordinating our efforts on this front is also essential. 

Cooperating with the transit countries is important, so maintaining good diplomatic relations with them is key. And if we decide that we need to reverse the flow, or at least limit it, we should encourage other regions to become big players in the globe and especially, to invest in the countries of origin of the potential migrants, creating jobs there. 

If their citizens feel that they have a future in their own communities, then they won't be as keen to migrate to Europe. And by allowing a multi-polar world to emerge, with many new players and prosperous regions, then Europe will not be the only continent too appealing to the potential immigrants. 

Therefore we need to engage with all other regions in the world, promoting stability, prosperity and education, together with our values and aspirations for a more united, interconnected world and set an example for others. But this won't happen when we are not sure of who we are, what we want or how to deal with our own problems, because we are unable to hold an open debate on the type of European society we wish to create for our future generations. 

For Greece to become a "normal" country, it needs a "normal" Europe.

August has marked Greece's exit from eight years of international bailouts and the end of the euro-zone's long financial crisis.

However, the EU institutions and other European leaders, gave a warning to Athens, to stick to the policy commitments it made in exchange for €289 billion of loans. (Financial Times)

EU economic affairs commissioner Pierre Moscovici said on Monday (20 August) that Greece will once again be treated as a "normal country" after over eight years of international aid and austerity measures.

He added that the EU lenders will no longer impose "any kind of measure or decision", adding that Greece is now free to define its own economic policy within euro-zone structures.

The commission does not aim to give Greece an entirely free hand, however. EU officials will travel to Greece on the week of 10 September to check on developments. Four such visits will be made annually.

Over the last 10 years, Greece's GDP also went down by 24.2 percent. Unemployment is around 27 percent. It will also have to keep it at 2.2 percent until 2060 to pay back debt, a massive task for a weakened economy.

But the commissioner said he was confident the Eurogroup’s decision to implement a series of "robust, short and medium-term debt measures will meaningfully lighten Greece's burden and secure its sustainability."

Moscovici also said Greece's economic structures had been modernized and should be capable of helping create jobs and attract investments. (EUObserver)

Something that is highly needed if the country is to get back on track. But even if we accept that the worse is over for the Greeks, one can only wonder how the country will become "normal," by simply focusing on debt repayment.

As if the only thing that Greece's lenders care about is getting their money back; with interest of course. And while the "Eurocrats" celebrate, the ordinary Greeks have little reasons to be jubilant. For the next 42 years they will be paying off a massive debt, that will hinder a generation's opportunities. If course during this time, another economic crisis doesn't weaken further Europe's most vulnerable, peripheral economies.

The problem with Greece.

Greece's trouble was not only its debt, rather political and social to begin with. The country had little chance for stability since its formation and liberation from the Ottoman Empire, that left it with a totally broken and outdated system.

And if you think that stability and peace have nothing to do with modernization, then take a look at Sweden, a country that avoided both world wars, with diplomacy and political manoeuvring, that sometimes required to cooperate with both sides of each conflict.

Greece did not enjoy that luxury. Ever since its liberation from the Ottomans, the country entered every war on the European continent, initially with its neighbouring countries over territory, but later in the two most catastrophic world wars with the Western powers' interference. 

In fact, the modern Greek state would never have existed without European participation, meddling or influence. For example, it was only able to free itself from the Ottomans, after European public opinion was in favour. After its liberation, it has always been a European protectorate. 

Its first king was a Bavarian named Otto, while during the rest of the years leading up to WW1, Greece was swinging between being a democracy and a kingdom, with heavy political influence by the European powers.

After Otto was forced to leave the country, the Greeks accepted a Danish King, mainly because the proposed British candidate-Prince Alfred was blocked by other European powers. As a reward for accepting a pro-British new king, Greece was allowed to be united with the Ionian islands, which where until then under British rule.

This "give and take" in fact, was continued for many years to come, when Greece was sometimes favoured, while others losing out in territories, depending the interests of the European powers of the time. 

With the Balkan wars, Greece expanded its territory by nearly doubling its size, always with the agreement and permission of Western powers. However so did its debt to its European lenders. The country went from boom to bust, defaulting many times on its debt to its creditors and all this to gain more land, while the Balkans were being redrawn.

After the two Balkan wars came WW1, which Greece was coerced in by the Allied Powers. Subsequently territories have been awarded to Greece for its participation and being among the victors, which later were lost during the Greco-Turkish wars. A massive humanitarian disaster was unfolding, with the uprooting of millions of people, under the exchange of populations between the two countries.

Then the horrors of WW2 followed, together with a brutal Nazi occupation. Again, Greece tried to remain neutral, but its hopes sank with the attack of Italy in October 1940. The country had not only to endure the pillaging of its resources by the Nazis and the extermination of nearly all of its Jewish population, but the Allied food embargo, which aimed to restrict the supplementation of the Nazi army. It caused thousands of civilian Greeks to die of hunger-especially in Athens.

This war ended again with Greece being among the victors, however it was not treated accordingly. It was in fact used as the battleground of the first proxy war between the two emerging ideologies in Europe; communist and capitalism.

In December 1944, Greek nationalist army and the Athenian city police, together with the British forces started fighting against the Greek communists and their various insurgent parties, that were joined by many Greek guerrilla regiments which until then, they were fighting together with the nationalists and the British against the Germans. 

This led to a disastrous civil war during 1946-1949 between communists and nationalists, that divided Greece for decades to come. British forces were actively involved in this war and the years after, just to make sure that the country will remain under Western influence. Greece nearly ended up becoming another British colony.

For the same reason a US backed junta was promoted in 1967 that lasted 7 whole years. During this time the Greek state was the oppressor of its people, turning it into a brutal police state, just to keep the Soviet and communist influence out of Greece.  It wasn't until the late '70s that the country has finally managed to establish a robust enough democracy, that soon allowed it to join the European Community in 1981.

However, it has never been a "good pupil" in Europe. With the "Metapolitefsi" years (the return of democracy in Greece after the junta) we have seen the rise of the PASOK political party, which mostly ruled Greece through the '80s.

One of the characteristics of this era, was that PASOK and its leader Andreas Papandreou's policies were focused on reducing the gap between Greece's social classes, which was created by years or conflict and the Cold War, by using EEC funds. While the goal was reached, it created a culture of entitlement, corruption and nepotism as the centralized Greek government relied on the expansion of its public sector, to create jobs. 

With the promise of political allegiance, people found employment in the public sector and for a few decades, Greece had finally a thriving middle class. However, while PASOK and its main opposition -the New Democracy party- were wasting Greek and European funds in order to stay in power, the country saw little reforms in order to become competitive.

The Greek public was starting to enjoy prosperity, but it was standing on weak foundations. Not only the years of wars have allowed corruption to take hold in the Greek society, as the only way to survive in such harsh and dehumanizing conditions was to do deals "under the table," but also it led to a huge mistrust towards the Greek state and its institutions. This attitude can be blamed for avoiding engaging with government bodies such as the revenue or the police.

After such oppression during the junta years, coupled with foreign meddling, political, social and economic instability, extreme poverty, deep social divisions due to the civil war, the Greek psyche has become self-centred and survivalist, with a great disregard to the country's laws. It had to during the difficult years, yet it should have abandoned such practices after the '80s.

In addition, the Ottoman Empire has left Greece with a system that was not compatible with the rest of Europe, however it only needed a strong and stable political environment to proceed with reforms, something that Greece never got the chance to enjoy. The divisions caused with the civil war, created a society in conflict with itself, that instead of focusing on modernization, they wasted resources in fighting each other, living to constantly reopen past scars.

This schizophrenia was encouraged by the two main political parties, in order to stay in power. They deliberately kept the country divided, with populism, nepotism and the promise of job in the public sector. If anyone was to change the country and proceed with reforms, it should have been the PASOK and New Democracy administrations, which failed in this task dramatically.

Europe's role.

However, the mess that followed was not just Greece's fault. Europe was becoming increasingly unhappy with the country's use of European funds, yet not only they tolerated it, but they invited to join the euro-zone, although it was clear that the country was not ready. It was a political decision that made no sense in financial terms.

Since then, every time the European institutions and their supporters called for further integration, or deepening fiscal union, it was the governments of the biggest EU economies like France or Germany that opposed such development. Even when the economic crisis started being felt, Europe decided that it needed a scapegoat to put all the blame on, not to accept that the euro-zone was incomplete and lacking the right tools to govern itself and be sustainable.

Soon after the Greek government admitted that its budget deficit was much higher that the euro membership allowed, the other EU governments started a barrage of accusations and counter accusations towards the Greeks as a nation.

Not only they paid little attention to the fact the economic crisis started in the USA, with the corruption and bad financial choices made by many of its institutions-notably the meltdown of the Lehman Brothers Investment Bank-but they turned Greece as the single cause of what was to come. In fact, the first European country to default on its debt and go bankrupted was Iceland, yet no one bothered to examine why this happened to them in the same extent. 

But for the Greeks things were different. Soon German workers were blaming them for not getting a salary rise, not the euro-zone's weaknesses. The country's media and government, angered at Greece's lack of clarity and responsibility, poured a toxic propaganda against all its citizens. 

It resembled the harsh treatment and humiliation that Germany itself received after it lost WW1, which resulted in the rise of nationalism and the Nazis in the country, paving the way for an even more disastrous war in Europe. Our continent it seems never learns from its mistakes. 

In return, the Greek media opted for old clichés about the Germans, that were equally unrealistic, biased and offensive. Europe was turning against itself and its unity was put to the test. Soon people realized what they haven't done since the euro was introduced; that whatever happens in one country, deeply affects the other and the continent as a whole.

You see until then, money lending and borrowing was easy. Everyone got complacent and overspent, each government according its own agenda. In Greece, partially this was to sustain the public sector with little appetite for change or reforms, to maintain the status that has been established since the '80s.

In addition to this, the country had to overspend as now was sharing the same currency with economies such as Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, which were more robust. In fact, the euro itself was designed around the German mark, making it more fitting for exporting, more industrialized economies like the Northern European ones, not for a largely agricultural country like Greece.

In order to cope with rising prices that the euro itself, together with greed by the local tradesmen brought, Greece opted in increasing its public spending by raising of salaries and pensions, hosting the 2004 Olympic Games and generally living beyond its means.

One could blame solely the Greek government for that, but after all it was French and German banks that profited from this madness and continued to encourage it by throwing cheap money towards Greece. Once the euphoria ended, someone had to pay the price, and it was the ordinary European citizens, not just the Greeks that ended up with the bill.

The view from an EU citizen from two bailed out countries.

Suddenly European media were so focused on Greece and its faults, that the country went through scrutiny and humiliation. No other nation had such an extensive prying in its internal affairs, than Greece. 

During the first years of the Greek economic crisis, I was living in Ireland and have established myself for good there. One of the reasons why I left my home country, was because I could not stand its sluggish, corrupt government and always wished for Europe to become a federal entity, as I saw this as the only solution to modernize not only Greece, but Europe as a whole.

However, soon I realized that the main impediment to such goal was not corrupt little Greece, but the bigger, richer nations like Germany or Britain. Thus, I found it peculiar that now it was them that were so keen in accusing Greece for lack of compliance with EU's requirements, while themselves dominated the European project, often shaping it according their own interests.

Many times, it was them who first broke EU rules, like Germany did with the Maastricht treaty. As I continued to observe this unfair ridicule of Greece, I often wondered if I grew up in the same country that the European media were describing. 

Not that I was not aware of the level of corruption and nepotism in my native country, yet I found it hard to accept that all these things were happening only there. People claiming benefits illegally or pensions for their diseased members of their family. Taxi drivers not issuing receipts, while nobody paying taxes. It felt surreal.

I had to explain to my Irish colleagues why Greece was so corrupt, while they expected me to answer their questions which they often could not accept or understand. "Why do Greeks take so many holidays and don't like to work harder," they were inquiring, but when my response was to ask them why do they often call sick at work, usually on Mondays after a heavy drinking night out, left them uncomfortably surprised. 

They expected me to apologize for my country's bad behaviour. Yet they haven't done their own self-criticism beforehand, just like any other European nation. Instead of blaming the collective bad policies regarding how the euro was introduced, European leaders needed to diverge their voters' anger towards Greece.

Having lived in Ireland already for over 5 years, while working in the country's public sector, I have witnessed the same type of corruption here, although I cannot be sure about its extend. No taxi driver in Ireland-and in fact in most European countries that I have visited- ever gave me a receipt unless I asked for it.

The same applies for free tradesmen in Dublin, like plumbers and electricians, which also often avoid giving an invoice unless asked. I have heard of cases of people working while claiming benefits, while many landlords not declaring the true number of tenants in their properties and thus, the real income they generate. 

No European media bothered to look so extensively in Ireland's, or in fact any of the other EU members engulfed by the economic crisis, like Portugal, Spain or Italy. It is highly unlikely that the same level of corruption that exists in Greece, is not also present in Italy-a country with Mafia still in control of a large part of its economy in the south. 

The fact that even the OECD supports the Greek people's claim that they work among the longest hours in the EU, naturally escaped everybody's attention. You really need to work hard in Greece, especially if you are in the private sector. The problem is the system and the economy are so fragmented and disorganized, that it does not generate enough products for exports, or sustainable growth. 

A look at modern Greece's true problems. 

In addition, many of Greece's problems were highly exaggerated. Yes, people in the Greek islands often leave their homes unfinished to avoid higher taxes, however this is because they enjoy a different tax regime than the rest of Greece. It is not something that applies all over the country, as the government is trying to offer people in the islands an incentive to stay there, by offering them various tax breaks. 

The habit of many of the Greek people to offer money to doctors, allegedly for a bed in a hospital was also something that was portrayed very poorly. Yes, there are doctors who take advantage of this Greek custom, resulting in corruption. However, the phenomenon started out as a way to thank doctors for their help and services, back then when Greece was very poor, and its doctors inadequately paid. People often used to support them financially, but it was not obligatory initially.

One good thing that came out of Greece's shaming though, was the soul searching that followed. Many Greeks admitted their mistakes and realized how badly this affected the economy. I have heard people regretting the things they've been doing, like overcharging tourists or not declaring some of their income.

But the truth is that they were brought up to believe that what they were doing was "necessary" to make money. These people were raised in almost absolute poverty, most were uneducated in a very unequal system that in order to achieve anything you needed to bribe or affiliate yourself to a local politician. It is a system that originates in the Ottoman years, yet our ruling elites conveniently used it to remain in power. 

And while it is easy to blame the Greeks for perpetuating a highly dysfunctional system, how many countries have proven to be quick in reforms? One of the biggest EU economies is France, itself being brought to a standstill in every attempt to reform. You see once a system is set, it is hard to change as people who have profited from it will resist the necessary reforms.

In the case of Greece, not only the established elites resisted reforms, but through the constant instability, wars and foreign meddling, the country has never had a chance to take control of its finances, politics or social issues and tackle them. Greece is in fact a very young, immature democracy, despite being the birthplace of this political system.

What it mainly lacks though is leadership. Ireland's governments want to match its neighbouring countries and forced ahead with major reforms. Being surrounded by progressive, rich nations while itself being the most conservative and backward country in Western Europe, gave the Irish an ambition to change and reform.

Once their economy got almost in parity with the rest of the developed EU economies, it could attract educated workforce from all rich nations of the world; US, Australian, German, French, Japanese, Dutch, Swedish, Italian and British young job seekers arrived in Ireland, changing its social fabric and influencing further the necessary reforms.

Greece on the other hand, has a leadership which thinks nobody else but themselves and wants to remain in power by perpetuating the status and the policies that allow them to do so. Most young educated Greeks are leaving the country, to find work elsewhere in Europe and around the globe, since there are no jobs created in their country on the field of their studies to offer them a career.

So, Greece is left with its pensioners, lower skilled workers, pensioners from the richer European countries that buy property there and lower skilled immigrants from poorer non-EU countries. How can this nation be modernized, where can it find a dynamism and ambition in order to achieve this goal, since the pensioners and the public sector workers care little for change?  

Consequently, I was very surprised when the European leaders tried to bully the Greeks to not vote for a "populist" party like Syriza in the elections right after the first bail-out, trying to maintain one of the establishment parties-like PASOK and New Democracy- in power. 

They were afraid of the changes and the challenges they would bring, if another political regime gained power in Greece, although they knew very well that it was the establishment parties that brought the country in this mess; with the cooperation and tolerance of their European partners of course. 

That can be explained if you look at how the Greek governing elite, blamed its own people and threw them at the mercy of the foreign tabloid media, by portraying their voters as lazy and corrupt. Naturally to hide their share of responsibility, while maintaining their power and Europe's support, by avoiding the grilling by the EU institutions and the other European governments. Something that the Irish leadership did not do. 

Not only the austerity measures in Ireland were not as harsh as in Greece, but the country's government came up with a far more functioning plan to solve the problem. They did not impose savage cuts in salaries that amounted to 40% of the wages, allowing the debt to grow further and throwing the country into the jaws of international usurers; just like the Greek leaders decided to do.

The NATO burden.

On top of that, Greece is burdened with heavy NATO membership spending, something that countries like Ireland or Austria and Sweden do not have to bare. It is second only to the USA in keeping up with its membership obligations and payments, while richer countries like Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany itself are falling short in their contributions.

With an excuse that we need to protect ourselves from Turkey, a NATO ally of ours, the Greek government has convinced us that we need to overspend in arms and military spending. To the detriment of course of our economy and to the benefit of those countries that sells us their weaponry; like Britain, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany and the United States. 

It is no wonder that this situation is being perpetuated and tolerated by our European and NATO allies, since they are making good money out of us, yet they blame us for being on the receiving end of the EU budget; while we must spend a large part of it straight back into buying arms from them. 

 Conclusion.

When this crisis begun, I was hopeful that Greece will receive some of the punishment that it deserved, in order to get a grip and modernize, so that one day I can return back home in a fully functioning European economy and democracy. 

However, it soon became apparent that Greece was being scapegoated and used to sustain other nations’ economies, that in fairness tried to get their money back and protect their interests. What Greece needed all these years, was a new governing elite to push for reforms and proceed with attracting investments, not become heavily indebted one more time.

And while calls were often being made for another approach to solve the euro-zone crisis, the European elites, following Germany's wishes, opted out for punishing the Greek people for their government's lack of competence. But how could any Greek, that had no choice when it was decided for their country to join the euro, bare the whole blame for the block's woes?

Does any EU citizen have an acute knowledge of their country's finances, or is fully aware of how their government run its books? We as Europeans must realize that we need to familiarize ourselves with each other's background and problems that we are facing. It is not good enough to accuse or to blame, without understanding the root of the issue.

We now have managed to deal with the crisis, yet still we haven't achieved long term reforms on a pan-European level. The debt is spread to the periphery of the euro-zone, however what happens when the next crisis challenges our economies?

In Greece things are so bad that people confess that they are forced to tax evade again. "If we were to declare everything, there will be simply no money left to survive," many of the country's small business owners declare. The type of austerity that the EU and Greek governments have imposed on Greek people, with taxes higher than Sweden's yet salaries and pensions as low as Slovenia's, have destroyed the local market and money is scarce. 

The country's brightest have abandoned the country, while public spending is limited, as expected by Greece's lenders. However now they declare the country as "normal," ready to accept investments and generate new jobs. What I fear is another generation being raised in poverty, forced into corruption and tax evasion due to lack of opportunities just like their grandfathers, thus perpetuating the very attributes that Europe despised in the Greeks in the first place.  

I hope this time, Europe's "meddling" in Greek affairs, will be to bring it in line with the rest of Europe. The country does not need more European money from now on, in fact it never really did, and it is obvious that the reliance on EU subsidies proved to be a huge mistake. 

What Greece needs is investments, jobs and a fully integrated European economy under one single currency and market. If the Germans want to have the Greeks as equal partners, they will have to realize that they need to establish a new Greek economy that is compatible with theirs; which means the industrialization of Greece so that it can become an exporting country. 

And not just Greece, but the whole of the euro-zone must be reformed and the problem here is not the peripheral economies, rather those of the core. Will they choose to keep subsidizing the weaker European states, or will they accept to spread investments outwardly towards the periphery?

We need to realize that we are trying to integrate countries with a very different mentality, due to historical, religious and cultural differences. In addition, Europeans need to understand that this type of economic model which Europe tries to adopt, was not designed to match equally everyone's mentality or available resources; rather that of a small core, which in their majority belong to the north-western, protestant group of countries.

We cannot force the rest to change as quickly, especially when we ridicule and humiliate them, imposing either debt or subsidies over them, instead of offering equal opportunities for employment, prosperity and growth. 

It is not just Greece that must change after all and become a "normal" country, but Europe as a whole that needs to be transformed into a "normal" functioning union of states, if that is what its people desire. 

Europe should consider cooperating with Russia on Syria's rebuilding.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently called on Europe to financially contribute to the reconstruction of Syria to allow millions of refugees to return home.

"We need to strengthen the humanitarian effort in the Syrian conflict," he said ahead of a meeting with his German counterpart Angela Merkel.

"By that, I mean above all humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, and help the regions where refugees living abroad can return to." (The Local.De)

However, such development is highly unlikely to happen, since Europe is not only in an ongoing political disagreement and conflict with Russia, but if it gives Putin what he wants, it will be endorsing the Assad regime in Syria. Plus of course it will appear that it bows to Putin's leadership.

Yet our continent needs to slightly rethink its position on Syria and Russia. We must start rebuilding the Middle Eastern country, primarily for humanitarian reasons. Not just Europe, but the whole global community have failed the Syrian people, sacrificing them at the altar of regional politics and the adjacent Western interests. Indifference and xenophobia did the rest.

In addition to the duty that we hold as a continent to stand for humanity's decency and well-being, we should be distancing ourselves from petty local rivalries and US meddling in the region. Sticking to our Euro-Atlantic alliance at all costs, especially since now America is shifting its focus away from the traditional relations between us, is not necessarily in our interests.

Unlike the US which is positioned further away, Syria and the Middle East are located right in Europe's neighbourhood. Any instability in this region affects us directly. Since the start of the conflict in Syria, our continent was forced to accept millions of Syrian refugees and the numbers will still rise, the longer this crisis continues.

Coupled with the aftermath of the economic downturn, the refugee emergency placed an additional strain among EU member states, on how to deal with this problem and how to accommodate such an influx of people.

This challenge created further divisions within Europe, with some states like Germany and Sweden responding very positively, while others like Poland and Hungary breaking the EU lines, by raising fences and refuse the block's migrant quota.

In the countries at the front-line of this crisis, the situation was increasingly becoming dire. While the rest of Europe was refusing to take refugees in, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain were expected to tackle the situation almost by themselves, with primarily financial support coming from Brussels; in a time that they were already struggling in the aftermath of the euro crisis.

But the situation cannot be solved by maintaining overcrowded refugee camps, with EU money; not in the long term. First of all some of them have become inhospitable, like the one on the Greek island of Lesbos at Moria.

Children as young as 10 years of age have been reportedly been attempting suicide, while the situation in this camp has been slowly descending into chaos, with totally unacceptable conditions for those trapped in it.

And while one could be quick to place all blame on the Greek authorities, what has the rest of Europe been doing, apart from financing these camps which should be functioning as the first stop towards Europe, not a permanent one. This is not Greece's problem, but a European one and we should be witnessing European “solidarity” when tackling it.

Additionally, even countries that previously were willing to help are turning increasingly xenophobic, as far-right or nationalist groups are gaining ground. The party of Sweden Democrats have made major gains in the country and if Sweden, a beacon of human rights and liberalism in the EU turns euro-sceptic then this is bad news for Europe overall.

Further to the South, Italy has already elected a populist government and we already see a U-turn on the country's stance on the issue and towards the EU. Together with Hungary, they have vowed to work together to pursue a new hard-line approach to migrants searching for a new life inside the European Union.

Italian Deputy Prime Matteo Salvini, who has ordered ports closed to most migrant arrivals by sea, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose government built a border wall, cemented their political ties in talks in Milan recently, clearly becoming the two fiercest critics of the current European immigration policy. (The Sydney Morning Herald)

Considering all the above, Brussels should reconsider. Our priorities should lie with our humanitarian efforts and work on rebuilding the country, stabilizing it together with the whole region. The EU cannot allow this conflict to be perpetuated, just to satisfy America and its allies in the region that want Assad gone.

This war is offering no benefit to us whatsoever. We may agree that the Assad regime is not compatible with our values, but so is that of Saudi Arabia. I haven't seen any sanctions towards it at any time. Assad has proven that he is not Gaddafi and that Syria is not Libya, in the context that he is not standing on its own, like his Libyan counterpart; he has, either we like it or not, the support of Russia. 

We cannot engage in warfare with Syria, Iran and the Russians. Assad's regime is winning this war, his victory is almost entire and only in the region of Idlib the rebels are still holding on. Europe and the West must realize that Syria can only become stable again, with Assad sadly still in power of some sort. Unless we could work with the Russians and lobby them, to convince them to remove him into exile, leaving his country to heal its wounds with a new government.

Some will argue that he should end up in the Hague and perhaps he should. But it is unlikely that his Russian allies will allow this, as things stand. That is why Europe needs to move very cautiously and diplomatic, bending perhaps its staunch position on Putin, Russia and the Syrian war, at least temporarily. This is a civil war that has been raging for 7 years now and clearly there have been many crimes, committed from both sides.

However Assad's actions towards his own civilians that opposed him were made harsher, by the fate of Gaddafi and his regime; if you were Assad, wouldn’t you fight with all you got to avoid such fate? That is not an excuse for his actions; however it was expected of him. Perhaps those who wanted Gaddafi gone should have cared for a better fate for him and Libya itself, after his removal from power.

Europe’s interests for the immediate future should be with peace in the region, so that we won't have to deal with even more refugees for the long term. We cannot afford it economically, socially and obviously, politically. It is also morally the right thing to do, from a humanitarian point of view.

And although we might have our differences with Russia and Vladimir Putin, it will be wise to consider working closely; with his government or independently from it, if we find so hard to accept that we should cooperate in helping Syria’s efforts for reconstruction. Not for its government’s sake, but for its people and the greater good.

Unless we are willing to accept more immigrants or sanction permanent residency to the ones already here, we have no other choice . We won’t be able to send the over 1 million Syrian refugees that have entered Europe back, with an unstable, hostile Syrian regime; either this is Assad's or the rebels'. 

We are part of this conflict either we like it or not, by hosting-as we should- a great number of refugees from the war torn country. However our choices from now on are either to integrate the Syrians in Europe, while perpetuating the war by refusing to accept Assad's victory, or get involved to rebuilt the country and start the repatriation process. 

If we chose the second option, perhaps we could use as bargaining chip the pardoning those who will return. If these people have found refuge in Europe, but their families have joined the rebels' cause, I can't see them willing to return in a country in which Assad will no doubt try to tighten his grip in every aspect. 

Even if the rebels were victorious, they would probably do the same to Assad's supporters that fled into Europe. We could negotiate with the new government of Syria, with or without Assad, plus the Russians for a smoother transition in the process. 

Besides, we have another conflict right at our doorstep, that of Ukraine. It hasn't subsided at all, despite not being currently at the spotlight. There is a chance that by cooperating with our "enemy" on ending one conflict, we could learn working with them to achieve the termination of another.

Sanctions and Russia-bashing have not delivered any solutions, apart from badly affecting the Russian economy. However, Putin is not backing down on Ukraine or Syria and it is obvious that he is going to push all the way he can.

Europe’s response is to stick with America and keep the pressure, in order perhaps to force the Russians abandon Putin and his government’s meddling in those regions.

Yet they ignore that the Russian President enjoys high popularity in Russia, even among the country’s youth. For some, he is the only leader they have known. His long reign in the country has seen nearly a generation of young Russians, growing up under his rule.

According to them, his policies have restored Russia’s pride after the collapse of the USSR, while he saved the country from deepening disintegration and economic collapse. Many are happy about the way things are, plus they feel nostalgic towards their nation’s old “realm,” or sphere of influence.

When I was in Russia last March, some of the youths I have met confessed how they love to travel in former Soviet republics, to familiarize themselves with what used to be once part of their country.

So by applying constantly sanctions against Russia, to topple Putin or force him to comply, we may be doing more harm after all. If we hurt the Russian economy, we destroy this youth’s chances and opportunities, which will inevitably coil around Putin or someone just like him for many years to come.

Our hostility towards their leader might make them increasingly more anti-West and in the future keener in a stronger Russian influence in the region, as a reaction to our sanctions.

Yet both Europeans and the Russians need to realize that geopolitics keeps changing. The Soviet Union is gone and although some Russians would want to see their country back at its peak, many former USSR states have now turned towards Europe.

Instead of fighting over their allegiance, we must realize that they could act like a bridge between the two spheres of influence. However, both sides squabble over them, mainly because of NATO and the USA factor. With every new EU state entering the alliance, Russia finds itself increasingly closer to American missiles from its western front, but also from the east. That doesn’t go down very easily.

Consequently, Putin’s invasion of Georgia and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, were a mistake. However he was clearly trying to give a message to NATO and the West, that Russia is back in game and that if they continue invading or toppling governments in countries close to Russia, geographically or politically, that he had the right to do the same.

Personally I find the attitude of both sides outdated, as I am clearly not interested in belonging in any block, perpetually at war with its neighbours. I stand for dialogue and a “middle way,” even when it comes discussing with countries that we don’t agree with.

We have no problem trading our outsourcing jobs to China, despite them not being a liberal, fully democratic society. If we manage to establish a better relationship with Russia, maybe we could find a way around our differences.

The problem is, that it is Europe and the “West” that wants to cut Russia off from its affairs, reduce its energy reliance on them and lift another “iron curtain,” this time further to the East, engulfing many of the former Soviet states.

Something that Russia of course strongly opposes, as it will see its weakening role in Europe, politically and financially. They seem to be keen in being part of our continent, too bad that the EU does not reciprocate their intentions.

But we need to understand that holding on to grudges and Russo-phobia, only perpetuates bad relations between two neighbors. Either we like it or not, Russia is not going to go away and the further we expand to the East, the more borders we will share with the Russians.

Finally, if we want them out of our affairs for good, we better find a way to become more energy sufficient, plus help the countries that heavily rely still on Russian oil and gas. But why we insist on making enemies of them?

If Ukraine is allowed in the EU and NATO with its large Russian population, it will mean that we will have to accept all of them as EU citizens. Perhaps that is another factor that polarizes the situation, in both sides. There are currently about 7 million Russians in Ukraine, excluding the annexed Crimea region.

If Ukraine joins the EU and NATO in the near future, the ethnic Russian citizens of both blocks will outnumber those of countries like Ireland or all the Baltic nations combined. By constantly maintaining hostile relations with Russia, how will this population respond?

Unless of course Ukraine's integration into these institutions will be just another Turkey. Maintaining the prospect for decades in order to keep the country under Western influence, but never materializing it.

However if we look at Estonia and how it gradually changed its own stance towards its Russian minority, we could make Russians in Ukraine feel more at home; yet this additionally requires better EU-Russian relations.

To conclude, Putin's recent visit to Austria and Germany, signifies an interest from the Russian side for cooperation with Europe, even if it naturally aims mainly to promote his country's interests in our continent.

We should engage in this dialogue, making sure of course that we show a united front-not a fragmented one- when it comes in promoting ours. If we take pride in our motto "united in diversity," this is one of the times we will have to prove and stick to it.

Is Russia the West's scapegoat or the new superpower?

Ever since Donald Trump got elected in 2016 as the 45th President of the USA, there have been allegations about his connections with Moscow, plus the potential "meddling" of Russia in the US Presidential elections.

The same rumors circulated after the British EU membership referendum's outcome, which resulted in Brexit.

And of course, in every gain and advance of anti-establishment or populist parties throughout Europe, Russia and its President Vladimir Putin were accused of their financing or general interfering.

To make matters worse, Trump agreed to meet with Putin in Helsinki at a summit last week, causing a further outcry from his opponents back in America and throughout Europe. The two leaders are increasingly being seen as enemies of the West, liberalism, free trade, the EU or NATO and the current status quo or balance of power in the world.

Consequently, a summit between these two men sent shock-waves across both side of the Atlantic, especially after the announcement of a second meeting in the US. Many spoke of treason by President Trump, while others expressed anti-Russian sentiments, often portraying President Putin as the arch-enemy of Europe and the West, seeking to destroy it from within.

But let's put things into a perspective one minute. Since when has Europe become so defeatist? If Vladimir Putin has indeed such power to infiltrate and influence America itself from the inside, then we are acknowledging him to be the true "planetarch," the leader of this world.

We are also accepting America's and Europe's decline and submission to Russia, since all of the current problems we are facing can be attributed to its "meddling" and financing. If Russian "trolls" have so much power, that can infiltrate our societies and alter totally our perceptions, election results or influencing our ruling elites, then the West has lost the battle already, right?

But are we sure that our governments haven't already got their own "trolls" or agents to do the same to Russia or other regions of the world, or counterpart Russian propaganda and cyber warfare? As if the West hasn't influenced or meddled itself in the collapse of the USSR or Yugoslavia, the war in Libya, Iraq, now Syria and so on. We are not totally unprepared or unfamiliar with such threats, or style of hostilities.

The reality is that we are caught in an ongoing conflict. One that is about spheres of influence and of course the relevant resources. However the world is changing as it should have already, but many are resisting the new reality and they are trying to find excuses or the cause, in lieu of grasping the opportunity to prepare for a different future.

Instead of looking at the reasons why the voters are turning to people like Trump or any populist politician or party, our leaders are trying to scapegoat Russia and Vladimir Putin for everything. In order of course, to discredit these outsiders in our politics and perhaps turn the devotion of the voters, back towards the establishment parties.

Yet they have to understand that they are giving too much attention and power to the so called "enemies" of ours. If Vladimir Putin is indeed the worse threat that Europe is facing nowadays, then we are certainly giving him all that he wants, together with all the attention and credit, as the man who can defeat the West and destroy our continent.

Putin's Russia might indeed have certain interests in the weakening or altering of the EU and the Western world in its current form, but if it has gained the power to be the sole perpetrator then we should admit defeat and declare it the world's new superpower.

Maybe our ruling elites do not like the shift of power in our countries, which is after-all the result of decades of mistakes, negligence and corruption by their part and so now they seek to turn the tide again in their favor, by scapegoating the Russians; as they have done so many times before during the Cold War.

Perhaps if we want to find a more serious threat, we should start looking within our union and of course, to the other side of the Atlantic. Trump's recent stance towards Europe, shows clearly a shift in America's interests towards our continent and this cannot be blamed on Russia.

Donald Trump might be very bad news for the environment, our liberal societies, immigration, world trade and globalization in its current form. But he grabbed the opportunity to rule, because of  the mistakes that America's former governments have committed. He sticks to his electoral promises and pushes for a new world order, one that serves the interests of those who he represents. And no, these are not necessarily the ordinary Americans.

Now many in the US and Europe might not agree and fear the changes that are about to come, as they will either personally lose out, or they truly wish to maintain the current world status. Thus they are counter attacking with linking Trump to treason, espionage, Putin, or the Russian "trolls" and oligarchs. But Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin won't be always leaders of their nations, yet the damage that this stance will do to our continent will last longer than their service as presidents.

Those who promote this Russo-phobia, are contributing to the enfeebling image of Europe and America, while portraying it as one region of turmoil, crisis, weakness and lesser importance to the world. The beast fights harder when it knows is about to die, so maybe the West's obsessive hysteria with scapegoating and fighting foreign enemies, shows a deep insecurity, decline and weakness.

Instead, Europe should continue reaching out to the rest of the world, seeking bettering relations with other blocks and emerging nations and yes, even Russia. The best answer to those who want to undermine the EU-either from outside or within-would be to continuously work together as a group of nations, leading by example and engaging with all countries, friendly or not so.

Besides, Trump and Putin's plans for Europe could in fact turn out to be to our benefit. If they continue to pressure on, our continent might just be forced to come out of America's shadow even more united out of necessity, becoming itself a political power, not just a trade and financial one. We only have to start believing it ourselves.

Trump is making his intentions clear; the problem is how Europe will respond.

Ever since the US President Donald Trump got elected, Europe has been baffled on how to deal with his statements, tweets or new policies. 

There has been an increasing disbelief of his actions, followed often by a barrage of condemnation or statements by politicians from this side of the Atlantic, especially from EU officials.

The Trump administration started a trade war with Europe alongside China and Canada, two of which are the USA's oldest and closest partners. He repeatedly accused Europe of not paying much into the NATO budget, famously attacking the "free riding" members of the alliance, notably from Eastern Europe.

During his recent visit to Europe and before his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, he even referred to Europe as a "foe" of America, on trade terms. Forgetting perhaps that he instigated this trade war, by imposing higher tariffs on European steel imports.

While he was visiting the United Kingdom, the British Prime Minister Theresa May claimed that he advised her to sue the EU over Brexit, plus he intervened with internal British politics, by showing support for May's opponent, Boris Johnson. 

Most likely this was a very tactical threat to May in order to convince her to follow his instructions, as he pushed for a hard Brexit. He stated that a "soft" exit of the UK from the EU, could kill any future trade deals with the US. Clearly this is what his administration wants in order to continue their "special relationship" with the UK, but also it makes evident what are Trump's plans towards the EU, Europe and Britain itself.

In other words, if the UK wants out, America will only take it under its wing if it opts for a hard Brexit, thus cutting most ties with Europe. Something that is downright scary and many in the British society and leadership do not want. Perhaps Donald Trump is offering a road-map to Theresa May and her European counterparts, on how to proceed with this disaster and the terms, on which they would offer to Britain the much needed trade deal.

And while many Europeans or even Americans remain stunned in disbelief, accusing him of treason or of damaging the EU-US relations, he is doing exactly what he promised during his election campaign; he changes the game rules in global, American and Euro-Atlantic politics.

Are we still sure that Vladimir Putin is the greatest threat to our continent, or that he is the only one to be blamed for the new reality dawning on Europe?

Our problem now is not Donald Trump, but how will the continent adapt to this challenge. He is making his intentions crystal clear to European leaders and the rest of the world, he is very bold and he is pushing for a brand new world order. 

We could either passively accept what he plans to do, follow his example and become more protectionists like the USA, or stick to our interests and carve a new path for our continent, by creating new alliances, trade deals and a military union for our protection.

In fairness it is not all bad for Europe, if we play our cards right this could be very beneficial for us. We should not necessarily be afraid of a closer Trump-Putin cooperation, unless what they aim for is the division of Europe once again. If only the previous US-USSR leaders have met more often to talk, it could save us decades of cold war, hostilities and arms expenditures. 

The problem is that we don't exactly know what they have agreed during their two hour meeting in Helsinki, about Ukraine and ultimately about NATO, the EU or Europe and their future plans for expansion and deeper integration. But even if our worse fears become reality, we could still resist their plans by showing solidarity and proceeding with our own agenda of further unification. There is strength in unity and that could be Europe's biggest advantage. 

The eastern member states, could find the support they need against the "threat" from Russia in an ever closer union, if only of course both they and their western counterparts are able to agree on it. But it could prove hard to be weaned off American money and investments, for exchange of NATO missiles. The old EU nations have a different type of addiction to US support, yet it appears that it is all about to change.

President Trump showed his cards to us openly, he pushed for more contributions in the NATO budget by European member states, if Europe wants still America's protection. He is giving us a choice. Either we up our game and take more responsibilities, or it is time to grow up and proceed with our plans for a Euro-Army, relying at last on our own resources for our protection and foreign policy adoption. 

Naturally there are too many players that will lose out from his new direction of US policies. Notably the arms industry of the US and many other European nations, or our continent's governments that will be forced at last to either contribute more in the NATO budget, or allow the creation of a European Army.

In either scenario they will have to spend more money on defence and that does not go down too well. Hence all the current barrage of anti-Trump articles and hysteria.

We have got to understand that we are entering a new era of politics and status-quo in the globe. Our alliance with the US is being altered and although this may feel scary, it shouldn't necessarily be a disaster. America is looking its own interests first. Perhaps it is tired of being the policeman of this world and it is time to look after its own people.

Donald Trump is looking for better relations with Russia and so should we. His administration is focusing in new directions for investments and new partners, notably in Asia and Africa and this is also something that we should be doing. The recent trade agreements the EU has signed with China and Japan, or Canada some time ago, is a very encouraging sign that Europe is finally moving towards the right direction.

It may hurt that Europe is no longer the centre of American foreign policy's attention, but if we ever want to have a voice and play a bigger role in this world, we need to finally accept that we got to stand up, safeguard, promote and complete what we have already established; a common market, an integrated economy, an open society, a single currency and no borders.

Russia would be a fool to want to destroy such a rich and diverse market at its doorstep, which is also its bigger trade partner and importer of oil and gas. The US on the other hand would not risk destroying the Western alliance of countries that for decades has led, nurtured, defended and promoted. 

It is just time that we got our act together and start fending for ourselves. And Donald Trump, although in a tactless, arrogant and incomprehensible manner, he is pushing us towards that goal. The world is going to be a multi-polar one in the future-hopefully a more equal one- with many new players and blocks arising from the developing countries and regions.

Europe can only be relevant if it decides to unite and seek to promote its interests by itself. The new American administration under Trump, if it succeeds in its goal, could give our continent the motivation it was lacking all these years to complete its unification. 

Donald Trump maybe all that his opponents declare, an arrogant, ignorant politician, unfit for the role of the President of the United States. Or it could be a very bold man with a different vision, which he has trouble expressing it, communicating it or promoting it in a more acceptable and politically correct manner. 

However, he might become exactly what Europe needs in order to change and move on to the next phase in its history and political reality; that of a united Europe.