Europe must be wise and prevent an all-out war in Ukraine.

US President Joe Biden and Russia's Vladimir Putin will speak via video call on Tuesday (07/12/2021), the White House says, amid mounting tensions over Ukraine. It comes after Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US had evidence that Russia had made plans for a "large scale" attack on Ukraine. But he added it was unclear if Mr Putin had made a final decision to invade. Russia has denied any such intention, and accused Ukraine of executing its own troop build-up.

The conflict in Ukraine is not recent. In fact, it has been going on for more than 7 years now, mounting to a loss of life in the thousands; around 13,200 people were killed in the conflict, about 3,350 of them civilians, as of today. It is evident that this war won't stop, unless there is a decisive action, or the will by all sides involved to end it. So if the Russians have indeed plans to terminate it by invading, it will be Pyrrhic Victory for everyone no doubt.

I have written many articles on Ukraine in the past, so I will try not to repeat myself. I feel for the Ukrainian people, because their land is a territory that is being "pissed on by the big dogs of the world", in order to mark their territory and sphere of influence. Who are these dogs? In one hand is Russia of course and USA on the other, with Europe being America's little poodle, siding always with its big brother or master. To me both sides are on the wrong, and Ukraine's population pays the price.

As I have already mentioned previously, the West ignores that Ukraine's population is (before Crimea's annexation) 17.3% ethnically Russian. So if the West thinks that integrating Ukraine it is institutions would be easy, while being constantly hostile to Russia is deluding itself. Unless of course it uses Ukraine to annoy and black-mail Russia, but has no real interest in including the country in its own sphere of influence.

The one point in which the Russians are right, is that Ukraine must never join NATO, even if it wants to. If it does, the USA will no doubt install missiles and military bases in its territory, and that understandably is something that Russia wishes to avoid. Except naturally, if by a miracle the US and Russia ever become friends and allies, something that could have happened, if NATO accepted Russia as a member when Putin himself, in the early days of his Presidency, allegedly wanted. If that outcome ever took place, it would save Europe a lot of trouble and headache, but I guess what would be the need for NATO then, plus how would USA and Russia would cooperate, if they both saw themselves as leaders or equal partners of the block?

If Ukraine wishes closer ties with the West, an EU membership should suffice. But is this something that Russia really wants and is willing to allow? We have many examples of countries being technically neutral, whilst in the EU; Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden. So I really do not understand Ukraine's or the EU's insistence on the country joining NATO as well, if this aspiration is something that will ultimatelly split Ukraine, politically or territorially because of Russian objection and fear.

With around 7 million ethnic Russians approximatelly in the country- that is equal or more than the Baltic states population in the EU, how does the West or Ukraine itself, envisage its military participation against a potential conflict with Russia for example? But once in the EU, the Russian minority could act as a link between the two blocks, if the Russians of Ukraine are allowed to be voted as MEPs in the European Parliament. They could help mending relations, assist the West better understand Russia and vice versa, and kickstart a new chapter in the European-Russian relations, something that we all need, especially Ukraine right now. Plus, this could act as the carrot, which will entice Russia to allow Ukraine into the EU.

Naturally, if Ukraine wants to join either institutions (NATO and EU), Russia cannot really stop it. But it can sabotage it with from within, as it does and that is something that just needs to be accepted no matter how wrong it is. The West has its own legacy of meddling and intervention (the Greek Junta back in the'70s for example, supported by the USA), so how can it point the finger towards the Russians now and expect them to just back off? Instead, we should try and reach the root of what drives the Russian leadership to such actions. What Russia most likely and conveniently takes into consideration,is the 1990 conversation was limited to discussion about unified Germany’s status in NATO. There was no promise or even a discussion about countries like Poland and Hungary.

Part of the persisting confusion stems from that fact that what was said at the time sounds pretty clear in retrospect. On January 31, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher declared, “What NATO must do is state unequivocally that whatever happens in the Warsaw Pact, there will be no expansion of NATO territory eastwards, that is to say, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.” In February, Baker then told Gorbachev in Moscow that “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Gorbachev then stated “any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.” Baker replied, “I agree.”

However, U.S. officials backed away from these statements during the negotiations that followed, and the discussions focused on what troops and infrastructure would be allowed in the former East Germany, not whether a unified Germany would be a full member of NATO. Even Gorbachev agreed later that the entire discussion was about Germany and the terms of unification, not about the rest of Europe. (From Jim Goldgeier) The Russian hardliners though who back Putin, empowered by the West's humiliation efforts of Russia and lack of credence towards their country, prefer to react negatively towards any aspiration of their former territories-now independent democracies, to join the West.

In other words, because the US and Russia do not trust or understand each other, countries caught in the middle of their aspired "spheres of influence" suffer and will continue to suffer. Consequently, we get accusations and counter accusation by both sides, threats and propaganda, thus if God forbid this escalates into a full-on conflict between NATO and Russia, I cannot see any winners. Europe notably will pay a high price, especially these nations which are already in NATO; they will have no option but to take side and participate, while others such as Sweden and Ireland, will once more stay neutral and watch us as we destroy each other. The impact won't be equal either in the aftermath, as the rich "powers" of Europe will be able to recover faster, while small NATO members, especially those to the East, will either be obliterated or financially cripled for decades to come.

Therefore, this is not just about Ukraine any more. After 7 years with no solution in sight, and with increasing military presence, the whole stability of Europe is at stake. I urge both the Russian and the American leadership, as well that of the EU and Europe, to be cautious and reasonable. Solutions that have not been considered until now, must be taken into account in order to solve the stalemate once and for all.

A new pact between the West and Russia should happen, a renewed approach and compromise, if not a serious effort for permanent reconciliation and peace. Firstly, the West must accept that Crimea has been permanently lost to Russia. A poll of the Crimean public in Russian-annexed Crimea was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. The West always rejects elections and referendums in Russian territories, but this was conducted by a German organization.

Understandably, Ukrainians oppose this and plead to the West to never recognise Crimea's annexation, nor any further loss of territory. But we have been through this many times before, not just in Ukraine but other territories, when the West refuses to recognise an outcome that Russia approves and vice versa, so we end up in stalemates that last decades and hinder any progress and prospetity in those regions. The West was happy to let Yugoslavia fall apart, its fragmentation to mini states and territories that can never become stable and prosperous without European financial support or EU membership. It activelly took part to the complete disintegration of Yugoslavia in order to guarantee peace near Europe's borders and generally in the continent, however now it stands stubbornly firm against any loss of territory in Ukraine.

Russia won't change under Putin, we know this. Especially since the US insists like a child to keep reminding them that they lost and treat them as the losers. The more the West treats Russia as the enemy because of Putin, the more Putin or someone like him-once he eventually is forced to withdraw from the country's leadership (he will not live forever) will be a villain to the West and try to sabotage any plans for European expansion to the East. The solution either we like it or not, lies solely in colaboration and cooperation, or even reconciliation.

Depending the extend of the damage this conflict has done to Ukraine, we must consider the partition of the country, or its restructuring and reformation to a more federal political entity like Spain or the UK. If the Russian minority cannot remain citizens of their country, without retaliation by the Ukrainian majority, then we must accept partition like Kosovo and Serbia. Or sadly even the redrawing of the borders between Russia and Ukraine. If their differences can be solved by greater autonomy for the Russian majority teritories, then a Spanish/British model could work (assuming that "Spain" or the "United Kingdom" work); besides, aren't we all in Europe heading for a federal model? However they can never be part of Ukraine again, unless not only the country, but the West itself restore their relations with Russia.They will keep acting as Russian pawns indefinitely, to sabotage Ukrainian entry into Western institutions.

Of course, there are no guarrantees that even if Ukrainians accept the above radical and unpopular for them solutions, Russia will cooperate and let the country join the West. It is then when European and American diplomacy and change of attitude towards Russia must happen, to assure that Ukraine's entry into the EU can be of benefit to Russia, via the Russian ethnic minority, should they of course wish to stay Ukrainian citizens. NATO expansion won't happen and will not be a requirement for EU expansion in the future and potential Eastern European members. Unless of course Russia and the USA solve their differences and missunderstandings. Anything is better than an invasion or war. We should not let WW2 mentality and its aftermath, poison our future.

We have gone through a financial crisis and recently a pandemic, both which left European citizens tired, economically strained, angry and prone to euroscepticism. A war between NATO and Russia, or further sanctions and counter sanctions, instability in Ukraine will destroy all the progress we have made and test us even more, but not everyone equally. Some will be able to cope, others to stay neutral, few may gain but ultimately, nobody will remain the same. I believe the Russian citizens do not really want another generalized war, so Putin may find himself at odds with his own voters too, if the reason is Ukraine for their own suffering. So, leaders of Europe, Russia and America, can you please take into consideration that your citizens want no more wars, but peace and stability? I for one, have no interest in any country's supremacy,or to maintain the Cold War mentality and politics. What I wish is for Europe to be a united, peaceful and prosperous continent for everyone in it.

Europe does not have only a migrant, but an ideological crisis.

For the past few months, Europe is faced with yet another refugee crisis. This time though, the entry point is not the usual Mediterranean route, but the borders between Belarus, Poland and Lithuania. According to many EU sources, Belarus' president Alexander Lukashenko has been shuffling people to the border, in retaliation for EU sanctions, an act qualified by the EU as a hybrid war.

Lithuania’s parliament passed legislation to speed up deportations of those crossing the border illegally. Critics say this might violate their human rights, but the government and lawmakers dismiss that. “This is an extreme situation,” Interior Minister Agne Bilotaite said. “This is not a normal migration, it is not a normal migration path. It is a hybrid war against us, so the response must be adequate.”

Frontex, the EU’s border agency, has pledged to bolster its support “due to the growing migratory pressure at the border with Belarus.” New sections of barbed wire fence were erected this month, with plans to invest 41 million euros to reinforce the entire 678-kilometer border with Belarus. Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte said that by encouraging the flow of migrants, Lukashenko is seeking to pressure her country’s infrastructure and politics. “The organized mass immigration is revenge,” she told The Associated Press.

In a Facebook post published in Arabic, Kurdish and English Lithuania’s foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, promised that his country would grant asylum to “virtually no one”. Three months later, and it seems Landsbergis has been true to his word. A total of 2,800 people have claimed asylum in the Baltic state until mid August since neighbouring Belarus opened its borders and so far, not a single person has been granted the protection. The grandson of the main architect of an independent Lithuania, Vytautas Landsbergis, Landsbergis has branded migrants coming from Belarus as criminals.

However the BBC reports different kind of stories. A Polish lawyer has launched a plan to provide support for migrants crossing into the country illegally via Belarus. Kamil Syller is appealing to locals living near the border to switch on a green light to signal that they can provide migrants with food and shelter. Speaking to the Polish newspaper, Wyborcza, Mr Syller said that migrants calling at these homes could count on receiving a meal, a change of clothes, first aid and the chance to charge their phones. He also criticised the Polish government's stance on the issue.

"The authorities of our country, enacting draconian regulations that will soon come into force and will legalise push-back, have calculated the death of refugees in them," he said. "We, the inhabitants of the borderland, who see human drama and suffering, do not have to calculate. "We must remain human."

Despite such stories of compassion, the overall attitude of Europe towards this crisis is obviously different than the one which affected Greece, Italy and Spain. Is this is a sign that Europe has had simply enough and has grown passive and indifferent to such pleas, right at its borders? Maybe the continent's inhabitants are turning a blind eye to the humanitarian emergency that unfolds in this region, because it is closer to home, near the rich and dominant Northern Europe. We haven't seen any "Refugees Welcome" campaigns on social media, or in the streets in cities across Europe.

Perhaps it has to do with the narrative in which this "crisis" is told; "revenge by immigration", a "hybrid war," because we all know that Belarus and Russia who are deemed responsible for this refugee influx, are our adversaries. However, Europe opted to offer Turkey and Erdogan billions of euros, in order to make sure that he kept them away from Europe, yet despite thousands reaching Greece's islands every year, Turkey is still our ally and friend. I wonder if this has anything to do with the Turks doing the West's and NATO's dirty work in Ukraine and the Middle East. Hypocricy is very annoying.

No NGO has condemned the Baltic states, or Poland for adopting a strict "stay out" policy. If such statements were made so blatantly by any Greek, Italian or Spanish official though, it would be another matter. It is obvious that any of the so called "refugee crises" are anything but and they become a tool which can be indeed weaponised, either by Belarus, Russia, or Turkey, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria, in order to blackmail Europe or receive funds from it.

Or as many others believe, weaken Europe from within and help to give power to nationalistic, euroskeptic political parties, which will in turn postpone or scrap any plans to create a functioning, fully democratic European union. Those who have such plans, could be less than the obvious, or anyone that would lose out from an increasing European assertiveness, from East or West, ally or foe. Of course we can not forget the "enemy from within", those European elites that prefer a fragmented Europe of nations, always at each other's throats, bickering and easily manipulated to promote their own financial or political interests.

On the other hand, we must not ignore the ideological strife that our continent has been engaging, since the ancient times. It is something that heavily influences our stance to immigration, thus of course the policies that we chose to adopt. Ever since the ancient Greeks expanded their territories through the conquests of Alexander the Great, thus coming into contact with peoples of other races, religions and cultures, the same debate always takes place and funnily, the very same arguments are being used for or against each point of view.

One of the Hellenistic philosophies which was founded by Zeno of Citium many centuries ago, was Stoicism. In an expanding Greek world, spanning from South Italy all the way to India, comprised by many ethnic groups and religions, the Greeks that were used to live in the relative small societies of their city-states, were forced to not only coexist with this mosaic of peoples, but often to accept a new way with which they were governed, into a centralized imperial or royal authority. This seismic change, forced the thinkers of that time to reconcider a person's place and role in the world.

A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism; according to the Stoics, all people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should live in brotherly love and readily help one another. In the Discourses, Epictetus comments on man's relationship with the world: "Each human being is primarily a citizen of his own commonwealth; but he is also a member of the great city of gods and men, whereof the city political is only a copy." This sentiment echoes that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said, "I am not an Athenian or a Corinthian, but a citizen of the world." They held that external differences, such as rank and wealth, are of no importance in social relationships. Instead, they advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. Stoicism became the most influential school of the Greco-Roman world.

The teachings and human experiences and conclusions of the people of that era, can be echoed until today. The Greco-Roman philosophers, inevitably influenced the collective mentality of all nations that were part of their world, which in turn contributed to the Western civilization. Christianity for example, although it was conceived in Roman Judea, was clearly inspired by the earlier Greco-Roman teachings. Apart from religious movements, political or ideological ones such as communism or socialism, can also find their roots in the ideas described by the Stoics: all are equal,we are one.

Nevertheless, history never stays the same. While Europeans accepted Christianity and themselves established their own empires, they did not always maintained the Stoic philosophical mind, nor the Christian ethos. Wars, colonization, invasions, empires, ethnic cleansing, holocausts, slavery and religious fundamentalism, have all tarnished our continent's history with blood, injustice and resentment. Throught those turbulent times, which inspired but also were driven by clashing ideologies, political and religious dogmas, interests and ethnic and racial tensions both within and outside of Europe, our continent has gone in full circles numerous times. Perhaps it will again, and we are witnessing the transitional period.

This can be witnessed brilliantly today. A post war Europe was left humiliated, destroyed and in need of rebirth. Then some brilliant minds came up with the idea of a united Europe, in order to avoid the same carnage again on European soil. They were the EU's founding fathers, like Robert Schuman, Altiero Spinelli and Konrad Adenauer. Fast forward a few decades and euroskepticism, born out of the same forces that brought Europe to its knees, fuelled by the mistakes of our elites, economic instability and an increased wave of immigration into Europe, is seeking every opportunity to tip the scales towards the other side once more.

What does all this have to do with immigration and refugees? Apparently, a lot. For example, while it was their own economic interests that the British elites were trying to secure by achieving Brexit, the people were convinced to vote for it, partially because of their concerns on immigration. The same tacticts are used by many Central and Eastern European EU members like Poland. While their elites are only seeking to protect their own stakes, the people are duped to support them, by using the "national interest" or "identity" carrot, which after of centuries of being used and abused, it is indeed deeply ingrained into everyone's mentality.

Europe's populace was always forced to accept one identity or the other, one religion over its adversary, and the same goes with languages, ideologies, ruling elites and even lifestyle. In every age, our leaders drove our collective way of thinking, or culture, according to their ever changing needs, which often are coming after a destructive development, such a war, enslavement, or expansion. In other cases, the driving force was simply their pocketsand lust for more power.

That is why some European nations of Western Europe find it easier to accept non-Europeans as citizens of their own country, because their rulers had to convince them to accept such case, in order to achieve control over vast areas of land, comprised by numerous ethnicities. Later on when they needed "guest workers" to fill jobs in their factories, they had to come up with the "all one, all equal" stoic idea of multiculturalism again, in order to avoid a backclash. Contrary, nations further to the East, that were threatened more often by cultures from outside of Europe, never been colonizers in their recent history, find it harder to adapt or adopt multiculturalism. Because they never had the need for it. Their rulers chose another system to deal with their workforce demands; communism.

The reality is, that both ideologies, nationalism and liberalism or cosmopolitanism, are purposely avoiding to view their flaws and the lies they have been built upon. They are simply ideas, born out of the human intellect. Firstly, the notion of a national identity is in fact flawed. We all know that Europe has always been a melting pot, it just in the past, we did not have people from as far as Oceania or Latin America reaching our shores. Our continent's population mixed and adopted new customs, religions even language, as the borders changed over the centuries. No one can claim pure heritage. The national idendity was always forged in schools, churches or parliaments and palaces.

Through all this mixing and killing and enemy subduing, or border changing, new nations emerged, that did not exist before. Others dissapeared and were absorbed into larger empires. The Thracians, Illyrians, Skythians, Goths, Avars, Celts etc, they were all eventually slavicized, romanized, germanized, hellenized and so on. Everything as a result of migration, invasions and occupation or colonization. That cannot easily be erased from people's psyche, and not just in Europe. Even those nations who themselves were colonized by Europeans, eventually sought to get rid of their rulers and in most cases, deport as many of them they could, back to their lands.

And perhaps if this process continues, new nations and ethnic groups will continue to appear in the a future Europe. And that is what the nationalists fear. Loss of territory, their way of life, identity and culture. And if you look at it from this angle, they are right. The EU's motto is "United in Diversity". We have a created a political, social and economic forum, that all our cultures should be celebrated and respected. So the thought of large numbers of people arriving in Europe, ultimatelly altering its demographics, worries many Europeans that until recently, were living in homogenous, family oriented, conservative societies. We got to admit, Europe is a socially conservative continent still, despite its industrial and economic advances.

And to be honest, if any liberal or leftist thinks that immigration does not come with its challenges, whether they be social, economic or political, he or she is simply daydreaming. Because it does, take it from an immigrant. The solution won't come by denying it, but rather by acknowledging it and trying to find ways to deal with the problem and make the best out of it. However to achieve that, we need to get rid off our self-imposed limitations.

Firstly we need to stop feeling guilty about the past, not matter how some groups would like to remind Europe of its mistakes. If the tables were turned, I believe that others would commit similar omissions. We must study and learn from our history so we never repeat its dark pages, review the errors but do not let them become an impediment to free speech or expressing an opinion openly, unless of course it is offensive. We cannot be forced to solve the world's problems, without the collaboration of all other wealthy regions of the world.

We also must admit, that our ideologies are simply that; an idea. They are not binding and they are constantly shifting according to the needs of a society or its leaders. Thus since when we decided, that upholding a stance based on an idea which often someone had thousands years ago, can still be applied as a panacea to every problem we are faced today? Are we sure that we can create this utopic egalitarian, prosperous and multicultural free society, something which has failed in USA? After more than 200 years of history and they still struggle to offer their African American compatriots equal opportunities and prospects. Can Europe succeed where America has failed? We cannot stop bickering about finances on European level, we smear each other with stereotypes when things get tough and we are acting on a "each to its own" mentality when it comes EU policies, that are often torpedoed by national vetoes.

And why should we accept unwanted and uninvited immigrants anyway. We are not discussing people from war torn countries like Syria, they must be accepted and helped. But not all that are coming are from Syria. We have people who cross the borders of Greece, running through remote villages during the night, stealing crops and animals from the local farmers to feed, forcing the locals to sleep with riffles ready by their doors. In my recent trip to villages located at the Greek-Bulgarian borders, I have heard stories from family friends who live in the region, of often encounters with illegal migrants running through their fields at night, on the way to Europe. Sometimes they try to help them, others they have to repel them as they are becoming too bold out of their desperation. No media will report such stories of course. But imagine if you are sleeping during the night and you hear your door's handle twisting and someone is trying to break into your house, located in a remote village, how desperate you will become for a solution to this problem?

These migrants are coming from places as far as Africa, Bangladesh, Iran and Pakistan. Last time checked, these are not war torn regions, but often very poor. So why can't we help their countries instead, by investing and creating jobs there, but we opt for trying to accomodate an ever increasing number of them, by monopolizing jobs and economic growth in Europe and a few other rich regions of the world. This is the real reason for the extreme global inequality and the solution does not come by creating more jobs in wealthy countries, to absord all the poor that our constant competition with others for an ever greater GDP oriented economic growth has created. So because we are unwilling to change our financial mentality and capitalist neoliberal ideology, we are creating a new problem, which due to our guilt of our past actions and mistakes, no one is ready to discuss it openly and find a solution.

No. Not all of these are refugees, they are economic migrants and should be dealt as such, knowing that not everyone can enter. We could be fair to them if we really wished and attracted them legally by establishing work permit embassies in their own regions,so that they can find jobs in Europe via a legal route. Instead, we tolerate criminal gangs smuggling human beings, which often have to pay thousands to cross into Europe, if they make it of course. We chose to tolerate our adversaries to use these desperate people as a weapon, to blackmail us in order for us to bow to their demands.

Why must we opt for sacrificing our own identity which was forged over centuries or even millenia, in the name of economic growth; or even worse, a largely flawed version of multiculturalism based on exploitation, lack of integration for migrant communities, lack of debate and a democratic process among the native population, which often is branded too easily as "racists" "fascists" and so on, if they raise any concern against a large scale immigration. In a democracy, either you like it or not, all voices or opinions must be heard and are valid, apart those that are intentionally offensive or inflammatory. Your aim as a liberal, leftist or a migrant sympathizer is not to deprive a debate to those who have a different opinion than you, but to make sure you have enough arguments to convince those who are unsure and become a majority.

If what you value of course is democracy. What we witness is a lack of decisive action by our leaders, because different political or social groups, NGOs and vested financial interests prefer to play the sympathy card and force our societies to give access to thousands of illegal migrants. What will happen to them once they get access to Europe, does not concern them of course. Will they be exploited, find work, achieve their dream goals, or will be forced to live in a ghetto, cut off from our society and lacking of opportunities? There is simply a limit of people that Europe can accomodate, before people start voting for populist right-wing parties, endagering the open border, free societies that we have achieved over the past 70 years.

And yes, national identity, heritage, culture, history and religion, still play a large role in the minds and hearts of most Europeans. These issues may leave some of us less bothered, but you cannot force them out of people, or you become the fascist that you so much hate. The true solution lies somewhere in the middle. Nationalists must be taught and understand that immigration has always been an integral part of humanity, and if one thinks that it can be stopped is fooling himself. It can though be managed, or it could lead to populism and extremism. We have seen this before in our continent. They must grasp the benefits of foreign workers, who with their contributions pay for the generous European social security policies, something that other wealthy countries like USA and Japan lack.

They can be inspired and encouraged to embrace migrants, by experience their culture and engange in a constructive intercultural dialogue, but that can never happen, if the migrants live isolated in a ghetto and the natives fear them. Thus, a gradual immigration flow, smaller in numbers and managed by a coprehensive policy, is what Europe needs. Temporary, seasonal work contracts could be a more common option, and we should not be afraid to say "no more" if we are finding hard to cope, or we simply have no room for any more foreign workers.

Personally I adore all of Europe's nations, thus I respect their culture and wish to see them preserved and passed on to the next generations. Every language, dialect, food, dance, costume, music, beverage, tradition, not just of Europe but of all nations, are important and worth safeguarding. To me, they are flowers in a garden, and how boring a garden would be if it was to lose any of its flowers, or it was not maintained properly. What would be the reason to travel, something that I love doing, if not to get to know a new culture, language or taste a new food. Thus, although my nature is cosmopolitan, I totally understand why some people are so attached to their heritage and I empathize with them. If I was to ignore their concerns, it would be insulting the least, if not arrogant.

I have made my ideological choice, which is always finding a common ground. I am a cosmopolitan who loves and enjoys other people's traditions, and wishes to compromise with all sides of an argument, in order to reach consensus. I just love humanity and marvel its achievements. Perhaps Europe must do the same, and find a way to please the different views and ideologies of its citizens, as well as the national sensitivities of its member states, in order to move forward united and in peace, potentially even achieving what others have failed to do; that egalitarian, prosperous utopia I mentioned earlier.

The West's 20 year old Afghan fiasco!

After 20 years of military presence, the US and the remaining of its allies are finally pulling out of Afghanistan. Do they leave behind a democratic, free and modern country? Not at all. On the contrary, the Asian nation returns right where it all started: with the Taliban in power. Scenes that are reminiscent of the quick US retreat from Vietnam a few decades back, are flooding our news feeds and social media pages.

One cannot stop himself from feeling cheated, enraged or disappointed. Some others perhaps justified. What was the purpose of such long and costly operation, with a total cost of over 2 trillion dollars, plus 2,500 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan, and nearly 4,000 more U.S. civilian contractors dead? In addition, an estimated 69,000 Afghan military police, 47,000 civilians killed, 51,000 dead opposition fighters, plus finally, the over 1000 NATO soldiers' deaths.

And it doesn't stop here. The cost so far to care for 20,000 U.S. casualties has been $300 billion, with another half-trillion or so expected to come. I can imagine this outcome must be particularly deflating for the war veterans, the families of those who lost their lives or got maimed for a more "democratic" Afghanistan. How can anyone justify this war, as being worthy and successful, especially for the Afghan people and those who fought on the ground. The funny thing is, that there are still those that call for help for Afghanistan or its people and defend Western involvement in the country.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, stated recently: "NATO Allies and partners went into Afghanistan after 9/11 to prevent the country from serving as a safe haven for international terrorists to attack us. In the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil organised from Afghanistan. Those now taking power have the responsibility to ensure that international terrorists do not regain a foothold." But those who are taking power now, ARE the international terrorists or so you told us before. What happened now, what terms you negotiated and from lions, they became lambs willing to negotiate with their former enemies, or listen to their demands all of a sudden?

Josep Borrell, the EU's top diplomat, says the bloc will have to speak to the Taliban as it has "won the war", in order to avoid a "humanitarian and migratory disaster". He denied that this amounts to recognition of the Islamist group. Evelyn Regner, the Chair of the European Parliament’s committee on women’s rights and gender equality said:“We must not turn a blind eye to a humanitarian crisis which will specifically affect women and girls in Afghanistan. All EU member states must work together to ensure the safe passage out of the country for anyone in danger. All further negotiations must guarantee the safety and well-being of Afghan women and girls.”

The above statements show an utter lack of touch with the reality, by the European officials. I mean calling for "safe passage" for anyone in danger, especially Afghan women is ridiculous. The country has a population of about 40 million people, roughly half of them are women and all of them are equally "in danger" by the Taliban regime. How exactly are we going to provide "safe passage" to all of them? How do we decide which female resident is more deserving than the other to be saved, from the Taliban? Do we evacuate all the women from Afghanistan?

And if we "speak" with the "winners" of this 20 year old war, then it is exactly a recognition of their legitimate rule and of themselves as the new caretakers of the country. Why is this so hard to swallow and admit? If it was indeed a "victory", or rather an agreed and long debated hand-over from the West, back to the old leaders of this country, a regime that may I remind you that the US supported before against the Russian influence and expansion in the region.

Just watch any of the old Hollywood "Rambo" movies, to see Sylvester Stalone fighting side by side with the "freedom fighters", the Taliban, against the Soviet oppressors. The ultimate American marine and super-hero, protecting and empowering the region's underdog, against a hostile super-power. Fast forward a couple of decades, and from "freedom fighters" the Taliban became America's No 1 enemy and a terrorist group. But you see, when you nurture dragons to fight for you against your enemies, make sure you do not get burned by their fire when they become too big to handle.

That was never in America's plans, when they were engaging in full cold war with the Soviets.But what tells us that this time, as they hastily are abandoning the Afghans to their own fate again, that we will not have this regime gaining confidence by their apparent victory, thus becoming even more boastfull and troublesome for the West some time in the future? After "milking" Afghanistan's resources, or using it as a stepping stone to pormote Western/US interests in the region for the past two decades, it now became apparent that the costs surpass the benefits and the Americans decided to get out.

But has anyone understood why we went there in the first place, if not to make sure that Afghanistan never sees the rule of Taliban, or any such group again, thus making it a stable, democratic, "free" country which will never pose any threat to anyone, especially to us in the West? So to witness now the handing over of the state, back to the same "regime" we once supported and then tried to allegedly destroy, is farcical. I will not indulge any conspiracy theories about 9/11 in this article. But if the world's No 1 "superpower", plus all its allies which amount to the globe's top military force ever to come together, could not uproot the Taliban, a group of poppy growers, uneducated religious radicals (as we are left to believe) while not even having anywhere close to their disposal of the finances, resources in arms equipment and trained personnel as their adversaries, then this war was futile and a waste. Or someone is simply lying to us.

Perhaps of course, the West's aim was never to punish the Taliban for the 9/11 attacks, as they could have striked hard a few targets, killed a number of them and their leader Osama Bin Laden and leave the country to its own devices much earlier. The real reason for such operation may be lost in the pages of history. But we are all going to be burdened, one way or another, for the "trigger happy" attitude of the USA leadership.

In the past, President George W. Bush, has claimed that "America is addicted to oil". I would add also, addicted to war and arms sales, conflict and destabilizing countries, or whole regions. And Europe as an ever willing accomplice, obviously to serve its own interests, even if it is just to receive US financial aid or a post colonial complex of superiority and entitlement, is not only involved, but called to deal with the messy aftermath.

Just as I mentioned above, just watch any US blockbuster movie and you will realize, that American mentality and public opinion is heavily influenced or brainwashed, to be accustomed to war and violence. Many of such films are funded by the military or the US arms industries, plus their actors have military background, themselves or their parents. The highest selling movies are those with war scenes, mafia, corruption, police shoot-outs, presidential assassination attempts, military, explosions, alien invasions, combat scenes, fire, destruction and death. One can find out a lot about weapons and their use, you often feel you are being trained to combat and how to handle guns and riffles in those movie scenes.

It is no wonder then that the US is a highly militarized nation, that somehow, thinks itself as the world's leader and policeman. The reality for other countries though is, that not all of them want to play by one nation's rules. Not because of resistance necessarily, but because they simply do not have the same culture or way of viewing things. It will be much easier if we all agreed to disagree, yet despite our different viewpoints, we could all cooperate and work for the betterment of all humanity. And if indeed the Western way is the best way forward, it does not have to be imposed onto other cultures by force: nobody likes to be bombed into submission to change his point of view.

Thus sadly, the No 1 US export is war and violence, instability and financial bullying: and it doesn't deserve this type of fame. It has so much more to give to humanity, if they only could see it. Whether the country with the most billionaires in the globe, would put its wealth for the betterment of its own citizens first, then perhaps those of other nations, it could could act as a greater role model for smaller countries to aspire. And of course, it would have so much positive impact in the world, plus eager followers across.

Clearly, first the American, then the European leadership and citizens alike, must rethink their input in this world and the relationship between them. The current US President, Joe Biden who promised that “America is back” after the retreat of the Trump years has embraced his predecessor’s policy of quitting Afghanistan and, critics argue, Trump’s “America first” worldview. Some US allies have suggested Biden’s decision renews questions over the United States as a dependable partner. Biden declared that “the buck stops with me” but pointed the finger elsewhere, including at Afghans he said were unwilling to fight. So where does this leave Europe and its own aspirations to be a world player, or its partnership with the US?

If the Afghan people allowed a small group of around 80,000 men, to take over a country of 40 million people so fast, plus of course what Biden said is true, then what type of help can Europe be pledging to Afghanistan and the region? Money? Former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled with $169MILLION in his cash-stuffed helicopter and has been given asylum in Dubai on 'humanitarian grounds'. Military assistance? The Americans just pulled out, the Afghans have given up: can we go and save the day by ourselves? Or perhaps by accepting hundreds of thousands, even millions of Afghan refugees?

Europe and many other nations from across the world, allied to the USA, have offered their support and help, lost soldiers and were part of the two decades long occupation of Afghanistan. Will all of these countries, around 40 in number, become also part in the current situation and help in the expected refugee crisis, by willing to accept fleeing Afghan civilians? Will there be a global humanitarian effort, especially by those nations that assisted USA during the past 20 years in the region, or will the refugees be tossed from border to border until they reach Europe?

Our continent has been struggling since 2015 with another refugee crisis, from the Syrian (and not only) conflict, which tested the unity of the EU itself. It turned into a decisive no matter how indirect factor for Brexit and we still haven't managed to deal completely with the aftermath. Another refugee crisis may be the last drop in the glass, for the EU's cohesion. We know that there are plenty of willing countries, which weaponise the refugees to push for their own interests and agenda: Iran, Turkey and lately even Belarus. It is not a matter of if but when. What will be our resolve?

Ultimatelly, I think there is a lesson to be learned by the West's defeat in Afghanistan. First, that if you start wars and destabilize regions, you will always have to deal with such mess in the aftermath. We do not have to save the world, especially those who do not want to save themselves or change their ways. And the one way that will definitely not assist this change, is by bombing or invading them. Additionally, others do not have to be like us, nor accept our values in order to collaborate and trade with them. We do not condemn the Saudis for their record of women's rights, but we chose to scold the Taliban. We keep quiet about the lack of LGBT visibility and rights in Japan, but for Russia we opt for an utter hysteria. Different rules and approach, for different nations. How much more hypocritical can the West get?

On the contrary, early indications suggested that China — potentially supported by Russia, Pakistan and some other governments — would adopt a very different approach, according to diplomats and experts. Beijing was unlikely to deploy military force, seeking instead to use diplomatic and economic inducements to coax the Taliban on to a path of peaceful reconstruction. And that is how you win the world, by offering financial assistance, pouring billions into their economy despite their political or social views and beliefs. So once you establish good relations and get them hooked on your money, then you can manipulate them into becoming your staunch allies and supporters, or promoting your own values onto the dependant country. America on the contrary choses to allow its arms industries to profit, to the detriment of its own citizens, yet with short term benefits for the rest of the nation and a plan for the day after.

We must grasp this opportunity, both the US and Europe, to reflect and outline a roadmap for the future. To reimage our relationship and that with the rest of the world. It's ok to step back for while and take stock, than losing our way while we strive always to not lose control and the leadership spot. The world is not comprised only be Western nations and why should it be. We are all on this planet together, there is no need for a "boss," that is such an immature and childish approach. The US can be excused for being a relative new nation for this demeanor, but what excuse does Europe have, with all the centuries of influencing and inspiring the planet?

Europe needs a reality check on immigration... and everything!

There have been questions surrounding the morality of Greece’s use of sound cannons (long range acoustic devices- LRADs) against migrants recently at Greece’s border with Turkey, which have been brought up both by the EU and by various rights groups.

“This is an odd way to protect your borders. This is nothing that has been funded by the European Commission. And I do hope that this is in line with fundamental rights – but that of course has to be clarified,” EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson said of the issue, in a Brussels meeting with the Greek Minister of Migration and Asylum, Notis Mitarakis.

So, let me get this straight. The EU, many of Greece's partners and numerous Western NGOs (the legality of some of the latter is questionable, as their legitimacy to dictate a sovereign state what to do with its own borders and affairs), are concerned about Greece's efforts to protect its own borders. The same Europe that is not willing to help Greece and tackle this "crisis", which has been going on since 2015. That is 6 years already, and all the EU is doing, is handing out cash to maintain the overcrowded refugee camps in Greece.

The same Europe that refuses to agree and take in more refugees from Greece, equally distributing them among its member states. The same Europe with infantile foreign policy and influence in the world, so that it cannot effectively lobby and convince its partners and allied nations, to take in more refugees. This is not Greece's only problem, nor Turkeys, or Europe's, but a global one. So why there isn't there an appropriate response?

This is the same Europe, that insists on keeping Switzerland in the Schengen Agreement, although this country is repeatingly causing problems with the freedom of movement of EU citizens, an agreement which it was keen to sign, until the EU started expanding to the East. If the block decides to go ahead with the accession of more countries, will Switzerland vote in favor in the next referendum on the expansion of Schengen? This is the same Europe, that allows three of its member states (France, Denmark and the Netherlands) to unfairly keep blocking the accession in the free movement zone of another three members (Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania), in fear of the influx of migrants from these countries, or refugees passing through them.

This is the same Europe that has paid Turkey 3 billion euros since 2015, in order to convince the country to keep the refugees there, with a renewed promise of EU membership. Something of course that it knows that will never uphold, as it does really want Turkey as a member state. While perhaps it could spend the same amount, in facilitating the processing and distribution of these people, throughout Europe and its close partners.

The same Europe that allows Denmark to export the problem, since recently it passed a law enabling it to process asylum seekers outside Europe. The new bill will allow Denmark to move refugees from Danish soil to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country. Rwanda is one of the concidered receiving nations. Denmark, one of the richest nations of the block, apparently finds it difficult to deal with the refugees in its own borders, while Greece, an indepted nation and one of the poorest, is expected by some to become Europe's dumping ground for the unwanted migrants and refugees.

This is the Europe that is too slow to abandon the unfair Dublin III Regulation. A creation of the '90s and the aftermath of the war in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, it stubbornly remained in place until today, although it has been slightly changed, with every new European country joining. It dictates that the first member state where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged, is responsible for a person's asylum claim. Basically turning the refugee crisis, a Greek, Maltese, Cypriot, Italian and Spanish problem, while the rich northern European nations, can wash their hands on the issue.

Thus the wealthy EU states, in many cases former colonial powers, while they are so keen to keep the humanitarian agenda part of EU's strategy, to satisfy their guilt complex of their own actions and racism of the past, they are unhappy that Greece which has been struggling with this issue for 6 years among other things (bailing out the German and French banks, Turkey's aggression, eurozone crisis etc) is doing what it can to protect Europe's borders.

But they are not unhappy that human beings are being used as a bargaining chip by Turkey, to blackmail the EU for more cash or an accession to the club. They are not botherd by the fact that many of these people are not actuall refugees, but economic migrants, seeking a better life in Europe. However to achieve their goal, they are falling victims of exploitation by smugglers that for a hefty payment, will try and assist the migrants to cross into Europe. And if things go wrong and people drown, so be it. The more Europe tolerates this kind of illegal immigration, the more it will keep happening. Once people from poor countries know that they can be successful in their pursue of their dream life in Europe, such practices will never stop.

"No human is illegal," claim many Western liberals, "let them all in". But "in" where, just in Greece, Spain and Italy? How do they see this unfolding, since in reality Europe has had enough and is clearly not willing to accept any more migrants. One of the main reasons that the UK has left the EU, was the immigration issue. Many Eastern/Central European states (Hungary, Poland, the Baltics etc), shamelessly refuse to assist and accomodate more refugees/migrants and Europe is struggling to keep the Far-Right from gaining (even more) power and getting elected as government in many of European states. I think that the European Liberals need a reality check on the situation, in order not to lose the plot entirely.

"We fight populism and fascism," many that have adopted this "ideology" claim, however they forget or fail to see that the "fascists" they are fighting, do not wear uniform and swastikas anymore. They are the ordinary people that are tired of the neo-liberal agenda that the EU and most European governments have adopted, they are their family members, colleagues and their friends, who lost their jobs in the process and take their frustration out on the migrants. Because when it is hard to make ends meet, when you struggle financially and your family, education and career prospects seem to be hard to accomplish, you really do not want to see billions spent, in keeping away, or allowing in and accomodating hundrends of thousands of citizens of poorer nations from far away.

While most of the West's progressives view them as "tin foil hat wearers", "populists" and uneducated, they forget one thing: they can vote, they have the right to do so in a functioning democracy. And when you ignore them, they will keep casting their ballots in favor of so called "populist parties".

Thus, the solution of "letting everybody in", to show a facade of humanitarianism and progressive mentality to the world, just to atone themselves for the attrocities that Europeans committed upon their fellow humans in the past, either on European soil in the numerous bloody wars, or one of their colonies, does not really make sense in the long term. You cannot force this view on the majority, and it is clear that Europe deep down is a conservative, nationalistic continent still. The EPP's (European People's Party) dominance in the European Parliament confirms that.

The bulk of Europeans, are attached and identify with their region or nation first, while fewer as European or citizens of the world. If we try to push for the "erosion" of their identity (as they see it) too fast and too far, soon the European project and dream itself will be in jeopardy, if the EU loses another member or the voters increasingly opt out for a Far-Right political party in a substantial number of EU member states. I for one, would not want to risk the reversal of the freedom of movement in our continent, just to satisfy the pretentious notion of humanitarian self righteousness of the European elites.

If they really need to solve the issue, they should seriously consider other options. In a discussion with a Tunisian migrant in Ireland in the past, he expressed his contempt towards Europeans. He asked me if I was a European myself before he expressed his opinion.I replied with a "yes" obviously, since Europe is part of my identity. However I hinted my sympathy for countries like his and that helped him to open up. He described how European and Western companies are settling in his country to exploit its resources, yet only Europeans can take high-paid jobs in them and the Tunisian locals, can only get those that pay less.

I agreed with him about the unfair way that globalisation is designed and operating. Europe and America are still dominating and exploiting the World's poorer nations, often burdening them with debt still deriving from the colonial era. As we have seen in the Greek treatment by Europe during the eurozone crisis, debt can also be passed from the banks, to the weakest economies of the Western world. America is the base of all major Financial Rating Agencies in the West, making of course the criteria for financial evaluation or a region or country, utterly biased. The AngloSaxon and Protestant ethos and mentality prevails and decides which country is being ranked better and favored, making it easier for nations with similar values with that of the US, to avail themselves favorable loan terms.

There is little doubt that European nations, are scrabbling for those terms from the US government or agencies. "Atlanticism", is the political ideology that many Europeans and Americans are adopting, to describe the unbreakable reliance and allegiance of Europe towards the US in just about everything: military, finance, politics and influence in the world. However, a toxic example of this "royalty," is the case of Denmark.

The country's secret service helped the US spy on European politicians including German Chancellor Angela Merkel from 2012 to 2014, Danish media revelaved recently. The Defence Intelligence Service (FE) collaborated with the US National Security Agency (NSA) to gather information, according to Danish public service broadcaster DR. Intelligence was allegedly collected on other officials from Germany, France, Sweden and Norway. One has to only wonder, what did the Danes got back in exchange: a blind eye for money laundering Russian dirty money into the West, via the Danske Bank scandal?Better treatment and image in the US and European media? Favorable ratings of their economy from the US based rating agencies perhaps? Or maybe being untouchable from the IMF and the Western loan sharks, or from any criticism for exporting and off-loading their refugee problem onto Africa?

If the US encourages unfair competition among EU member states, how much can we expect a true "union" among European countries, since its progress can always be controlled, manipulated and influenced by America? Furthermore, if the Americans are having this approach towards their "allies", imagine what they do to those who they stand in the way of the Atlanticists' world dominance.

There is a fairer world to be had, if Europe realized that it will be for its own benefit too. Why can't the West invest in poorer countries, rather have them hooked on aid? If we build factories in Bangladesh, do we really must pay the local workers just a few cents per hour as the labour market there requires, instead of a higher salary. It will still be profitable for Western companies, as they will pay them less comparing with European employees, but higher than the pennies which they receive right now. Hasn't the capitalist system had enough of human exploitation yet?

Could we source their educated youths and have them working in their own country, but in Western companies, with equal pay as the European and American counterparts, that move there to seek employment opportunities? Perhaps this will encourage them to stay back home, instead getting on a boat to reach European shores, with all the headache that brings for Europeans.

If we continue exploiting their natural resources for as little as possible, destabilize their countries with coups, civil wars in order to establish a favorable regime that will cooperate with the Atlanticists, then how do we really expect this "refugee crisis", or "humanitarian emergency" to ever end, since we are the ones causing it? Why the West must dominate and dictate everyone else on their affairs, and to so so, it creates and promotes this self image of righteousness and correctness on human rights that all must aspire to and follow, which clearly is a facade, or at least seriously flawed.

First you topple an unfavored "regime" in a country, then you establish a "democratic" one of your own preference, in order to have another puppet state and government, willing to grant you all the favors. Naturally, there will be a mess in the whole process, with thousands displaced or dead. Because often, that is what all these efforts to promote "democracy" across the world are about. A democratic regime is easier to manipulate, than an authoritarian. All you have to do is to get a hold of the nation's media, to brainwash the public opinion, then let the voters cast their ballot based on their misplaced, utterly confused opinion. We have seen in the case of Rupert Murdoch, how easy this is, if you got the money. And the West does.

Obviously we then sanction and condemn anyone like Russia and China, who are copying us and are doing exactly the same thing, in regions of their own interests. This world would be a better place, if all the aforementioned "powers", would stop competing they way they do, and realize that everyone would benefit if they started cooperating. The smaller states get crushed by their power games and personally, I do not give a damn about who wins this tug-of-war. As long I do not see the IMF ravaging countries, people having to pay the debt created by those gamblers in Wall Street, or human dignity being diminished in boats trying to cross the Mediterranean.

To conclude, not all is lost for the Atlanticists. Under the Biden Administration's leadership in the US, the G-7 group of nations have publicly endorsed a global minimum corporate tax of at least 15% last Friday, one piece of a broader agreement to update international tax laws for a globalized, digital economy. The leaders also announced a plan to replace Digital Services Taxes, which targeted the biggest American tech companies, with a new tax plan linked to the places where multinationals are actually doing business, rather than where they are headquartered. For the Biden administration, the Global Minimum Tax plan represents a concrete step towards its goal of creating what it calls a “foreign policy for the middle class.”

If this plan is endorsed and not sabotaged by European tax havens like Ireland and the Netherlands, it could be a step forward for a fairer world, or least the Western part of it. It remains to be seen if this "fairness" trickles down to all the globe, or the interests of a few spoiled and favored by the current system nations like Ireland, which could lose €2bn a year under the proposed reforms-a fifth of its corporate tax revenue, prevail.

FIN: my new gothic novel is published on Amazon!

Available on paperback or Kindle below! For Europe For the U.K. For Australia For Brazil For Mexico For Canada For Japan For India For Singapore For USA and the rest of the world

Summary: Doug Kelly is mentally and emotionally drained. Grieving and desperate, he accidentally overdoses in a cheap hotel room in Boston. As he lies on the bed, naked and slowly drying, he is visited by a dark entity that forces him to evaluate his time on earth.Together they pick over Doug’s life, and the dark entity slowly reveals the universe’s secrets, utterly altering Doug’s beliefs and outlook. Doug must come to terms with his mistakes, vices and his darkness. But above all, he must learn to let go of his pain and guilt.If Doug can shine a light on the many things that weigh down his conscience, will he be given a second chance at life, or is this painful process just atonement in preparation for the afterlife?

Πότε θα ξεπεράσει η Ελλάδα την διχόνια του εμφυλίου?

Αποφάσισα να γράψω μετά από πολύ καιρό, ένα άρθρο στην μητρική μου, τα ελληνικά. Και δεν θα το γράψω με το γνωστό μου δημοσιογραφικό μου ύφος, αλλά στο στυλ που περνά στον μέσο Έλληνα, γραφικό και λαϊκιστικό. Και αυτό γιατί τις τελευταίες δύο εβδομάδες, η Ελλάδα και ο λαός της, έχει βαλθεί να μας τρελλάνει όλους με τις ανοησίες της.

Έγινα μάρτυρας του κάτι ανήκουστου, το να παρελάβνουν νεολαίες της αριστεράς υπέρ του Κουφοντίνα σε Αθήνα και Θεσσαλονίκη. Του Κουφοντίνα... Και να κρατάνε πανώ υπεράσπισής του, που να αναγράφει το υπέρτατο "Γεννήθηκα 17 Νοέμβρη". Που προφανώς είναι εμπνευσμένο από του βιβλίο του δολοφόνου, που όπως και ο Χίτλερ έγραψε μέσα στην μεγαλομανία του το "Ο Αγών" μου, για να δικαιολογήσει και να εξηγήσει τα φονικά που έκανε, έτσι και ο νέος "ήρωας" της αριστεράς ένιωσε πως έπρεπε να μάθουμε γιατί σκότωνε και έκλεβε ανθρώπους. Εμετός!!!

Πορείες για τα δικαιώματα όλων των πολιτών, το "κράτος δικαίου" και άλλες τέτοιες μπούρδες που ξεφούρνισαν τα αριστερά κομματόσκυλα στα νεαρά και ανώριμα μυαλά, έγιναν οι απαράδεκτες αιτιολογήσεις για αυτή την ύστατη πατατιά του Σύριζα και της αντιπολίτευσης. Γιατί ποτέ μου ώς δημοκράτης δεν θα μπορέσω να καταλάβω, το γιατί ένας καταδικασμένος δολοφόνος σε 11 φορές ισόβια κάθειρξη, πρέπει να έχει επιλογή σε ποια φυλακή θα εκτίσει την ποινή του ή όχι, και επειδή η προηγούμενη κυβέρνηση του Σύριζα το έδωσε το δικαίωμα να κόβει βολτούλες στην Αθήνα, ενώ τώρα η Νέα Δημοκρατία αναιρεί την απόφαση αυτή, ξαφνικά πρέπει η Ελλάδα να διχαστεί στο όνομα ενός τρομοκράτη.

Ποιό κράτος δικαίου και κουραφέξαλλα χρυσά μου, αυτή είναι καθαρά μια πολιτικοποιημένη απόφαση, που διογκώνει η Ελληνική αριστερά για να ρίξει τον Μητσοτάκη. Που έχει και αυτός ράματα για την γούνα του, αλλά αυτά θα τα πούμε παρακάτω. Είναι ντροπή για ένα δημοκρατικό έθνος, να ηρωοποιεί κάποιον που πολέμησε την δημοκρατία, και ενώ αυτός δίκασε, εκτέλεσε τα θύματα του αγνοώντας το "κράτος δικαίου" και τα δικαιώματα τους για μια δίκαιη δίκη, τώρα επικαλείται ότι στέρησε σε άλλους.

Και δεν υποφέρει και σε μια φυλακή όπως του Γκουαντάναμο ο Κουφοντινας, με συγχωρείτε. Έχει εκδόσει 3 βιβλία ώς τώρα με επιτυχία μάλιστα. Πείτε μου σε ποιο κράτος που θεωρείται μή δημοκρατικό, μπορεί ένας "πολιτικός κρατούμενος"- όπως αυτοαποκαλείται, που πολέμησε το κράτος και το κράτος δικαίου να εκδίδει ελεύθερα 3 επιτυχημένα βιβλία, εξιστορώντας τον αγώνα του ενάντια στο καθεστώς και το ίδιο το κράτος. Θα γινόταν αυτό σε Κίνα ή Ρωσία?

Αυτό και μόνο αποδυκνείει, άσχετα με το τί μπούρδες ξεστομίζουν μερικοί ακρο-αριστεροί, το ότι η Ελληνική δημοκρατία δεν είναι σαν αυτή που συχνά σας παρουσιάζουν. Αν αυτό δεν ισχύει, τότε η άλλη εκδοχή να είναι πως ο Κουφοντίνας που θέλουν να τον κάνουν ήρωα τώρα και αντι-καθεστωτικό, δεν είναι και τόσο αυτό που πλασσάρουν. Αν το κράτος ανέχεται τις απεργείες πείνας ώς μέσο εκβιασμού-γιατί αυτό είναι, και όλα τα άλλα τερτίπια του, τότε ίσως έχει διασυνδέσεις μέσα στην ίδια την κυβέρνηση και το πολιτικό καθεστώς της χώρας. Το γεγονός ότι η 17 Νοέμβρη εξαρθρώθηκε μόλις δύο χρόνια από τους Ολυμπιακούς αγώνες το 2004 ώς δια θαύματος, νομίζω χτυπάει καμπανάκι. Ξυπνάτε. Και εσείς θέλετε να τον κάνετε τον εγχώριο Τσε Γκεβάρα, και θα τον φοράτε σε μπλουζάκι t-shirt αύριο μεθαύριο, η θα πίνετε καφέ από κούπα με την μούρη του επάνω, νομίζοντας πως κάνετε αντίσταση στο κατεστημένο.

Αν νομίζει πως τα δικαιώματα του καταπατώνται, μπορει κάλλιστα να προσφύγει στην δικαιοσύνη. Το κράτος του έδωσε μια δίκαιη δίκη, κάτι που αυτός δεν πρόσφερε στα θύματά του, και έχει μια "ικανότατη" δικηγόρο, που μας έχει αφήσει άναυδους με άσειστα επιχειρήματα. Όπως αυτό που ισχυρίζεται που όποιος τον αποκαλεί δολοφόνο, τον προσβάλλει. Ε αφού έχει σκοτώσει 11 ανθρώπους χρυσή μου, πώς να τον αποκαλέσω, καντηλανάφτη? Και θα ήθελα να ξέρω αν αύριο ο Μιχαλολιάκος ή ο Ρουπακιάς κάνουν απεργία πείνας για τον άλφα ή βήτα λόγο, απαιτώντας από το κράτος διαφορετική μεταχείρηση επειδή έδειξαν καλή διαγωγή (αν θέλουμε πιστεύουμε τι διαγωγή έχουν όλοι τους μέσα στην φυλακή), εκεί θα σκίσουν τα καλσόν τους οι αριστεροί και θα τους ενοχλήσει το στριγκάκι, τρέχοντας σε πορείες για το "κρατος δικαίου" και σε υπεράσπιση τους? Έλεος λίγο.

Σαν να μην μας έφταναν όλα αυτά, έχουμε και τον Νόμο της Κεραμέως-Χρυσοχοϊδη που ενόχλησε, καθώς και τον ξυλοδαρμό νέου σε πλατεία της Νέας Σμύρνης από μονάδες των ΜΑΤ. Φυσικά όλα για τον προαναφερόμενο νόμο γίνονται αν δεν καταλάβατε. Γιατί μέχρι τώρα είχαν το πάνω χέρι μέσα στα ελληνικά πανεπιστήμια ορισμένοι, και με τον νέο νόμο ξεβρακώνονται και χάνουν το δικαίωμα να αλωνίζουν. Όχι πως ιδανικά η αστυνομία θα έπρεπε να έχει την οποιαδήποτε θέση μέσα στα πανεπιστήμια. Και ναι, όντως η νέα αυτή πραγματικότητα είναι προβληματική, και θα επιφέρει ίσως νέα προβλήματα στο μέλλον. Αλλα συγνώμη κιόλας, κάτι έπρεπε να γίνει με τα ελληνικά πανεπιστήμια.

Για πολλά χρόνια τα εκπαιδευτικά ιδρύματα της Ελλάδας δρούσαν ώς ιδρύματα εγκεφαλόπλισης της νεολαίας της χώρας. Σπουδαστές έμπαιναν στις σχολές, και αντί για κατάρτιση πολλές φορές ταλιμπανιζόνταν σε κόμματα και παρατάξεις, που αντιμάχονται με λύσσα το ένα το άλλο από την εποχή του εμφυλίου και του Πολυτεχνείου. Και συνεχίζουν με αυτήν την νοοτροπία, για το υπόλοιπο της ζωής τους. Οργανώσεις φοιτητο-συνδικαλιστών, δεν νοούν να καταλάβουν πως οι καιροί έχουν αλλάξει, και επιμένουν να κρατήσουν τα πανεπιστήμια όμηρους των ιδεολογιών τους. Γιατί αν δεν στρατολογήσουν νέα εγκεφαλοπλυμμένα, κομματοποιημένα στρατιωτάκια, ποιός θα είναι ο λόγος της ύπαρξης τους. Η ιδέα του απλώς να τελειώσουν τις σπουδές τους φυσικά, δεν τους έχει περάσει από το μυαλό. Όχι η Ελλάδα δεν χρειάζεται καταρτισμένους επιστήμονες, που να διαπρέπουν στα πανεπιστήμια της χώρας, αλλα θα πρέπει να φεύγουν στο εξωτερικό, να συνεισφέρουν σε άλλες χώρες τις γνώσεις που αποκόμισαν από το Ελληνικό κράτος.

Και ούτε λόγος για τα πανεπιστήμια της χώρας να γίνουν περισσότερο διεθνώς αναγνωρισμένα, αφού πρώτα φυσικά συμμαζευτούν, καθαριστούν, ώστε να ελκύσουν και περισσότερους ξένους φοιτητές. Μα είναι δωρεάν θα μου πείτε, γιατί το ελληνικό κράτος να πληρώνει για πολίτες άλλων χωρών για να σπουδάζουν στην χώρα μας? Και αν πληρώνουν? Αυτό δεν θα είναι ένα έξτρα εισόδημα για την χώρα? Στην Τσεχια παραδείγματος χάρην, υπάρχουν δωρεάν πανεπιστήμια, που προσφέρουν σπουδές στους ξένους χώρις χρέωση αν μπορούν να μιλούν την γλώσσα της χώρας, αλλιώς τους χρεώνουν 1000 ευρώ για το πρόγραμμα των σπουδών τους. Άλλα, χρεώνουν ξένους σπουδαστές ακριβότερα δίδακτρα.

Αν τα ελληνικά πανεπιστήμια θα πρέπει να εκμοντερνιστούν, να έχουν περισσότερους πόρους για έρευνα, αίθουσες και προγράμματα, το να προσελκύσουν ξένους σπουδαστές είναι η μόνη λύση. Οι Έλληνες πολίτες θα μπορούν να σπουδάζουν ακόμη δωρεάν, αλλά οι διεθνής σπουδαστές θα έχουν την δυνατότητα να καταβάλλουν ένα άλφα ποσό για τις σπουδές τους, συνεισφέροντας και στην οικονομία της χώρας, και στους πόρους του πανεπιστημίου, που για να πούμε την αλήθεια είναι αναγκαίοι. Δεν είναι τυχαίο πως τα περισσότερα μεγάλα Ευρωπαϊκά πανεπιστήμια έχουν μπει δυναμικά σε αυτήν την αγορά, και όσο περισσότερους ξένους σπουδαστές έχουν, τόσο και η οικονομία της χώρας ενισχύεται και η δυνατότητα των πανεπιστήμια να επενδύσουν σε επιστημονική έρευνα μεγαλώνει. Εμείς τα προτιμούμε να μοιάζουν με κομμουνιστικά γκούλαγκ κτίρια, ή μουτζουρωμένα με τον καημό του κάθε επίδοξου Γκεβάρα.

Γιατί στην Ελλάδα φυσικά είμαστε και υπεράνω χρημάτων, αλλά και διεθνών διακρίσεων και προσέλκυσης ξένων ταλέντων. Έτσι, γιατί τα πανεπιστήμια μας πρέπει να υποθάλπουν μια ζωή τους διάφορους δεξιούς ή αριστερούς "μπαχαλάκηδες", για να καταστρέφουν την περιουσία του Έλληνα φορολογούμενου, θαρρείς και είναι το πανεπιστήμιο δικό τους τσιφλίκι. Και η καγκουριά αυτών των ατόμων δεν σταματά μόνο μέσα στα πανεπιστήμια, αλλά συνεχίζει και έξω. Πόσες φορές δεν είδα τα "έργα" των ακρο-αριστερών οργανώσεων σε Αθήνα-Θεσσαλονίκη, που με κόκκινη μπογιά γράφουν τα "αντικαθεστωτικά" τους συνθήματα στο προαύλιο του Λευκού Πύργου, ή της Ακαδημίας των Αθηνών. Θαρρείς και έπεισαν ποτέ κάποιον με τις μπούρδες που γράφουν. Και γιατί ο Έλληνας φορολογούμενος θα πρέπει παντα να πληρώνει για να καθαρίζει ο δήμος την καγκουριά τους, η εγώ να βλέπω στο κάθε πάρκο συνθήματα συμπαράστασης στον κάθε μαλάκα αντικαθεστωτικό αναρχικό, που την έχει δει Τσε Γκεβαρα, που μια σφαλιάρα την θέλουν να στρώσουν χαρακτήρα μερικοί.

Και εδώ ερχόμαστε στο θέμα της βίας των ΜΑΤ, που συγκλόνισε την ελληνική γνώμη......Για ακόμα μια φορά. Μα καλά είστε ηλίθιοι? Τα ΜΑΤ δέρνουν κόσμο από την δεκαετία του ΄60, επί ΠΑΣΟΚ (του παλιού του ορθόδοξου), Νέας Δημοκρατίας, αλλά και του ίδιου του Σύριζα που πλάκωνε συνταξιούχους για τις περικοπές συντάξεων, και έριχνε δακρυγόνα κατά των συλλατηρίων για την Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών. Αλλά εκείνο φυσικά ήταν ξύλο αριστερόστροφο, σας το σβούριζαν από τα αριστερά το γκλομπ οπότε δεν πειράζει. Και φυσικά η βία των ΜΑΤ είναι απαράδεκτη και ένα θέμα που θα πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί. Και σαφώς η Ελληνική αστυνομία η ίδια, όπως και τα πανεπιστήμια, θα πρέπει να μεταρρυθμιστεί και οι υπεύθυνοι για την όποια βιαιότητα να τιμωρούνται. Αλλά το να ντύνεστε με τα χρώματα πολέμου, και να ξεσπάτε με "βία στην βία" των μπαχαλάκηδων, είναι όσο φασιστικό όσο τα ΜΑΤ τα ίδια. Το να κάνετε μερικοί μια ειρηνική διαδήλωση, πορεία ή και έναν συμβολικό αλλά ειρηνικό εγκλωβισμό ενός αστυνομικού τμήματος, ώς ένδειξη διαμαρτυρίας, δεν σας πέρασε από το μυαλό ποτέ, πρέπει να χάψετε την προπαγάνδα των μίντια και των αντικαθεστωτικών, και να βγείτε στους δρόμους υποστηριζοντας τον Κουφοντίνα, σπάζοντας, ριμάζοντας και λιντσάροντας αστυνομικούς... Ωραία δημοκρατία. Ώριμη.

Και σαφώς ο Έλληνας πολίτης έχει δικαίωμα στην διαδήλωση και την απεργία, αλλά δεν έχω δει μια στα τόσα χρόνια, για τον εκμοντερνισμό των πανεπιστημίων, ή κατά τις αγοράς τόσων οπλικών συστημάτων από το ΝΑΤΟ, σε βάρος της ελληνικής οικονομίας, παιδείας και υγείας. Μια πορεία για την εξυγείανση και εκμοντερνισμό του δημοσίου (όχι γιατί το θέλετε μπάχαλο για να βάζετε την χοντροκώλα κοράκλα σας με βίζμα), την ψηφιοποίηση των ελληνικών δημόσιων φορέων, την δημιουργία πάρκων, την μετατροπή πολλών αναξιοποίητων ιστορικών χώρων σε μουσεία ή χώρους αναψυχής (Ακρόπολη Θεσσαλονίκης, Ανάκτορο Τατοϊου), την δημιουργία νέων νοσοκομείων και χώρους εκπαίδευσης, την μετατροπή και εκμοντερνισμό της ελληνικής οικονομίας σε Ευρωπαϊκή. Όχι φυσικά γιατί να το κανετε κάτι τέτοιο, πορείες μόνο αν σας κόψουν συντάξεις και τα μισθά, ή σας παρακινήσουν αριστερές οργανώσεις.

Και θα επανέλθω και πάλι στον Νόμο της Κεραμέως-Χρυσοχοϊδη. Ιδανικά όχι, στα πανεπιστήμια δεν θα έπρεπε να υπάρχουν ΜΑΤ, ούτε καν αστυνομία. Αλλά δυστυχώς, για να αλλάξει η ελληνική εκπαίδευση και να ξεριζωθούν οι μπαχαλάκηδες από μέσα, δεν υπάρχει πρός το παρών άλλη λύση. Προσωρινά, είναι αναγκαίο κακό. Και όσο το γρηγορότερο αλλάξει η νοοτροπία που υπάρχει στο σύστημα εκπαίδευσης της χώρας, τόσο το συντομότερο θα μπορέσουμε να ξαναέχουμε πανεπιστήμια χωρίς εξτρεμιστικές φοιτητικές και πολιτικές οργανώσεις, και φυσικά χωρίς ΜΑΤ και αστυνόμευση. Γιατί δεν κάνουν μόνο κακό στα πανεπιστήμια αυτοί, αλλά και όταν βγούνε σαν πολίτες και ψηφοφόροι στην κοινωνία, συνεχίζουν με την μαλακία που τους δέρνει και έχουν μάθει στις φοιτητικές οργανώσεις, και ψηφίζουν ότι να'ναι.

Ο Έλληνας είναι πολύ ανώριμο πολιτικό όν, και έχει κολλήσει στον εμφύλιο και τον διχασμό που προκάλεσε. Και οι φοιτητικές οργανώσεις, συνεχίζουν και υποθάλπουν την νοοτροπία αυτή. Έχετε δει ένα σοβαρό πολιτικό διάλογο στην ελληνική τηλεόραση? Ένα εποικοδομητικό ντιμπεϊτ, που να καταλάβεις τι θελουν να πουν, και χωρίς να το γυρίζουμε και πάλι στο τι έκανε η δεξιά ή αριστερά στο παρελθόν. Ξεκολλάτε λέμε. Έχουμε εκπομπές με την κάθε θείτσα να πουλάει χαλιά και καδένες, τον κάθε "ασταδιαλα" "αναλυτή" του ελληνικού ποδοσφαίρου να βωμολοχεί, τον καθε γραφικό κεντρώο επίδοξο πολιτικό, ή τον ακροδεξιό, λαϊκιστή, χριστιανοταλιμπάν αρχαιολάτρη να προωθεί τις ανοησίες του (και γίνονται μετά και βουλευτές αυτοί, υπάρχουν άτομα που τους ψηφίζουν επειδή τους βλέπουν στην τηλεόραση), και κλαίγονται οι αριστεροί που δεν υπάρχει σοβαρή, δημοκρατική και αμερόληπτη ελληνική τηλεόραση.

Ε μα χρυσά μου, εσείς το κεφάλαιο επιμένετε ακόμα να το πολεμάτε με απεργίες πείνας, καταλήψεις, πορείες και μπάχαλο, τι στο διάολο κυβέρνηση ο Σύριζα έγινε, όλοι τα παιδιά σας τα σπουδάζετε εξωτερικό, λίγο χρήμα για να ιδρύσετε ένα κανάλι που να εκφράζει και τις δικές σας πολιτικές θέσεις δεν μπορείτε να διαθέσετε? Να γλιτώσουμε και εμείς κομματάκι απο τις πορείες σας για τους απεργούς πείνας. Να τα λέτε και εσείς εκεί, να ξεθυμαίνετε στον αέρα. Τι σας φταίει ο Αλαφούζος στην τελική, μπιζνεσμαν είναι και κάνει την δουλειά του, προωθώντας τα συμφέροντα του (και των δικών του) με τα χρήματα του. Κανετε και εσείς το ίδιο.

Έχω βαρεθεί το πολιτικό ξεκατίνισμα που περνάει ως αντιπολίτευση στην Ελλάδα. Όχι το "ζαβό" ο Τσίπρας, ο "Μπαρουφάκης" και τώρα έχουμε τον "Κούλη". Μια ζωή πολιτική χαμηλού επιπέδου, ισάξιου των "Παρατράγουδων" της Ανίτας Πάνια. Στην τελική αν εσείς ψηφίζετε ζαβά και κούληδες, τί λέει αυτό για το δικό σας νοητικό επίπεδο ως ψηφοφόροι? Σας πείραξε ο Τσίπρας, λυσσάξατε που δεν έσκισε τα μνημόνια όπως σας έταξε, που σαφώς σας είπε ψέματα γιατί ξέρει πόσο ηλίθιοι είστε και τα χάφτετε αυτά. Αφού οι προηγούμενοι πήγαν και υπέγραψαν και έκαναν συμφωνίες με τους "εταίρους", περιμένατε σοβαρά ο Τσίπρας να πάει με τσαμπουκά σε 27 αρχηγούς κρατών και να τους πεί "στα μούτρα σας δεν πληρώνω?"

Και είδαμε και τις ξιπασιές των κεντρο-δεξιών τότε, που απο μίσος κατά των "κομμουνιστών", αντί να υποστηρίζουν λίγο την κυβέρνηση που στην τελική εκλέχθηκε δημοκρατικά από την πλειοψηφία του ελληνικού λαού, πηγαιναν και δήλωναν "βάστα γερά Γερούν", για εκείνο το φαστιστίδιο καθίκι, τον Ολλανδό υπουργό οικονομικών. Δηλαδή λίγη τσίπα και εθνικό σεβασμό δεν έχουν μερικοί, γιατί απο κόμπλεξ θέλουν να το παίξουν προοδευτικοί "μενουμεευρωπάκηδες".. Εμείς που μένουμε Ευρώπη στην κυριολεξία, τέτοια έλληψη σεβασμού προς την χώρα μας και τα συμφέροντα της δεν την αποκτήσαμε.

Θυμώνει που λέτε το ελληνικό προλεταριάτο που και καλά προδώθηκε από τον Τσίπρα και δεν έσκισε τα μνημόνια, του θυμώνουν και οι δεξιοί γιατί "πούλησε" την Μακεδονία με την Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών (το γεγονός πως το όνομα στην ουσία "δώθηκε" επί των δεξιών της Νέας Δημοκρατίας και Σαμαρά-Μητσοτάκη, το ξεχνούν φυσικά) και τον κανουν "τζους" και βγάζουν Μητσοτάκη που είναι καράμπαμπαμ καθεστωτικός, για τιμωρία. Και τώρα τους πλακώνει όλους με τα ΜΑΤ και τσιρίζουν και διαμαρτύρονται για τον χειρότερο πρωθυπουργό της χώρας, κατι που έλεγαν και για τον Τσίπρα μέχρι να τον στείλουν. Όταν ψηφίζατε την δεξιά επειδή δεν σας έκανε τα χατίρια που σας έταξε ο "σύντροφος" όμως, περιμένατε κάτι άλλο? Η μήπως σας έπεισαν τα ξεκατινιάσματα των οπαδών της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, για το πουκάμισο του Βαρουφάκη, την γραβάτα του Τσίπρα και την εμφάνιση του Φίλη? Που βασικά γύρισαν μπούμερανγκ τώρα, γιατι όλοι ασχολούμαστε με την "υπερκομψη" Μάρεβα και το στήθος βελέντζα του Μητσοτάκη. Όταν κάνετε πολιτική και αντιπολίτευση του κώλου, είτε είστε δεξιοί, είτε αριστεροί, αυτά να τα περιμένετε αγαπητοί.

Θα σοβαρευτείτε ποτέ και να αρχίσετε για μια φορά, αντί να γκρινιάζετε και να εστιάζετε την προσοχή σας σε ότι σας πλασάρουν να κανάλια, τα τρολ στα σόσιαλ μίντια, οι κομματικές φοιτητικές οργανώσεις, σε κάτι θετικό που κάνει η κάθε κυβέρνηση για μια φορά. Παραδείγματος χάρη, μπορει ο κάθε προοδευτικός να συμφωνήσει πως το Σύμφωνο Συμβίωσης που κατάφερε ο Σύριζα να περάσει στην χώρα μας, είναι ένα βήμα προς την σωστή κατεύθυνση για την χώρα? Όλη η Δυτική Ευρώπη έχει παρόμοια νομοθεσία, και η Ελλάδα ως κράτος μέλος της ΕΕ, όφειλε να ακολουθήσει. Η Νέα Δημοκρατία ως τώρα δεν κατάφερε κάτι παρόμοιο, παρ'όλο που είναι καθεστωτική και φιλο-Ευρωπαϊκή. Οπότε μπορείτε να καταπιείτε πως ο Σύριζα πέτυχε έστω σε ένα πράγμα, ή η αφοσίωση σας στην παράταξη σας σας εμποδίζει?

Παρομοίως οι αριστεροί, μπορείτε να χάψετε πως ο Δένδιας είναι καλός υπουργός εξωτερικών, και η κινήσεις του στο να συνάψει στενές σχέσεις με χώρες της Μέσης Ανατολής και την Ινδία, ώς απάντηση των Τουρκικών προκλήσεων και την αδιαφορία ή αδράνεια της Δύσης, είναι κάτι πολύ θετικό για την χώρα μας και την εδραίωση των συμφερόντων της στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο? Ή μήπως προτιμάτε να επικεντρώνεστε στο ξύλο που τρώνε οι μπαχαλακηδες απο τα ΜΑΤ και μόνο, ως την αντιπολίτευση σας κατά της αντίπαλης παράταξης από την δική σας?

Έχουμε μείνει στον εμφύλιο πόλεμο, και ο διχασμός και η πόλωση της ελληνικής κοινωνίας, είναι ένα μεγάλο εμπόδιο στο να προχωρήσει μπροστά και σωστά η χώρα. Δεν ψηφίζουμε ρε γαμώτο σύμφωνα με αυτά που πίστευε ή ψήφιζε ο παππούς μας, άλλες εποχές και οι ανάγκες των καιρών του, και άλλες οι δικές μας. Στην κυριολεξία επικρατεί μίσος ταξικό, φανατισμός, μπαχαλάκηδες και παραπληροφόρηση, δημαγωγία και λαϊκισμός στην ελληνική κοινωνία. Σίγουρα καποιοι τα υποκινούν και επωφελούνται. Εμείς γιατί τους αφήνουμε? Καταλαβαίνω πως το ξέσπασμα και η βία ίσως να είναι τρόπος εκτόνωσης των μέτρων κατά του κορωνοϊού, και φυσικά μετά απο 10 χρόνια λιτότητας και κακής διαχείρησης τα νεύρα του κοσμάκη που βλέπει τις επιχειρήσεις και το βιός του να χάνεται, να έχουν τσιτώσει.

Η βία και ο τυφλός δικομματισμός δεν δικαιολογείται όμως, και στην τελική αν επιθυμείτε να το παίξετε αντικαθεστωτικοί, στις επόμενες εκλογές ψηφίστε μικρά, καινούρια προοδευτικά κόμματα, ώς απάντηση σε αυτά του "καθεστώτος". Το να καταστρέφετε δημόσια περιουσία που εσείς πληρώνετε στην τελική ,να οργανώνετε πορείες για τρομοκράτες-εχθρούς του κράτους, ή να ρίχνετε την ψήφο σας αντιδραστικά στην αντίθετη καθεστωτική παράταξη, δεν σας εξυπηρετεί, παρά μόνο αυτούς που επωφελούντα από το μπάχαλο και την διχόνια. Στην τελική αν δεν σας εμπνέουν τα υπάρχοντα κόμματα, δημιουργείστε καινούρια, δικά σας. Σας αγαπώ.

Can Navalny reform Russia to what Europe wants?

The past few weeks, we have seen more tensions rising and pressure mounting from Europe towards Russia, following the arrest of the West's revered "Putin Critic," Alexei Navalny. European governments together with EU officials and politicians rushed to condemn the move, while mass protests errupted across the Russian Federation, in support for the country's opposition leader.

Obviously, it was a major mistake and a bad move from the Russian authorities, to arrest a politician and anyone who speaks out against corruption, or is a political figure in the country. It undermines the legitimacy of the government, exposes its weakness and fear, desperation or simply annoyance of the ruling elites towards the actions of an elected representative of the country's voters. That of course in a Western styled democracy, but we often forget that the Russian Federation is not one of them.

The country is not entirely European but Eurasian, and its democratization and Westernization is very recent and fragile, just as many of EU's former Soviet states like Poland or Hungary. If these two countries are having trouble keeping up with the rest of Europe whilst in the EU, what chances does Russia have, in becoming a succesful, fully fledged Western democracy? Especially when to do so, they will have to abide with Western conditions and values, which may or may not be compatible with theirs. Besides, even our democracies are not without major flaws and are we sure that the Russians really want or should become like the rest of us.

Many of the country's Western critics, refer to it as an "authoritarian cleptocracy," and partially they are right. However, they fail to confess Europe's role in the unjustice committed upon the ordinary Russian citizens. If the country is run by a bunch of corrupt oligarchs, who according to Western analysts, steal the wealth from the country as they obstruct democracy, then why this stolen wealth is ending up in European banks and the assets of those oligarchs which are escaping the country, are ending up in Western institutions as they fund Western political parties and leaders. Surely if Europe and America really wanted to help the ordinary Russian people, they would refuse to do business with the country's oligarchs or accept funds from them.

For instance, the Danske Bank scandal was hushed and given so little attention by Western media, because it involved large amount of funds from the family of the Russian President Vladimir Putin (his cousin Igor Putin) and the Russian security service (FSB). The initial claims by a whistleblower, were not properly looked into and hence did not catch enough attention, by the Danish bank's branch in Tallinn. The result, was the greatest money laundering scandal in Europe and potentially the world, yet it was hastily burried ad forgotten.

In addition, we really must examine the background of the Western "hero" Alexei Navalny. In reality, the title of main opposition party in Russia, undoubtedly goes to the social-liberal Yabloko. Anti-government protesters have often rallied around this party, so it is not unusual to see the Yabloko’s flag during protests. It was the only non-system party which managed to secure multiple seats in Moscow’s 2019 local election, despite the standard electoral fraud that often occurs in the country's elections.

Navalny himself was, in the early days, involved with Yabloko. However, he was expelled in 2007 for his far-right views. That same year, he co-founded a new political movement called "The People's Party", which allied itself with two other ethnic nationalist groups called Movement Against Illegal Immigration and Great Russia. All these groups were characterised not only by their zealous nationalism but also by a generalised unsatisfaction with Putin’s leadership, which was considered “too weak”.

Besides, Navalny expressed his support for Russian presence in Ukraine, notably stating that “Russia should strive for the integration of Belarus and Ukraine” and claiming that they are a part of Russia and form only one country together. While he criticised Russia’s policy in Ukraine – because it was led by Vladimir Putin’s government – he has been remarkably silent about his criticism on the annexation of Crimea in itself. When asked about possibly returning it to Ukraine if he was ever to lead Russia, he confirmed that his government would not start such a procedure.

When it comes to the Caucasus, his stance towards the region is even more questionable. He supported Russia in its war against Georgia in 2008, going as far as calling for all Georgians to be expelled from Russia. If we take all the above into account, it is evident that the West's support for him is simply down to "my enemy's enemy, is my friend" approach and mentality. In an effort to oust Putin, America and its European allies are becoming desperate and they stand behind anyone who is only seemingly filling the role of someone who can promote their interests, no matter of his background and intentions. Even if this person is surely a populist himself. But Europe must be careful, otherwise instead of democratizing Russia, it would well destabilize it and that could be a far more dangerous situation.

Imagine if Europe has right next to its border a large, unstable country, in what worse reality could its eastern regions end up. And all this, to serve American interests, or secure German ones. Is it any coincidence, that Navalny got poisoned towards the end of Trump's term and decided to return to Russia almost at the same time as Biden's inauguration, kickstarting massive protests and civil unrest in the country. Is it also a correlation that the Nord Stream 2 debate and squabble between US and Europe-notably Germany, has been heating up in recent months. In mid-2020, the US threatened a second round of sanctions. They were meant as a “clear warning” to companies that aiding the project would not be tolerated by Washington. “Get out now, or risk the consequences,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said. One investor, German energy company Uniper, subsequently said that the US threat increased the likelihood of “a delay or even non-completion of the pipeline.

Navalny's poisoning, sounded slightly peculiar and suspicious from the beginning. Apparently he was poisoned with the novichok nerve agent and he blamed the Russian President Vladimir Putin for it. He is not the only one of course, as many other prominent Russians, especially those critical of the Kremlin, have suffered poisoning attacks in the last two decades. The point is why would Vladimir Putin himself, so obviously try to eliminate his critics with the very same substance over and over again, something that will clearly incriminate him. Could it be that poisoning is used by many of Russia's oligarchs and political elites, and we are in fact witnessing an internal struggle for dominance, which extends and includes external powers and players.

Especially when Navalny's actions, were not always aiming Putin directly, but everyone in his government and not only. Many of Russia's oligarchs and ruling elites were also targeted by both Navalny and even Putin's government itself. The former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, launched an anti-corruption council and plan to tackle the "rampant" problem, which has become "commonplace and characterises the life of the Russian society," according to him. The irony is, that it was Navalny that exposed many corruption allegations against Medvedev, and potentially resulted to the resignation from his position. However the West insists on blaming solely Putin, for all the poisoning that many Russian opposition figures are suffering. And if Navalny's life is in danger, why return to Russia knowing that he will be jailed, or worse now that he is caught, yet conveniently the American leadership has changed. Could it be that there is a desperate effort for destabilization and derailing further European and Russian dialogue and approach, or simply joined economic ventures?

The real reason has obviously nothing to do with helping the Russian people getting rid of a corrupt oligarch or assisting the democratization of the country. The West-notably America has interests in Eastern Europe which they want to promote, even to the expence of ordinary Russian, European and American citizens. Putin and his government or "regime" as they often portray it, although doubtlessly rife with elitism, corruption, nepotism and lack of transparency, is standing in the way. They are asserting the interests of their country or indeed their very own-dressed as national ones, and are strengthening Russia's position in the region and the globe. Western countries do not wish to see this happening; a strong assertive Russia is undesired and feared, rather they prefer a weakened country, cooperative or even submissive to Western interests. Thus they do anything to "cut the head of the snake." In other words, to bring Putin and his government down.

Something that they shamelessly do not agree to do for the equally problematic Turkey and Erdogan, as it would hurt Germany's interests in this case. Additionally, Europe should be very careful when it joins any US led campaigns for the democratization of selected countries. In the past, it wholeheartedly threw its support behind the US efforts to promote democracy in Myanmar, only for later the country's most revered by the West leader, Aung San Suu Kyi to go from a democracy champion and Nobel Prize winner, to a shamed head of a regime that has excused a genocide, jailed journalists and locked up critics.

In Venezuela too, we witnessed another Western failure. After trying to meddle with the country's internal affairs and establish a democratic government, Europe backed the US and stood behind Maduro's opponent Juan Guaido. The European Parliament, initially recognized the latter as the legitimate Venezuelan self-declared interim president and as de facto head of state only two years ago. But by January 2021, EU States no Longer recognized Guaido as Venezuela's Interim President. The move comes as no suprise, as Guaido himself rocked by explosive corruption claims within his ranks for the past two years.

This should ring bells to all of us in Europe, as to the real reasons for keen "democratization" efforts to all of the America's adversaries or regions of interests. Especially when the West itself has an appalling record of dealing with its own whistleblowers- if that is how we chose to see Navalny. Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, revealed many faults in the American democratic system, and we are all aware of how they were treated. Which means that if anyone uncovers government corruption and secrets is consequently charged, trialed and forced to seek asylum in.... Russia!

One thing that the Russians in fact must learn from the West and Europe, is how to deal with dissidents and "populists" as the European establishment often labels those who seek to expose its systemic flaws. In the West we do not jail or poison them, we just ignore, slander and silence them by simply discrediting them as demagogues. Many of the parties that are anti-systemic in Europe, even if partially or substantially focus on real problems that the ordinary Europeans are faced with, are just being ridiculed and categorized in the same groups as radical and extremist right or left-wing parties. If that fails, then it is very hard for them to get funds from the establishment, thus they fail to gain popularity so they utlimately dismantle. However it is certain that similar parties favoured by the West in competing countries, will always find funds to continue their struggle.

I am not convinced that Europe is adopting the best approach when comes to Russia. Although ideally, I would love to see the country closer to the rest of Europe and with a similar, political system. We use democracy and the failings of others in it in order to intervene and manipulate their internal affairs, however we often overlook our own shortcomings. The struggle between the two blocks is purely economic and political, with a facade of righteousness from both sides. If Europe truly wants a democratic Russia, then why doesn't it throw itself wholeheartedly behind the Yabloko party, rather a populist and opportunist like Navalny. Why it does not mind accepting Russian dirty money in its banks, yet it cries of "Russian meddling" in Western democracies. Why Europe is succumbing to US demands and pressure, to scrap a closer EU-Russian energy cooperation or sabotage any dialogue to conciliate tentions between the two. Clearly the Americans are not that interested in promoting a "greener EU", by weaning the block's reliance to Russian fossil fuel, since they are the only country denouncing and leaving the Paris Agreement.

I would rather support dialogue, even if this means a prolonged and coordinated effort to soothe out any differences between Europe and Russia, that either they like it or not, they are bound to each other by history, borders, politics, trade, often conflicting ideologies, culture and warfare. However these discussions should not be influenced or derailed by any external party, whether this be USA or China. Right now Europe is seeking to expand its influence eastwards, entering former Russian dominated territories. To gain leverage, it relies on American support but ultimatelly, it only complicates things as the US adds its own interets in the equation. At some stage Europe must understand that it cannot perpetually expand eastwards, it just lost a key member in the west-the UK and it failed to integrate 3 others: Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.

Russia on the other hand must accept the changes that occured since the '90s, resulting to the fact that many of its former republics, now wish to align themselves with Europe. That need not be a disaster for the Russians, if they are not cut off entirely from the market of both their former territories and that of Europe. Something that the Americans and their Atlanticist European allies want, and is the cause of such dangerous powergames. Nations located between Europe and Russia should be able to decide their own future, but that must not be an "either you are with us or against us" arrangement. In fact they could act as a bridge which brings the two major European players (EU and Russia) closer, however that is viewed as unacceptable development still, in many powerful circles on both sides of the Atlantic.

And as result, Europe and Russia continue to drift apart, and no Navalny could ever bridge the gap or transform Russia to something that Europe could ever work with.