Adieu Royaume-Uni. Et au revoir?

Well, it finally has happened. After four gruelling years of negotiations, debates and a nation divided, the United Kingdom has finally left the European Union. It took back control of its borders and fate as it always wanted, and left the Brussels based "gravy-train" of corruption, red-tape and unelected bureaucrats.

They can now see their sovereignty returned to them and be masters of their own fate and course in history; or can they? For the months prior the Brexit deadline and during the last minute negotiations between the EU and the UK to avoid a no-deal, we witnessed the humiliation of Britain in diplomatic and economic fronts, not their government's grandeur. Now if these sacrifices were necessary in order to reach the desired level of Great Britishness again, remains to be seen.

One of the most obvious losses if it materializes, will be Scotland. Together with Northern Ireland, it voted to remain in the EU, while England and Wales opted to leave. Since then, the Scottish government proposed a compromise. That would have meant the UK leaving the EU but staying in the single market, yet that compromise offer was rejected by the UK government, which wanted then, and still does now, a more distant relationship with the EU.

Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, penned an article published in the Irish Times, just after New Year's Day 2021, stressing her nation's plea again, pointing out that the only route for Scotland rejoining the EU is indepence. "For too long successive UK governments have taken Scotland in the wrong direction, culminating in Brexit and the introduction of legislation that had threatened to break international law and which still undermines the Scottish parliament. It’s no wonder so many people in Scotland have had enough. We are committed to a legal, constitutional route to becoming an independent state. As an independent member of the EU, Scotland would be a partner and a bridge-builder – not just a bridge to building a stronger economy and fairer society, but a bridge to aid understanding between the EU and UK," she said.

Should Sturgeon convinces her nation to follow her aspirations, the United Kingdom will be no more, at least as we know it.If the EU accepts Scotland and politics over break-away regions don't come to the fore, aka the Catalonian issue, then the UK just lost a vital region and its access to a significant part of the North Atlantic/North Sea. Thus, Great Britain just got smaller.

Then there is the Northern Ireland issue, another region that ideally would like to stay in the EU. After the EU-UK negotiations, this British territory is practically remaining in the EU, all but in name. It stays in the single market, since the UK and EU have agreed to keep an all-but-invisible border without checkpoints, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland will continue to follow many of the EU's rules, meaning that lorries can continue to drive across the border without having to be inspected. However, some new checks will be needed on certain goods arriving into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK instead. Food products will need to be checked to ensure they comply with EU standards. Brussels-run officials will be able to supervise checks on trade that is happening within the UK's borders, despite Boris Johnson insisting there'd be no border down the Irish Sea.

In addition, the Irish government has announced that it will fund Erasmus scheme for Northern Irish students, since Boris Johnson had said the UK would no longer participate in the exchange program. Irish Minister for Higher Education Simon Harris told the national broadcaster RTÉ, “the cost is relatively low, but it’s not a cost, it’s an investment,” adding the estimated expenses would be around €2 million per year. In other words, the Irish government is stepping in where the British one has failed or disdained to act decisively, ensuring further opportunities and chances for the Northern Irish youths. If that is not something that may turn the tide in the future for Irish unification, or the drifting of the region away from the UK core, then what is. The Northern Irish students, which represent their nation's future, hopefully will never forget who stepped in for their rights and interests.

But Northern Ireland and Scotland are not the only regions that are opting to retain their ties with the EU. A last-minute agreement between negotiators from Spain, Britain and Gibraltar, allows passport-free travel between Gibraltar and Spain. As part of the deal, the European agency Frontex will monitor sea and air arrivals in the British enclave. People arriving from Britain will need to go through passport control, as they did until now. Fearing border checks that could leave it isolated economically, Gibraltar wanted control-free access to the Spanish mainland, similar to those enjoyed between the European countries that are part of the Schengen area. The borderless area's requirements, will be adopted by Gibraltar with Spain as the responsible member for the application of Schengen rules. The Spanish authorities also insisted on maintaining the interdependency with Gibraltar, since many of its citizens work there and cross the border daily.

But even the City of London, the country's economic heart and powerhouse, will not be spared by the new reality. On the first trading day of 2021, the fourth of January, billions of euros of business left the UK for the European Union. Some €5bn of trading in shares ranging from French banks to German car companies departed London and reappeared in financial centres in mainland Europe such as Paris and Amsterdam. A pan-European exchange where EU equities are traded, saw virtually all the trading business flip from its London platform to its Paris base.

Naturally such shifts were expected and they won't be perpetuating for ever. At some stage in the future when the dust settles, things will normalize again and we will have a clearer picture on the new EU-UK relationship after Brexit. Yet while the rest of Europe will go on without one of its oldest members, the British people will be the ones that will pay the highest price. What has been signed by their government hasn't been explained to them in its totality and there are many grey areas. They will gradually have to reajust to the new reality and hope for the promised better deals with other blocks and countries, which their government promised them.

Hopefully in the end, things won't be as gloomy as predicted by many for Britain. A number of other European countries are outside the EU and the Single Market, like Serbia for example. They are managing and progressing, despite the slower pace and limited number of opportunities. Besides, the UK is not Serbia. It has more resources, overseas territories, wealth, partnership with the US and the Commonwealth and it is located within a stable, prosperous region of Europe, unlike Serbia. The question is, why restrict yourself by abandoning what you have negotiated and worked for the past five decades, as it serves the interests of your country's elites.

Because that's what really is Brexit about. In fact, that is the driving force of every political reality and development in Europe. Some powerful and rich groups from within or outside our continent benefit from a shake-up, thus they lobby, corrupt or campaign in order to achieve what they want. They use and manipulate public opinion, taking advantage of our democratic system and freedom of press, in order to employ our societies in making decisions that suits them. And we are falling for their lies, just as the British people did regarding Brexit.

The ordinary UK citizen will see little benefit from it, quite the opposite in fact. Prices of goods will rise, travel and trade will become more complicated, opportunities to study and work in another European country will be limited or awkward to achieve. And all the promises of wealth "trickling down" from the new reality will remain just that: promises. We should be wise enough by now, not to fall for such false claims. When did any of the benefits and privileges we granted to the big multinationals, have trickled down to the rest of us?

By tapping into the lower classes' fear of foreigners, nationalism, financial worries and ignorance on how the EU works, the British elites have managed to convince them to vote for something that will ultimatelly be detrimental to their future. As if British politics and society do not suffer from corruption, bureaucracy, lobbying, favoritism and nepotism, they have nevertheless projected those negative qualities to other countries and the EU institutions, perhaps in a desperate attempt to cover their own shortcomings and faults.

And that is why, although it pains me to see one of the oldest members leaving the club, partially I am pleased that Britain has voted for Brexit. For decades they were unhappy and utterly contemptuous towards their partners and the EU, opted out of many of its regulations and blocked an equal amount too. I believe that Brexit will shine a light on the truth, the British citizens will realize their government intentions and satisfy their curiosity of being outside the EU. If they ever decide to return as full members, they will do so consciously and with a better knowledge or information. And this will be beneficial for everyone.

In addition, Brexit will be good for the rest of Europe too. And not just regarding the aforementioned financial terms, or the fact that the EU lost one of the main obstacles for further integration. Similar euroscepticism like in Britain, can be found across the block. The UK can act as an unfortunate example of what is to come, if others want to follow suit. It can finally teach our governments on the importance of informing their citizens of the benefits of EU membership, and clarifying on how it really works. Until now, they were claiming all of the achievements as their own, while they were charging the mistakes onto the EU or other member states.

Besides, our governments were primarily self serving. That is another reason why Britain left. There is no true solidarity among them, just vested interests. For example we witnessed on how Europe is treating Greece over its problems with Turkey, or how Germany and France pushed Greece under the rails, sacrificing it to the IMF, in order to save their own banks and affairs. And I would not exclude the possibility of rich EU and non-EU states allowing, or even encouraging Britain to leave, in order to benefit themselves again. Let Brexit be a stark reminder to our governing elites, that if this selfish demeanor continues, more citizens will be disillusioned and fed up with the constant inequality, infighting, bullying and slandering that exists within the European politics and circles. And the EU institutions are not the ones that should get the blame, rather our own national governments.

The EU is not responsible when a member state is voting against the interests of another, or when the richer and most powerful countries, are sidelining and exploiting the poorer ones, the periphery of EU. The blame should be applied entirely on those governments. However, if they do not change their course of action in the EU, the sentiment among the populace will become even more sour than it already is. Consequently they will turn against European integration overall, not the national governments. They will naturally want to disolve this union, if their needs are not met and witness the inequality that exists among the members. Thus, Europe in its totality will lose out, for the errors and short-sighted decisions of our national politicians.

To conclude, the battle for Britain to remain in the EU is sadly lost. Let everyone take stock of the situation, study the outcome, learn from the mistakes that took place which lead to this new reality. Every government in Europe should ponder on the future of the EU and their desired role in it. Because if they do not change course, instead of an example to avoid, Britain will become an example to follow, when a country must save itself from an unworkable situation. As for Britain, I truly wish to see it as a member soon again, fully committed to Europe and working to change it for the better from within.

European Dis-Union of financial interests and back-stabbing.

For a year now, we have been waiting for a break-through, a decisive action from the EU in support towards two of its members; Greece and Cyprus. Their territorial integrity has been challenged by the neighboring Turkey, however their European and Western partners, have been more than reluctant to stand by them, effectively.

Postponement after postponement, the block's leaders initally resolved to reach an agreement last Thursday, December the 10th, during the last EU Council meeting. The block concluded on the first steps towards more comprehensive sanctions against Turkey over Ankara's unauthorized gas drilling off the coast of Greece and Cyprus. Sadly, for the moment the sanctions are targeting individuals and companies, rather Turkey's leadership, economy and administration. Further actions have been delayed once more until March 2021, with the excuse of waiting the new US leadership to resume office. As if America should be dictating EU policy and mediate in Europe's internal affairs indefinitely.

It basically came down to Merkel's goverment insistence, together with a Bulgarian veto, which joined Germany's positions. During the debates and negotiations, Spain, Italy and Malta were also against any severe sanctions towards Turkey, although not as vocal. Perhaps because they knew that Germany will block any move that would hurt Turkish, and consequently German interests. Hungary was not a suprise also, as their support for Erdogan's government, plus their aversion of more refugees reaching Europe, made their move predictable.

The disgraceful German attitude towards Greece, can be explained by the country's vested financial interests in Turkey. In addition, the 4 million strong Turkish community in Germany, has undoubtedly locked the two countries into a solid partnership. Bulgaria's Prime Minister, Boyko Borissov, has also a close relationship with Erdogan, so his government's objections were to be expected. However, he did not make his intentions clear earlier. Perhaps he used his veto as a carrot to lure Erdogan, in exchange for certain favors.

Particularly disapointing were the other "Club Med"nations' lack of support towards the Greek and Cypriot positions. Understandably they have their own economic interests in Turkey, as their banks and industries are entwined with the Turkish ones. However, since they decided to turn their backs to Greece, they should not complain the next time the Northern European countries, or the Frugals and the Hanseatic League, accuse them and all the South EU countries for being the problematic ones in the block.

The South is divided, that is why it is weak and easily manipulated by Germany and its satelites. The Spanish and Italian authorities, obviously prefer to serve their short-term plans and interests, rather than forming a united front within the EU, to counterpart the increasing German hegemony in Europe. It will come around and bite them on the backside, soon enough mind you. The Covid-19 crisis is not finished yet, so Europe's economy could face harsh times ahead. It would be interesting to see who will be blamed again for being corrupt and lazy, and will be asked to pay the price.

The only serious and helpful to Greece consequences that Turkey faced, came from the other side of the Atlantic. The US administration finally and despite Trump's objections, proceeded with sanctioning Erdogan's government by kicking Turkey out of the F-35 fighter jet program. Even though the American actions were not necessarily a result of US support towards Greece, rather a punishment of Turkey for purchasing Russian S-400 air defense system in July 2019. Still, it was a welcomed move and a relief for the Greeks, to see the Turks without the latest US made aircrafts.

The reluctance of the West to punish Turkey, can be summed up by NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg's statement, prior to the EU Summit last Thursday. Mr Stoltenberg stressed that the bloc’s leaders must not to forget the country’s importance to the transatlantic alliance and the West at large. “We need to make sure that we realize the importance of Turkey as part of NATO and also as part of the Western family,” he said.

I wonder then, since the West is so keen in keeping Turkey in its circles no matter what, why isn't the country in the EU yet. In fact, why aren't both Norway and Turkey members of the block, since Mr Stoltenberg is so keen in keeping the Turks part of the West. Norway can mediate for Turkey to join the EU and Schengen Area once it does, plus accept its workers, just like Germany. It could also help finance the costs of Turkish integration into the EU, thus cementing the country's place in the Western sphere. Instead, the Norwegians are happy to cherry pick their engagement and involvement with Europe, as they are lecturing us about who should stay in the Western family.

It is what the Turks want after all. Greece and Cyprus are paying the price for the decades long debate in Europe, if it should accept Turkey as a full member. Erdogan is blackmailing the EU by constantly attacking Greece, or weaponising and using the refugees. And the Europeans are just standing by and watch indecisively, as the Turkish President is being persistent in his demands.

Erdogan has repeatedly called on the European Union for dialogue, warning the bloc not to become a “tool for enmities” during escalating tensions over the Eastern Mediterranean. “We expect the EU to keep its promises, not to discriminate against us. We don’t see ourselves elsewhere but in Europe. We envisage building our future together with Europe,” he stated in a video address to his party congress, in the end of last November.

After the EU Council meeting, he stated that the sanctions imposed were unlawful and biased. "There are a lot of rights that should be given to Turkey by the EU countries from visa liberalisation to the customs exemption. I hope this process will be finalised in a fair manner," he said. It is what Turkey wants, since 1987 when it applied for EU membership. But Europe has dragged the debate and negotiations for too long, so the Turks grow impatient.

Greece and Cyprus are caught in this conflict and held as hostages, to increase the pressure which Erdogan places on the European leadership, for Turkey to be accepted and integrated further into European institutions. However, in reality Europeans do not desire Turkey in the EU. The public opinion is staunchly against it in its majority, plus it will require major effort, reforms and funds, to digest a large member state such as Turkey.

Consequently, Greece must overspend in order to fend off Turkish threats, as the West gets richer by the constant supply of arms to either the Greeks or the Turks themselves. It is clear that the situation is not only the two nations' fault, but also the result of European and American hypocricy and double standards.

First they lure Turkey into the Western "family" of nations, to prevent it from ending up as a Russian ally,or a regional power of its own. They offer it partial access to the European market, just enough to keep it hooked, as they benefit from the country's resources and strategic location. But they do whatever it is in their power, not to accept it as a full member, because it would hurt their economy and they would face a back-clash by their own voters back home.

Greece is being treated in a similar way. It is forced to bear a great deal of the burden to protect Europe's outer borders, plus become the punching bag of Turkish desperation and aggression, in order to blackmail the Europeans to fulfill their promises. Thus, it is being forced to buy weapons it does not need, so that it can cope with Turkey's threats. Yet it is being mocked as it overspends and it is being forced to become Europe's debt colony, or dumping ground as an outcome.

Additionally, when Europe decides to stand up to Russia by quickly applying economic sanctions against it, something that it refuses to do against the Turks, Greece must follow suit, even if it hurts its economy. We cannot export to Russia our own goods, plus we need their tourism. Not only Europe stops us from trading with a country that we have traditionally good relations with, but it does not compensate us when we lose out as we join their power games, nor it supports us when we need their help agaist our neighbour, Turkey.

The EU is far from being a block of solidarity. In fact it makes the very meaning of the word an utter joke, when it uses it to celebrate its successes. Germany monopolizes the EU and is pushing its own agenda, which is often doing nothing. Others like Poland and Hungary recently, have taken the whole of the EU as a hostage, when they blocked the much laboured and debated COVID recovery fund, that would benefit all during the current pandemic emergency. In order to blackmail the rest of the members, they thought fit to delay its approval to serve their own interests. Something that the Dutch and the "Frugals" have also done before them.

It is time for Europe to make up its mind on what it wants out of Turkey, and stick by this decision. If it wants to appease America and keep Turkey close and in Western ranks, then it is the US that must pay up for the Turkish integration into the EU. Alternatively, Europe could part ways with American interests in the region, or its own for that matter, and allow Turkey to go it alone or with Russia, whatever the cost. But it will then be clear that the Turks can stop dreaming about EU membership once and for all. Greece should not be paying the price of this situation indefinitely.

Prior the EU Council meeting, Erdogan went on to shrug off any potential EU and US measures. “Any sanctions decision that can be taken against Turkey do not concern us much. On the eastern Mediterranean, we will continue to protect whatever our rights there are,” he stated. If he sticks to his words, then it is clear that Europeans are just kicking the bucket further down to spring, and by then the Turks will make an utter joke of the EU and its so called solidarity.

Erdogan has openly insulted the French President Emmanuel Macron, that does not seem to bother France's European partners.He keeps defying the EU and the US by continuing sending Turkish ships to drill in Cypriot waters or violate the Greek ones, but still European countries are concerned about their banks or investments in Turkey. One country has taken the whole block of countries as hostage and has proven that it can force it to back down or postpone any decisions, solely on their own financial interests. But that will utlimately prove to be detrimental to any EU global diplomatic aspirations, that it may have for the future as an emerging power.

How can the US Presidential Election result, potentially affect Europe's future.

At last we managed to see the end of the US Presidential Election 2020 saga, with Joe Biden finaly securing his victory over Donald Trump. And while many in Europe were highly interested in the outcome, primarily siding with Biden, I was largely uninterested. One reason is of course, that during the past few years, the American electoral campaigns have become similar to a reality show, shameful, catty and spiteful. Plus the fact that I never considered myself an Atlanticist, rather a pro-European.

But do not get me wrong, it is not that I do not appreciate the importance of the outcome, or who will preside over USA and his government's relations with Europe. It is simply that I would ideally prefered a more independent and united Europe, plus a multipolar world. Something that hardcore Atlanticists reject as they view of the utmost importance, the dominance of the Western alliance between North America and Western Europe over other competing regions. In other words, they want to keep the current balance or power and status quo intact, to protect their interests, which are not shared by everyone on the planet.

However, the European supporters of this long-standing alliance, forget that ultimatelly a US President will promote the affairs of his or her own country first. So no matter who gets elected, Europe will have to adjust to their demands or requests. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel, rushed to congratulate President Elect Joe Biden in early November, stating that Europe is ready to take more responsibility.

Thus, I wonder if the European Atlanticists really comprehend what this means. For some time now, the US-and rightly so, demanded more European military spending under the NATO frame, plus further engagement in it. However, public opinion in most countries, apart in those who are located on the borders of Europe like Greece, were firmly against it. So why are they cheering for Biden? It is clear that he will seek to restore US-EU relations, with a significant focus on their military alliance.

In Ireland where I live, the traditional "underline the Irish roots of the new US President" hype settled once more, as the news of Biden's victory emerged. The President Elect, has Irish ancestry and like many before him, which gave such joy to the country's public. However, although Ireland enjoys so many benefits from US favoritism and investments, I wonder if they will be happy to pick up the tab on further military expenditure, or must countries such as Greece appease the American presure on this matter again. As Ireland and other states like Sweden or Austria are outside NATO, they get all the benefits from the Europe-USA alliance and stability or "protection" that it provides, yet they are managing to escape the obligations. It is brilliant when others have to pay for your security of course.

Still, military expenditure is only one issue that will require reconfiguration after the Trump presidency. The EU-US trade wars, the Paris Agreement, or the Iran Nuclear deal are matters that also must be addressed. During the erratic Trump administration, many achievements that Europe and the US accomplished together, were scrapped. That bewildered European leaders, as they witnessed their most trusted and loyal ally, not only abandoning them on their own, but also turning against them. So understandably, many wished for the normalization of the relations between the two sides. But has anyone questioned what this will mean for the future of Europe?

With previous US governments, Europe was relying on American protection and investements, like a child or adolescent requires constant guidance and provisions from its parents. But I wonder if the Atlanticists ever considered what Europe had to relinquish in order to enter into an agreement with its Atlantic partners, or what our continent had to compromise in order to convince the Americans to pay for its protection. And from whom by the way, or how do American investments and companies, influence social policies in Europe?

Under Trump, we saw a more self-centered US, with slogans like "make America great again". However, we also witnessed the polarization of the American society, as it naturally happens in any attempt to change the course of a country's policies. Never before a US President came under such ridicule, criticism and controversy as Trump did, dividing the US public opinion. But with a good reason too.

While his supporters were happy to see someone from outside their country's establishment ranks leading them, they ignored that Trump is not one of them either. He is a billionaire businessman, who although does not have a considerable political background, it is doubtful if his priorities were to serve the interests of the ordinary Americans. But rather of those elites which he represented, that were different to the ones who ruled the country for so long. In other words, he saw an opportunity and grabbed it, yet the fault lies on the US establishment's lap; if they did not ignore the public's plea or needs for many years, voters would not desperatelly turn away from them.

All the American establishment resulted in doing once it lost, was to ridicule and mock Donald Trump with every opportunity. Naturally this cemented the support of many for him, as themselves were also branded as "biggots". That kind of simplistic stereotypicality is often not working though, as it brings the opposite results. It was in fact unnerving and amusing at the sametime to watch, the daily sinking of the US politics into a farce and comedy. And Trump was basking in the attention he was receiving.

One had only to follow him on Twitter, to realize that we are not dealing with a politician. Sometimes I wonder if his son, or some teenager was posting the tweets, yet that made him more appealing to some US voters. That daily dose of direct communication from their President without the political jargon, false promises or academic grandiose, is perhaps what they seek or need. Trump is not the idiot that the American elites portray him to be. He is a self-serving and self-centered narcissist yes, but underestimating him and his supporters is what brought him into power; almost twice.

It is clear now that the USA and the Biden administration, need to keep the lessons that they hopefully learned for the past four years. They will have to try and mend their country, which means that most likely, some of Trump's legacy will have to linger, in order to appease his voters and unite the American society. Something that of course Europe must take into account too, if they expect an instant and absolute U-turn in EU-US relations.

Understandably, the European elites are wishing for a quick return to "business as usual". In some matters like climate and the Iran deal it is indeed crucial and necessary. Not just Europe but the world needs a more engaged and compliant USA in those issues, since they are imperative for humanity's future and the stability in the Middle East. However there are other topics involved. Europe often expects America's cooperation and support when dealing with China or Russia, and vice versa. Something that in certain cases does more harm than good.

By constantly trying to keep Russian interests out of Europe and the country subordinate to Western affairs, we are pushing them right to the arms of China, thus strengthening our "opponents" instead of weakening them. For that reason, Vladimir Putin's government was favoring Trump, as Biden represents the establishment and they are not too keen on Russia's influence in our continent. Trump was an outsider, a businessman that cares little for decades old politics and status. He just wanted to make sure that his supporters were happy, while his partners had their financial interests served. Something that was suitable for Russian attempts to expand theirs further to the West and elsewhere.

As for China, the Atlanticists believe that a US-EU alliance, has better chances in standing firm against the increasing Chinese assertiveness, and force them to back down. You see, the battle is purely based on our elites' interests, or who will maintain the lion's share in everything; energy, trade and resources. Until recently, the West monopolised most of the forementioned, so understandably it doesn't want to lose its priviledges with no fight or negotiations.

However, it was the Western expansion with its political and financial ideologies prevailing, that triggered globalization, so how can we now be so fearful of the challenges and changes that it brings. When all our industries were escaping to China to benefit from the country's cheaper labour, we still refrained from protectionism as it would clash with what we were preaching at the time; open and globalized economy, free market etc. The benefits would apparently "trickle down" to the rest of us and we would all enjoy affordable goods, "made in China".

The same practice continues to this day, with other emerging economies entering the competition for wealth and resources. As they should really, because the more they remain poor and the world unequal, we will have to constantly be dealing with refugees, migration, conflict, poverty and instability around the globe. However, can we treat all of them the same way we do China and Russia in the future? Can we afford to engage in never-ending conflict with every country or block, which wishes to challenge Western hegemony and compete with it and at what cost?

Instead of let's say a US-China "trade war" in which Europe must take sides, and hopefully it does not develop into a real military confrontation, we could maintain the bilateral agreements with numerous parties, that we have in place now. Plus, rather of a costly discord,we could all just invest those billions that could be potentially lost, into developing new industries, greener or otherwise. This in contrast to lets say, allowing them to leave for countries with cheaper workforce, offer them insentives to stay and develop in Europe.

If we resolve in siding with the US in an effort to secure their dominance around the globe, hoping for a favorable treatment, we could end up carrying the can for any failure that may ensure and find ourselves engaging in conflicts that offer us little benefits. In addition, if we are forced to sit down and negotiate with any other party as result of such "wars", with lets-say China or whoever else, we may have to compromise or sacrifice a lot in order to get what we want. Or more accurately what America wants. And we have already done so, to entice US companies to invest in Europe.

To achieve American investments, European governments had often to completely reform their societies, sacrificing social security and worker's rights. If we end up doing the same with China, which of their demands we will have to adopt? It could be wiser to start investing money in Europe, instead of saving banks and repeatedly requiring to attract investments from others, while we side with one party solely, which it has proven to have doubts on their future position in the world and its relationship with Europe. As someone else has already stated, Trump may have gone, but "Trumpism" could be here to stay, at least for a while. So where does this leave the future EU-US relations?

No matter how long-standing our relationship is, we should not be returning to what we had previously. If the US wants more responsibilities from our part, then Europe should grant them this wish and finally grow up; initially militarily, which will translate politically too. If we do not rely on others for our "protection", then we can have a more independent foreign policy, that sometimes could be close and adjacent to that of America, in other occasions not so much. For too long we looked to the US to fix our own problems, because we do not trust other EU members, thus becoming their subordinate.

So in this matter, the Biden administration may not prove to be what everyone expects in Europe. Instead of blowing our horns out of joy, we should wait to see what it may unfold. Trump may have left us alone, but this is not necessary all bad. We should have grasped the opportunity to forge ahead towards our own future, instead of waiting for America's decision on their internal affairs or future path, while we are unable to agree on our own unanimously.

It is time for Greece to leave NATO, since it fails to secure its interests.

As the EU has postponed to make any decision on Turkey's aggression towards two of its members, Greece and Cyprus, until later this year, it is evident that coming into an agreement won't be easy. Witnessing how Poland and Hungary, joined by Slovenia has recently vetoed the EU's €750bn coronavirus recovery plan because cash payments to member states would be conditional on their respect for rule of law, it is highly unlikely that there will be any agreement on Turkey. Many EU members have vested interests in the country, notably Germany, but also Italy, Spain, Malta and the Netherlands. Since national vetoes still apply, then we should not hold our breath for a united European front towards Turkish aggression.

Not able to get any support by its EU "allies" but also from USA, as the latter is embattled in its own problems with Trump and the recent presidential election outcome, Greece resorted in what it knows best: going on a arms shopping spree, to convince its "partners" to help it. Since Cyprus only got its 33 year arms embargo by the US, lifted last September, Greece has until now been spending on weaponry to protect both nations. Ten years ago though, it was scolded by the rest of Europe for "overspending" and getting the eurozone into trouble, even though it was German submarines that it spent its money on.

So for the past couple of months,Greece was been negotiating with it's Western "allies", and agreed to buy 18 Rafale aircrafts from France, 6 new and 12 used, at the price of 2 billion euro. It also reached an agreement with the US, to buy 24 F-35 fighters at the approximate price of another 2 billion euro. Finally, it is negotiating with France, Germany and the US again, to get 4 new frigate ships. The price of these will vary from over 4 billion euro if Greece buys them from USA, or somewhere between 3,5 to 6 billion euro if it decides to buy them from France or Germany. We are discussing about anything between 7 to 10 billion euro, just for 42 new aircrafts and 4 new frigate ships, after only buying two more from France last year, at the price of close to 2 billion.

One of course can put the blame on Greece alone, for spending money while its national dept stands at 370 billion euro, as of 2020. By 2024 it is projected to grow to 375 billion. But on the other hand, how do Greece's "allies" really help the very country they scolded for overspending, by racing to sell it billion euro worth of weaponry? They could instead, sanction Turkey, expell it from NATO or the EU Customs Union Agreement. But that would not place billions into their coffers, would it?

So it is a wonder why is Greece still in NATO, since it has to protect itself from its own "allies". Frozing its membership, leaving or paying less into the alliance's budget, could save it billions in fact. And it is not unthinkable. In the past both Greece and France were on the verge of leaving. In 1964, due to the Cyprus crisis, Greece withdrew military units from NATO forces in the Southern Mediterranean, over threats of invasion of Cyprus by fellow NATO member Turkey. Later in 1974 due to the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces, Greece withdrew from NATO military command. The country did not withdraw entirely from the organisation however, but became significantly less active.

In 1980, the Greek foreign minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis made remarks about the situation where he could see Greece fully withdrawing from the organisation. However, later "diplomatic pressure" from the United States led to Greece fully re-integrating with the alliance. One can only imagine what this pressure was, most likelly it resembled bullying and threats to favor Turkey further. Greece must finally understand that it does not need the West as much, rather the other way around. It has a very geostrategic location, which other powers such as Russia and China, would fight over to establish bases or get access to.

In addition, there are other markets to buy cheaper weaponry from, if we really have to. The West is not the only arms seller on this planet, nor it has a monopoly on this trade. Turkey itself resolved in buying Russian S-400 misiles, angering but also sending a warning and a cautioning message to the US; and their bluff worked. The Americans ideally do not want Turkey to fall into Russian arms, thus they are now overly tolerant about their treatment of Greece, a NATO member and ally. The West naturally does not want either Greece or Turkey to break away from its circle of influence and thus it gives us an advantage, instead of a disadvantage.If the Turks can bluff, why not the Greeks who they have to constantly act like subordinates and beggars for support by Europe and the USA?

Even France froze its NATO membership in the past. In 1966 due to souring relations between Washington and Paris because of the refusal to integrate France's nuclear deterrent with other North Atlantic powers, or accept any collective form of control over its armed forces, the French president Charles de Gaulle downgraded France's membership in NATO and withdrew France from the U.S.-led military command to pursue an independent defense system. However, the twenty-year rule prevented France from completely leaving NATO altogether. One consequence of this withdrawal was the movement of NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe from Rocquencourt (in France) to the city of Mons in Belgium.

Greece needs to wake up and stand up for itself, instead of constantly play the "good pupil" to the Western Powers. It is one of the few nations of NATO, that fullfils its contribution requirement to the alliance, that of 2% of its GDP. Only the US, Britain, Poland and Estonia are meeting the same criteria. All other NATO members, including Turkey, the much richer Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway or Luxembourg, fall short. So it is in fact NATO that will lose out substantially, if Greece freezes it membership, spends less like the Germans, or actually finds the courage and leave.

NATO countries should come into a coclusion about what they should do about Turkey and soon. Same as the EU. If they continue serving their own interests in the region or simply their finances, then they will have no right accusing Greece of overspending, when the next eurozone crisis-which is only a matter of time, happens. Like the last time, it will throw the block into another blame game of who will pay the bill, just as 10 years ago. Resulting of course, to the peripheral countries seeing their next generation bearing the burden and being slandered in order to bully them into submission.

Even Europe's favorite former US President Barack Obama, in his recent published memoirs criticized Berlin but also Paris, for insisting on fiscal austerity during the years of Greece’s financial crisis. “I noticed that they rarely mentioned that German and French banks were some of Greece’s biggest lenders, or that much of Greeks’ accumulated debt had been racked up buying German and French exports – facts that might have made clear to voters why saving the Greeks from default amounted to saving their own banks and industries”.

“Maybe they worried that such an admission would turn voter attention away from failures of successive Greek governments and toward the failures of those German or French officials charged with supervising bank lending practices,” as Obama wrote. That statement makes it clear that Europe owes an apology to Greece for its treatment 10 years ago. Numerous Greek thinkers like me, that were fighting for some compassion and understanding when trying to explain to our European "partners" that it is very unfair for us to bear the whole debt of the eurozone, were met with derogatory remarks, like "learn to pay your taxes," when they have never lived in Greece obviously.

While Ireland that was also forced to enter an EU/IMF bailout, was not humiliated in the same way as Greece, despite having numerous shortcomings in its own economy and not only a "banking structural problem" as many were left to believe. I live in this country and when comparing it to Greece, I do not see much difference between the two, apart from the tax regime and the ease that one can open a company in Ireland, something that is required in an economy that relies solely on foreign multinationals.Something the Greece recently also adopted.

To conclude, as a Greek I cannot support my country's NATO membership any longer, and I am increasingly becoming skeptical about the future of EU. Although ideally I would be all for a European federation of some sort, with a single economy and currency, when I witness how members of the block treat each other, I cannot condone to my nation's treatment by its partners. If this situation continues, I would rather revert the EU into EEA or a free trade block, similar to that of Switzerland's relations with the EU, rather than insisting on a "dream" of European unity, when there is none, or shared equally by everyone on board.

Europe should have offered its full and unconditional support to Greece and Cyprus by now, however they chose to preserve their own interests in Turkey, the Balkans and the East Mediterranean. Offering masks during the Covid-19 pandemic and celebrating "European Solidarity", makes a mockery of the very notion of the word solidarity; it is childish and petty, sorry.

Europe must abandon its complexes on migration and integration to debate openly on these issues.

Ever since the killing of the French teacher Samuel Paty in a Paris suburb on October the 16th, France-and potentially Europe has entered another circle of violence and bloodshed. Samuel was targeted by a teenage muslim refugee of Chechen descent, for simply trying to teach people like him, freedom of speech and ultimately, that of thought.The 47 year old teacher, has repeatedly shown numerous Charlie Hebdo cartoon images of Muhammad in his class, in an effort to convince his students to accept and understand the French mentality and culture of satirical cartoons.

Paty was brutally beheaded outside the school he was teaching and his killer was shot dead by the French police. Consequently, France has found itself once again at the epicenter of an ongoing debate in Europe: immigration, integration, refugees and Islam. Following the teacher's death,the Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin ordered that the Grande Mosque de Pantin,just our of Paris, was to be closed for six months. The mosque, has published videos inciting against Samuel Paty. Government buildings were projected with some of the Muhammad cartoon images, in defiance and tribute to Paty.

But as expected, this was only the beginning. Many muslim majority nations around the globe protested against France and its President, angered by the cartoons. Even more so, with their relations already strained after their Eastern Mediterranean fall-out, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has questioned Macron's mental health, calling for a boycott of french goods. Soon after another terrorist attack took place in the country almost two weeks since Paty's murder, this time in Nice. An additional three victims were killed in Notre-Dame de Nice, the city's Roman Catholic Basilica by a Tunisian migrant. Also, a security guard at a French consulate in Saudi Arabia was wounded by a man with a knife.

The French admitted that they are fighting a war against an enemy that is both inside and outside, as Minister Damarnin stated recently. Naturally, the country has already deported over 200 suspected islamists, most of them who were already in jail. As a response to Turkey's provocations, France has just announced that it will ban the Turkish nationalist group "Grey Wolves" from the country.

As I was writing this piece, another islamist terror attack has hit Europe, this time in Vienna; leaving another four people dead there and a city in fear as most of the attackers are still on the run. Obviously the this was not a "lone-wolf" act, but a coordinated and planned crime. It only remains to be seen if it is the last, or others will follow across our continent. Britain is on red alert however, according the latest news.

It is about time Europe decided how to act and crack down on islamists for good. For the past 14 years, over 300 Europeans have been killed by radicals and ISIS sympathisers and the increasing trend looks set becoming a commonality. If we count how many have also been killed by counter attacks by nationalists and far-right extremists, then we have a toxic, vengeful mix and circle of death. This needs to stop.

It is a very sensitive matter of course, when it comes to religion, ethnicity and race. We are feeling uncomfortable discussing such issues, in fear of offending our minorities or being branded as racists or communists. We should not. Our continent has become multicultural and it is not something new. In the affluent parts of Europe, this process has started since the '50s. In fact, avoiding an open discussing lead us to where we are right now.

For many years we allowed our capitals to grow migrant ghettos, unable to either point out the problem or make a serious effort integrating these communities. In addition, we failed to form a well coordinated immigration policy in the EU, with each member state trying to control its own laws on the matter. Due to old colonial ties, a complex of "what we have done to other countries" or pure negligence, we gave residence rights to more people than our changing economies could accomodate.

Once most of our industries left to relocate in Asia, we did not need as many workers any more for our factories. But for years we found it difficult to reform the laws that allowed and enticed migrants to enter Europe, or change the type of worker we needed to attract and match our working force needs. The result was a poor class of predominantly migrant background of low skilled individuals, that did not feel welcomed or wanted anymore in their adopted countries. Additionally, many of our native poorer social groups, felt left out and their needs not addressed, because of an increasing social gap and inequality in our continent.

The above groups became "the enemy from within". Angry and dissatisfied young people of migrant background, not sure where they belong and similarly another type of youth, that of native European ancestry with few opportunities to education and employment. Both easily radicalizedby either nationalist extremist groups, or islamists and ISIS supporters.

Although the majority of muslims in Europe are peaceful, one cannot ignore the growing threat of radical islam. To tackle the latter and make sure it does not harm the relations with the entire muslim community in our continent, governments and local authorities must be mobilized. We need finally a plan to integrate as many of our immigrants and establish a common immigration policy. We share outer borders and we have abolised our internal ones. Such matters should begin being tackled collectively. Why for example must we import more workers for a new factory in Austria, while we have many unemployed, homegrown, second generation migrants living in Brussels or Paris.

Many will argue that these people will refuse to move because they are here "to milk the generous European social security system". But have we given them the chance and even more importantly, the educational background and skills to do so? They are after all, EU citizens and they should be able to move around as freely within the block, as the rest of us.Instead of marginalize and institutionalize them, perhaps we could start teaching them languages and the mentality of belonging in this continent.

Secondly, the migrant communities themselves, must learn to not only isolate, but discourage and hand over to authorities all suspects for a potential terror attack, or radicals. Just condemning after the did is done, does not do much to solve the problem. Islamists hurt them as much as the rest of the European society and we should all unite against any form or terror, homegrown or imported.

As for the newly arrived extremists, such as the case of the Tunisian man who killed three people in Nice, we will have to impose tougher Europe wide immigration laws. Radicals can enter from any point in our continent and can easily be connected to other like-minded people from across the block. Trying to control who enters Europe and who stays out, has nothing to do with racism, but security.Not everyone has the best intentions and why should they be allowed in after all.Plus, we cannot offer employment or the dream-life to everyone on this planet. We should rather promote stability and wealth across the globe, so potential migrants can achieve their full potential at home.

But to reach this goal, we also need to tackle another impediment. That of our own complex of past actions during the Holocaust and WW2, or the colonial era. Many crimes were committed by Europeans, against others of their kin and people native to the lands they colonized alike, in those times. Trying to atone ourselves by adopting too flexible laws on immigration, lack of debate and avoiding to address our integration issues, plus failing to admit that some of our policies are not working, only causes further anger, frustration and divisions among the people who inhabit our continent.

We have to realize that if it wasn’t Europeans colonizing the globe, it would be someone else. We should of course acknowledge the mistakes and the atrocities but also take into account that not only Europe used slavery and not the whole of Europe either. And despite all, Europe shaped most of the modern world with its expansionism. Many nations from Oceania, Asia, the Americas and Africa owe a big part of who they are today to European colonialism. The wealth-not just the financial but the cultural, architectural, artistic etc, that Europe enjoys today would not be possible without colonialism.

Europe would be poorer without it and thus the rest of the world too. In addition, there are two sides in this coin. Those were different times, shaped by different cultures and mentality. Must we hold accountable the ancient Romans and Greeks for having slaves too, or the Arabs and Ottomans or Vikings who had European slaves? A practice of the past must not poison our current relations with the world. Time to rid off our guilt and complex and move on, with more awareness and knowledge. That does not imply forgetting.

Immigration should stop being a taboo. Deportation of those who fail or refuse to integrate too. Perhaps others are more deserving and suitable to be given a chance to contribute to our societies and are being left out. Issues of race, religion or ethnicity should also cease to be impermissible. Why our very nature, which is rich and diverse, should be something that we are ashamed of discussing?

I would like to offer my sincere condolences to all victims of the latest attrocities, especially to those close to Samuel Paty. A teacher's role is to challenge his pupil's minds, train them for free thinking; not just to provide them with "chewed" digestible knowledge which they will have to memorize. In that aspect, France and Europe lost a good teacher, someone that I would like to have in a class teaching my kids. Rest in Peace.

Europe's East Mediterranean Fiasco.

In a post on Twitter, Turkey’s Minister of Transport and Infrastructure Adil Karaismailoglu, announced last Sunday that Turkey has expanded its search and rescue area of responsibility to cover the “Blue Homeland,” a doctrine which aspires to give Turkey control over the waters of the eastern Aegean and the northern Mediterranean.

In the map posted by Mr Karaismailoglu, half of the Aegean Sea- which is Greek and thus EU waters apparently, is assigned to Turkey's "Blue Homeland".That alone should have caused an uproar in the EU and Greece's European partners, but in reality after Germany's request, any decision on sanctions or action against Turkey, has been delayed until December.

Which of course means that Greece and Cyprus will have to just get used to Turkish ships violating their waters, while their European counterparts.. Are trying to achieve what exactly? The more they show disunity and reluctance in decisively dealing with Erdogan's government, the more he is going to test Greece and Europe to get what he wants.He will push it as far as he can, to challenge the EU.

Turkey has been signaling its intentions for some time now, yet Europe is unable to make up its mind on how to deal with its growing aggression and confidence. The involvement of Turkish troops in Northern Syria, Libya, the support towards Azerbaijan in its ongoing war against Armenia, never mind its treatment of Greece and Cyprus, should worry Europe. But for now, Germany remains calm and eager to appease Erdogan.

It is understandable that many EU countries have interests in Turkey and not just Germany; Italy, Malta, Spain, the Netherlands too, have agreements with the Turks. However if they do not act towards Turkey in the same way they acted against Belarus and Russia over Lukashenko and Navalny's poisoning, any efforts of the EU achieving credibility as a world player and political power, will be laughable. What use the EU will have, if it cannot protect its own member states from a third country, even on purely financial terms.

Recently Greece has signed some very successful agreements for gas exploration in the region with Israel and Cyprus. It also saw some billion worth investement from Microsoft. They are all in jeopardy if Greece enters into a war or conflict with Turkey, so it begs the question: does Europe really wants to see a prosperous and stable Greece and Southern Balkan region?

Right now the block is bound together by primarily financial agreements, with any effort for a single foreign policy and a bigger role in the world affairs, being blocked by national governments and their interests. Who can take seriously the EU then, if it mainly shoots its arrows towards Russia and China, which are foremost a threat to the American hegemony.

The only country which tried to bring some attention to its cause, was of course Cyprus. The tiny island nation took a stand and blocked sanctions against Belarus, if the same was not in consideration for Turkey. In the early October EU Summit however, it compromised and conceded to pressure from its partners, to give up its veto. We can only imagine what promises or threats its EU peers made, in order for Cyprus to agree.

Perhaps the recent decision by its government to give up its "golden passport" scheme, in which Cypriot- thus EU passport and effectively citizenship could be sold to millionaires from around the world in exchange of a hefty lump-sum, is a clue. The EU had its sight on this scheme for some time now, so most likely Cyprus had to give it up in exchange of something that is yet to be revealed.

Because Cyprus is not the only EU member state that adopted such practices. Malta and Bulgaria have the same scheme in place and although they have had similar criticism, they are yet to be compliant to the block's pressure, even it would be the right thing to do; a widespread EU ban on citizenship trade.

The island nation had it tough from Turkey since the '70s. Recently though, since Israel and Cyprus signed gas exploration deals, the Turks have been doing everything to harass and sabotage the Cypriot efforts. The aim of course is to pressure its leadership to accept co-exploration, or face permanent partition of the island.

In the recent election in the so called "Republic of Northern Cyprus", the Turkish Cypriot hardliner-Ersin Tatar, a nationalist who favors stronger ties with Turkey, scored a surprise victory.The ousting of the pro-unification incumbent president Mustafa Akinci, is a clear statement of Turkey's bluff or intentions.

When the EU accepted the Cypriot Republic as a member, it very well knew what it was getting into. And although many would like to blame the Greek Cypriots for rejecting the disputed Annan Plan, which aimed to unify the country, they ignore the obvious failings of the proposals that the plan included.

In the plan, Turkey was granted rights to interfere with the treaty between Egypt and the Republic of Cyprus on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone. Cyprus' rights to its Continental Shelf in the south would have also been answerable to Turkey, which was also granted the right of stationing Turkish troops on the island of Cyprus perpetually, again making full independence impossible.

The Ethnic groups in Cyprus are Greek 77%, Turkish 18%, other 5% of the population. The Annan plan equated the representation of the two major ethnic groups in the proposed Senate and in the Supreme Court giving 50-50 representation to the two communities. The majority becomes a minority in important decision centres.

The above are only a few reasons why the Greek Cypriots rejected such humiliating agreement, not to mention that they British bases on the island were never discussed, nor any compensation for property lost to the Turkish settlers. In fact, all of them would be granted citizenship or residence rights leading to citizenship. Those settlers opting to return to Turkey would be compensated by Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. Even though Turkey systematically brought in the settlers to alter the demography of the island, it had no responsibility for their repatriation.

It becomes obvious that this plan was drafted in order to humiliate the Greek Cypriots, or to make sure they rejected it. Given the fact that if the Cyprus dispute was resolved, it could potentially pave the way for a Turkish entry in the EU, or at least signal the removal of a major obstacle, it is no wonder that such preposterous demands were made in it.

In other words, the interests of big powers and players in the region, decided the future of the island, its relationship with Turkey, its place in the EU, the Turkish relations with the block and so on. Who is paying the price for vested national interests in the region? Once again, the Greeks and the Cypriots, the EU's periphery and the whole of East Mediterranean and South Balkans.

With a Turkey so volatile, desperate and angry at Europe's rejection, false promises and delays in what it promised or agreed (we can only speculate what Europe discussed with the Turks over the refugee crisis, the ongoing EU membership bid etc), Greece, Cyprus and the whole region can never find peace and without it, no prosperity or stability. Who will be paying for this in the long term? The European tax payer of course.

If Greece and Cyprus require constant help with their finances, or "overspend" in buying German, Dutch, French, Italian, British and US weaponry, then no one can expect to see his taxes spent in investing in green industries in the region, as the EU aims for the future. Unless of course these plans are drafted only for the core EU members, not the peripheral ones.

Europe must come into a decision about Turkey and soon. The more it lingers in order to save and serve its financial interests in the country, the more harm it is done in the region. Either sanction the Turks into conformity, kick them out of NATO, or negotiate their real demands behind their stance; Erdogan must want something promissed badly to repeatedly blackmail the EU. Since Europeans do nothing, this will continue to the detriment of East Mediterranean, Cyprus and Greece.

Non action is not an option and European leaders know it,yet are afraid of dealing with the aftermath and concequences. Which is of course, another European fiasco in its efforts of a single foreign policy and influence in-nevermind the world, but primarily its own doorstep.

Europe should learn how to decide without national vetoes.

At a recent debate in the Dutch Parliament about the gruellingly debated EU corona virus recovery fund, the country's Prime Minister Mark Rutte openly asked "can you make a budget via an intergovernmental agreement, or can you found an EU without Hungary and Poland?"

That is an understanable expression of frustration, given the recent developments in the two countries. Both Hungary and Poland, are showing total disregard of European values, using only the block's funds for their leaders to stay in power. Either they like it or not, they resemble more of a Soviet republic than a Western one, although it is Europe that funds them.

However apart the fact that technically the EU has not such powers to expell any member state as Rutte hinted, what can it do bring these countries in line with its values?

To be frank, not much aside from limiting access to finances or potentially restricting voting rights in the EU Council. For example, the Article 7 procedure can lead to member states losing their right to vote in the Council.

But determining that a member state is in breach with EU fundamental values, requires EU countries to agree unanimously. Something that will be difficult to achieve, while having two member states breaking lines with the block's values simultaneously.

Not to mention, that if we go down this road of expelling countries out of the EU, where do we draw the line? In the past, many called for Greece's expulsion due to the eurozone crisis and its handling by the Syriza government. Then others argued, that Germany should leave, as it is the one dominating the block to the detriment of others.

Recently many were angered by Cyprus' veto on the proposed sanctions against the Belarusian leadership and the Lukashenko regime. They also called for its punishment and expulsion. If we insist on kicking out members when they aparently behave "un-European", then we will end up with a union with no members at all.

Previously even the Netherlands itself have blocked decisions, rejected treaties or stirred the waters in the block, by trying to promote its own interests. In fact, there isn't a single country in the EU that hasn't used its veto, broke laws and treaties they signed, was fined by the EU Commission or was not ready at the time they joined the block or the Eurozone.

That is the sad reality about Poland and Hungary too. Just like the introduction of the euro in some countries like Greece, their entry in the EU was a political decision rather a confirmation of their readiness. In just 15 years, they went from Soviet satelite states, straight into the West's arms.

Yet it is now evident that while they were keeen to reap the financial advantages to rebuilt their nations and distance themselves from their former communist rulers, socially and politically they were not ready to withstand the changes and challenges. Becoming a stable and sucessful capitalist and most importantly, a liberal and multicultural society, took some of the more progressive countries of Europe, more than 31 years to achieve.

How can we expect the Polish society to reach the same level in less than a generation? No matter how outraging and disappointing is, to watch these two very promising European countries sliding backwards to what they were running from, we got to admit that European integration is a process.

It has its hick-ups and disputes, disasters and victories. Each country progress as an EU member and a society at its own pace. In addition, since democracy is our political system of choice, by default we have chosen the most difficult road to govern ourselves and our supranational institutions. It may offer choice and fairness, but it is harder to achieve a desired goal or unanimity.

As of recently, taxation and foreign affairs are the last bastions of EU law-making that still require a unanimous vote by member states. That can become frustrating in many cases, when like in the case of Belarus the EU failed to reach an agreement because of Cyprus, or when discussing tax harmonisation across the block, something the is strongly opposed by Ireland.

That is having a serious impact both on the reputation of the EU abroad, as it can never be seen as a reliable mediator with a robust foreign policy. Nor of course can it achieve further economic integration in the eurozone, without harmonization of its taxation.

Yet, if we ever decide to remove any unanimity in the EU decision making, there will be countries that will veto the removal of the national vetoes and they won't be necessarily Poland, Hungary or Ireland. The big nations of EU like Germany or France, also like their independent foreign policy and influence in the world, so it is doubtful they will easily concede their interests.

Therefore, we are going in circles. We cannot bypass impasses like the Poland-Hungary veto on a potential enactement of the Article 7 procedure, because we still think individually according to our national interests, which of course suits everyone but when we need to act and reform the EU.

If only EU member states truly committed to each other, apart from their shared financial interests. If every country acted like France, initiating support for Greece against Turkish aggression, then states like Cyprus would not have to veto another decision in order to draw attention onto its own problems.

Because Cyprus' actions, do not come as result of its support for the Lukashenko regime in Belarus, rather the reluctance of most EU states to adopt a decisive hard line against Turkey. As a last resort and in an attempt to twist the arm of its partners, Cyprus had no choice but to act selfishly.

All this could be avoided if Europeans realized that maintaining the veto advantage is a sign of mistrust, immaturity (in European political integration terms), lack of unity but most importantly understanding. If I need to have a veto, to force my interests or point of view onto my partners, with which my economy is so entwined that if I fail they suffer the consequences too, then clearly there is something wrong or incomplete in this agreement.

To fix this, it will need something more than talks of "kicking out" members, blaming others for the faults in the eurozone, sidelining and gaining advantage via financial malpractices which assist tax avoidance in other EU countries, or accusing third nations of meddling when you are happy to receive financial support by them; undermining of course the partnership with other member states you agreed by joining the EU.

I am afraid the only way to sort the EU is by establishing a moral compass firstly within the block, then try to inspire or encourage third countries to adopt it. Europe seems too keen on telling how others should behave, yet among its own members we observe an absolute cacophony of interests that naturally do not inspire others to follow its example, nor respect the EU as a whole and take it seriously.

Although it is the nature of democracy to have conflicting ideas and interests, colliding against each other in order to form a consensus, a veto is a sign of weak foundations. An incomplete design, that cries selfishness or indifference not only by the member state that breaks the rules or uses it, but often by its partners that have a complete lack of undestanding or respect of its point of view.

In other words, if the EU wants to have a robust and legitimate democracy and effectiveness on decision making, it better stop looking like the UN and start resembling increasingly the USA or any other federal state. If it insists to remain under the UN arrangement, then this is a sign that its members are not always allies or partners in a "union", but often competitors and enemies just like the US is to China or Russia in the UN. Only these countries do not share a currency or a single market, which if they collapsed they would ruin all in it.

A new Belarus for a future Europe.

Even during a pandemic, political developments haven't stopped in Europe. Some of them particularly have the potent of altering our continent's future image and balance. Since the outcome of the early August presidential election in Belarus, the country has been engulfed by protests and social unrest.

After the aparent "victory" of Alexander Lukashenko by approximatelly 80% of the votes, Belarusians have had enough. Their leader has been in power since 1994 and although he "won" the elections, he has lost the country.

The reasons for the country's citizens' response maybe complex and varied, but no one can deny their disaproval and wish for change. The protesters now march for new fair elections, Lukashenko to resign and a recount of election result.

After tolerating for a long time bad financial policies, authoritarianism, nepotism and corruption plus electroral fraud, the country decided that it is time to turn a page in its history.

Their neighbors in Russia have the same ruling President and elite for a similar amount of time, but either the West likes it or not and although his popularity is dwindling, the Russians are not as willing to rid of Putin just yet. We haven't seen such massive countrywide protests in Russia yet, to try and overthrow him.

The Belarusians though clearly had enough. The unrest started peacefully as demonstrations, but it wasn't long before it turned violent with currently 5 people reported dead, numerous others missing, hundrends injured and thousands arrested.

On 1 September, in a statement by the human rights experts of the United Nations, more than 450 documented cases of torture and ill-treatment of detainees were mentioned, including sexual abuse and rape of women and children.

During this time, Europe has been observing and being vocal about the developments in Belarus, openly condemning Lukashenko and his supporters. However as usual, it is slow to take decisive actions. Sadly, it doesn't have the power to do much, but monitor closely.

The EU and Belarus never had strong ties. The country under Lukashenko decided to remain in Russia's sphere of influence, becoming one of the founding members of the Eurasian Economic Union established in 2014, together with Russia and Kazakhstan.

There have been even indications by Lukashenko that he was been presurised by Putin to accept further intregration of the two countries, literally merging Belarus into Russia. That was stated as recently as in early 2020. This could be another reason why Lukashenko is being rejected by his own people now, or there could be additional motives behind the protests.

Lukashenko claimed that the riots are staged by the West, to weaken Russia and its sphere of influence. He warned that if the uprisisng is successful in Belarus, Russia will be next. However, just before the election, Belarus arrested 32 private Russian military contractors on charges of planning to stage riots.

The incident was downplaid by Putin later on, yet we cannot exclude any possibility that the protests are orchestrated or used by either Russia and the West, in order to change or maintain the status quo in the region.

No matter what version of truth we choose, our concern should lie with the Belarusian people and their struggle to stabilise their country as it hopefully transits towards democracy.

But what could Europe do? If it sanctions the country's economy, it will only hurt the ordinary people that it tries to help. Wether the EU insists on such measures, then these must be applied solely against Lukashenko and his inner circle, plus anyone responsible for whichever kind of violence and human rights violations.

Even so, Lukashenko will not feel the pressure, as his assets and interests lie in Russia. The EU needs the colaboration of the UN, to monitor the situation and prevent further chaos or worsening of human rights violations. For the time being, that is the only help it can provide to Belarus, together with offering refuge to escaping opposition leaders, or financing their efforts and networks.

But what of the future of Belarus and its relationship with the rest of Europe? Many suggest that the country should come closer to the EU. But in reality that can prove very diffucult. Belarus' population, includes roughly 8.3 % ethnic Russians. Around 70% of its households are Russian speaking, with only 30% of its citizens speaking Belarusian at home.

If Ukraine is having problems in moving decisively towards the West and becoming more integrated in the European institutions, what chances does Belarus have in achieving such goal? For the time being, it would be wise to focus on the democratization of the country and removing Lukashenko from power.

If the Belarusian Democracy Movement, as the protests are referred to, is successful and force Lukashenko to step down, then Europe and Russia must be willing to negotiate the new status in the region, but not only in Belarus. Since Russia fears and protests at any Western expansion to the East, then Ukraine and Belarus could become buffer zones and bridges between the two realms.

But that will mean no NATO membership for either of them, with the EU and Russia hopefully being able to put their differences aside, becoming engaged and collaborators in both nations, stabilizing Eastern Europe for good. That will naturally prove very tricky, given the anti-Russian sentiment deep rooted in Eastern EU member states, plus Russia's view of them. Ultimatelly though, it should be up to Ukrainians and Belarusians to deside where their future lies.

The real danger is that the movement is compromised and betrayed by Europe, the US, Russia and the UN, to maintaining the status quo and avoid rocking the boat too much to serve individual nations' interests. Or maybe prevent the risk of another civil war and a Ukraine-like situation. Then the sacrifices of the Belarusian people will be for nothing and all parties will be to blame.

It is time for Russia, the US and the EU or its indivisual states, to stop promoting their affairs in the region and start thinking collectively. The stability and prosperity of Europe benefits everyone, especially the countries in the EU and Russia. It will be wise to abandon the stand-off and find solutions that will actually be lasting. Europe in particular, will gain hugely by a democratic Belarus, but Russia has nothing to lose if it maintains its close ties with the country, while bettering its relations with the EU.

The Belarusian, European, Ukrainian and Russian people deserve a better future together, either as good neighbors or partners. Let us not destroy it due to our inability to see past Cold War crimes and mistakes. Belarus, the best of luck, hopefully a brighter future awaits you.

NATO has become "brain-dead", but the EU is risking the same fate.

 

credits: gcaptain.com

While Europe is focusing on Covid-19 and the Belarus election result is currently dominating the news, another region of our continent is heating up again. The Eastern  Mediterranean is critically volatile, with Greece and Turkey at loggerheads once more.

And albeit Europeans perhaps are so used to these two bickering and their squabbles are not worth mentioning any longer, this time things are different. 

If Europe ever wants to prove itself as competent or willing to deal with crises and become a world player, well it would make sense to start from its own backyard. 

Our elites are more than happy to sanction Russia for invading Ukraine and Georgia, or Belarus' Lukashenko regime nowadays, however when it comes to Turkey they look after their own interests.

That constitutes any talk or ambition of a common European foreign policy or influence in the globe's affairs as a joke. For the past year and a half, Turkey has been harassing two EU members, Greece and Cyprus, over their intentions of exploring potential gas and oil reserves in their waters.

In addition, both nations have signed a gas pipe agreement with Israel, cementing their influence in the East Mediterranean region. That naturally annoyed Turkey, which felt left out and wanted a piece of the action. 

Faced with internal problems with a crumbling economy and dwindling lira, the Turks are so desperate to freeload on their neighbors' potential, or if not that then at least not let them develop their economy and get an upper hand in the region.

That is simply bulling, of the kind that a thug nation would practice towards other competing countries. Yet the worse part is, that Europe tolerates it. 

Greece's EU partners repeatedly scorned it for lack of financial development, reforms and the state of its economy in the past. But, when it tries to utilize its own resources, Europe is not being outraged when Turkey interferes with its efforts, plus in addition Greece has to spend billions in military equipment to protect itself from its "ally" in NATO.

Naturally, this constitutes NATO as a useless alliance for Greece, that not only helps it, but actually being detrimental to its economy. Even the French President Emmanuel Macron stated that NATO is recently "brain-dead," so it is doubtful that this alliance is of any benefit for the Balkan nation. 

Greece's other hope for support, the EU is also being too soft on Erdogan's regime. 

Numerous times in the past, the block simply "condemned" Turkish aggression and actions, but this is as far as it went, words and reprimands with sanctions only towards two private Turkish petroleum company owners. 

Of course the EU is of yet only an economic block, wanting to play the global power and influence the world, but even on solely financial terms, its stance does not make sense. 

One would think that European powers do not really want a strong and prosperous Greece, playing the role of a regional power in the Balkans, rather an unstable, easy to manipulate state. 

The country has become a de facto German colony  since the last Eurozone crisis, where it was called to bailout the zone's banks and became hostage to internal German politics, rather than its own. 

That puts in question Germany's true intentions in the region. Of all Greece's EU partners, only France showed full support and sent ships in East Mediterranean, angering Ankara even further. 

In last Friday's EU minister's meeting, the block again showed support towards Greece and condemned Turkey's actions, by doing nothing; no sanctions but another joined statement and a view to monitor the situation "closely" with a potential decision to be made later in August in Berlin. 

This fiasco has been going on for too long and at some stage Europe needs to decide what to do with Turkey, or define its future relationship with it. Understandably there are a lot of financial interests involved from all sides, as many EU member states have close ties with Turkey, especially Germany.

However, if they do not help Greece again this time, they will have to drag the country for ever financially. Stability-whether this is political or economic- in a region brings prosperity. If a country has to spend constantly billions to fend off a hostile nation, then it can never fully reach its potential. 

To make matters worse in Greece's case, the competitor is an ally in NATO and none of the other members of this alliance have been able, or willing to decisively mediate and solve this dispute for good.

Perhaps it suits them to sell their billion euro worth of arms to both Greece and Turkey and while these two bicker, their partners get richer. Or in the case of the EU, its members' financial interests in Turkey, prevent them from voting for sanctions towards the country, which could seriously hurt their pockets. 

There is no way around this I am afraid. If Turkey is not put in its place, it will just continue to intimidate two EU members and that makes a mockery of the so called "solidarity" of the block. If Europe cannot protect its own states, how on earth can it convince others to listen to it and take it seriously, or ask it to mediate in other conflicts. 

In addition, if its periphery is in constant threat and danger, it will never recover economically and that is a bad thing even if the EU decides to remain a solely a trade block. If that is the case, then we better leave any effort of a single foreign policy aside and allow Greece to seek allies elsewhere, that are more decisive and willing. 

Right now the country is tied by its alliance with NATO and an increasingly assertive EU that sees itself, or at least tries to do so, as a potential global player. Greece's membership to these two institutions limit it from forming alliances with Russia, China or other Middle Eastern regional powers, hostile to Turkey.

So unless Europe wishes to remain only a trade organisation and allow its states to independently forge alliances with anyone they wish, Greece has no other option but to seek its partners' assistance.

If they decide not to stick by it, or veto any decision that will be of any benefit to Greece just to serve their interests in the region and Turkey, then the Greek government will have no option but to do the same in other matters that may arise, which are harmful to its partners. Or block any new members like Albania with considerable Turkish influence from joining EU, thus adding further obstacles to any potential Turkish sanctions.

That is not a sign of a healthy union, if countries veto decisions solely on financial interests or vindictiveness and not moral obligations and ethics. I personally do not wish to be part of such institution, I would rather just have a trade block for the economic benefits of it, but be free to form military alliances with anyone powerful and willing enough to support my country in any predicament. 

The solution of course would be a single foreign policy and a common EU army, that would defend decisively all the block's outer borders from Finland to Greece and from Cyprus to Portugal. But that has been stopped until now by unwilling member states which want the economic advantages of the block, but do not want to risk further political integration.

If the EU and its states continue hesitating and backstabbing each other on key security issues, then soon enough the block will remain together solely on finances, however as we have seen until now, they are a cause of arguments too.

Europeans cannot agree on the union's budget, blaming and slandering each other as lazy tax-evaders or Nazi and tax havens, for about every 10 years when the economy goes from boom to bust. In every crisis the knives are out and while we all know what it needs to be done in order to streamline decision making in the block, especially in the Eurozone, we are reluctant to accept it. 

It won't be long, when the citizens of another nation fall for yet a new push by a populist or nationalist Eurosceptic party for a referendum on the country's EU membership. If it is successful and a second member leaves the block, that will be the end of it. 

Since all the citizens see is bickering and arguing over the budget and who will pay the bill, plus governments being untruthful to their voters and never revealing the true benefits of EU membership and try to blame the euro or other member states for their country's struggling finances, then there is a toxic mix put in place. 

The EU needs to offer other benefits to its member states, apart from trade and a periodic prosperity. If we are going to stick together, we will have to start committing to this project and to each other in all aspects and since the US is preoccupied with itself lately, security is a field that we should be focusing on; starting from the Eastern Mediterranean.