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.

People's protests and government fiascos in Covid struck Europe.

As the winter season progresses, it is evident that there will be no easy way out of the Covid-19 crisis, or the government imposed lockdowns. Any hope people had with the arrival of the vaccines, are slowly being dashed by officials. Most of us had envisaged that after a year of sacrifices, our efforts would pay off and we could enjoy better times past the upcoming summer of 2021.

However, this will not be the case. With many new virus variants, delays in the vaccine administration, increasing numbers in new cases and deaths across Europe, never mind the financial and political interests involved in the process, we could well be in this crisis for the duration of the current year.

Yet people across the continent are getting tired. During the past few days only, numerous anti-lockdown protests took place all over Europe. In France, Denmark, Spain and the UK, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Slovenia, but also Hungary and Poland too, large numbers of people take to the streets, against Covid restrictions. And it is understandable.

The mainstream media and our national governments, as well as the EU institutions have a great share of blame for the situation. First of all, they have been unnecessarily bombarding the public, with constant and often contradicting information or data about the virus, in an effort to gain more exposure, readership and airtime. This inevitably became-deliberately or not, nothing more of a scare tactic, in effort to convince citizens to abide by the new policies. Secondly, many government officials, members of the royal families or ministers from various states, have themselves been caught breaking the rules. Instead of course trying to lead by their example.

European governments have often adopted peculiar legislations, in their efforts to tackle the pandemic. For example allowing one industry to remain open, while another ordered to shut, to safeguard public health. This created animosity among tradesmen and their employees. Many lost their jobs, others had to close their businesses as they are no longer profitable. Additionally, opening and closing the economy, giving into pressure from retailers or businesses from one hand and health officials from the other, created further confusion and frustration.

Still our governments have proven how ineffective they are, even when they are asked to deal with a virus that kills just over 2% of those infected and of course among people who are actually tested. Imagine what would happen if we had to deal with a far deadlier disease. While they were able to solve the banking and eurozone crisis in months, by using public money to bailout the banks instead of let's say strengthening our healthcare system, they now have granted all control to medical experts and advisers.

It is evident now where their priorities should be placed. For years we were encouraged to not expect free public health services, but to seek and settle with paying for private ones. Where are the private health insurance policy companies that many of us bought into, to save us and help Europe-one of the most affluent regions of the world, cope with this pandemic? We need hospitals and more healthcare workers, better paid and equipped. But obviously now this comes a little too late. We allowed public healthcare to become inefficient, in order for private companies to get richer with our money. Which is naturally of little use to anyone during this pandemic. To my knowledge, those with a private health insurance policy, do not get a ICU bed faster.

Then we had the vaccine fiasco, the first available coming from Russia. The Western countries went into a propaganda frenzy, doing anything they could to discredit the Russian scientific community, just because they do not like their country's leadership. Thus, we wasted months until we managed to produce a very similar one in Europe and the US. But of course, even then we could not agree to just get on with it. Germany and the US got into a dispute under former President Trump, who allegedly attempted to entice a German lab to develop a vaccine exclusively for the US, according to a German newspaper. Further delays were ensued.

Coincidentally, it was after Trump's defeat that the US multinational pharmaceutical company Pfizer, decided to release the vaccine it created. Does this justify Trump's Twitter rants who alleged that the Covid vaccine was delayed to defeat him in elections? Even if it is exaggerated, or one of his desperate attempts to remain in power, it was indeed after the US elections when not only Pfizer, but many other Western pharmaceutical companies that announced they came into agreement with the EU or national governments, to begin the distribution of their vaccine, during the first few weeks of 2021.

But even after all this, we witnessed yet another fiasco,with the AstraZeneca scandal and controversy. Its vaccine was approved for use in the EU on 29 January. The block signed a deal for 300 million doses in August, while the UK ordered 100 million doses and signed its deal in May. But supply problems have been announced by AstraZeneca, which blamed manufacturing problems on one plant in Belgium and another in the Netherlands. Reports suggested deliveries to the EU would be reduced to 31 million - a cut of 60% - in the first quarter of 2021.

This prompted criticism from the EU which claimed that it should not receive fewer doses just because the UK signed a contract earlier. It additionally accused Britain for "vaccine nationalism". AstraZeneca said the fact that EU contracts were signed later left less time to resolve problems in the EU supply chain. However the move backfired on the EU, as itself then faced criticism after its plans to prevent Northern Ireland from being used as a back door to funnel Covid-19 vaccines into the UK.

The controversy began when the European Commission looked set to override the Northern Ireland protocol, part of the Brexit withdrawal deal which allows for free movement of goods from the EU into Northern Ireland, preventing a hard border. The block had signalled its intention to trigger Article 16 of the protocol, to temporarily place export controls on the movement of vaccines amid an ongoing row with AstraZeneca. But this prompted a united front of condemnation both from the Irish and British governments, which in fairness worked tirelessly to avoid a hard border between the Republic and the North, during the Brexit negotiations. The fallout gave also N. Ireland's DUP leader Ms Foster, the chance to urge the UK prime minister to tear up and replace the protocol, which is designed to allow the free movement of goods from the EU into Northern Ireland and prevent a hard border.

After all this, Hungary became the first EU nation to finally approve the Russian Sputnik V vaccine, as the country's prime minister has said the only way the country can satisfy the demand for vaccination, given the "frustratingly" slow delivery of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, is by buying from Russia and China. Way to go Europe and USA, while for months you sought to outdo your competitors, either national, political, regional, or commercial, the rest of the world just gets on with the vaccinations as best they can.

Today, 5 months after the Russian vaccine has been available and in circulation, Europe is finally concidering it as a solution. It only took EU member states and the block in general, all this time to swallow the reality and come around, that in this pandemic there is no room for nationalism, politics and financial interests. While the rest of us are being told to stay at home, fined if we break the rules, mocked as tin foiled hatters if we disapprove and object to the lockdowns, see our businesses fail and our salaries reduced, our leaders think fit to play their power games, or give in to the financial interests of big pharmaceutical companies.

The solution is simple. Do whatever you can to secure as many vaccine doses from Western or Russian and other companies, and distribute them as soon as possible-preferably by mid-Spring, to the high risk groups and front line workers. Then allow the population to return to some sort of normality until September, when according to the EU itself, the block is aiming to have 70% of the block's population vaccinated and end this pandemic. We are not dealing with the most deadly virus we have ever encountered as a species, and if this is a test of what is to come with climate change at some stage in the future, we are most certainly in big trouble. If humanity fails to cooperate, but insists on placing petty disputes before our collective wellbeing, then the next pandemic will deffinitelly be far worse than this one.

A great month for Western democracy, January 2021.

January the first month of the new year, and we already have plenty of developments in the Western democratic front. First of all, in the "poster-child" and self declared beacon of the free world, we witnessed something which can be classified as embarassing, laughable and worrying at the same time.

On the 6th of January, a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, stormed the U.S. Capitol, aiming to prevent the formalization of President-elect Joe Biden's election victory.These rioters occupied, vandalized, and looted parts of the building for several hours, resulting in five deaths.

The storming of the Capitol was described by many as treason, insurrection, domestic terrorism, and an effort by Trump to carry out a coup d'état. The incident was a result of a number of actions by President Trump and his supporters, to keep him in power for at least another term. Trump announced plans for a rally before the January 6 vote count to continue his challenge to the validity of several states' election results. On December 18, he wrote on Twitter; "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" And sure it was.

President Trump was ardent that he was robbed of victory without any credible evidence to support that belief. Despite assurances from his own departments of Justice and Homeland Security that no serious fraud occurred, Trump has raged against the election result and mounted a relentless campaign to reverse Biden's victory.

From vote recounts to Twitter rants, presuring a top election official in a phonecall, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat, plus numerous lawsuits that followed, one could only wonder why he would not just let go. Even if we for one moment accept that all his claims were true, he could not actually prove anything. Every effort failed to justify his cause. The decent thing would be to admit defeat, step down and fight another day if he felt that he still had the American public's support. His actions, not only hinder any chance of him returning to American politics, but polarized and divided American society, damaged his party plus the image and reputation of his country abroad, as a democratic state.

As Europe was watching with disbelief, America was mocked by countries that itself had heavily criticised for the lack of democratic values, such as Belarus. Its President Alexander Lukashenko, in a meeting with International Ice Hockey Federation president Rene Fasel, for talks amid calls to move the world championship following mass protests against him, compared his country with the United States. “In our country, protesters and other dissatisfied people don’t storm government agencies and capitols,” Lukashenko said. “We have a completely normal situation from the perspective of the development of democratic processes.”

As we have only a few days left until the inauguration of Biden, one can only hope that this saga will come to an end, although it is doubtful that we heard the last of Trump. For him to be so desperate to cling onto power, he either had plans for America that did not want to be interrupted, feared as he had something to hide, or there are many powerful circles that desire a different America and backed him. No matter what, he managed to gain many devoted supporters and that ensures or indicates an inevitable change of course for U.S. politics. Even if the Democrats try to mend the damage done by Trump, they too will have to compromise, appeasing or winning back some of his voters, in order to stay in power. So Europe must be prepared for such development, in case.

Besides, our continent had its own fair share of political drama and instability. In just one week, three EU members had their governments imploding and resigning. Italy, the Netherland and Estonia are without a government effectively. All leaderships collapsed due to corruption, infighting, mismanaging and how they dealth the corona virus pandemic. The problem is, that in all three countries, far-right and euroskeptic parties are lurking, gaining influence, ready to pounce and grasp power. And if they do, Europe will have even a more difficult time to stay united, if it doesn't lose another member.

Italy's former premier Matteo Renzi said on Wednesday he was pulling his party's ministers from the cabinet, effectively leaving the ruling coalition without a majority in parliament. Renzi, who heads the tiny Italia Viva party, had long threatened to quit the government, complaining about Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte's plans over how to spend billions of euros promised by the European Union to relaunch the economy.

The country has been viewed as the "Sick Man of Europe" for years, with stagnant economic growth, rising poverty,emigration, political instability and euroskepticism. Since the last eurozone economic crisis, Italy has been engulfed in a bitter infighting over reforms,numerous goverment collapses, elections, coalitions, technocratic administrations, clashes with its EU partners over the block's budget. They just don't seem to get a grip and keep it together, or face the reality.

Italy, as all other former European powers, have not got over their former grandeur, influence and wealth. They fail to admit that they now need each other, as the world has dramatically changed since the time of European dominance. Many want things to remain as they are and they avoid reforms at all cost. Others wish for things to go back to what they were-like Britain, and left the EU altogether. Italy refuses to accept that its economy has been so integrated with that of other countries, that it cannot continue the way it has for decades. Reforms are painful but necessary.

They distanced themselves from Greece ten years ago, leaving it at the mercy of Germany and its allies, in an effort to avoid the same fate. "Italy is too big to fail", many economists were claiming back then, thus the Italian economy and politics were allowed to continue their antics for another decade. Now since the Covid-19 pandemic is threatening Europe with another financial crisis, in Italy the knives are out again, in order to safeguard vested interests in the country, to the detriment of the ordinary Italian and European citizens.

The country's rulers must understand and make a decision that they cannot have their cake and eat it. They willingly joined the eurozone and they are one of the founding states of the EU. To avoid reforms is daft at this stage. If Greece was forced to privatize, sell out and reform, so can Italy. Having said that, it remains to be seen if the Greek painful path will bear fruits, or it merely turned it into a German de-facto colony, something that both France and Italy refuse to accept for themselves. But then why didn't they stand by Greece, forming a block that could stop and counter-balance the German hegemony in Europe? They do not want to see their national companies and assets, being taken over by foreign-notably German buyers, yet they were happy to see the Greeks ones suffer this fate. What goes around comes around as they say.

In a twisted turn of events, Italy's recent nemesis-the Netherlands, also saw its own government collapsed, over a child benefits scandal. Thousands of parents were wrongly accused by Dutch authorities of fraudulently claiming child allowance, with many of them forced to pay back large amounts of money and ending up in financial ruin. The fact that some parents were targeted for investigation by tax officials because they had dual nationality also underscored long-standing criticisms of systemic racism in the Netherlands.

Well, we ought to remember how Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch former Minister of Finance and Eurogroup President, treated Greece, by demanding the country to open its financial books and records for inspection. Perhaps the Dutch should have primarily sticked inspecting their own books all these years, to avoid this embarrassment. If they equally focused on what was happening in their own country and national authorities, perhaps they could have coped on earlier and avoided this fiasco. But no, to them it is always the Southern EU states that need to get their taxation system in check, they dance and listen to music and drink wine while the hard working Dutch have to always pay for the tax evading Southerners. Clearly we can see that themselves are not so perfect and spotless after all.

This is a poor way to distract your public from your own faults dear Dutch government, by pointing out the faults of others. Again, what goes around comes around. When the Greeks were crying for mercy, their European "partners" threw them to the arms of the IMF to save their own economies.They accused them of not paying taxes, bothered by Greek farmers not declaring all their incomes, while they did not mind rich Greek companies tax evading by relocating their headquarters in countries like the Netherlands. They also accused them of retiring too early, but of course they forgot how generous is their own social welfare systems, offering benefits for life. Belgium's chomage technique, which not only is much higher than Greece's, but in principle unlimited, was never a cause of concern for the Germans and Dutch. Nor, the institutionalization of a part of Ireland's population, by keeping them permanently as welfare receipients, never mind the Scandinavian generocity in benefits.

And the Dutch scandal gets even more sinister, if we think that it is just a revelation of the reality in the country's government mentality, not a mistake or mishap. Because then, it indicates the fascist, racist nature of their policies and explains their contemptuous attitude towards Greece, Italy and Spain. They treat their migrant communities like second class citizens, when they present themselves as a very liberal nation, open and progressive society, ready to condemn others for their human rights abuses. If Greece pushes back a boat loaded with immigrants in the Aegean, they will be the first to criticise, as well and scorn Poland and Hungary for refusing to take them in. At least the Hungarians, although I strongly disagree and despise their attitude on this issue, are honest about it. Hypocrisy however is revolting.

The Netherlands to be fair, is not the only country that struggles with immigration. The whole of Europe does. But then we should stop pretending or keeping up the appearances and do something about it. Work collectively,by establishing a pan-European immigration policy which aims to attract the right immigrants, regarding their numbers, skills, educational background, countries of origin and length of stay. In this way, we can avoid the embarassing double standards, when we allow migrant families to settle in an EU member, offer them citizenship, only to treat them in this horrid manner, in an effort to stigmatize them and make them leave, or discourage others from coming. Yet, our national governments insist on keeping all policies and decisions ultimately to themselves, creating a messy, patchy mosaic or laws and regulations, detached from another state's.

The third country to become without government last week, was Estonia. Like many of the former USSR states and Central/Eastern European nations that joined the EU in 2004, Estonia enjoyed for over a decade an impressive economic boom. Yet, similarly to many others of this region, it can not easily escape its past, proving that democracy and capitalism in these countries are still fragile and vulnerable. In addition, it also indicates that for the EU periphery, like in the case of Greece and Ireland, economic prosperity or political stability are not guaranteed and secured for the long term. Thus, we need to collectively work on maintaining and promoting them, though this can only happen with a more active role of the EU institutions, something that all local, national elites dislike; they obviously want to hold on to power and influence over our national resources for themselves.

Estonia’s Prime Minister Jüri Ratas has ultimatelly resigned, after police and prosecutors launched an investigation into an alleged corruption scandal involving his left-leaning Centre party related to a impropriety, over the €39 million Porto Franco property development. Ratas just so happens to be in a power-sharing agreement, with the conservative Fatherland party and the Eurosceptic right-wing Conservative People’s Party of Estonia. And like most parties with populist ambition, they are opportunistic and seek to get in power by revealing or underlining government scandals. Thus, Ratas had no option but to resign, hoping the storm passes and regroup for the next election, in order to stop another Euroskeptic party edging closer to power.

To conclude and sum-up all of the above: We in the West must understand that democarcy can never be taken for granted. Even in the richest and strongest countries, things can easily be overturned. Therefore, we must always remain alert. Economies and political systems are constantly being in flux, thus any period of prosperity must be accompanied with preparations, investments and reforms, in order to deal with the eventual and inevitable downturn. Corruption and systemic faults exist in all countries, it is just some of them manage to deal with or cover them with their wealth, government cover-ups and media PR. The poorer a nation is, the more citizen corruption it experiences, due to the fact that its people do what it comes natural in such circumstances; struggle to survive.

For the European rich nations then to go an blatanly slander and scapegoat them, while themselves are enjoying different standards as they exploit their resources, is the worse kind of corruption itself. Inequality among members of a "union", renders it as non democratic, thus unworthy. In addition, we need to have an open debate on immigration and reform the relevant laws. It is clear that the approach that we adopted until now does not work. Out of complex of our colonial past, we allowed too many migrants in Europe, but then when we do not want them, we do something even worse to these communities: we treat them as second class citizens, we scapegoat and label them as lazy and corrupt scroungers, seeking to abuse Europe's generous welfare system. But by these actions, we risk allowing the Far-Right to gain more power, destabilizing our continent and societies, threatening what we have worked and built so far in Europe.

Us Europeans are all in this together, meaning that our societies and economies are largely integrated. So any kind of infighting only makes matters worse and ultimately, it must come to a decision. We either start cooperating as a group of nations, preferably by upholding the vision we all have already agreed to adopt, or we revise and reverse back to what we had before, with all the good and bad of a divided continent, always at each other's throats, with peace and prosperity only enjoyed periodically by most.

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.