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. 

Quo Vadis Europa?

For the past decade Europe has shown an incredible resilience to consecutive waves of crises. After the Eurozone one, came the refugee and the Syria crisis, then Brexit and now we face a global pandemic, which unquestionably has tested our unity once again.

And while it is easy to focus on the numerous fiascos, the nationalist drama, the chauvinist attitudes of various member states, the loss of appetite for further integration or expansion, the EU is becoming slowly but surely, more functioning and united, albeit the many tantrums and under the belt accusations, sidelining and smearing campaigns, or the sliding towards authoritarianism of some members.

And that is because, mainly the two driving forced of the block, France and Germany, have finally realized that if the block fragments further, it will be bad for everyone on the continent. The French President in particular Emmanuel Macron has long called for "More Europe" and tried to reform his own country, despite the numerous protests that erupted. He has managed to convince the German Chancellor about a U-turn on corona bonds, was one of the few European politicians that openly called for a European army and even tried to re-approach Russia. No wonder he faced a backlash back home.

However there many issues that need to be worked on, in order for Europe to fulfil its potential and not only financial ones. And they exist in every member state.

If we look towards the Central and Eastern Europe, we got a number of countries sliding backwards to what they tried to escape from in the past, authoritarianism. The most disappointing of them is Poland, which not only turned euro-skeptic from being a very enthusiastic member, but both on a national or local level, it trashes core European values nowadays.

The establishment of LGBT free zones in some of its municipalities resemble with first steps to fascism, plus in addition it plans to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, scrapping the protection from domestic violence for many individuals.

As a society, they have a long way to go in order to mature and accept that LGBT individuals can be an asset to any country, as they often are highly creative, educated and since they do not have the burden of child bearing, they can contribute massively in their society.

Blocking them from expressing their sexuality openly, can only force them to flee to another country, where they can have their unions recognized and be themselves. Who will lose out? The Polish society of course, but they cannot see this just yet, blinded by religious conservative fundamentalism.

The EU rightly decided to withhold funds towards Polish towns that abide by these laws, however their elites found another trick: enter US Army bases and their cash, fleeing from Germany. It is peculiar to see that Poland is so fixated to erase its Soviet past and have a clean break from Russia, that is keen in becoming another power's lap-dog, this time America's.

Naturally the US under Trump, is not a beacon of freedom anymore, whilst itself in a crisis within, both financially and socially. They are more than happy to befriend Poland, although the country increasingly resembles Russia, which the Americans despise; or do they?

The Germans on the other hand, protest on local level on the US army withdrawal, obviously miffed about the loss of income and revenue from the American troops. It is hard to wean from decades of cash injections, however it is time to grow up as a nation and a continent. Have they ever really thought on what do they have to give back to USA, for its "protection" and cash handouts?

Besides, this move is a clear evidence of a change of a status quo: Germany and America are drifting apart, and the US is trying to punish or black mail the Germans on their "disobedience" and lack of willingness to contribute more to NATO's budget. Yet, the German leadership does not seem that bothered, as of now.

They are happy to fill the US gap, on the Greek-Turkish negotiations over the Aegean dispute, acting as a deal broker between the two rivals, which are apparently NATO allies. The two nations have been at odds over the potential oil exploration in the Aegean, with the Turks openly and without shame, challenging Greece's AOZ.

While the rest of Europe only watches, finally Germany decided to calm things down. If Turkey was Russia and Greece Ukraine, no doubt Europe would be up in arms, however for Greece different rules apply. Understandably Germany has huge interests in Turkey, just as USA does. But what does this say about the validity of NATO, if two of its members are constantly on the brink of war?

Instead of sanctioning Turkey as they do Russia, Europe leaves Greece and Cyprus to deal with Mr Erdogan's antics by themselves. France only offered its support, with the "kind" offer of two frigates ships that Greece must buy, in order to gain France's support. Talking about friends with benefits eh?

Elsewhere in Europe, we got Hungary and its ongoing clash with the EU. Happy to get the funds, forget about the obligations. Make no mistake, the country together with Poland and the Czech Republic, will do a Sweden and avoid euro membership for as long as they can. But that is not all that is troublesome with Hungary.

The country's attitude to freedom of the press worries and bothers the rest of Europe and rightly so. If the state is able to mute what it is being written and controls the press, then how can anyone criticize the government and any of its politicians. Things such as these happen only in Russia right? Wrong. Europe has its own troubles with press freedom and it gets worse.

The firing of Szabolcs Dull, the editor-in-chief of Hungary’s biggest independent news website, Index, in the beginning of July has political interference written all over it, according to Human Rights Watch. Hungary slides, Slovenia too as well as Malta, and Greece is not doing better either.

The Greek public is increasingly relying on social media and blogs for its information, being fed up with mainstream politics and media. But then they are seriously exposed to propaganda and misinformation with worrying results. Increase of hate crimes and racism is being noted, as numerous blogs fuel xenophobia.

We are used to blame the Far-Right, or our favorite scapegoat the Russians for all the misinformation campaigns, however we never look towards the Western part of our shores. The British made this mistake and let the likes of Rupert Murdoch pour bile against the EU for decades, with the obvious result of Brexit.

They are still blaming the Russians, yet they ignore the media mogul's role in their national disaster, or that of the election of Donald Trump in their close allies, the USA. Murdoch's media outlets actively contributed to both outcomes, but the British elites were either unwilling or powerless to stop him and provide counter information.

Perhaps they allowed him to achieve what they wanted for them, or they were so fearful of meddling with the country's press and appear or be accused by his newspapers of acting like Orban and Hungary, that they preferred to let a foreigner decide the future of the country. Either way, we are witnessing the two extremes in Europe when it comes to press freedom; either total control by the state, or by a media mogul through uncontrolled media liberty.

However one cannot blame the likes of Murdoch, without point a few fingers to the collective European governments, who systematically misrepresented to their citizens what the EU is doing for them and how it works.

For decades the "Frugal Nations" of four or five, presented themselves together with Germany and whilst hiding behind Britain, as the ones who are milked by the corrupt and lazy South. The truth is far from it and if we dig further, we will see that they are the ones actually milking the periphery of EU states.

As seen by this graph, the Frugal nations, together with those annoying cherry-pickers of the North and Switzerland, are the biggest beneficiaries from the Single Market.

No wonder the latter do not want to join the EU completely, as they will have to contribute more, thus lessen their benefits, plus of course the Frugals wish to keep things as they are and avoid further integration.

If the EU or the euro-zone become federal, thus allowing debt mutualisation in the block, they will not only lose the advantage they enjoy in the Single Market, but their top ratings from the financial agencies, thus weakening their borrowing capacity.

It is easier to blame and portray the peripheral states as lazy and corrupt, and offload the euro-zone's debt on them, while they can borrow with cheaper rates when they lend to the indebted South at a higher rate, thus making a profit out of their "partners". Does anyone still fall for their bluff and believe their nonsense in Europe? Well only if they are intellectually challenged.

In addition, many face the rise of the Far-Right in their own countries, so to appease their voters and keep the Right-wingers at bay, they put all the blame on other EU nations, for everything that is wrong in the block.

I cannot recall Europe being worried about the rise of the Greek Golden Dawn party as much, when it came to prominence after the harsh bail-out Greece had to accept by it partners and the Troika. Yet now the Frugals turn their internal political problems, intoEuropean ones. Not that the South or the Eastern countries, do not need necessary reforms and modernization.

But the whole of the EU needs it and that includes the Netherlands or every of Frugal nations. They can start by admitting to their citizens how much they gain from their EU membership in cash figures, not only stating how much they pay. And if they could scrap their tax haven status, see the Netherlands, then that will also be a very welcome bonus.

Regarding the South, I can only speak for Greece as I have never lived in another country apart from my native and Ireland. Greece has changed massively since I was growing up in the '80s and I moved to Ireland in 2004. It is not what it used to be, so to keep using it as a scapegoat and excuse for all that is wrong in the EU is unfair and outrageous.

Yes, it still has work to do, but usually its European partners demand more selling of its resources as a condition for any appraisal, not much concern exists on how it tackles its bureaucracy and red tape. So one could wonder on what are Greece's European partner's true intentions.

Even when they were threatening Greece to be kicked out of the euro and the negotiations about its bail-out were in full, heated mode, France and Germany tried to sell arms to Greece, albeit it being bankrupted.

They accused it of lying about its figures and statistics to enter the euro-zone, while it is something that all member states do and it is highly unlikely that the EU Commission was not aware of it. Ireland cooked its books for example in 2015 and presented to Brussels that its economy grew by 30% because of tax evasion practices.

Its GDP per capita surged and debt fell dramatically. The Commission accepted those figures but warned them that they would have to become net contributors to the EU budget and why would reject the Irish numbers, as it would bring more money into the block's cashiers. However as the Irish economy relies on false numbers, those who will pick up the bill again, are the Irish tax payers and if things go wrong, the European tax payers in the case of Ireland needing another bail-out in the future.

Yet, only Greece was shamed by Europe for doing what Ireland repeatedly does and understandably all other EU member states, with the blessings of the EU Commission and other financial institutions.

It is not a lie to say that the Greek elites waste or mismanage the money they receive from the EU, as a compensation and to balance the trade deficit that Greece suffers from its participation in the Single Market, as shown in the above table.

But it is also true that a lot of this cash, end up back in European banks in the forms of debt repayments, or Europe's companies especially those who sell arms and their governments. So if European tax payers want Greece to come clean about its misuse of funds, they have often no other place to look, from their own political and financial elites for explanations.

No wonder then, when the Greeks tried to get rid of the two establishment parties at the heist of the euro-zone crisis, PASOK and the New Democracy, it was the EU and the big European powers that threatened the Greeks not to vote for Syriza but to continue voting for the politicians who apparently lied about the country's finances.

And we got to admit, that if we wish to prohibit governments from abusing EU funds, then we need a EU body that will invest and distribute them directly in the regions or sectors needed, something that most nations reject as it will mean closer integration and a Federal Europe. Especially the citizens from richer countries. Few are ready for such development in our continent, although the movement is growing.

To conclude, unless the above issues are properly addressed and dealt with, together with numerous others that I would like to at some stage include, Europe will never reach its potential or overcome its impasse. It will be condemned in going in circles; for how long, depends from all of us. Our media and governments may sell us one side of the picture, it is however up to us to inform and educate ourselves and make appropriate decisions about our- shared hopefully-future. 

When will Europe uniformly learn to live with Covid-19?

pic: RTE News

Since the first cases of Covid-19 were confirmed in Europe, the continent found itself in yet another uncharted territory and utter chaos. Misinformation, panic, conspiracy theories, scaremongering, confusion, financial demise, EU infighting and divisions on how to deal with the economic fallout or recover from it.

Each country took it upon itself to lay a roadmap and safeguard its citizens from the new virus. Some became a good example, others faced harsh criticism on their decisions, while the UK and Sweden were seen illogical and bold in their approach. The truth is, nobody really knows what they are doing and how could they; we have never seen anything like this in Europe before.

Soon enough though, apart from the unnecessary daily death counts and new cases updates, served by our media who are cashing in big time by our uncertainty and fear, another harsh reality became apparent; that of the economic crisis and disaster following the Covid-19 outbreak.

Many industries like that of tourism, aviation, hospitality and catering, as well as that of music and show business, realized that their future was bleak. People were told not to go out and socialize, travel or attend events. Shops and retail outlets were closed for months, some permanently.

If we had to be informed about the daily number of businesses closing or people losing their jobs, due to Covid-19, the impact of the outbreak would certainly feel more dramatic and bleak, at least mentally.

As result, the EU and all European governments realized that they had no option but to start re-opening the economy, since the pressure from businesses and industries, SMEs but also citizens themselves which felt the emotional and mental impact of the virus, was mounting.

Many countries that rely heavily on tourism, particularly those in south Europe, fearing the economic consequences of having to close their countries and suspend one of their major industries' function, pushed for a pan-European solution.

What followed next, became another embarrassing tug of war between north and south, the rich nations of the EU and those most affected like Italy and Spain. Understandably, the Mediterranean region not only had to close their borders and economy for 3 months, but they will also see very few tourists during the summer season due to the pandemic. This is a recipe for disaster, however their sentiments were not shared by their northern partners like the Netherlands.

The group of countries the latter has formed, the Frugal 4, insisted on loans that had to be repaid and not on grants to deal with the economic impact, citing the lack of responsible financial practices by the South. Of course, they conveniently do not admit to their citizens how they can get loans with lower rates by the markets, then lend at a higher rate to their EU partners and actually make a profit out of them, strengthening their economies further, to the detriment of their borrowers.

Eventually the EU Commission and the Franco-German leadership had to intervene and strike a balanced compromise and deal, which has been hailed a huge success and a way forward for the block. The Covid-19 Recovery Fund has been finally agreed by our leaders, awaiting approval by our parliaments.

The Commission also kept encouraging the block's member states, to maintain open borders between them, allowing trade and the free movement, in order to strengthen the economic recovery. After dealing with the financial consequences of the virus, it is time to work on the social ones.

However, there is little appetite for traveling this summer in Europe, after months of scaremongering, false reports and misinformation. In addition, many also face loss of income upon their return, if they have to self-isolate after traveling abroad with no reimbursement or paid leave arrangements in place.

Thus, holidaying in the EU still looks something only for the brave, those working from home or the ones that have no other option. And that is because we have created an open society, with no borders. Many of us work, live or study in a member state other than our own, with family back home, older parents that are often sick or other obligations.

How can Europe go on with closed borders or a crippled freedom of movement and for how long? Instead, it should finally decide to act collectively and uniformly plus get used to living with our new reality, while maintaining as much of our previous routine and living standards as possible.

Make face masks compulsory across the EU to allow travel. Enforce common social distancing practices across the block and decide how to deal with new outbreaks that will inevitably occur sporadically. Perhaps instead of closing off a whole country, we could only see localized lock downs.

The time of wild partying and clubbing holidays should now be suspended, as when people get dunk in cramped spaces it is undoubtedly a recipe for disaster. But that does not mean that more family styled holidays should be avoided, if the tourists keep the same practices in the country they are visiting as if they were back home; wearing masks, social distancing and respecting local practices like queuing and opening hours.

We should have the same chances of contracting Covid-19 at home or abroad within the EU, if we observe the same precautionary measures. Medical testing should become the norm at borders and in tourist hot spots. The existing EU Health Card should be put forward, to help dealing with new cases while holidaying in the block, just in any other ailment while traveling in the EU.

Covid-19 certainly poses new challenges and tests our abilities to cope and act in unity. But we should not allow it to divide us or retract to our national borders. Our strength is our freedom and openness, so if we were to alter they way we live for the long term, then we would not only be defeated by a virus; we would fail in proving to ourselves and to the world the purpose of the society we have created.

Can NATO membership be separated from EU aspirations?

Growing up in Greece, I often came across the widespread slogan from the country's Communist Party (KKE); "EEC and NATO, the same syndicate".

Back then, I was slightly dismissive about it, not wanting to side with neither dominant ideology of Greek politics; left or right.

However, one cannot fail to notice that in recent years, this is very much the case.

Following the 2004 big-bang EU enlargement, we also had a NATO expansion to the East. Many of the new member states in either block, have been former USSR republics, or belonged to the Warsaw Pact. Excluding Cyprus and Malta, all continental central and Eastern European new members, have joined both organizations.

Something that we did not necessarily witnessed in previous EU enlargements. When Ireland and then later Austria, Sweden or Finland joined the union, they were not encouraged to become a member of the NATO alliance. In fact, none of them ever joined.

Since 2004 though, the trend of a joined EU/NATO membership for all Europe's eastern nations prevails. The problem is, that many have strong ties with Russia still, or are considered to be in the Russian sphere of influence, by the Russian elites.

In addition, some of them-like Ukraine, have a substantial Russian and Russian-speaking population. So if Europe is serious about engulfing and including these countries in its institutions, how will this affect its relations with its biggest neighbor and a key trade partner?

Both NATO and the EEC, later to be reformed into the EU that we know today, were born after the disastrous WW2. In order to keep the Soviet threat and influence out of Western Europe, our leaders aligned our nations with USA and Canada, forming one of the world's most formidable blocks and military alliances.

The EEC however, was formed out of a vision and idea, to permanently unite our continent, integrating it to a certain extend, that it could never go to war with itself again. Since its creation and step by step, Europe has morphed into a kind of confederation.

It has taken some very bold actions to integrate its members' economies with the creation of the euro and the single market. It has become the world's biggest trade block, although it lacks the political uniformity still, to become a serious world power.

Yet, not all are as rosy as expected in both organizations. The EU has just lost one of its oldest members-the UK, and it seems reluctant to continue integrating, constantly bickering with itself and among its members; sadly, it is always about money.

On the other hand, many do not see the point of NATO anymore. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the alliance tries to redefine itself and justify its purpose. Even the French President Emmanuel Macron has stated last year, that the alliance is becoming "brain-dead".

So what is the point of keep expanding it, since Europe does not face any military threats nowadays. If it is just to annoy Russia, it is a very petty excuse.

I am aware that many of the former USSR and Warsaw Pact members, are wary about Russian influence in their countries and they need support to limit it. But there is a difference between becoming more independent from your former ruler, than giving in to Russo-phobia and hysteria.

Besides, a number of them lately, have failed to maintain their pro-European momentum and core EU values, opting to slide back-oh the irony- to a more authoritarian government. Their anti-Russian sentiment, is masking perhaps a blind nationalism together with financial interests.

In order to gain the favor and some cash from the US, in exchange for military and arms sales and the establishment of expensive missiles and defense systems, many Eastern European countries are rushing to join NATO.

Make no mistake, USA accounts for over one third of the global arms exports by itself. In addition, other NATO members, like France and Germany, also rely heavily on sales from the same industry. Limiting military expenditure in Europe, would seriously harm their economies and no president of theirs, will ever actively seek such goal in his/her term.

However, even the USA itself is lately tired of financing and "protecting" countries that not even its President can name. So all the expansion efforts seem meaningless, unless we still think that Russia is out to destroy Europe.

It is no secret the two sides have been increasingly at loggerheads over a number of issues: Ukraine, Georgia, espionage, oil and gas prices and pipes, Syria. It is slightly ridiculous at this stage and the blame falls in both sides.

Both Russia and the US-with the still weak and patronizing European governments, fail to accept that the world has changed and does not, plus it should not evolve around their bickering anymore. It is not viable for countries to have to chose either, instead of establishing constructive relations with both, to a certain extend.

Yet the Russians desperately want to maintain their "sphere of influence" and restore their status as a super power. The West has exactly the same complex and seeks to keep Russia down, preventing it from ever recovering fully financially, attacking its economy with sanctions, slandering and engaging in anti-Russian propaganda and establishing missiles across their European borders.

Is it any wonder why then Russia, turns up its espionage and misinformation efforts, attacking Europe anyway it can? If we keep pointing our weapons towards Russia, they will do the same to us. In addition, no one in the West is realizing that the more we push Russian away, China will be more than happy to welcome it.

Russia will never go away geographically, it will always be on our doorstep. And if we ever decide to allow Ukraine in the EU, it is not wise to keep aggravating our relationship with Moscow. Ukraine can join the EU, but perhaps they should refrain from joining NATO altogether and opt for a more Finnish approach to the West.

They can act as a buffer zone between the two "spheres of influence", or even better, a bridge. In addition, as it has been already suggested by President Macron, Europe should form its own military defense mechanism, which although will maintain its ties with USA and Canada, it will become more autonomous.

New EU member states, such as Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, won't be required to join NATO, just as Sweden or Austria have not, thus keeping US missiles and interests away from Russia, partially appeasing them.

It remains to be seen then, if the Russians will be happy with such arrangements and engage to an updated relationship with Europe. If they insist on keeping Ukraine and other countries away from a new EU, then the blame will be entirely theirs from then on.

The time of bullying countries into our "sphere" is bygone, we are heading towards a new reality; that of a multipolar, global economy with no left-right division lines, rather nationalist/isolationist versus a more open, globalized society and economy.

If any nation state is to make any impact and increase its influence, it will have to rely on diplomacy, trade and openness, rather military, missiles, espionage and cold war practices. And that is something that all three-Europe, USA and Russia must consider.