What do the Russian Presidential Elections in March 2018, mean for Europe.

On Sunday the 18th of March, voters throughout the Russian Federation rallied to elect their president. As it was expected, Vladimir Putin won these elections, with a whopping 76% of the votes.

While the West was caught up in the Sergei Skripal poisoning case a week before the elections, or the alleged rigging of the voting procedure by government officials after, Putin managed to win yet again.

Despite all efforts from outside and within the country, Russian people seem to have found a figure who as they believe, is the best man to promote Russia's interests abroad. Resulting of course, in his reign in the country for nearly two decades.

We need to understand and accept that Russia is not a Western-style democracy, thus we can not expect them to act like one by force. When we apply sanctions, or ridicule and criticise their country, we only reinforce their support for the establishment.

Something that was indeed confirmed by Andrei Kondrashov, Putin's campaign spokesman. “Turnout is higher than we expected, by about 8-10 percent, for which we must say thanks to Great Britain,” he stated. (Financial Times)

One would indeed wonder why would Putin proceed with an attack on foreign soil, just before the presidential elections, since it would obviously result in further sanctions by Britain and its allies, plus a serious diplomatic incident.

If his administration's aim was to mobilize their voters in this way, then Britain mistakenly just helped them achieve this by over-reacting. Or perhaps the attack was instigated by Mr. Putin's enemies, either within Russia or abroad in an effort to stop him from gaining power once more. Then again, they achieved quite the opposite of what they aimed.

I was in Russia during the elections and observed the process in the city of Kazan, in the Tatarstan Republic. Prior to the elections I also visited Moscow, where I spoke with some locals about their view of the events and expectations for the outcome.

The city of Kazan and the Republic of Tatarstan as a whole, were always voting traditionally for the United Russia party. Consequently, Putin is very popular there despite this time running as an independent, in order to avoid legal impediments that could stand in the way of his nomination or election. Therefore it was expected that he would win in this state.

However, the overall Russian public rushed in support of Putin, only partially disappointed about Europe's stance towards their country. "Over 20 million Russians were killed for European freedom from fascism during WW2," some stated, expressing their discontent about their country's image in the rest of the continent.

The issues they were truly voting for, had nothing to do with Britain or any of the Western democracies' actions. They were electing the next president of their country, with the main focus on his government, the choice of the next prime minister, the boosting of the Russian economy and strengthening of the county's role in the world.

A major factor was also the outcome in Crimea, which many saw it as a second secession from Ukraine referendum, that could lead to its full incorporation into Russia. If Putin is elected there, that could signal the Crimean people's wish to be part of Russia for good.

It was the first presidential elections in the region and thus of specific interest to the Russian people. In the end, the participation in the elections there exceeded the 71% mark, with 92.15% voting for Putin. Sealing naturally the Crimea's fate, according to Russia at least.

From my experience, the elections in Kazan were orderly and organized. There are two cameras in every voting station, which record all day during the voting and the counting process. In the stations, there was a very communal sense and atmosphere, with markets or fairs being organized selling local products at lower prices, in order to motivate voters to attend.

In each station, there were observers from every political party in Russia, plus many independent ones that traditionally volunteer for the elections. You could also see some foreign observers, usually from other former Soviet republics. Everybody was calm and friendly, with music often also added in order to create a very positive and joyful atmosphere.

However the next day of the elections and the announcement of Putin's victory, western media were reporting images from a widespread rigging of the process. One, of course, could be baffled how would people attempt to place some extra votes in the ballot box, while knowing that there are cameras recording and that they are live on the government's website broadcasting the process.

It doesn't make sense if you are a Putin supporter to do this deliberately, when you want to give your support for him and his cause. Or perhaps those who were caught wanted to rig the voting process on purpose, in an effort to discredit it? We will never know. However in Kazan things were pretty smooth although understandably, that does not mean that they were so all over Russia.

The people I conversed with in Moscow for instance, did not deny that these occurrences are common, but according to them they only happen to about 1% of the electoral centers. Yet somehow these cases are uploaded on national social media and picked by international news agencies, giving a very distorted image about the elections in Russia.

Perhaps trying to grasp this opportunity and explain how Putin wins every time. Well, what I witnessed is pure admiration and adoration for him by many ordinary Russians, since what they see in him is the restoration of the country's prestige.

Additionally, the country's political mentality differs greatly from the Western one. This is a nation that was a super-power for most of its time, plus it was always inclined to favor a more authoritarian establishment, than a fully democratic.

It is a vast state, comprised of numerous regions, inhabited by many ethnic groups of different religion and race. In order to give this diverse populous nation unity, you need either an authoritarian regime or a very strong central government in order to keep it together.

From its Tsardom to the Communism and Soviet era, Russia opted for authoritarianism so that it could keep all these different populations in order and give them a sense of unity and belonging. It is by no chance that Putin's party is called "United Russia" and it is very popular in the country.

Russia suffered a humiliation with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which saw it losing a large number of its former territories. And one thing that Russians wish to see above all is unity, security plus stability in the remainder of their territories and the relaunching of Russia's influence in the world.

And it is not necessarily by recapturing the old territories, rather by reaching out to new allies and promoting its influence with trade and networking. Russia is a keen supporter of the BRICS group of countries, intensively collaborating with nations that the West views as problematic, of poor economic development or not democratic.

Their need for unity and prevention of another region breaking or slipping away from their sphere of influence, is the main reason why some absurd actions are taken or laws adopted. In order to accommodate all ethnic groups or communities, of which some are ultra-conservative, the Russian establishment does not hesitate to implement legislation that does not comply with western mentality.

Like the Anti-Gay Propaganda Law, or the restriction of the freedom of the press and the Kremlin's critics. Absolute liberalism can pose a challenge, in a diverse nation that is still recovering from major economic, political and social changes that it went through during the past few decades. And I don't think that Russia is totally prepared for such thing just yet.

One example is, of course, that of Alexei Navalny, the Russian lawyer who openly challenges Putin and his government on corruption and the lack of freedom of speech. Some westerners hoped that he could make a difference in these elections, yet he was barred from participating in these elections, after he was detained in Moscow facing a number of charges.

In reality, I doubt that he could have a real impact, although he could have brought down Putin's percentage a bit. According to the Kremlin, he is a populist, no different than the Five Star Movement in Italy, or numerous others across Europe. And like most of these rising political movements, his aim is to gather support and gain power and legitimacy, by criticising the establishment.

However, Russia is not Italy or any other European country. Proof of that is the support for Putin in these elections, despite what happened to Navalny and even if all of his claims were true. Imagine if the Italian government jailed Beppe Grillo or barred him from participating in the elections, I doubt that the Italian public would vote afterwards so overwhelmingly for the establishment parties.

Navalny maybe fighting the good cause, or he may indeed be a populist and opportunist, but the West cannot rely on him to bring down or expose the Russian establishment and Putin, or change Russia overnight. The support for him before the elections was low, only polling at about 2% of the intended votes.

He is simply not too convincing or popular to have any real impact on the Russian electorate just yet, although any effort to expose corruption should be applauded. Additionally, many Russians see their country as a counterpart factor to America's dominance in the globe.

They view Putin as the only person that can help their country achieve this, that is why he is so popular among them and in fact, so unpopular in the West. Because he shows total disregard towards Western agendas or interests, often challenging them.

In addition, Russia is keen to keep western meddling media or governments away from their affairs, practically not caring about what they write or say about the country. And why should it? Europe and America often did the same, by starting wars in the Middle East despite the United Nations' objection, or interfering in elections, referendums, country dissolutions and everything else that we accuse Russia of.

We are indeed entering in a new form of a cold war, but this time it is different. It is not just Russia, but many other regions that are competing with us for dominance and a greater say in the world's economy and politics. That is not something that should scare us, as long as we have our house in order and establish a strong, united European continent. It could lead to a more equal world, rather the imbalanced one we have at the moment.

However, the more we maintain a rift with Russia, the more we give power to Putin or others like him in the country. In reality, this struggle is a power game between America and the Russians for world dominance. Due to our ideological fraternity with the USA, we stand with them yet we forget that we are the ones which have borders with Russia and many of our states, used to be under their sphere of influence.

It is not in our interests to be constantly following America in its foreign policy, while keeping the Russians outside. By closely cooperating with them, it doesn't mean that we are becoming their subordinates, rather realizing the changes that are taking place on the world stage. We are entering a multi-polar world and we should be "playing" with all parties, most importantly those who we share borders with and depend upon for our energy needs.

Vladimir Putin will stay in power for another six years and he will continue to expand his country's influence, like any leader should do. Instead of trying to slander him and his government, it would be wiser to see how can we turn Russia into a friendly state. At some stage, even Putin will have to retire from politics, due to an old age. Yet who succeeds him and what attitude will he have towards Europe, will be also of our doing.

Immigration made us who we are; so why are Europeans still afraid of it?

Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán has claimed “Christianity is Europe’s last hope” in his latest escalation of populist rhetoric ahead of April’s elections.

The Prime Minister warned “dark clouds are gathering” as he accused politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris of facilitating “the decline of Christian culture and the advance of Islam”.

Speaking at the 20th annual state of the nation, he also outlined government plans to oppose UN and European efforts to make migration acceptable to the world and continue his fight against what he believes is an “Islamisation” of Europe.

He also claimed with mass immigration, especially from Africa, “our worst nightmares can come true. The West falls as it fails to see Europe being overrun.” (The Independent)

Mr. Orban is not the only person in Europe to have such views, yet he is the most vocal head of state and openly calls for what many people in our continent are thinking. Immigration is a very challenging subject, that has polarized European societies for decades. 

It is a phenomenon that alters the fabric or the continent's population and that for many, together with all the challenges and changes it brings, poses a threat; to our traditions, culture, ethnicity, race, religion and in fact, everything we've known until now.

Understandably, many have become skeptical and in combination with badly adopted economic policies and financial troubles, immigrants have become once again scapegoats. It is true that immigration poses certain challenges and requires proper handling, that should be reflected in each country's relative policies.

Many Western European nations have made some mistakes in such legislations, plus often failed to integrate their migrant population to a certain degree. But countries like Hungary have the advantage of learning from their failures and instead of opposing immigration altogether, they can embrace it correctly.

In addition, it is odd that politicians like Orban are more concerned about the "darkening" of Europe, but not for its "greying" or population decline. Most experts agree that our continent and especially its eastern regions, will experience a substantial population drop.

So perhaps instead of using populism to incite hatred towards migrant communities, exploiting the public's fears on the issue for electoral gains, it would be better to come with solutions to turn immigration into a win-win situation. 

Not just Hungary but Europe as a continent, ought to really start creating functioning immigration policies, together with family planning that will include further gender equality roles. For this, we could get inspiration from a non-EU state, Iceland. 

In the small Nordic nation, equal rights start at home. Men and women are entitled to three months parental leave each per child, plus an additional three months to share between them. (Euronews) That is something that could be adopted by most EU states, to help European couples starting and keeping families with ease.

Another point we could work on, is the East-West divide on economic and social terms. The old EU states are more advanced on these spheres, causing an influx of migrants from the new members towards their western counterparts.

That only increases xenophobia in Western Europe, resulting in negative outcomes such as Brexit, but it also contributes to a brain-drain and population decline in the Eastern part of the continent. 

In 2000, Latvia’s population stood at 2.38 million. At the start of this year, it was 1.95 million. No other country has had a more precipitous drop — 18.2 percent according to U.N. statistics. (Politico.eu) Most other Eastern European nations, face similar challenges and population decline.

The EU needs to close the economic disparities in the block and start investing in the East, in order to keep its population there and thriving. Thus, harmonizing the eurozone's economies is crucial for the future. 

But not only that. People do not flee the new EU states solely for economic reasons, but social too. And by having a very conservative political elite, like that in Hungary or Poland, is actually counterproductive for the region's economic and social catch-up with the rest of the continent.

Thus populist leaders such as Orban, might not be the best choice to deal with Hungary's problems in the long term. Besides, it is funny to hear such rhetoric from a country that is located in a region that has been a crossroad and a melting pot of peoples and civilizations for centuries.

Europe has a rich variety of cultures because of immigration. Hungary, in particular, is a mixture of cultures, as well as peoples. Its language is not even Indo-European rather it belongs to the Finno-Ugric and Uralic linguistic family, meaning it originated further afield in Eurasia, rather in Central Europe. 

Each European nation is comprised of numerous ethnic and cultural elements. What would Ireland and Britain be without their Viking heritage? Or Spain and Portugal without their Germanic or Arabic one? Italy without its Greek heritage in the south of the country, or Greece without its Jewish influence from the populations expelled from Spain? 

Recently a team of researchers in Britain, made a shocking discovery. The bones of the oldest near-complete human skeleton ever found in Britain, named as the "Cheddar Man," had its DNA tested, taken from bone powder by drilling a hole through the skull. It showed there was a 76 percent chance that Cheddar Man was of ‘dark to black’ skin tone and having blue eyes. (Daily Mail)

Although the findings cannot be 100 percent accurate, it throws a light on human immigration in the European continent. For millennia, different groups from different regions, found their way into Europe. Recorded migrations come from the Middle East, Africa and Eurasia, all taking place at different times and in waves.

It is almost certain that not all of them belonged to the same race or ethnic group, or even to the same species. It has been known for a while that all populations outside of Africa, have a small percentage of Neaderthal DNA, that has been acquired by modern humans while interbreeding with our cousins. 

So to be so frightened by immigration while all humans are a product of it, ethnologically or culturally is absurd. It is not like we are going to open the borders and "allow everybody in," as many nationalists fear. That would be disastrous both socially and economically. 

Yet if we manage to implement the appropriate policies that will allow the right number and type of immigrants that we need, plus laws that will help European couples across the continent to have families and equal living standards, then immigration could provide solutions for the future.

We should not give in to fear, racism or xenophobia. Europeans have migrated all over the world over the centuries, altering and shaping it. In the future, we should also help to influence a more integrated and interconnected world, by establishing open societies, inclusive and equal for all its inhabitants. 

Eliminating global inequality, would take the pressure off Europe's societies to accept more migrants in. But for this to be achieved, it will take the reformation of most trade deals that our continent has conducted, especially with its former colonial subjects. 

That could be the legacy that our generation of Europeans will leave to the world. It is definitely better than a chauvinist, xenophobic and nationalistic one, sure we have tried this before with disastrous consequences. Perhaps it is time to change our priorities for the future. 

America’s addiction to weapons is contagious.

Recently the world was shocked by yet another school gun attack in the USA. On the afternoon of February 14, 2018, a mass shooting occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Seventeen people were killed and fourteen more were taken to hospitals, making it one of the world's deadliest school massacres. The suspected perpetrator, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, was identified by witnesses and arrested shortly afterward.

Since then a huge debate has grabbed the American nation, on the need to reform the laws that secure the right to bear arms in their country. One of the proponents for the right to bear arms is the National Rifle Association and its political wing, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

The NRA has been described as one of the largest and most powerful political lobby groups in the United States. In America, it is easier to buy a gun than certain kinds of medication, which in Europe and the rest of the world can be sold in any pharmacy.

The lobbies that support the "right" to bear arms are of course trying to protect the interests of a thriving industry. America is investing heavily in arms manufacturing and its substantial military budget. If you invest so much in an industry, your economy depends on it, thus making harder to proceed with necessary changes, when incidents such as these occur. 

Consequently, reforms are very hard to achieve without huge sacrifices: jobs cuts, protests from the newly unemployed and most importantly the "grilling" from the industry elites, that will have their income reduced and their lifelong investment won't be as profitable.

But why should we, in Europe and the rest of the world be bothered about a seemingly internal, political, economic, cultural or social issue of another country? Because America’s addiction to weapons is contagious.

By establishing a very profitable industry and cementing its importance as one of the pillars of US industry, we understand why America is always in a state of war; either with external threats or with internal attack incidents, such as these.

In addition, in order to increase the profits, this industry is always seeking for new customers and markets, both in the US and abroad. So there is absolutely no way that their lobby will accept a change in US policy on the right to bear arms.

It will take a very strong-willed President to clash with this group and do the right thing. And so far, no American leader ever dared to do so. Sadly, the need to sell arms is not just limited to the US internal market.

America is one of the major exporters of weapons to other countries. So war and any hot conflict mean good business for them. And that is why the rest of the world should be bothered about America’s addiction to weapons.

In Greece we have to spend a large proportion of our GDP in importing arms from countries such as the USA, to protect ourselves from Turkey, a NATO ally of ours. Arms industry companies, corrupt Greek and other nations’ politicians, in order to proceed with sales of weapons that often are not needed.

Plus, is it any wonder that America is constantly in a state of war with other regions? If you produce so many weapons and guns and your internal market is not able to absorb all of them, you need to export your "goods." Thus having some regions in a constant state of conflict is crucial, to make sure they are dependent on your exports.

Invading other countries and maintaining a war there is also crucial, in order for one of your biggest industries to make more profits and thus helping your economy to grow. War is a profitable business, for such economic models.

It is poisoning generation after generation, on the necessity of war and weaponry. To achieve this, industries such as film movies, gaming and other entertainment platforms are used to accustom people to violence. 

Just watch any of the Hollywood action films and you will see how many models of guns and other weaponry are being "advertised" subconsciously to the audience. Carrying a gun, is considered so natural in some communities in the US that as a solution to the increasing number of innocent victims shot at schools, is seen to arm the teachers.

If such move is approved, we will have trigger-happy ex-military personnel educating the next generation of America’s youths! The circle of war and violence will never end.

Of course, they could be doing the obvious and ban, or at least limit the number of weapons that are allowed to circulate in the American society. But they just don’t want to accept it. As result, these tragic incidents will continue to happen throughout the US.

Sadly, it is not only the American people that will suffer or be affected, but the rest of us too. Regions such as the Middle East will never see peace and prosperity. Greece will continue to spend millions on weaponry, even if it doesn’t need it. Europe will continue to be at loggerheads with its neighbor Russia, over the establishment of missiles pointing at them. 

America, of course, is not the only country to be blamed. Its European counterparts and NATO allies, have also a fair share of the blame. Countries such as France and the UK are making profits from arms sales in countries that suffer from on-going conflicts.

It is a sad realization, that our civilization accepts the capitalization on human suffering, in order to maintain “economic growth.” Europe needs to step up and change this situation. Firstly it needs to lead by example, then lobby other countries and economic blocks of this world, to limit the production and trade of weapons. And yes, even America.

Our world does not need more weapons, rather people with a vision and the ability to debate and come up with solutions to humanity’s problems. And since most of them derive from violence, injustice, crime and conflict, using weapons to solve them is as absurd as employing a thief to protect your money.

The relevance of EU-NATO in Greece-Turkey relations.

It seems that EU hopefull and NATO member Turkey is on down-spiraling course, regarding its relationship with its neighbors, as well with USA and EU.

On Feb. 11, Cyprus announced that the Turkish military was holding exercises that blocked a ship operated by Italian oil and gas company Eni. Cyprus had hired the company to drill in its waters, which Turkey claims as its own. 

Then on Feb. 12, a Turkish patrol boat ran into a Greek coast guard ship that was anchored off the islands of Imia/Kardak, claimed by both Greece and Turkey. In response to both events, the European Union issued a statement asking Turkey to "refrain from any actions that might damage good neighborly" ties.

Seeming to acknowledge the EU request, both Greece and Turkey on Feb. 14 withdrew their ships from the Imia islets region in an effort to ease tensions. But the dispute between Cyprus and Turkey over the drilling blocks remains in play.(Stratfor Worldview)

Turkey's volatile relations with Greece and Cyprus is not anything new, but there is an oxymoron in this story. Both Greece and Turkey are technically allies in NATO. If two allied countries are hostile to each other, then what can be said about the legitimacy of this alliance? 

And while in the past Turkey has only been showing its hostility towards Greece, recently it has grown its confidence so much, that is even challenging the USA itself, as the recent developments in Syria show. 

Turkey’s current fight, against U.S.-backed Kurdish troops in the northwestern Syria territory of Afrin, is destabilizing enough. But the real risk will come if Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan follows through on his repeated promises to press further east toward the Kurdish-controlled and U.S.-patrolled city of Manbij. (Politico Magazine)

With his megalomania, plus because for years Turkey's actions were tolerated and supported by its US allies, Mr. Erdogan is turning against anyone, even America itself. Inspired by President Putin, who in fact he has become closer in recent years, Erdogan is jeopardizing Turkey's relationship with all its allies and has already shattered the country's hopes for EU membership. 

Until now, it was Greece and Cyprus that had to bear the cost of Turkey's erratic behavior. Greece, in particular, had to spend millions of its budget in defense, to protect itself from Turkey, its ally in NATO! 

Something that, of course, suited other big players of the alliance, like USA, France and the United Kingdom, all which were selling arms to Greece, enhancing their economies, while the Greek one suffered. The Greek-Turkish hostilities were being continued for decades, in order to perpetuate a situation that served the local elites, as well their international allies. 

By keeping the two countries in constant fear and competition with each other, international arms industries profited, while the nationalistic elements in both nations were satisfied, diverging the public opinion towards this constant threat, while other issues were being pushed under the carpet. 

And so we reached a stage that both countries are financially, politically and socially unstable, but while Greece is an EU member and gains some security and stability, Turkey, on the other hand, is going rogue at every direction. 

Here is a proof that Turkey's EU membership would be good, not for any other reason, but to bring the country under the control of Europe. NATO has been proven to be insufficient to keep Turkey in check, mainly because of America's foreign policy and interests in the region, which are not always for the benefit of Greece or Europe.

A strong and stable, united Europe with Turkey as a member, would be the only way to safeguard stability in the region and relief Greece and Cyprus from the burden of constant Turkish threats and insults. 

Yet, as Europe is evolving and hopefully with continue to evolve towards a more federal formation, the prospect of the Euro Army gives hope to Greece and Cyprus. As both countries have signed the PESCO Defence Cooperation, they have now an enhanced protection against Turkey's threats.

Ideally, Cyprus would be better in NATO, to gain some protection from Turkey. But as this is highly unlikely since Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus as a state, nor the Cypriot public opinion favors such move, then PESCO gives the small island nation access to European and NATO protection in the future. 

Since the European Army will be allied to NATO, it is a Cypriot entry into the alliance through the back door. The two allied armies will strengthen both Greece's and Cyprus' security and defense, something that perhaps annoys Turkey, thus it is acting up now, in order to make a point and remain relevant.

Turkey knows that on its western front things have changed and will continue to change. Bulgaria has also joined the EU and NATO ranks, while the rest of the Balkans are poised to do so in the next decade. 

Thus Turkey's elites are looking elsewhere to throw their weight around and satisfy their internal nationalistic elements. Europe and in fact NATO itself, if it wants to stay relevant in the European continent, must stand by Greece and Cyprus, trying in addition to bring Turkey back in their ranks. 

It is absurd for two allied nations to have such a bad relationship. It looks bad for NATO and diminishes its role and prestige. But in the end, if NATO fails, Europe can always rely on itself and PESCO, as it should have for years now. 

Hopefully, Mr. Erdogan and Turkey will realize where their interests are better served and reconcile their differences with their EU and NATO neighbors soon. It is ridiculous to thrive in old hatred, nationalism and expansionist views, that not only are not realistic in today's interconnected world, but are holding back generations of young Turks due to lack of full access in European institutions and programmes. 

It is in Europe's interests to have a stable and prosperous Turkey, either as a neighbor or a member. Thus it can not rely solely on America and NATO to achieve this, since America's interests are not totally synchronised with Europe's. Thus our continent must assert itself and form its own policies towards its neighbors and implement them.

The EU's future lies with its citizens' choices and engagement.

Europe as a continent is at crossroads. But it is not just an economic or a political dilemma. The continent suffers from an identity crisis and a lack of direction.

Since the eurozone economic crisis and the refugee emergency, the hiatus from the big-bang EU expansion in 2004 seems to have withered away.

Now the EU has to deal with a growing euro-skepticism, Brexit and a change of direction in the Visegrad states.

The question is what do we, the citizens of Europe gain from all this. We have managed to establish a stable, prosperous continent, one of the richest in the world. And most of our problems lately seem to revolve around who gets more, pays more and the ethnic background of the people that do the jobs that we prefer not doing.

Not that Europe does not have some serious problems or challenges. But in their majority were created by corruption and mismanagement predominantly on a national level. Of course, the EU institutions have had their fair share of scandals, but the lack of transparency can solely be laid on our national governments.

The EU's democratic deficit is a direct outcome of the unwillingness of our national politicians, to proceed with what their predecessors started after WW2. The European integration was a vision for peace and stability, born in the ashes of the continent after the two major disastrous conflicts.

But once prosperity set in, despite it being a direct result of policies that were decided on a European level plus naturally due to the stability that peace created, our governments claimed this success as the result of their own work.

The citizens were kept in the dark on how the EU works or the decisions are taken, in order to be kept preoccupied with national issues and nationalistic agendas. To the benefit of course of local elites and politics.

For every bad policy the EU was blamed, while for every success, national governments were claiming the praise. They strived to maintain a nation-centered culture and mentality, while in fact a Europe wide one was being formed since the free movement of people encouraged it.

Yet, in recent years due to major mistakes that state administrations have committed on a European and national level, a surge of euro-skepticism gripped the continent, giving extreme nationalistic political parties, the chance to get a good foothold in European politics.

The process was faster in Eastern Europe, which only a few years after joining the club, some returned to the authoritarian political elites, that they fought so hard to overthrow to join the EU. Many of the region's leaders modeled themselves after other authoritarian leaders like Putin and Erdogan, turning against EU and its values, or shunning further European integration.

Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, once proud to be joining the club and while they are ripping all the benefits of their membership, have recently flagged themselves as opposition to many of EU's policies, notably on immigration and the refugee crisis, but also the euro.

Britain, on the other hand, decided to leave altogether, in hope of joining states like Norway and Iceland in EEA, or going it alone. While EEA offers some certain economic benefits, it lacks democratic legitimacy, something that the EU is often blamed for by many Eurosceptics.

The decisions are taken by the EU institutions and members of EEA must abide, while only having a lobbying presence in Brussels. It may suit small states like Iceland, but for a big player like Britain, it surely is absurd not to to be at the heart of Europe, leading it.

Under such grim political and economic environment, the European public is understandably confused, angry, divided and naturally skeptical about the future of Europe and the EU itself. Yet they must understand, that going back to what we had before is not the solution. We have been there before, if we want to progress, the way is forward.

As things stand, it is obvious that Europe isn't functioning properly. We can either go backwards to what we know and trusted before, the nation states that collaborate solely on an economic level, or move forward to a fully fledged European democracy.

It will be easy to think that the best solution would be to stop or even reverse the integration progress and maintain a free trade agreement. But what would be the cost of abandoning the euro, closing the borders again and halting the free movement of people, some of the dominant reasons that Europe prospered and progressed for the past few decades?

We must consider if the outcome would be greater than the risk. What would any of us benefit by dismantling what we have built all these years?

If we go the other way and form a European Republic, there is room for improvement and something to build on.  The problem of inequality and lack or transparency or democratic deficit, lies solely within our national governments. They refuse to let go the control of our national resources, thus keeping EU governance on an intergovernmental level.

Something that any citizen should be wary of. What is being discussed, agreed or compromised by our governments behind closed doors, that we never hear of? In such arrangements, it is naturally the bigger, more powerful and robust economically nations that have the upper hand, pushing their interests through.

But if we citizens, take the EU fully in our own hands, by giving the European Parliament (EP) all the powers that it must have to function like any parliament, then we take this power away from our governments and the lobbies that run Brussels. The EU Council and Commission can be joined to the second chamber of government, like the US Senate.

By becoming more engaged, committed EU citizens, it doesn't mean that we become EU cheerleaders, blindly accepting or applauding anything that the EU does. We are simply safeguarding our own interests and what better way to achieve this, but by having a fully fledged European Democracy, supported by its main pillar the EP.

EU citizenship must become something more than the right to travel anywhere in the EU, rather become engaged in a pan-European civil society, criticise the EU institutions and their failures and lobby them, just like citizens are doing in any nation-state across Europe.

It does not mean that we are giving up our national identity, rather enhancing it with an additional one, that of being European. An identity that we already possess, yet we haven't given it a legal and political dimension.

Europe should be governed in three levels; local, national and European, with each authority to be given certain legislative powers and responsibilities. It could well work, as long as we citizens are engaged in all three and have trust in them.

That perhaps could be our task and purpose for the future, a target that we must reach. Our legacy to the future generations of Europe. Rather than leaving behind a fragmented continent, we could be the ones that will finally unite it.

The benefits can be substantial. In the future, we will have a multi-polar world, with numerous emerging economies and states. Europe will have to collectively invest in order to keep being relevant and competitive.

A region that is prosperous needs political stability to maintain its wealth and that is what a fully functioning European Republic is offering. Otherwise, Europe will be just a trading block, a huge market that will benefit multinationals for as long they do not discover new, emerging economies to invest in.

In addition, decisions that are being taken solely on trade rules and purpose, can never have democratic legitimacy as they are agreed on intergovernmental level. That must be something that should always worry us, citizens. If we want more equality, we must demand more transparency and democracy in Europe. But that either we like it or not, this can never be achieved with less Europe.