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.