Europe is at war again!

It is hard to believe that Europe is at war once more. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the situation has been escalated and it hangs by a thread, with every European hoping that it will end soon. However, we have to realize that it most likely won't, plus that it is not only Ukraine and Russia that are at war right now.

An economic and information war has also been waging for the past 20 days, starting with the sanctions imposed by Western countries against Russia- all 4 rounds of them, which will obviously retaliate as these sanctions get worse; and everything indicated that they would from the beginning. Europe and the US are determined to support Ukraine, but the only way they can at the moment, is with arms and financial aid. They will not risk an open war with Russia, so we are all left watching as this tragedy unfolds in disbelief.

But the war does not stop on finances. Propaganda and counter propaganda has been circulating on social media and news channels from all sides.European universities hit by an apparent piece of Russian disinformation have had to quash rumours circulating online after the country’s human rights commissioner claimed Russian students are being expelled from campuses in Europe. Several organisations and institutions have had to clarify they are not expelling Russian students after claims by the Kremlin-supporting official circulated on social media.

That was most likely an exaggerated reaction to what European countries resolved to, in order to protest the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not only has Russia been stripped of two prestigious events – the Champions League men’s final and Formula One’s Russian Grand Prix –but an increasing number of performances by Russians are being cancelled worldwide. Concerts, dance recitals and exhibitions have been postponed indefinitely .

In Greece for example, Minister of Culture and Sports Lina Mendoni ordered the suspension of any current or upcoming activities and events held in Greece in collaboration with Russian cultural organisations, the ministry said. In addition, Greece’s biggest gaming firm OPAP on Monday halted betting on Russian sport events in solidarity with Ukraine where a Russian invasion continues. OPAP said it has stopped offering betting on any match related to Russian competitions, including football, basketball and volleyball, either online or through its outlets in Greece.

This indicates that European nations are determined not only to hit Russia hard, but to humiliate it for its actions against Ukraine. I wonder though if Vladimir Putin and his supporters are really bothered by all this, or is the West just acting bitterly for what it cannot control. Is cancelling Russian arts throughout the continent, which have been an integral part of our collective heritage, the way to solve the impasse? Western nations lost the chance to help Ukraine 8 years ago, when the civil war started; they should have pulled the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy aside, to try and mediate a solution between the two warring communities, before Putin decided to intervene himself. But is this what Western nations really sought as a solution after all in the first place.

Europe's hysteric Russophobia.

Four years ago, I had the unique privilege to work as an election observer in the last Russian presidential elections in the city of Kazan, which of course Putin won. The fear and hysteria that I received about my decision to accept the invitation was phenomenal. Some of my friends warned me to be careful of what the Russians offer me to drink, in case they poisoned and killed me. But why would Russian officials ask me over to their country to assassinate me, since they could easily do it while I was in Ireland. Or why would I become a target, as I never wrote anything in favor or against Vladimir Putin and his government.

All I ever insisted on saying for years, is that Europe should try and work on its relations with Russia, if they were ever in the mood for the same of course. After all, it is a country which shares borders with us and will never go away thus we should do so, not for their sake, but for ours. In various articles that I wrote for this blog and Europa United- which have been translated in french for the now banned in Europe, Sputnik channel, I presented a scenario where Europe achieves its own military and foreign policy, distances slightly itself from USA, while remaining in close cooperation with it, but approaching somewhat Russia, in order to achieve long lasting peace on the continent, putting aside our differences.

And by only writing sympathetically about EU-Russian relations, it was enough sometimes to put me in the same basket as many "Putinists", individuals that are rather on the payroll of Putin or his "usefull idiots", spreading propaganda and lies. For starters, the only article I ever got paid was the one I did for Euronews, plus I really wish someone had paid me a penny for the over 300 articles I wrote in my 12 year blogging experience.

I remember the debates we had with my other editors of the various online platforms I contributed, on how to present these articles, reporting from the Russian elections and explaining my position on why we could benefit from stable and somewhat "good relations" with our neighbours; without of course sounding like a Putin propaganda platform, or having to "neutralize" them with an contradicting opinion piece for balance afterwards. As if in a real democracy we must be apologetic for our opinion, principles or merits. If only one point of view is accepted, then we are not too different than the autocratic "regimes" we so much love to criticise.

It is evident that it is Europe and America that have a real problem with Russia and not just the other way around. European progressives, liberals and other intellectuals, usually see Russia as the "enemy", their ideological nemesis that they must constantly bash in order to validate their positions, whilst presenting the country as a threat, in order to convince Europeans to unite. That is something that I always disagreed with, since I do not think that a federal, united Europe should be forced or based upon fear, of Russia or anyone else, rather the realisation of a common set of values and future that we must all aspire to. America's problem of course is wanting to keep Russia out of Europe altogether, as they see our continent their own playground and "sphere of influence".

In addition, countries on the Eastern front of the continent, that sadly fell beyond the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, are understandably very suspicious and wary of Russia and its interests. But if the Russians wanted to claim their countries back, they would have made a move or staged a protest prior to 2004 and their mass entry in the EU. It is the military Western expansion they object to, especially when it comes to Ukraine and Caucasus. So any hysteria or fears that after Ukraine, others will follow must stop, unless the war escalates further into a NATO-Russia war. The only way for Eastern Europe to soothe its relations with Russia and build up trust again, is if the latter acknowledges and apologises for its mistakes during the Soviet era-in which Russians suffered too by the way, plus Eastern Europeans are willing to do so; no military alliance and build-up, or American influence and "protection" can achieve this, in fact the US military presence may be exactly what pours more oil to the flame.

Moreover, I always found it rather hypocrytical that Western nations have no problem collaborating with worse regimes than Russia, like Saudi Arabia for example. Have any of the Western expats in United Arab Emirates, dared to stage a campaign there about LGBT rights, democracy, gay pride etc.? How do we expect to change a country like Russia to fit our standards in order to do business with it, since we are unable to change EU member states like Hungary and Poland- hardly beacons of liberal democracies themselves, while they are integrated in our institutions? Besides, why must everyone in the world share our own values, in order to be worthy of our acceptance and praise? I am a proud European, thus a Westerner, but unlike some of my kind, I do not expect other nations to share my values in order to coexist, trade or interact with them.

The West had always varied rules for different nations too. Bashing Greece for its bail-out prgramme, while giving Ireland just a slap on the wrist for the same. Proceeding in quick sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine, but never acting as decisively for other ongoing conflicts like Yemen, Syria, Cyprus and the Palestine issue. Scolding Russia for its wars, but never USA for its failures in the Middle East that resulted in thousands trying to flee into Europe. Being so keen in receiving Ukrainian refugees, but making it as awkward in finding a solution for those from Syria. The latter have to stay in refugee camps, while the Ukrainians are being given visa free access to EU nations.

In a recent televised interview on the Irish national broadcaster RTE, TV presenter David McCullagh has gone viral after his "priceless" interview with the Russian Ambassador in the country. The journalist spoke to Ambassador Yury Filatov as Russian troops continued to invade Ukraine, whilst he maintained an agressive tone of voice, barely allowing his guest to speak or explain. The news anchor said the ambassador was giving the "Russian version of events" which are "misleading". It was slightly embarassing to watch, as if journalists are meant to be openly biased and "grill" plus embarass their guests, not try to get answers from them, thinking that we as viewers are stupid and cannot, or should not make our own minds, if what Mr Filatov was saying was true or nonsense.

He also asked "why does our government entertain your presence here when you're acting as an apologist for slaughter?".Mr Filatov responded: "It is a good question. You might ask your government. It's up to them. I can leave any time." This has become viral on the internet, especially in the US where they happily made a laughing stock of Mr Filatov. Such incident of course would never happen to a US Ambassador, or any other Western diplomat in Ireland, since the country relies heavily on US investments and companies to accumulate its wealth. Ireland would never "grill" any US official like this, questioning him for example about their involvement in Afghanistan and their failure to secure a victory in the country after of 20 years of presence, which resulted in a massive humanitarian crisis, only a few months ago.

The only good thing that came out of this, is that Ireland is finally abandoning the taboo of "neutrality" and for the first time in the 18 years that I live in this country, I viewed a debate on national television about this long cherished policy. It was finally admitted that Ireland is neutral "only militarily" and not politically, and that we as a country have chosen sides long ago. Finland is having the same debate and I believe also Sweden. Because if these countries feel they belong into a "block", then they should start exploring ways to contribute more to its security. Until now, Finland had a rather high military spending to protect itself from Russia (allegedly), while Ireland like Austria and Switzerland, enjoyed the so called necessary "protection and stability" that NATO offers to Europe, rather for free.

Don't get me wrong, I also hate militarization. In this age and time I feel it is disgraceful that we all have to resolve in high military spending to protect one from the other, while we fail to solve issues with diplomacy. It is shameful that instead of hospitals and schools, we must make bombs to kill other peoples, because they have different views than us. I am a staunch pacifist. But if we have to keep NATO for "protection", then all countries of Europe that are for US military presence and investments in the continent and have chosen "sides", should contribute to its budget. Why must countries like Poland and Greece for example, be the spear heads against any "Russian threat" after all?

Europe is at war!

However all the above is about to change. Ireland recently published a Commission on the Defence Forces report, which recommended that the Government work towards three levels of "ambition" on military reform and upgrade. Level one is maintaining the current status quo, while level two would mean plugging gaps in the current security apparatus by acquiring capabilities such a military radar system and modern aircraftcost, for an extra €500 million a year. Level three would see Ireland upgrading the Defence Forces to the level of other countries of similar size, which would bring the defence budget to about €3 billion a year.The commission recommended that the Government work towards level two, for now.

So you see what that the consequences of Russia's invasion- because it is an invasion, no matter how the Russians try to call it or mask it, are far reaching and not only Ukraine is affected. Europe is at war. On the 13th of March, the Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin whilst on a diplomatic trip to London on the UK's response to the refugee crisis, stated that Ireland is heading into a war economy, further pressure on food and fuel over the coming weeks. We are all in this together and there is no going back now.

Sadly, all of this could have been avoided, if America, Europe and Russia found a way to soothe out their differences, but I doubt if any party was really keen. In a 2019 Forbes article, the view was that here’s no real reason to sanction Russia anymore, other than just hating Russia because it’s run by Vladimir Putin. This opinion came after the Special Counsel investigation was over and the only thing that the US Senator Robert Mueller could find involving Russians that was worth punishing with an actual crime, were these 13 “troll farms” that had no impact on the US election outcome, according to the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. And whose participants will never see a U.S. court or prison, sanctioning bonds was "passé". Russia, for Wall Street anyway, has been exonerated. The Mueller testimony was a total face plant for the Democrats and anyone looking to link Trump to a villainous Russia.

So why did the Russophobia and hysteria in Europe continued? In the same article, they described that Russia was until 2019 the hottest-performing emerging market. The VanEck ETF was up 26% while No. 2 Brazil was up 18.9% and the MSCI Emerging Markets benchmark was up 9.3%. Since the summer of 2014, Russian oil and gas firms and Russian banks have been sanctioned by the U.S. and to some extent Europe, though Europe did not sanction oil and gas entities. The sanctions were all due to Russian involvement in a separatist movement in East Ukraine. “The conclusion of the Mueller investigation reduces the urgency for the U.S. Congress to impose additional sanctions on Russia,” stated Federico Kaune, head of emerging-markets fixed income at UBS Asset Management.

Thus, if only three years ago relations between the West and Russia seemed to be normalizing, what happened since then that tipped the scales and drove Vladimir Putin so "mad", that he decided to invade Ukraine? Could it be the change of American leadership? There has been a video being circulated on social media, of current US President Joe Biden, "predicting" that if NATO ever expands to the Baltics, there will be war in Europe.

So why didn't he follow his own"predictions"? Many others foresaw that Nato expansion would lead to war. It has long been clear that it would lead to tragedy. "We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance", as we read in a Guardian article. Bill Clinton’s administration had made the decision to push for including some former Warsaw Pact countries into the alliance. The administration would soon propose inviting Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to become members, and the US Senate approved adding those countries to the North Atlantic Treaty in 1998. Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state during the Clinton administration, described then the Russian reaction; “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the West should not do the same.” It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.

And the same sentiment is what I got when I was working as and election observer in Russia. Many of the country's youth were supporting Vladimir Putin, something that we in the West cannot understand. Young people in our countries are usually backing progressive parties that push for liberal reforms, however in Russia they seem to stand behind Putin, who we see as an "oligarch and authoritarian dictator". And that is because not only we do not understand Russia and its society, but rather we push them towards people like Putin.

Vladimir Putin’s rise to power in 1990s came amid the tumultuous years of low-living standards, corruption and unbridled capitalism that benefited a small sector of society following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991; the so called "Oligarchs", that the West so much loaths but is pleased to receive their money. When Putin became Russia’s president in the year 2000 many Russians were happy to see a leader come to power who promised to reconstruct the country economically and politically. Since that first presidential election Putin has certainly overseen Russia’s restoration to the international stage and a sense of national pride among many Russians. He went after many of the "oligarchs", making enemies while trying to reform Russia, the way he thought best.

So any wave of sanctions that endangers what Putin has built all these years, do not necessarily "work" on the Russian public opinion, the way we expect them to do. Harming the Russian economy to spite Putin, often helps achieve the opposite. Many of these "Putin's youths" that I spoke with during my stay in Moscow and Kazan in 2018, expressed not only the love for their country, their support for Putin's "reforms", but also a fear, perhaps unfounded, that their country will be again humiliated and mistreated by the West, forced to shrink and become impoverished once more. They are bitter of the way the West is treating their country, when in their words "27 million of their soldiers died suring WW2 to save Europe from fascism.

As I wrote in my 2018 articles, Russia is not a homogenous society, but is rather comprised by many ethnic and religious groups, living in a vast area spanning two continents; Europe and Asia. Thus perhaps, the Western liberal democratic model cannot work for them, since they are so keen to hold their country together and not lose any more territory. Something similar to the Greek paranoic mentality of losing more islands to a NATO ally of theirs, Turkey. A Western model, with all the freedoms that it offers, perhaps is not appropriate at this stage, when the Russian society is transitioning still into a capitalist one, but in a different pace in its regions. So any financial sanctions that the West imposes, could be triggering an even more conservative reflex among its population. But that does not seem to bother Western liberals. In their mind, everyone must abide by Western values, even if they are not suitable for them, or face ridicule and economic sanctions, for daring to challenge the Western economic hegemony.

Because ultimatelly, this is what is all about. Financial interests and poor Ukraine is caught in the middle and pays the ultimate price. Americans do not want a prosperous Russia, nor any other country that they see as a threat. Ideally they want them out of Europe, which they see as their sphere of influence. So how dare the Russians seek closer relations and trade, or to become members of NATO and contribute to the North Atlantic Alliance's security? If in 2019 the Trump administration decided to end sanctions against Russia, but now Biden forced Putin to invade Ukraine- a bad decision and a huge mistake by all means that it may be, but clearly indicates a war between the West and Russia, hidden under the facade of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

With Western companies exiting Russia and talks of Russia of nationalizing them, economic sanctions, trade wars, rise of oil and gas prices due to the halt of imports from Russia, the situation is a fully fledged conflict already. And it has been brewing for years and both sides were preparing for it. While I was visiting Kazan, I was taken to see the "Russian Silicon Valley", a newly built small town complete with apartments and shops at the outskirts of the Tatarstan capital, aimed to act as an alternative to the American hegemony and dominance of the internet; at least in Russia. Or maybe perhaps, prepare the country for a pull-out from the world wide web; sounds familiar? Only a few months before the war in Ukraine, Greece approved new US military bases around the port city of Alexandroupolis in the northern region of Thrace. Propaganda and information wars were already in full swing in both Russian and Western media, for a considerable amount of time, prior to the Russian invasion.

The issue is, why Putin now decided to cut off ties with the West, exit the Council of Europe, turn his country into a pariah and isolated from most of the rest of the world? Did he get pissed off by the Biden administration and decided, "the hell with it, this will never work, I am out"! However this is nothing to celebrate in Europe. A poor, unstable, humiliated and hostile Russia right to our doorstep, is far worse and more dangerous that what we already had. Plus, Ukraine may be sadly partitioned in the aftermath for good and any further EU/NATO expansion eastwards and to the Caucasus, could be permanently put on ice, if a rogue, hostile and desperate Russia wants revenge.

Many Western "analysts" who are so keen comparing the "dictator" Putin to Hitler and how he built up his propaganda prior his invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia, conveniently forget how the Allied obsession of humilating Germany after WW1, encouraged the Germans to bring someone like Hitler in power. This is also something to learn from, but Westerners prefer only to see the links between Hitler and Putin, not what actually drove their victory and establishment in their countries and so we repeat the same mistakes.

With scores of anti-war Russians leaving Russia to escape to Finland and the Caucasus countries, any hope for maintaining a West-friendly movement within Russia, fades. So how can we expect to have any allies within the country, in order to reconcile sometime in the future? In addition, since some in the West desire to make Putin answer for his "crimes" in the International Criminal Court, they will need a Western friendly movement within Russia to achieve this. We are not dealing with Serbia, which was easier to subdue by war back in the '90s, in order as a condition to their surrender to demand the hand-over of any of their officials to be trialed. Russia has nukes and is better prepared for a conflict with the West. Thus, maintaining some relations with Russia could prove wise in the future.

It is very sad and regretful that Vladimir Putin chose war, in which thousands will die, so that he can make a stand against Western selfishness. His nation will suffer, as well as us Europeans and there is no turning back now. It will take decades for our relations to go back to what they were before, if ever. Europe is determined now to stop its reliance on Russian oil and gas. Who wins from all that? NATO and USA, something that is not good for either Europe or Russia. The first comes totally under America's "umbrella" and influence, is getting militarized and faces years of financial difficulties, in order to transition from relying on Russian energy for too long; only to replace this reliance with one to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, themselves often described as authoritarian "regimes". How hypocritical. On the other hand, the US government has pledged to ramp up liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, to help cut Europe's reliance on Russian gas. However, progress is slow due to concerns about the impact on climate change.. Seriously?

Russia consequently, becomes isolated and cut off from the West and much of the world that is allied to it. NATO wins members and sees its budget increased, while America and its oil, gas and arms industries are saying "BINGO"..!! They are going to gain big time out of this. Russia is finally out, Nord Stream 2 most likely will be scrapped, Europe will rely on USA for energy, protection and everything really so yes, this is great, thanks Mr Putin! This has been a bad decision, which we are all going to pay with our taxes for decades to come. I plead to all our leaders, Vladimir Putin, Joe Biden, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Emmanuel Macron and all the governments of Europe and EU officials, please think this again and stop this war while there is still time! There can be no winners from this and how would you like to be remembered in the future; as the ones who plundged the world into despair and poverty?

Hands off Ukraine please, unless they are helping!!

I cannot believe that I will have to write yet another article on Ukraine. It has been more than two months since I wrote for this blog, and my hopes were that by now things would have been improved. On February the 24th, Russian President Vladimir Putin, decided to invade Ukraine. We all were hoping he was bluffing, or that common sense would prevail; not this time again sadly.

Condemnations came from the Western countries, and support for Ukraine from all over the world. But really, what was everyone doing for the past 8 years? The war was silently waging since 2014, when a civil war broke out between ethnic Russians or Russian speakers in the east of the country, and the Ukrainian state forces.

One would have thought that during all this time, the so called "powers" that are now involved- Russia, Europe and America, would have sat down and solved the problem; quite the contrary. They all brought their own interests on the table, making a solution almost impossible to reach. And one would have also thought that the United Nations, whose motto is "Peace, Dignity and Equality on a Healthy Planet" and its aim to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations would have done its job and stepped in.

Clearly not. The United Nations has instead become a useless relic of the past. It is a hotbed of quarreling and bitching among the world's self declared "powers" which have established themselves as such after the WW2, to promote and safeguard their own interests. Things have moved on since then, and I believe a UN overhaul is long overdue. These "powers", and I am sorry to say they are not only Russia and China, but also America and its European partners, who afterall were the first to disregard the UN's decision on the war on Iraq, are opting for dishonoring the organisation's initial purpose; which is to safeguard peace and stability, or resolve conflicts.

Neither Russia, or America, China and Europe, should ever take it upon themselves to fix things as it suits them. And that is exactly what Putin has tried to do and we can all agree it has been a huge mistake. The need or rather excuse to protect and support the Russian/Russian speaking community in Ukraine, can never justify an invasion, rather requires increased cooperation and collaboration with the Ukrainian government, under the UN's and only supervision.

What should have happened all those 8 years, would be for Russia with some other Western negotiating power, preferably the EU (well that's another Western failure here, the EU remaining only a trading block for ages), to sit with UN officials and agree or break a deal for a ceasefire between the two sides. Ideally one that would leave the territory of Ukraine intact, after the two communities there compromised and were able to live side by side once again. If a deal would be unreachable, then the negotiating sides would examine if more autonomy would satisfy the breakaway regions, a federalization of Ukraine or sadly in the case of unresolvable differences, partition. However after years that neither side managed to agree and compromise, Mr Putin thought that the best way to end this, or hit the nail on the head, was an invasion.

The West on the other hand-especially America, kept chewing and spewing the same bubblegum, bullshit argument about the "freedom of choice" of any country to join NATO! Even if Ukraine is not the right candidate for the alliance, which its very existence is based on Russophobia and the alledged threat from Russia. With millions of ethic Russians loyal to their "motherland" in the East of Ukraine, how does the alliance see them complying with military bases in the country, aiming towards Russia? Plus, this "freedom" is usually accompanied with some billions of worth of US and NATO investments in a new member, so is it really a "free" choice to join NATO, or rather a bribery?

The Western media kept mentioning about how bad the "Finlandization" of Ukraine would be, and that is something to be avoided. Excuse me, but last time checked, Finland was doing brilliantly and if Ukraine came any close to the standards of Finland, it would be a country to be envied. Finland is in the EU, fully integrated but outside of NATO and right next to Russia, which forces it to spend a substantial amount of money, to defend itself from Russia; which in fact hasn't threatened its much smaller neighbour since the end of Cold War. Understandably the large portion of the country's GDP that goes into its own defense, is a burden; but look at Greece, which is in NATO and still has to spend much more than Finland for its defense, to protect itself from another NATO ally, Turkey! Plus compromise a lot in order to keep the balance around Cyprus and the Aegean. Surely, Greece has it much worse than Finland in this aspect whilst in NATO.

In addition, Finland does not have millions of Russian speakers in its territory, that are loyal to Russia. Thus making the comparison between the two countries, rather daft! Ukraine must join the EU, but stay outside of NATO, not just because Putin wants it, but because roughly 20% of its own population will not be happy or complying with such decision. And what use would they be to their country or the alliance after all, which should have been abolished together with its adversary, the Warsaw Pact and replaced by a European defense policy by now. If it wasn't of course for US interests and European lack of unity and initiative; it is cheaper to rely on someone else for your protection, both financially and responsibility wise.

So the Western complexes and financial interests, are coming in clash with the Russian ones- or rather those of a handfull Russian elites, because I doubt that any ordinary citizen of the country will benefit either way, regarding Ukraine's future. The Russian sphere of influence should not necessarily be threatened by Western expansion, if this is not a military one. This is the age of globalization, everyone should be with anyone by now. However, the mistake that the West does, is that it is making EU and NATO membership inseparable, plus antagonizing and frown upon Russia always. All other Russian hysteria on Ukraine being an integral part of Russian identity, the Russian-Ukrainian Patriarchate separation, the loss of territory, the collapse of the Soviet Block and so on, should have been dealt and digested by now by them as a society. Ukraine got its independence, there is no going back. And they have made it clear that they do not wish to have closer relations with the Kremlin, like Belarus does; well at least its leadership. Russia needs to move on beyond all this and become a modern country, however we must understand how recent this transition was for them.

Thus basically the only issue that should remain, is that of the considerable Russian minority and perhaps we should re-examine it, taking into account the sensitivities of all communities in Ukraine. Instead we have a rather childish, immature, bullish and utterly unacceptable Russian stance towards Ukraine, and the excuse is- like a child would say- if America can act this way and disregard our red lines, destroy countries like Yugoslavia, so can we. Which is of course a reflection of a similar Western tone of the past, "nobody will tell us what to do, the hell with the UN's resolution". The result is, and I will use a quote I came across on Twitter recently, "the big buffaloes are about to fight over the swamp, and the little frogs will be caught and squashed in the middle." Putin's behavior indicates either desperation, anger and loss of patience (for whatever reason, even if this is the constant Western refusal to compromise too), or simply loss of political skills. And in a leader of a country such as Russia, this is dangerous.

Wouldn't it preferable if everyone understood that we are better when we collaborate and work together, independently of where we are financially, politically, historically, or how developed our political and social system is. What is Putin actually hoping to achieve in Ukraine, overthrow the government and establish a new pro-Russian puppet one? Absorb the country or parts of it back into Russia, or maybe forbid it from joining NATO? Perhaps just punish it for daring to "flirt" with the West? Either way, did he really expect that Europe and America would just stay passive and did he for once concider the consequences for ordinary Russians, Ukrainians and Europeans? I guess not.

He is allegedly trying to stop the expansion of NATO, but by invading he is justifying the very existence of this alliance and have kickstarted a debate in neutral EU nations like Sweden and Finland, of potentially joining themselves. The image of Russia to the world has been tarnished as an aggressor, they very thing he accuses the West to be. Never mind potentially its economy will be also badly affected. Europe and America have been announcing wave upon wave of sanctions and measures against Russia, himself and his close circle of officials. I guess the richer Russian officials won't mind them much, but the sanctions could hit the ordinary citizens of his country, and in the Russian relatiation and all consequencequences that will follow, we all are going to pay for this financially. But ultimately, this could contribute to his final defeat at home.

Marches in support of Ukraine have been staged in many European countries, never mind the anti-war ones in Russia itself. It seems that the Russians are finally emerging and standing up en-masse, against Putin's policies. What years of anti-West propaganda hasn't done, it could be achieved by his own very mistake. And here is where Europe must play it smart. For years the West adopted a blantantly anti-Russian hysteria, because it did not approve of Putin and his policies. The result was providing his establishment with arguments, on why Russia needed a "strong man", to stand up to the West and restore their country's reputation and place in the world. The West's hysteria and complex towards Russia, in fact strengthened his grip on the country as his popularity soared with each West-Russia confrontation.

Obviously this is not the way to go. I am very pleased to see, European and Western officials, finally abandoning their habbit of bashing Russia as a country for the acts of its leadership and reaching out directly to its citizens with encouraging messages. We need to keep doing this, plus if possible, limit the effects of the sanctions for the ordinary citizens, that are as opposed to this war as any of us in Europe. Not one European or American citizen had to face harsh sanctions, even though they protested against the wars our governments have went ahead with after all. If we make the Russians suffer another harsh punishment and humiliation, we may achieve getting rid of Putin, but whoever comes after may be as bad for Europe. Be careful. Russia is never going to go away from our doorstep.

In the end, what will all this madness and death worth to anyone I wonder? A massaging of our chauvinism, our nationalistic pride, sense of moral, social and financial supperiority over the other maybe? What continent will we leave to the future generations, one of divisions and high military expenditures, just to prove a point and maintain our beloved "spheres of influence" ? The only ones who have gained from all this, are the war mongers on each side; NATO got a huge boost, military spending is going up on both sides; thanks Mr Putin! And who is going to be paying for all this I wonder. The rest of us luckily only with our taxes, but the Ukrainians with their own blood and lives. Shame on you all!! Russia, please GET OUT from Ukraine now, America please STAY OUT from Ukraine with your missiles, Europe please SUPPORT Ukraine financially to cope with this and all of you back off and let the United Nations take over and do what they were supposed to do in the first place, bring peace.

I would like to offer my deepest sympathy and condolences to the people of Ukraine, plus all the victims of this senseless war, either Ukrainian, Russian or Russian speaking. I am so sorry!!

Europe must be wise and prevent an all-out war in Ukraine.

US President Joe Biden and Russia's Vladimir Putin will speak via video call on Tuesday (07/12/2021), the White House says, amid mounting tensions over Ukraine. It comes after Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US had evidence that Russia had made plans for a "large scale" attack on Ukraine. But he added it was unclear if Mr Putin had made a final decision to invade. Russia has denied any such intention, and accused Ukraine of executing its own troop build-up.

The conflict in Ukraine is not recent. In fact, it has been going on for more than 7 years now, mounting to a loss of life in the thousands; around 13,200 people were killed in the conflict, about 3,350 of them civilians, as of today. It is evident that this war won't stop, unless there is a decisive action, or the will by all sides involved to end it. So if the Russians have indeed plans to terminate it by invading, it will be Pyrrhic Victory for everyone no doubt.

I have written many articles on Ukraine in the past, so I will try not to repeat myself. I feel for the Ukrainian people, because their land is a territory that is being "pissed on by the big dogs of the world", in order to mark their territory and sphere of influence. Who are these dogs? In one hand is Russia of course and USA on the other, with Europe being America's little poodle, siding always with its big brother or master. To me both sides are on the wrong, and Ukraine's population pays the price.

As I have already mentioned previously, the West ignores that Ukraine's population is (before Crimea's annexation) 17.3% ethnically Russian. So if the West thinks that integrating Ukraine it is institutions would be easy, while being constantly hostile to Russia is deluding itself. Unless of course it uses Ukraine to annoy and black-mail Russia, but has no real interest in including the country in its own sphere of influence.

The one point in which the Russians are right, is that Ukraine must never join NATO, even if it wants to. If it does, the USA will no doubt install missiles and military bases in its territory, and that understandably is something that Russia wishes to avoid. Except naturally, if by a miracle the US and Russia ever become friends and allies, something that could have happened, if NATO accepted Russia as a member when Putin himself, in the early days of his Presidency, allegedly wanted. If that outcome ever took place, it would save Europe a lot of trouble and headache, but I guess what would be the need for NATO then, plus how would USA and Russia would cooperate, if they both saw themselves as leaders or equal partners of the block?

If Ukraine wishes closer ties with the West, an EU membership should suffice. But is this something that Russia really wants and is willing to allow? We have many examples of countries being technically neutral, whilst in the EU; Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden. So I really do not understand Ukraine's or the EU's insistence on the country joining NATO as well, if this aspiration is something that will ultimatelly split Ukraine, politically or territorially because of Russian objection and fear.

With around 7 million ethnic Russians approximatelly in the country- that is equal or more than the Baltic states population in the EU, how does the West or Ukraine itself, envisage its military participation against a potential conflict with Russia for example? But once in the EU, the Russian minority could act as a link between the two blocks, if the Russians of Ukraine are allowed to be voted as MEPs in the European Parliament. They could help mending relations, assist the West better understand Russia and vice versa, and kickstart a new chapter in the European-Russian relations, something that we all need, especially Ukraine right now. Plus, this could act as the carrot, which will entice Russia to allow Ukraine into the EU.

Naturally, if Ukraine wants to join either institutions (NATO and EU), Russia cannot really stop it. But it can sabotage it with from within, as it does and that is something that just needs to be accepted no matter how wrong it is. The West has its own legacy of meddling and intervention (the Greek Junta back in the'70s for example, supported by the USA), so how can it point the finger towards the Russians now and expect them to just back off? Instead, we should try and reach the root of what drives the Russian leadership to such actions. What Russia most likely and conveniently takes into consideration,is the 1990 conversation was limited to discussion about unified Germany’s status in NATO. There was no promise or even a discussion about countries like Poland and Hungary.

Part of the persisting confusion stems from that fact that what was said at the time sounds pretty clear in retrospect. On January 31, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher declared, “What NATO must do is state unequivocally that whatever happens in the Warsaw Pact, there will be no expansion of NATO territory eastwards, that is to say, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.” In February, Baker then told Gorbachev in Moscow that “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Gorbachev then stated “any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.” Baker replied, “I agree.”

However, U.S. officials backed away from these statements during the negotiations that followed, and the discussions focused on what troops and infrastructure would be allowed in the former East Germany, not whether a unified Germany would be a full member of NATO. Even Gorbachev agreed later that the entire discussion was about Germany and the terms of unification, not about the rest of Europe. (From Jim Goldgeier) The Russian hardliners though who back Putin, empowered by the West's humiliation efforts of Russia and lack of credence towards their country, prefer to react negatively towards any aspiration of their former territories-now independent democracies, to join the West.

In other words, because the US and Russia do not trust or understand each other, countries caught in the middle of their aspired "spheres of influence" suffer and will continue to suffer. Consequently, we get accusations and counter accusation by both sides, threats and propaganda, thus if God forbid this escalates into a full-on conflict between NATO and Russia, I cannot see any winners. Europe notably will pay a high price, especially these nations which are already in NATO; they will have no option but to take side and participate, while others such as Sweden and Ireland, will once more stay neutral and watch us as we destroy each other. The impact won't be equal either in the aftermath, as the rich "powers" of Europe will be able to recover faster, while small NATO members, especially those to the East, will either be obliterated or financially cripled for decades to come.

Therefore, this is not just about Ukraine any more. After 7 years with no solution in sight, and with increasing military presence, the whole stability of Europe is at stake. I urge both the Russian and the American leadership, as well that of the EU and Europe, to be cautious and reasonable. Solutions that have not been considered until now, must be taken into account in order to solve the stalemate once and for all.

A new pact between the West and Russia should happen, a renewed approach and compromise, if not a serious effort for permanent reconciliation and peace. Firstly, the West must accept that Crimea has been permanently lost to Russia. A poll of the Crimean public in Russian-annexed Crimea was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. The West always rejects elections and referendums in Russian territories, but this was conducted by a German organization.

Understandably, Ukrainians oppose this and plead to the West to never recognise Crimea's annexation, nor any further loss of territory. But we have been through this many times before, not just in Ukraine but other territories, when the West refuses to recognise an outcome that Russia approves and vice versa, so we end up in stalemates that last decades and hinder any progress and prospetity in those regions. The West was happy to let Yugoslavia fall apart, its fragmentation to mini states and territories that can never become stable and prosperous without European financial support or EU membership. It activelly took part to the complete disintegration of Yugoslavia in order to guarantee peace near Europe's borders and generally in the continent, however now it stands stubbornly firm against any loss of territory in Ukraine.

Russia won't change under Putin, we know this. Especially since the US insists like a child to keep reminding them that they lost and treat them as the losers. The more the West treats Russia as the enemy because of Putin, the more Putin or someone like him-once he eventually is forced to withdraw from the country's leadership (he will not live forever) will be a villain to the West and try to sabotage any plans for European expansion to the East. The solution either we like it or not, lies solely in colaboration and cooperation, or even reconciliation.

Depending the extend of the damage this conflict has done to Ukraine, we must consider the partition of the country, or its restructuring and reformation to a more federal political entity like Spain or the UK. If the Russian minority cannot remain citizens of their country, without retaliation by the Ukrainian majority, then we must accept partition like Kosovo and Serbia. Or sadly even the redrawing of the borders between Russia and Ukraine. If their differences can be solved by greater autonomy for the Russian majority teritories, then a Spanish/British model could work (assuming that "Spain" or the "United Kingdom" work); besides, aren't we all in Europe heading for a federal model? However they can never be part of Ukraine again, unless not only the country, but the West itself restore their relations with Russia.They will keep acting as Russian pawns indefinitely, to sabotage Ukrainian entry into Western institutions.

Of course, there are no guarrantees that even if Ukrainians accept the above radical and unpopular for them solutions, Russia will cooperate and let the country join the West. It is then when European and American diplomacy and change of attitude towards Russia must happen, to assure that Ukraine's entry into the EU can be of benefit to Russia, via the Russian ethnic minority, should they of course wish to stay Ukrainian citizens. NATO expansion won't happen and will not be a requirement for EU expansion in the future and potential Eastern European members. Unless of course Russia and the USA solve their differences and missunderstandings. Anything is better than an invasion or war. We should not let WW2 mentality and its aftermath, poison our future.

We have gone through a financial crisis and recently a pandemic, both which left European citizens tired, economically strained, angry and prone to euroscepticism. A war between NATO and Russia, or further sanctions and counter sanctions, instability in Ukraine will destroy all the progress we have made and test us even more, but not everyone equally. Some will be able to cope, others to stay neutral, few may gain but ultimately, nobody will remain the same. I believe the Russian citizens do not really want another generalized war, so Putin may find himself at odds with his own voters too, if the reason is Ukraine for their own suffering. So, leaders of Europe, Russia and America, can you please take into consideration that your citizens want no more wars, but peace and stability? I for one, have no interest in any country's supremacy,or to maintain the Cold War mentality and politics. What I wish is for Europe to be a united, peaceful and prosperous continent for everyone in it.

Europe does not have only a migrant, but an ideological crisis.

For the past few months, Europe is faced with yet another refugee crisis. This time though, the entry point is not the usual Mediterranean route, but the borders between Belarus, Poland and Lithuania. According to many EU sources, Belarus' president Alexander Lukashenko has been shuffling people to the border, in retaliation for EU sanctions, an act qualified by the EU as a hybrid war.

Lithuania’s parliament passed legislation to speed up deportations of those crossing the border illegally. Critics say this might violate their human rights, but the government and lawmakers dismiss that. “This is an extreme situation,” Interior Minister Agne Bilotaite said. “This is not a normal migration, it is not a normal migration path. It is a hybrid war against us, so the response must be adequate.”

Frontex, the EU’s border agency, has pledged to bolster its support “due to the growing migratory pressure at the border with Belarus.” New sections of barbed wire fence were erected this month, with plans to invest 41 million euros to reinforce the entire 678-kilometer border with Belarus. Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte said that by encouraging the flow of migrants, Lukashenko is seeking to pressure her country’s infrastructure and politics. “The organized mass immigration is revenge,” she told The Associated Press.

In a Facebook post published in Arabic, Kurdish and English Lithuania’s foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, promised that his country would grant asylum to “virtually no one”. Three months later, and it seems Landsbergis has been true to his word. A total of 2,800 people have claimed asylum in the Baltic state until mid August since neighbouring Belarus opened its borders and so far, not a single person has been granted the protection. The grandson of the main architect of an independent Lithuania, Vytautas Landsbergis, Landsbergis has branded migrants coming from Belarus as criminals.

However the BBC reports different kind of stories. A Polish lawyer has launched a plan to provide support for migrants crossing into the country illegally via Belarus. Kamil Syller is appealing to locals living near the border to switch on a green light to signal that they can provide migrants with food and shelter. Speaking to the Polish newspaper, Wyborcza, Mr Syller said that migrants calling at these homes could count on receiving a meal, a change of clothes, first aid and the chance to charge their phones. He also criticised the Polish government's stance on the issue.

"The authorities of our country, enacting draconian regulations that will soon come into force and will legalise push-back, have calculated the death of refugees in them," he said. "We, the inhabitants of the borderland, who see human drama and suffering, do not have to calculate. "We must remain human."

Despite such stories of compassion, the overall attitude of Europe towards this crisis is obviously different than the one which affected Greece, Italy and Spain. Is this is a sign that Europe has had simply enough and has grown passive and indifferent to such pleas, right at its borders? Maybe the continent's inhabitants are turning a blind eye to the humanitarian emergency that unfolds in this region, because it is closer to home, near the rich and dominant Northern Europe. We haven't seen any "Refugees Welcome" campaigns on social media, or in the streets in cities across Europe.

Perhaps it has to do with the narrative in which this "crisis" is told; "revenge by immigration", a "hybrid war," because we all know that Belarus and Russia who are deemed responsible for this refugee influx, are our adversaries. However, Europe opted to offer Turkey and Erdogan billions of euros, in order to make sure that he kept them away from Europe, yet despite thousands reaching Greece's islands every year, Turkey is still our ally and friend. I wonder if this has anything to do with the Turks doing the West's and NATO's dirty work in Ukraine and the Middle East. Hypocricy is very annoying.

No NGO has condemned the Baltic states, or Poland for adopting a strict "stay out" policy. If such statements were made so blatantly by any Greek, Italian or Spanish official though, it would be another matter. It is obvious that any of the so called "refugee crises" are anything but and they become a tool which can be indeed weaponised, either by Belarus, Russia, or Turkey, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria, in order to blackmail Europe or receive funds from it.

Or as many others believe, weaken Europe from within and help to give power to nationalistic, euroskeptic political parties, which will in turn postpone or scrap any plans to create a functioning, fully democratic European union. Those who have such plans, could be less than the obvious, or anyone that would lose out from an increasing European assertiveness, from East or West, ally or foe. Of course we can not forget the "enemy from within", those European elites that prefer a fragmented Europe of nations, always at each other's throats, bickering and easily manipulated to promote their own financial or political interests.

On the other hand, we must not ignore the ideological strife that our continent has been engaging, since the ancient times. It is something that heavily influences our stance to immigration, thus of course the policies that we chose to adopt. Ever since the ancient Greeks expanded their territories through the conquests of Alexander the Great, thus coming into contact with peoples of other races, religions and cultures, the same debate always takes place and funnily, the very same arguments are being used for or against each point of view.

One of the Hellenistic philosophies which was founded by Zeno of Citium many centuries ago, was Stoicism. In an expanding Greek world, spanning from South Italy all the way to India, comprised by many ethnic groups and religions, the Greeks that were used to live in the relative small societies of their city-states, were forced to not only coexist with this mosaic of peoples, but often to accept a new way with which they were governed, into a centralized imperial or royal authority. This seismic change, forced the thinkers of that time to reconcider a person's place and role in the world.

A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism; according to the Stoics, all people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should live in brotherly love and readily help one another. In the Discourses, Epictetus comments on man's relationship with the world: "Each human being is primarily a citizen of his own commonwealth; but he is also a member of the great city of gods and men, whereof the city political is only a copy." This sentiment echoes that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said, "I am not an Athenian or a Corinthian, but a citizen of the world." They held that external differences, such as rank and wealth, are of no importance in social relationships. Instead, they advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. Stoicism became the most influential school of the Greco-Roman world.

The teachings and human experiences and conclusions of the people of that era, can be echoed until today. The Greco-Roman philosophers, inevitably influenced the collective mentality of all nations that were part of their world, which in turn contributed to the Western civilization. Christianity for example, although it was conceived in Roman Judea, was clearly inspired by the earlier Greco-Roman teachings. Apart from religious movements, political or ideological ones such as communism or socialism, can also find their roots in the ideas described by the Stoics: all are equal,we are one.

Nevertheless, history never stays the same. While Europeans accepted Christianity and themselves established their own empires, they did not always maintained the Stoic philosophical mind, nor the Christian ethos. Wars, colonization, invasions, empires, ethnic cleansing, holocausts, slavery and religious fundamentalism, have all tarnished our continent's history with blood, injustice and resentment. Throught those turbulent times, which inspired but also were driven by clashing ideologies, political and religious dogmas, interests and ethnic and racial tensions both within and outside of Europe, our continent has gone in full circles numerous times. Perhaps it will again, and we are witnessing the transitional period.

This can be witnessed brilliantly today. A post war Europe was left humiliated, destroyed and in need of rebirth. Then some brilliant minds came up with the idea of a united Europe, in order to avoid the same carnage again on European soil. They were the EU's founding fathers, like Robert Schuman, Altiero Spinelli and Konrad Adenauer. Fast forward a few decades and euroskepticism, born out of the same forces that brought Europe to its knees, fuelled by the mistakes of our elites, economic instability and an increased wave of immigration into Europe, is seeking every opportunity to tip the scales towards the other side once more.

What does all this have to do with immigration and refugees? Apparently, a lot. For example, while it was their own economic interests that the British elites were trying to secure by achieving Brexit, the people were convinced to vote for it, partially because of their concerns on immigration. The same tacticts are used by many Central and Eastern European EU members like Poland. While their elites are only seeking to protect their own stakes, the people are duped to support them, by using the "national interest" or "identity" carrot, which after of centuries of being used and abused, it is indeed deeply ingrained into everyone's mentality.

Europe's populace was always forced to accept one identity or the other, one religion over its adversary, and the same goes with languages, ideologies, ruling elites and even lifestyle. In every age, our leaders drove our collective way of thinking, or culture, according to their ever changing needs, which often are coming after a destructive development, such a war, enslavement, or expansion. In other cases, the driving force was simply their pocketsand lust for more power.

That is why some European nations of Western Europe find it easier to accept non-Europeans as citizens of their own country, because their rulers had to convince them to accept such case, in order to achieve control over vast areas of land, comprised by numerous ethnicities. Later on when they needed "guest workers" to fill jobs in their factories, they had to come up with the "all one, all equal" stoic idea of multiculturalism again, in order to avoid a backclash. Contrary, nations further to the East, that were threatened more often by cultures from outside of Europe, never been colonizers in their recent history, find it harder to adapt or adopt multiculturalism. Because they never had the need for it. Their rulers chose another system to deal with their workforce demands; communism.

The reality is, that both ideologies, nationalism and liberalism or cosmopolitanism, are purposely avoiding to view their flaws and the lies they have been built upon. They are simply ideas, born out of the human intellect. Firstly, the notion of a national identity is in fact flawed. We all know that Europe has always been a melting pot, it just in the past, we did not have people from as far as Oceania or Latin America reaching our shores. Our continent's population mixed and adopted new customs, religions even language, as the borders changed over the centuries. No one can claim pure heritage. The national idendity was always forged in schools, churches or parliaments and palaces.

Through all this mixing and killing and enemy subduing, or border changing, new nations emerged, that did not exist before. Others dissapeared and were absorbed into larger empires. The Thracians, Illyrians, Skythians, Goths, Avars, Celts etc, they were all eventually slavicized, romanized, germanized, hellenized and so on. Everything as a result of migration, invasions and occupation or colonization. That cannot easily be erased from people's psyche, and not just in Europe. Even those nations who themselves were colonized by Europeans, eventually sought to get rid of their rulers and in most cases, deport as many of them they could, back to their lands.

And perhaps if this process continues, new nations and ethnic groups will continue to appear in the a future Europe. And that is what the nationalists fear. Loss of territory, their way of life, identity and culture. And if you look at it from this angle, they are right. The EU's motto is "United in Diversity". We have a created a political, social and economic forum, that all our cultures should be celebrated and respected. So the thought of large numbers of people arriving in Europe, ultimatelly altering its demographics, worries many Europeans that until recently, were living in homogenous, family oriented, conservative societies. We got to admit, Europe is a socially conservative continent still, despite its industrial and economic advances.

And to be honest, if any liberal or leftist thinks that immigration does not come with its challenges, whether they be social, economic or political, he or she is simply daydreaming. Because it does, take it from an immigrant. The solution won't come by denying it, but rather by acknowledging it and trying to find ways to deal with the problem and make the best out of it. However to achieve that, we need to get rid off our self-imposed limitations.

Firstly we need to stop feeling guilty about the past, not matter how some groups would like to remind Europe of its mistakes. If the tables were turned, I believe that others would commit similar omissions. We must study and learn from our history so we never repeat its dark pages, review the errors but do not let them become an impediment to free speech or expressing an opinion openly, unless of course it is offensive. We cannot be forced to solve the world's problems, without the collaboration of all other wealthy regions of the world.

We also must admit, that our ideologies are simply that; an idea. They are not binding and they are constantly shifting according to the needs of a society or its leaders. Thus since when we decided, that upholding a stance based on an idea which often someone had thousands years ago, can still be applied as a panacea to every problem we are faced today? Are we sure that we can create this utopic egalitarian, prosperous and multicultural free society, something which has failed in USA? After more than 200 years of history and they still struggle to offer their African American compatriots equal opportunities and prospects. Can Europe succeed where America has failed? We cannot stop bickering about finances on European level, we smear each other with stereotypes when things get tough and we are acting on a "each to its own" mentality when it comes EU policies, that are often torpedoed by national vetoes.

And why should we accept unwanted and uninvited immigrants anyway. We are not discussing people from war torn countries like Syria, they must be accepted and helped. But not all that are coming are from Syria. We have people who cross the borders of Greece, running through remote villages during the night, stealing crops and animals from the local farmers to feed, forcing the locals to sleep with riffles ready by their doors. In my recent trip to villages located at the Greek-Bulgarian borders, I have heard stories from family friends who live in the region, of often encounters with illegal migrants running through their fields at night, on the way to Europe. Sometimes they try to help them, others they have to repel them as they are becoming too bold out of their desperation. No media will report such stories of course. But imagine if you are sleeping during the night and you hear your door's handle twisting and someone is trying to break into your house, located in a remote village, how desperate you will become for a solution to this problem?

These migrants are coming from places as far as Africa, Bangladesh, Iran and Pakistan. Last time checked, these are not war torn regions, but often very poor. So why can't we help their countries instead, by investing and creating jobs there, but we opt for trying to accomodate an ever increasing number of them, by monopolizing jobs and economic growth in Europe and a few other rich regions of the world. This is the real reason for the extreme global inequality and the solution does not come by creating more jobs in wealthy countries, to absord all the poor that our constant competition with others for an ever greater GDP oriented economic growth has created. So because we are unwilling to change our financial mentality and capitalist neoliberal ideology, we are creating a new problem, which due to our guilt of our past actions and mistakes, no one is ready to discuss it openly and find a solution.

No. Not all of these are refugees, they are economic migrants and should be dealt as such, knowing that not everyone can enter. We could be fair to them if we really wished and attracted them legally by establishing work permit embassies in their own regions,so that they can find jobs in Europe via a legal route. Instead, we tolerate criminal gangs smuggling human beings, which often have to pay thousands to cross into Europe, if they make it of course. We chose to tolerate our adversaries to use these desperate people as a weapon, to blackmail us in order for us to bow to their demands.

Why must we opt for sacrificing our own identity which was forged over centuries or even millenia, in the name of economic growth; or even worse, a largely flawed version of multiculturalism based on exploitation, lack of integration for migrant communities, lack of debate and a democratic process among the native population, which often is branded too easily as "racists" "fascists" and so on, if they raise any concern against a large scale immigration. In a democracy, either you like it or not, all voices or opinions must be heard and are valid, apart those that are intentionally offensive or inflammatory. Your aim as a liberal, leftist or a migrant sympathizer is not to deprive a debate to those who have a different opinion than you, but to make sure you have enough arguments to convince those who are unsure and become a majority.

If what you value of course is democracy. What we witness is a lack of decisive action by our leaders, because different political or social groups, NGOs and vested financial interests prefer to play the sympathy card and force our societies to give access to thousands of illegal migrants. What will happen to them once they get access to Europe, does not concern them of course. Will they be exploited, find work, achieve their dream goals, or will be forced to live in a ghetto, cut off from our society and lacking of opportunities? There is simply a limit of people that Europe can accomodate, before people start voting for populist right-wing parties, endagering the open border, free societies that we have achieved over the past 70 years.

And yes, national identity, heritage, culture, history and religion, still play a large role in the minds and hearts of most Europeans. These issues may leave some of us less bothered, but you cannot force them out of people, or you become the fascist that you so much hate. The true solution lies somewhere in the middle. Nationalists must be taught and understand that immigration has always been an integral part of humanity, and if one thinks that it can be stopped is fooling himself. It can though be managed, or it could lead to populism and extremism. We have seen this before in our continent. They must grasp the benefits of foreign workers, who with their contributions pay for the generous European social security policies, something that other wealthy countries like USA and Japan lack.

They can be inspired and encouraged to embrace migrants, by experience their culture and engange in a constructive intercultural dialogue, but that can never happen, if the migrants live isolated in a ghetto and the natives fear them. Thus, a gradual immigration flow, smaller in numbers and managed by a coprehensive policy, is what Europe needs. Temporary, seasonal work contracts could be a more common option, and we should not be afraid to say "no more" if we are finding hard to cope, or we simply have no room for any more foreign workers.

Personally I adore all of Europe's nations, thus I respect their culture and wish to see them preserved and passed on to the next generations. Every language, dialect, food, dance, costume, music, beverage, tradition, not just of Europe but of all nations, are important and worth safeguarding. To me, they are flowers in a garden, and how boring a garden would be if it was to lose any of its flowers, or it was not maintained properly. What would be the reason to travel, something that I love doing, if not to get to know a new culture, language or taste a new food. Thus, although my nature is cosmopolitan, I totally understand why some people are so attached to their heritage and I empathize with them. If I was to ignore their concerns, it would be insulting the least, if not arrogant.

I have made my ideological choice, which is always finding a common ground. I am a cosmopolitan who loves and enjoys other people's traditions, and wishes to compromise with all sides of an argument, in order to reach consensus. I just love humanity and marvel its achievements. Perhaps Europe must do the same, and find a way to please the different views and ideologies of its citizens, as well as the national sensitivities of its member states, in order to move forward united and in peace, potentially even achieving what others have failed to do; that egalitarian, prosperous utopia I mentioned earlier.

The West's 20 year old Afghan fiasco!

After 20 years of military presence, the US and the remaining of its allies are finally pulling out of Afghanistan. Do they leave behind a democratic, free and modern country? Not at all. On the contrary, the Asian nation returns right where it all started: with the Taliban in power. Scenes that are reminiscent of the quick US retreat from Vietnam a few decades back, are flooding our news feeds and social media pages.

One cannot stop himself from feeling cheated, enraged or disappointed. Some others perhaps justified. What was the purpose of such long and costly operation, with a total cost of over 2 trillion dollars, plus 2,500 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan, and nearly 4,000 more U.S. civilian contractors dead? In addition, an estimated 69,000 Afghan military police, 47,000 civilians killed, 51,000 dead opposition fighters, plus finally, the over 1000 NATO soldiers' deaths.

And it doesn't stop here. The cost so far to care for 20,000 U.S. casualties has been $300 billion, with another half-trillion or so expected to come. I can imagine this outcome must be particularly deflating for the war veterans, the families of those who lost their lives or got maimed for a more "democratic" Afghanistan. How can anyone justify this war, as being worthy and successful, especially for the Afghan people and those who fought on the ground. The funny thing is, that there are still those that call for help for Afghanistan or its people and defend Western involvement in the country.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, stated recently: "NATO Allies and partners went into Afghanistan after 9/11 to prevent the country from serving as a safe haven for international terrorists to attack us. In the last two decades, there have been no terrorist attacks on Allied soil organised from Afghanistan. Those now taking power have the responsibility to ensure that international terrorists do not regain a foothold." But those who are taking power now, ARE the international terrorists or so you told us before. What happened now, what terms you negotiated and from lions, they became lambs willing to negotiate with their former enemies, or listen to their demands all of a sudden?

Josep Borrell, the EU's top diplomat, says the bloc will have to speak to the Taliban as it has "won the war", in order to avoid a "humanitarian and migratory disaster". He denied that this amounts to recognition of the Islamist group. Evelyn Regner, the Chair of the European Parliament’s committee on women’s rights and gender equality said:“We must not turn a blind eye to a humanitarian crisis which will specifically affect women and girls in Afghanistan. All EU member states must work together to ensure the safe passage out of the country for anyone in danger. All further negotiations must guarantee the safety and well-being of Afghan women and girls.”

The above statements show an utter lack of touch with the reality, by the European officials. I mean calling for "safe passage" for anyone in danger, especially Afghan women is ridiculous. The country has a population of about 40 million people, roughly half of them are women and all of them are equally "in danger" by the Taliban regime. How exactly are we going to provide "safe passage" to all of them? How do we decide which female resident is more deserving than the other to be saved, from the Taliban? Do we evacuate all the women from Afghanistan?

And if we "speak" with the "winners" of this 20 year old war, then it is exactly a recognition of their legitimate rule and of themselves as the new caretakers of the country. Why is this so hard to swallow and admit? If it was indeed a "victory", or rather an agreed and long debated hand-over from the West, back to the old leaders of this country, a regime that may I remind you that the US supported before against the Russian influence and expansion in the region.

Just watch any of the old Hollywood "Rambo" movies, to see Sylvester Stalone fighting side by side with the "freedom fighters", the Taliban, against the Soviet oppressors. The ultimate American marine and super-hero, protecting and empowering the region's underdog, against a hostile super-power. Fast forward a couple of decades, and from "freedom fighters" the Taliban became America's No 1 enemy and a terrorist group. But you see, when you nurture dragons to fight for you against your enemies, make sure you do not get burned by their fire when they become too big to handle.

That was never in America's plans, when they were engaging in full cold war with the Soviets.But what tells us that this time, as they hastily are abandoning the Afghans to their own fate again, that we will not have this regime gaining confidence by their apparent victory, thus becoming even more boastfull and troublesome for the West some time in the future? After "milking" Afghanistan's resources, or using it as a stepping stone to pormote Western/US interests in the region for the past two decades, it now became apparent that the costs surpass the benefits and the Americans decided to get out.

But has anyone understood why we went there in the first place, if not to make sure that Afghanistan never sees the rule of Taliban, or any such group again, thus making it a stable, democratic, "free" country which will never pose any threat to anyone, especially to us in the West? So to witness now the handing over of the state, back to the same "regime" we once supported and then tried to allegedly destroy, is farcical. I will not indulge any conspiracy theories about 9/11 in this article. But if the world's No 1 "superpower", plus all its allies which amount to the globe's top military force ever to come together, could not uproot the Taliban, a group of poppy growers, uneducated religious radicals (as we are left to believe) while not even having anywhere close to their disposal of the finances, resources in arms equipment and trained personnel as their adversaries, then this war was futile and a waste. Or someone is simply lying to us.

Perhaps of course, the West's aim was never to punish the Taliban for the 9/11 attacks, as they could have striked hard a few targets, killed a number of them and their leader Osama Bin Laden and leave the country to its own devices much earlier. The real reason for such operation may be lost in the pages of history. But we are all going to be burdened, one way or another, for the "trigger happy" attitude of the USA leadership.

In the past, President George W. Bush, has claimed that "America is addicted to oil". I would add also, addicted to war and arms sales, conflict and destabilizing countries, or whole regions. And Europe as an ever willing accomplice, obviously to serve its own interests, even if it is just to receive US financial aid or a post colonial complex of superiority and entitlement, is not only involved, but called to deal with the messy aftermath.

Just as I mentioned above, just watch any US blockbuster movie and you will realize, that American mentality and public opinion is heavily influenced or brainwashed, to be accustomed to war and violence. Many of such films are funded by the military or the US arms industries, plus their actors have military background, themselves or their parents. The highest selling movies are those with war scenes, mafia, corruption, police shoot-outs, presidential assassination attempts, military, explosions, alien invasions, combat scenes, fire, destruction and death. One can find out a lot about weapons and their use, you often feel you are being trained to combat and how to handle guns and riffles in those movie scenes.

It is no wonder then that the US is a highly militarized nation, that somehow, thinks itself as the world's leader and policeman. The reality for other countries though is, that not all of them want to play by one nation's rules. Not because of resistance necessarily, but because they simply do not have the same culture or way of viewing things. It will be much easier if we all agreed to disagree, yet despite our different viewpoints, we could all cooperate and work for the betterment of all humanity. And if indeed the Western way is the best way forward, it does not have to be imposed onto other cultures by force: nobody likes to be bombed into submission to change his point of view.

Thus sadly, the No 1 US export is war and violence, instability and financial bullying: and it doesn't deserve this type of fame. It has so much more to give to humanity, if they only could see it. Whether the country with the most billionaires in the globe, would put its wealth for the betterment of its own citizens first, then perhaps those of other nations, it could could act as a greater role model for smaller countries to aspire. And of course, it would have so much positive impact in the world, plus eager followers across.

Clearly, first the American, then the European leadership and citizens alike, must rethink their input in this world and the relationship between them. The current US President, Joe Biden who promised that “America is back” after the retreat of the Trump years has embraced his predecessor’s policy of quitting Afghanistan and, critics argue, Trump’s “America first” worldview. Some US allies have suggested Biden’s decision renews questions over the United States as a dependable partner. Biden declared that “the buck stops with me” but pointed the finger elsewhere, including at Afghans he said were unwilling to fight. So where does this leave Europe and its own aspirations to be a world player, or its partnership with the US?

If the Afghan people allowed a small group of around 80,000 men, to take over a country of 40 million people so fast, plus of course what Biden said is true, then what type of help can Europe be pledging to Afghanistan and the region? Money? Former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled with $169MILLION in his cash-stuffed helicopter and has been given asylum in Dubai on 'humanitarian grounds'. Military assistance? The Americans just pulled out, the Afghans have given up: can we go and save the day by ourselves? Or perhaps by accepting hundreds of thousands, even millions of Afghan refugees?

Europe and many other nations from across the world, allied to the USA, have offered their support and help, lost soldiers and were part of the two decades long occupation of Afghanistan. Will all of these countries, around 40 in number, become also part in the current situation and help in the expected refugee crisis, by willing to accept fleeing Afghan civilians? Will there be a global humanitarian effort, especially by those nations that assisted USA during the past 20 years in the region, or will the refugees be tossed from border to border until they reach Europe?

Our continent has been struggling since 2015 with another refugee crisis, from the Syrian (and not only) conflict, which tested the unity of the EU itself. It turned into a decisive no matter how indirect factor for Brexit and we still haven't managed to deal completely with the aftermath. Another refugee crisis may be the last drop in the glass, for the EU's cohesion. We know that there are plenty of willing countries, which weaponise the refugees to push for their own interests and agenda: Iran, Turkey and lately even Belarus. It is not a matter of if but when. What will be our resolve?

Ultimatelly, I think there is a lesson to be learned by the West's defeat in Afghanistan. First, that if you start wars and destabilize regions, you will always have to deal with such mess in the aftermath. We do not have to save the world, especially those who do not want to save themselves or change their ways. And the one way that will definitely not assist this change, is by bombing or invading them. Additionally, others do not have to be like us, nor accept our values in order to collaborate and trade with them. We do not condemn the Saudis for their record of women's rights, but we chose to scold the Taliban. We keep quiet about the lack of LGBT visibility and rights in Japan, but for Russia we opt for an utter hysteria. Different rules and approach, for different nations. How much more hypocritical can the West get?

On the contrary, early indications suggested that China — potentially supported by Russia, Pakistan and some other governments — would adopt a very different approach, according to diplomats and experts. Beijing was unlikely to deploy military force, seeking instead to use diplomatic and economic inducements to coax the Taliban on to a path of peaceful reconstruction. And that is how you win the world, by offering financial assistance, pouring billions into their economy despite their political or social views and beliefs. So once you establish good relations and get them hooked on your money, then you can manipulate them into becoming your staunch allies and supporters, or promoting your own values onto the dependant country. America on the contrary choses to allow its arms industries to profit, to the detriment of its own citizens, yet with short term benefits for the rest of the nation and a plan for the day after.

We must grasp this opportunity, both the US and Europe, to reflect and outline a roadmap for the future. To reimage our relationship and that with the rest of the world. It's ok to step back for while and take stock, than losing our way while we strive always to not lose control and the leadership spot. The world is not comprised only be Western nations and why should it be. We are all on this planet together, there is no need for a "boss," that is such an immature and childish approach. The US can be excused for being a relative new nation for this demeanor, but what excuse does Europe have, with all the centuries of influencing and inspiring the planet?

Europe needs a reality check on immigration... and everything!

There have been questions surrounding the morality of Greece’s use of sound cannons (long range acoustic devices- LRADs) against migrants recently at Greece’s border with Turkey, which have been brought up both by the EU and by various rights groups.

“This is an odd way to protect your borders. This is nothing that has been funded by the European Commission. And I do hope that this is in line with fundamental rights – but that of course has to be clarified,” EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson said of the issue, in a Brussels meeting with the Greek Minister of Migration and Asylum, Notis Mitarakis.

So, let me get this straight. The EU, many of Greece's partners and numerous Western NGOs (the legality of some of the latter is questionable, as their legitimacy to dictate a sovereign state what to do with its own borders and affairs), are concerned about Greece's efforts to protect its own borders. The same Europe that is not willing to help Greece and tackle this "crisis", which has been going on since 2015. That is 6 years already, and all the EU is doing, is handing out cash to maintain the overcrowded refugee camps in Greece.

The same Europe that refuses to agree and take in more refugees from Greece, equally distributing them among its member states. The same Europe with infantile foreign policy and influence in the world, so that it cannot effectively lobby and convince its partners and allied nations, to take in more refugees. This is not Greece's only problem, nor Turkeys, or Europe's, but a global one. So why there isn't there an appropriate response?

This is the same Europe, that insists on keeping Switzerland in the Schengen Agreement, although this country is repeatingly causing problems with the freedom of movement of EU citizens, an agreement which it was keen to sign, until the EU started expanding to the East. If the block decides to go ahead with the accession of more countries, will Switzerland vote in favor in the next referendum on the expansion of Schengen? This is the same Europe, that allows three of its member states (France, Denmark and the Netherlands) to unfairly keep blocking the accession in the free movement zone of another three members (Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania), in fear of the influx of migrants from these countries, or refugees passing through them.

This is the same Europe that has paid Turkey 3 billion euros since 2015, in order to convince the country to keep the refugees there, with a renewed promise of EU membership. Something of course that it knows that will never uphold, as it does really want Turkey as a member state. While perhaps it could spend the same amount, in facilitating the processing and distribution of these people, throughout Europe and its close partners.

The same Europe that allows Denmark to export the problem, since recently it passed a law enabling it to process asylum seekers outside Europe. The new bill will allow Denmark to move refugees from Danish soil to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country. Rwanda is one of the concidered receiving nations. Denmark, one of the richest nations of the block, apparently finds it difficult to deal with the refugees in its own borders, while Greece, an indepted nation and one of the poorest, is expected by some to become Europe's dumping ground for the unwanted migrants and refugees.

This is the Europe that is too slow to abandon the unfair Dublin III Regulation. A creation of the '90s and the aftermath of the war in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, it stubbornly remained in place until today, although it has been slightly changed, with every new European country joining. It dictates that the first member state where finger prints are stored or an asylum claim is lodged, is responsible for a person's asylum claim. Basically turning the refugee crisis, a Greek, Maltese, Cypriot, Italian and Spanish problem, while the rich northern European nations, can wash their hands on the issue.

Thus the wealthy EU states, in many cases former colonial powers, while they are so keen to keep the humanitarian agenda part of EU's strategy, to satisfy their guilt complex of their own actions and racism of the past, they are unhappy that Greece which has been struggling with this issue for 6 years among other things (bailing out the German and French banks, Turkey's aggression, eurozone crisis etc) is doing what it can to protect Europe's borders.

But they are not unhappy that human beings are being used as a bargaining chip by Turkey, to blackmail the EU for more cash or an accession to the club. They are not botherd by the fact that many of these people are not actuall refugees, but economic migrants, seeking a better life in Europe. However to achieve their goal, they are falling victims of exploitation by smugglers that for a hefty payment, will try and assist the migrants to cross into Europe. And if things go wrong and people drown, so be it. The more Europe tolerates this kind of illegal immigration, the more it will keep happening. Once people from poor countries know that they can be successful in their pursue of their dream life in Europe, such practices will never stop.

"No human is illegal," claim many Western liberals, "let them all in". But "in" where, just in Greece, Spain and Italy? How do they see this unfolding, since in reality Europe has had enough and is clearly not willing to accept any more migrants. One of the main reasons that the UK has left the EU, was the immigration issue. Many Eastern/Central European states (Hungary, Poland, the Baltics etc), shamelessly refuse to assist and accomodate more refugees/migrants and Europe is struggling to keep the Far-Right from gaining (even more) power and getting elected as government in many of European states. I think that the European Liberals need a reality check on the situation, in order not to lose the plot entirely.

"We fight populism and fascism," many that have adopted this "ideology" claim, however they forget or fail to see that the "fascists" they are fighting, do not wear uniform and swastikas anymore. They are the ordinary people that are tired of the neo-liberal agenda that the EU and most European governments have adopted, they are their family members, colleagues and their friends, who lost their jobs in the process and take their frustration out on the migrants. Because when it is hard to make ends meet, when you struggle financially and your family, education and career prospects seem to be hard to accomplish, you really do not want to see billions spent, in keeping away, or allowing in and accomodating hundrends of thousands of citizens of poorer nations from far away.

While most of the West's progressives view them as "tin foil hat wearers", "populists" and uneducated, they forget one thing: they can vote, they have the right to do so in a functioning democracy. And when you ignore them, they will keep casting their ballots in favor of so called "populist parties".

Thus, the solution of "letting everybody in", to show a facade of humanitarianism and progressive mentality to the world, just to atone themselves for the attrocities that Europeans committed upon their fellow humans in the past, either on European soil in the numerous bloody wars, or one of their colonies, does not really make sense in the long term. You cannot force this view on the majority, and it is clear that Europe deep down is a conservative, nationalistic continent still. The EPP's (European People's Party) dominance in the European Parliament confirms that.

The bulk of Europeans, are attached and identify with their region or nation first, while fewer as European or citizens of the world. If we try to push for the "erosion" of their identity (as they see it) too fast and too far, soon the European project and dream itself will be in jeopardy, if the EU loses another member or the voters increasingly opt out for a Far-Right political party in a substantial number of EU member states. I for one, would not want to risk the reversal of the freedom of movement in our continent, just to satisfy the pretentious notion of humanitarian self righteousness of the European elites.

If they really need to solve the issue, they should seriously consider other options. In a discussion with a Tunisian migrant in Ireland in the past, he expressed his contempt towards Europeans. He asked me if I was a European myself before he expressed his opinion.I replied with a "yes" obviously, since Europe is part of my identity. However I hinted my sympathy for countries like his and that helped him to open up. He described how European and Western companies are settling in his country to exploit its resources, yet only Europeans can take high-paid jobs in them and the Tunisian locals, can only get those that pay less.

I agreed with him about the unfair way that globalisation is designed and operating. Europe and America are still dominating and exploiting the World's poorer nations, often burdening them with debt still deriving from the colonial era. As we have seen in the Greek treatment by Europe during the eurozone crisis, debt can also be passed from the banks, to the weakest economies of the Western world. America is the base of all major Financial Rating Agencies in the West, making of course the criteria for financial evaluation or a region or country, utterly biased. The AngloSaxon and Protestant ethos and mentality prevails and decides which country is being ranked better and favored, making it easier for nations with similar values with that of the US, to avail themselves favorable loan terms.

There is little doubt that European nations, are scrabbling for those terms from the US government or agencies. "Atlanticism", is the political ideology that many Europeans and Americans are adopting, to describe the unbreakable reliance and allegiance of Europe towards the US in just about everything: military, finance, politics and influence in the world. However, a toxic example of this "royalty," is the case of Denmark.

The country's secret service helped the US spy on European politicians including German Chancellor Angela Merkel from 2012 to 2014, Danish media revelaved recently. The Defence Intelligence Service (FE) collaborated with the US National Security Agency (NSA) to gather information, according to Danish public service broadcaster DR. Intelligence was allegedly collected on other officials from Germany, France, Sweden and Norway. One has to only wonder, what did the Danes got back in exchange: a blind eye for money laundering Russian dirty money into the West, via the Danske Bank scandal?Better treatment and image in the US and European media? Favorable ratings of their economy from the US based rating agencies perhaps? Or maybe being untouchable from the IMF and the Western loan sharks, or from any criticism for exporting and off-loading their refugee problem onto Africa?

If the US encourages unfair competition among EU member states, how much can we expect a true "union" among European countries, since its progress can always be controlled, manipulated and influenced by America? Furthermore, if the Americans are having this approach towards their "allies", imagine what they do to those who they stand in the way of the Atlanticists' world dominance.

There is a fairer world to be had, if Europe realized that it will be for its own benefit too. Why can't the West invest in poorer countries, rather have them hooked on aid? If we build factories in Bangladesh, do we really must pay the local workers just a few cents per hour as the labour market there requires, instead of a higher salary. It will still be profitable for Western companies, as they will pay them less comparing with European employees, but higher than the pennies which they receive right now. Hasn't the capitalist system had enough of human exploitation yet?

Could we source their educated youths and have them working in their own country, but in Western companies, with equal pay as the European and American counterparts, that move there to seek employment opportunities? Perhaps this will encourage them to stay back home, instead getting on a boat to reach European shores, with all the headache that brings for Europeans.

If we continue exploiting their natural resources for as little as possible, destabilize their countries with coups, civil wars in order to establish a favorable regime that will cooperate with the Atlanticists, then how do we really expect this "refugee crisis", or "humanitarian emergency" to ever end, since we are the ones causing it? Why the West must dominate and dictate everyone else on their affairs, and to so so, it creates and promotes this self image of righteousness and correctness on human rights that all must aspire to and follow, which clearly is a facade, or at least seriously flawed.

First you topple an unfavored "regime" in a country, then you establish a "democratic" one of your own preference, in order to have another puppet state and government, willing to grant you all the favors. Naturally, there will be a mess in the whole process, with thousands displaced or dead. Because often, that is what all these efforts to promote "democracy" across the world are about. A democratic regime is easier to manipulate, than an authoritarian. All you have to do is to get a hold of the nation's media, to brainwash the public opinion, then let the voters cast their ballot based on their misplaced, utterly confused opinion. We have seen in the case of Rupert Murdoch, how easy this is, if you got the money. And the West does.

Obviously we then sanction and condemn anyone like Russia and China, who are copying us and are doing exactly the same thing, in regions of their own interests. This world would be a better place, if all the aforementioned "powers", would stop competing they way they do, and realize that everyone would benefit if they started cooperating. The smaller states get crushed by their power games and personally, I do not give a damn about who wins this tug-of-war. As long I do not see the IMF ravaging countries, people having to pay the debt created by those gamblers in Wall Street, or human dignity being diminished in boats trying to cross the Mediterranean.

To conclude, not all is lost for the Atlanticists. Under the Biden Administration's leadership in the US, the G-7 group of nations have publicly endorsed a global minimum corporate tax of at least 15% last Friday, one piece of a broader agreement to update international tax laws for a globalized, digital economy. The leaders also announced a plan to replace Digital Services Taxes, which targeted the biggest American tech companies, with a new tax plan linked to the places where multinationals are actually doing business, rather than where they are headquartered. For the Biden administration, the Global Minimum Tax plan represents a concrete step towards its goal of creating what it calls a “foreign policy for the middle class.”

If this plan is endorsed and not sabotaged by European tax havens like Ireland and the Netherlands, it could be a step forward for a fairer world, or least the Western part of it. It remains to be seen if this "fairness" trickles down to all the globe, or the interests of a few spoiled and favored by the current system nations like Ireland, which could lose €2bn a year under the proposed reforms-a fifth of its corporate tax revenue, prevail.