Germany & France are happy as clams as Putin laughs to himself. The UK banking sector just got left out in the cold.
The questions I referred to were the ones Ponzio had brought up…
I read and thought (wondered is a better word) about this a lot since the Brexit vote. Here's a summary:
Because I was born in 1948 & raised during the Cold War (1945-1990) I tend to see things as long-term balance of power questions. In Europe after WWII, the power struggle became a 45-year stalemate between the USA, Canada, the UK, and the rest of NATO vs. the Soviet Union and all the countries it occupied in Eastern Europe. If you viewed it, as most in the USA did, it was a frustrating struggle to prevent the Russian Bear from devouring Europe. If you viewed it as the UK & France did, they cared less what the Russians did as long as Germany was divided and occupied.
The final result of the Cold War in Europe ended with the realization that the stalemate allowed Europe to slowly recover from the earlier 20th century wars, and equally important, it prevented a devastating nuclear war between East and West. And it allowed the reunification of Germany.
Once the Soviet Union failed, it's occupation of the rest of the Eastern European countries rapidly collapsed. The big question became, now who will be 'in charge' of Europe?
In retrospect, I think that's when the European Union began to fail. At the time, 1990, no one worried because everyone expected it would take at least 10-15 years for a reunified Germany to help the former East Germany recover economically from it's long abuse. I have previously commented that Germany should be feared if it becomes the economic dominant country in Europe. I admit that is unfair. Germany, in the last 10-20 years, has shown no reason why it should be feared. I will probably never forget or forgive Germany for what it did in the past, but, so far this century, it hasn't threatened peace in Europe.
Back to my question. Who will be in charge in Europe, and who is a threat to the peace in Europe? The real problem is that no country in the EU has stepped up.
During the decade of the 1990's there was a prolonged & ugly civil war in the former Yugoslavia, as the deep-freeze imposed by the Cold War ended. Bloody feuds & grudges, as old as 500 years, re-emerged as various nation-states of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia separated and fought each other. It was truly bloody & ugly. Serbia (historically aligned with Russia) was the aggressor and was on the road to becoming an armed danger to the rest of Europe.
No one from NATO or the EU did a thing to stop this. Only later in the 1990s did the US belatedly and unwillingly intervene. And this is my major point in the long-winded post.
Germany seems to focus on its economic development – and equally important – seems to run away from political or military confrontations. So has the rest of the EU and NATO. This is where Russia and Vladimir Putin has stepped into an apparent power vacuum. Russia under Putin is seeking to expand it's power, witness what happened in Crimea, Urkraine, and now Syria. (Syria is not in Europe or the EU, but its refugees are becoming an unwanted burden for EU countries. Russia is deliberately contributing to that problem.)
So far, I think Putin is bluffing, successfully. I don't believe Russia has the economic power, or the stomach, to continue this if it's bluff is called. Unfortunately, no country in Europe is willing to step up. Now that the UK is quitting the EU, I take it as a sign of their unwillingness to defend the rest of Europe.
