Citing Europe’s “critical situation” after the exit of Britain, the leaders of the EU have met to outline a 6 month plan to address economic, security, and social issues that are mostly attributable to the refugee crisis.
Although the bureaucrats in Brussels would like you to believe that the Brexit prompted this discussion, it was really the popular backlash manifesting in local elections that lit a fire underneath politicians, finally making its way up to the bureaucrats. The Brexit was, however, the first domino to fall in a chain reaction leading to a grinding halt of the Globalist regime change operation taking place in Syria. The UK standing up against EU immigration policy and deciding to leave the bloc inspired similar push back from member nations such as Italy, Greece, Romania, and Hungary even threatening to shoot refugees on the spot. With the EU lacking the political support to relocate and disperse migrants, Erdogan realized that the now 3 million war refugees in Turkey would be his burden to bear. Accordingly, he ended his support for regime change in Syria, and began normalizing relations with Russia. Keenly aware of the European backlash over immigration, Erdogan used the threat of releasing millions of refugees into Europe to extort the EU and make demands for Turkey.
After EU leaders realized they had painted themselves into a geopolitical corner, provoked nationalist uprisings, and began losing local elections, they yielded.
Juncker also sought to rally EU member states towards greater unity and ‘solidarity’ following the shock Brexit vote, insisting that the bloc was not about to break up despite its existential crisis.
“There are splits out there and often fragmentation exists,” he said. “That is leaving scope for galloping populism.”
Notice that the Globalist bureaucrats incorrectly refer to the backlash as populism as this is an insight into their mentality. The issue at hand is about national control over borders and immigration policies, making a response in opposition nationalistic in nature rather than populist. The EU leaders will not recognize this because nationalism is completely and totally antithetical to globalism, and making an admission as such would indicate just how fragile a political state the EU is in. By labeling this a populist movement, the act of asserting national sovereignty over borders is misconstrued as catch-all politics rather than a necessary function of a healthy democracy.
After the meeting in Bratislava, a statement from the EU outlined efforts to be made to reduce immigrant flows to avoid the “uncontrolled flows of last year.” Acknowledging that the old policy would no longer fly, the focus became getting to the root of the issue by defining the causes of refugee flight and creating conditions that would dissuade it. If this is anything like the debit card program agreed upon previously, then it would certainly be a proposition that Erdogan would favor. There was also further discussion over the establishment of a common European military to reduce dependence on US military presence and respond to the conflict with Russia. Although Juncker and the other bureaucrats state implicitly that such an organization would not supplant NATO, it would certainly act as a counterweight and give Europe some independence from the US. After Britain left the EU, it took with it the most capable military of the region.
With Europe developing its own military, US bases are being pushed out and relocating into Eastern European nations like Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Poland, and now Georgia. Granted, there is still the possibility that Erdogan has given Putin an opening in the geopolitical wall surrounding Russia since WWII (George Kennan’s containment policy), but the US Military has decided to push its bases past the former iron curtain and closer to the border between Europe and Russia. The only thing worse for US foreign policy than the failure of containment is an alliance between Russia and Europe, and the potential colossus of manpower, industry, and natural resources it would represent. With the bitter memories of Soviet oppression still fresh in their minds, the former Soviet Bloc countries are far more accepting of the US military, making this a geopolitical no-brainer.