Question 1
The possibility of more European Countries drifting away from the Euro lies in limbo considering the adverse impacts that Brexit has on Britain’s economy. Even before the eventual secession of the UK from the Europe Union, the country has begun to feel the heat and economic turmoil of disengaging with the rest of the countries that form the confederation. Politically, UK is losing grip in the control of Europe as Russia emerges as the best bet to control the entire region. Therefore, leaving out the EU is both an economic and political misery to any country, since the future of such states remains quite bleak and uncertain. Ideally, the political and economic supremacy of a region is inherent in the leadership fostered on the front of unity (Liddle, 2014). The departure of the UK from the EU has since created a major political power vacuum in the region, and Russia is very aggressive to bring on board EU member states around it. Principally, I do not think to see more member states and countries opt out of the EU due to the economic and political uncertainties attributed to such actions.
Question 2
I totally agree that the posterity of EU is at stake considering the withdrawal of UK, which has been a major stakeholder in the formation. Therefore, the withdrawal by any member states could be reserved due to the ongoing turmoil and crisis in the UK. Indeed, the EU union is a formidable trading block that spearheads the economic, social, and political interests of the members’ states, and any attempt to disengage from this formation could be retracted by the citizens of such countries owing to the adverse economic impacts attributed to the withdrawal (In Tournier-Sol, & In Gifford, 2015). Moreover, attempts by more countries to solicit for withdrawal could render the activity of the EU baseless, and it might totally lose its mandate and glory as a strong trading block. Thus, the member states would do every action within their purview to retain their solidarity, even if it means enacting existing policies to benefit the disgruntled members. Such extreme moves would decipher an attempt by the member States to disengage from the EU.
Question 3
Belarus will adopt some changes in the future for it to remain satiable as a formidable country to be fully granted access into the EU. The stakes are currently high, and the EU considers Belarus’s leadership as deviant to some of the EU accords. Indeed, the leadership of Alexander Lukashenko has been disregarded by the EU, and the federation has for many years failed to ratify Belarus as a formidable member state. Therefore, political changes must be effected for this country to benefit as a state member of the EU fully. The survival of the Greece into the EU lies in the hands of its voters. However, the EU has a responsibility to protect this country from collapsing in the hands of creditors. The worst economic turmoil and the escalating credit rates on this country deems a bleak future for its existence, and it could be declared unfit to make any serious economic international engagement. Therefore, the survival of Greece into the EU is anchored on the lobby efforts by the EU member states, who could either decide to undertake a massive waiver on its debts, or a mainstream bail-out program. The stakes are very high that competing interests by external parties could easily ruin the progress and success of the EU. Russia is keenly interested in certain countries within the EU, just the same way as the USA and the Middle East countries. Such parting interests could easily see more withdrawal to both alliance, and thus killing the existence of this federation.
Question 4
The quest for the control of the world sovereignty is mainly anchored on the core resources that a country controls or is endowed. Gold and other minerals have been esteemed as valuable resources, but oil has also in the past been acknowledged as a cornerstone of economic development. Principally, the Middle-East region has been in a constant turmoil over the control of oil, which has for a long time remained a beacon for its success. Therefore, the USA’s entry into the cold war, especially in the Middle East was heavily influenced by its desire to control the oil-rich countries in the wake of industrialization. First and foremost, oil acted as a lucrative resource for trade and a chief foreign exchange earner to the USA. Thus, providing the USA with oil boosted t its military might and determination as it could now own and trade on this valuable resource. The military tankers also depended on oil as a mode of energy propulsion, thus improving the performance of the forces and their might.
Question 5
Military Industrial Complex is a term, and a concept that widely developed during the word wars and its manifestation became apparent during the cold wars. President Eisenhower is believed to have been the true mastermind of this term and coined it around political machination of the USA by the Soviet power. Thus, the MIC refers to a precipitated set of relationship developed between the military policy as well as the industrial production (Swanson, 2013). This concept became apparent during the Cold Wars since the USA was very afraid that the Soviet Union could depend on the industrial versus military correlation to shortchange its interest in the Latin American region and the world in entirety. On one side, the USA under the leadership of President Eisenhower deemed MIC as a vital policy that would deter powers such as the Soviet Union from aggressively taking over its mandate as the word’s super-power. Therefore, economic cuts and relationship ties were arbitrarily restrained to contain war with the SSR as it could be too costly to run and manage.
References
In Tournier-Sol, K., & In Gifford, C. (2015). The UK challenge to Europeanization: The persistence of British Euroscepticism.
Liddle, R. (2014). The Europe dilemma: Britain and the challenges of EU integration. London ; New York
Swanson, M. (2013). The war state: The cold war origins of the military-industrial complex and the power elite, 1945-1963.
