As an European taxpayer, I'm certainly concerned that resources are wasted. OTOH, Putin has time and again proved that he's a belligerent crook entirely willing to expand his territory any time his neighbors show weakness. Much as I wish it were different, Europe must be able to mount a credible defense, with or without the USA.

You are surely aware that France and the UK have nukes. That seems like a pretty strong deterrent.

Is it a given that France or the UK would deploy their nukes in response to, for example, Russian aggression on Europe’s eastern flank, say Estonia? If not, their use as a deterrence there is limited.

The risk I see is, that the EU and NATO isn't showing a hard line (might alternative be too late, so) to Putin. Then all it takes for him to try annexing the Baltic is the reasonable impression NATO isn't willing to go to full over that. In which case we would be screwed. The abandonment of Afghanistan certainly didn't help in projecting that kind of strength.

Salami tactics - https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4

> You are surely aware that France and the UK have nukes.

Only few hundreds, of which much less are deployed, given Vanguard, and Triomphant frequent port calls.

As another European, I am in favor of aligning ourselves in a mutually beneficial economic exchange with Russia and China, which causes interdependence and a diminishing risk of military conflict.

Putin, repeatedly, has been shown to be a reliable, and predictable partner - something we cannot really claim about the US, and increasingly less so in recent years.

I think everyone in Europe is keen on "mutually beneficial economic exchange with Russia and China" but I think that recent history demonstrates that Russia and China have different views from us about what mutually beneficial means.

>Putin, repeatedly, has been shown to be a reliable, and predictable partner

Oh come on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Vrb%C4%9Btice_ammunition_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_bounty_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Montenegrin_coup_d%27%C3%...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement#...

and many other gigs!

Putin has not shown to be an reliable ally. The annexation of Crimea and the ongoing hybrid war in east Ukraine is one such example.

Putin does not want a strong independent ally next to Russia. He either wants puppet states such as Belarus as allies or a weak and fractured European union. For all the faults the US have they are still better allies than Russia by several lightyears.

May be if granted a buffer zone of influence, Russia will be a reliable partner to Europe. To me it is Europe (and the US) that is picking ideological battlegrounds, and showing eagerness to start a new cold war.

Granted a buffer zone of influence?

Let me rephrase that for you from the perspective of someone who lived on Russia's doorstep for many years.

You mean to say "Maybe if we let Russia subjugate a lot more people and confine them into an evil exploitative system against their will".

That's the big difference between Europe's zone of influence and Russia's zone of influence. People want to be part of the EU (the greatest thing that ever happened to the country I was born in). People want to give their lives to not be part of Russia.