This time even China isn't on Russia's side, though: https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-chinas-warning-against-a...

I think China (with the exception of Taiwan) likes to win economically and apply that sort of pressure. They don't want an invasion happy country sitting just north of them.

Of course they're on Russia's side. China knows they're next in line.

Are you sure? Someone German would have to do the cheap labor in that case.

The idea of an EU without a mutual defense treaty is so absurd

The idea of an EU defense treaty is also redundant after NATO.

Not true when two of the three muscular nato powers aren't in the EU

EU have the resources and manpower to be muscular.

Indeed, they could. But they don't have the structures in place to act it.

The idea of a NATO is redundant after the end of USSR.

A defense treaty is never redundant. Case to the point.

Considering one of the "official" casus belli is that Ukraine might join NATO, is it?

That is quite clearly not true

there already is one

but Putin would probably be pretty safe to assume that the germans wouldn't risk a war for a small part of Estonia/Lithuania (and then another small part, and so-on)

(and that's why no-one outside of france and germany wants the EU army to replace NATO)

> but Putin would probably be pretty safe to assume that the germans wouldn't risk a war for a small part of Estonia/Lithuania (and then another small part, and so-on)

Right. He's been carefully boiling that particular frog for a very long time.

The idea of an EU is absurd.

For the European continent to keep up with countries like the USA and China it makes absolute sense and I don't see how anyone could see it any other way other than Russia or a similar country that would love to see a weak European continent that would be easy pickings.

The axiom "we are stronger together" is only true if participants all want the same. That is not the case at all. They all have different priorities; different geopolitical views. Are you telling me that Israel should merge with the 20 states around it, or that Singapore should do the same, just because "it is small" ?

The idea that even two countries would ever "want the same" is absurd. They just need to have close enough interests. Most EU countries do, believe it or not.

Even the most pro-europe people here in europe would disagree and consistently complained about never finding consensus (needed by the 27 member states as per EU treaties). Eastern countries want 0 migrants. France, Germany, want plenty. Poor countries want common debt. Northern countries do not. France tends to be less Nato-aligned than Poland or others, who will sign-off anything Washington says. Germany and Netherlands want austerity. The "PIGS" do not. Germany wants commercial partnership to develop the European GPS. France does not: that explain why there is still no European GPS. Germany wants a strong euro that suits its economy as a massive exporter. This has destroyed the competitiveness of Spain, Italy, France. France, Italy, Spain, want an EU policy which favors their agriculture. Northern countries could not care less. France is a nuclear power, with a massive nuclear electric parc, which it wants to favor. Germany wants windturbines everywhere. I could go on like that for pages. In fact, studies have found than the eurozone is one of the least homogeneous economical zone.

Russia is stuck playing the mid 20th century game

If you believe that something has changed in the methods of global politics since the mid of 20th century, then you haven't been curious enough to look at the state of the world beyond convenient western news coverage. It's still the rule of powerful and able, and it's not the power to produce and create, unfortunately.

The states who play these games have terrible economies to show for it.

doesn't seem to hurt Saudis much as long as their ruling classes can arrange meetings in the cabinets of the US and the UK governments.

You seem to be missing something key to this discussion.

The game changed in the mid 20th century with the rise of mutually assured destruction.