Whichever factions and sentiments gain power in the EU, there's only so much they can do before hitting the major factor that's usually not spelled out explicitly in polite company, but generally understood: the US has nukes and aircraft carriers. We don't - or at least not enough to replace US in the role it plays in Europe's security.

I hope they won't be crazy enough to just bludgeon through that anyway, as past that, hic sunt dracones.

EU+UK has nukes and Aircraft carriers and even though minuscule to US, has the capacity to build more as the US security is no more.

Also, as it was revealed with the war in Ukraine, the Americans spend crazy money on their military but they don't get the best value for it. They failed to provide the Ukraine the necessary ammunition and apparently the costs were multiple times higher with no better outcome compared to the Russian ones.

In addition to that, the warfare changed significantly with the drones and its the Europeans(Ukraine + Turkey) who have the most experience with those - both in use and production.

Mentioning Turkey, it's actually one of the most formidable militaries with very capable military industry complex. Although it has it's differences with EU, it is an EU candidate country and its economy is fully integrated with EU.

Later on when things calm down with Russia, EU-Russia is actually a very fruitful relationship because Russia and EU are perfect match(one has the resources, the other has the technology) and that's why Europeans didn't want to believe that the war is possible.

There are many more reasons not to be pessimistic about Europe too.

> Although it has it's differences with EU, it is an EU candidate country and its economy is fully integrated with EU.

What is "fully integrated"? It's not on the Euro, for example.

Many EU countries are not in the Eurozone.

Turkey and EU have a longstanding relationships with Turkey being part in many of the EU institutions, like the customs union for example. In many ways Turkey acts as an industrial base for EU, many many EU companies have facilities in Turkey that serve EU.

Turkey is also in the Council of Europe, is in the jurisdiction of European Court of Human Rights(pays a lots of fines, unfortunately), European Border and Coast Guard Agency.

Turkey implemented GDPR compatible privacy laws, it has its infrastructure compatible and integrated in EU etc. Roads, electricity, gas, trains - everything is by the EU standards and integrated within the EU. Environment protection and worker rights are also not that far off. Turkey and EU fell apart only on political level and things like the upholding of the rule of law. In fact, Turkey is one secular government away from being full EU member.

For comparison with US, Turkey exports about $140B to EU and only about $14B to US. No matter the politics, it's EU what matters to Turkey and US is a distant 3rd with being only about %8 of the Turkish exports(Europe is %58).

> Many EU countries are not in the Eurozone.

Well, 6 aren't. But then I wouldn't say their economies were "fully integrated".

7, and living one of them, I don't see any obvious signs of incomplete integration.

> EU-Russia is actually a very fruitful relationship

That's a few decades away, at best; have to wait through Putin's death, the collapse, the post-collapse warlord era, and the reconstruction.

"That's a few decades away, at best; have to wait through Putin's death, the collapse, the post-collapse warlord era, and the reconstruction."

Why? Germany already pushes for reconciliation, as they were hit the most.

For other countries in Central and Eastern Europe it doesn't matter who rules in Russia, as Russia interests are shaped by much grander forces, and those interests are opposite to those of Finland or Poland.

Let's stop looking at world through Marvel-like glasses. There are countries and nations, each with different interest shaped by the world and geography around them.

"EU-Russia is actually a very fruitful relationship because Russia and EU are perfect match"

And this shows limitations of any political analysis that operates on the concept of EU.

Poland, Finland and Baltics are all in EU, and their relationship with Russia cannot be changed - core interests are completely opposite. The fact that these countries may buy russian gas if they need it doesn't change that.

The protection tax Europe paid used to be for protecting against USSR/Russia. This was virtually not needed since decades. If we're being pragmatic, the protection tax became one against the US.

The EU unfortunately has an agent of chaos always in its side that can do a lot of indiscriminate damage around it if triggered.

Those in the protection racket know how to create a market for it, with layers and layers of plausible deniability that you'll get the chance to start to unwrap maybe 70-80 years from now.

"As of July 2023, France possesses approximately 290 nuclear warheads" how many do you really need?

The answer is none.

AFAIK there are no simulations in which nuclear war works. I am not convinced nukes would have helped Ukraine.

I don't see how banning foreign entities or forcing them to become local would help: many of the disruptive entities in Europe are locally owned.

Bolloré owns some major influential right-wing media in France, Axel Springer does the same in Germany (and even in the US - Politico), and so on. Axel Springer is also quite pro-American as well as being right-wing, and Bolloré is quite aligned with the North American right wing, both the anglophone and (in Quebec) francophone varieties. Plus the US Republican Party and the Conservative Party of Canada have major ties to EU member state Hungary and the current Orbán regime, which controls much of the media in that country.

All of these entities feed and profit off of rage, despite being EU-owned.