[GK3]

Western Europe has a larger population than Russia and probably a much larger economic engine.  The Mark, Franc etc. are gone and we have had the Euro for some time. Unfortunately, getting the disparate members of "Western Europe" to think as a common country has yet to happen but I think it is getting closer.

Fair enough. FWIW, I think the opposite is happening. The economic benefits of the EU and the Euro have concentrated themselves in Germany and the Netherlands, with France kind of tagging along. Virtually everybody else believes (with good reason in most cases) that they were better off with their own currency. When your goods became noncompetitive, you devalued your currency. Now you can't do that, leaving you in a permanent state of financial imbalance and dependence on loans (that you can't pay). The argument has been made that the Deutschmark was rising in value and that would have slowed down Germany's economic success, but the creation of the Euro created a currency that was the "average" of all the countries, including lots of countries that in fact had to lie to qualify for the Euro. That works great for Germany, because it keeps their currency weaker than it would be if they were on their own. Unfortunately it creates a currency that is too strong for most everybody else.

These more "have not" states also believe that "Brussels is taking over" and they don't like it much. Agricultural regulations that result in Italy importing oranges from Israel while at the same time destroying 20% of the domestic orange crop doesn't sit well. The Spanish like it because it protects their orange growers. Most of these "have not" nations would leave the Euro if they could, but they have borrowed so much Euro-denominated money they can't afford to leave either. Their credit would collapse. It certainly isn't a "boy, this is better" consensus, in fact the opposite. I run into this type of reasoning quite frequently. It might be that if all the EU nations actually believed they were "one people" that some of these issues could be worked out. They don't believe that, and IMO that isn't the trend.

The world has changed if you are a smaller country, you need to be part of a larger entity if you want to survive when the balloon goes up.

That has always been true. It is one of the reason there were so many wars. The larger countries would invade the smaller ones, so the smaller (or just weaker) ones had to form alliances to survive. If anything, NATO and "respect for the rule of law" has reduced this effect. That is one reason that Ukraine is such a critical issue. If Putin gets away with this, it is back to the "bad old days".

I believe that as time goes on, Western Europe will become more of a country with states like France, Germany, the UK etc.  A 100 years ago the world was a different place.

You may be correct. There are lots of bureaucrats in Brussels that claim this will be the case. They also often behave as if it is the case, which, since it is not (yet perhaps) the case creates lots of friction.

Time has shown that relying on the USA could be a mistake.

Up until very recently, that hasn't been an issue. The US has provided a "stable reference" to Europe for a long time. If it chooses to no longer do that, IMO Europe is in big trouble. We got away with it because we were clearly the "first among equals" and we were an "outsider" who at least in theory had no European ax to grind. I don't see any European nation that can step in and be the "adult". Anybody who tries will be considered as aggressive and somebody to fear. I hope we don't get to find out.

While this may be the wish of a fool, I still believe that Western Europe, maybe even including everything West of the current Russian Border, will have to learn to abide by Benjamin Franklins famous comment, "Either we hang together or we hang separately".  I am not sure that the dysfunctional relationships of many European Nations is any more messed up than our own political disfunction. I believe size matters going forward.

[GK3]

Western Europe has a larger population than Russia and probably a much larger economic engine.  The Mark, Franc etc. are gone and we have had the Euro for some time. Unfortunately, getting the disparate members of "Western Europe" to think as a common country has yet to happen but I think it is getting closer.

Fair enough. FWIW, I think the opposite is happening. The economic benefits of the EU and the Euro have concentrated themselves in Germany and the Netherlands, with France kind of tagging along. Virtually everybody else believes (with good reason in most cases) that they were better off with their own currency. When your goods became noncompetitive, you devalued your currency. Now you can't do that, leaving you in a permanent state of financial imbalance and dependence on loans (that you can't pay). The argument has been made that the Deutschmark was rising in value and that would have slowed down Germany's economic success, but the creation of the Euro created a currency that was the "average" of all the countries, including lots of countries that in fact had to lie to qualify for the Euro. That works great for Germany, because it keeps their currency weaker than it would be if they were on their own. Unfortunately it creates a currency that is too strong for most everybody else.

These more "have not" states also believe that "Brussels is taking over" and they don't like it much. Agricultural regulations that result in Italy importing oranges from Israel while at the same time destroying 20% of the domestic orange crop doesn't sit well. The Spanish like it because it protects their orange growers. Most of these "have not" nations would leave the Euro if they could, but they have borrowed so much Euro-denominated money they can't afford to leave either. Their credit would collapse. It certainly isn't a "boy, this is better" consensus, in fact the opposite. I run into this type of reasoning quite frequently. It might be that if all the EU nations actually believed they were "one people" that some of these issues could be worked out. They don't believe that, and IMO that isn't the trend.

The world has changed if you are a smaller country, you need to be part of a larger entity if you want to survive when the balloon goes up.

That has always been true. It is one of the reason there were so many wars. The larger countries would invade the smaller ones, so the smaller (or just weaker) ones had to form alliances to survive. If anything, NATO and "respect for the rule of law" has reduced this effect. That is one reason that Ukraine is such a critical issue. If Putin gets away with this, it is back to the "bad old days".

I believe that as time goes on, Western Europe will become more of a country with states like France, Germany, the UK etc.  A 100 years ago the world was a different place.

You may be correct. There are lots of bureaucrats in Brussels that claim this will be the case. They also often behave as if it is the case, which, since it is not (yet perhaps) the case creates lots of friction.

Time has shown that relying on the USA could be a mistake.

Up until very recently, that hasn't been an issue. The US has provided a "stable reference" to Europe for a long time. If it chooses to no longer do that, IMO Europe is in big trouble. We got away with it because we were clearly the "first among equals" and we were an "outsider" who at least in theory had no European ax to grind. I don't see any European nation that can step in and be the "adult". Anybody who tries will be considered as aggressive and somebody to fear. I hope we don't get to find out.

While this may be the wish of a fool, I still believe that Western Europe, maybe even including everything West of the current Russian Border, will have to learn to abide by Benjamin Franklins famous comment, "Either we hang together or we hang separately".  I am not sure that the dysfunctional relationships of many European Nations is any more messed up than our own political disfunction. I believe size matters going forward.