The Future of Europe

In the future, Europe will presumably unite into one European Union (EU). While such an international organization already exists, I'm referring here to the EU as a singular country.
If/when this happens, this new country will be a superpower easily capable of rivaling the United States. CERN, which is the single greatest physics research facility in the world, is a collaborative European project. The World Wide Web protocol, considered to be the backbone of the modern internet nearly 30 years after its invention, is European in origin. Some of the world's highest quality cars are made by German companies. So it goes without saying that this country would be a scientific superpower and a center of global innovation, as the United States is now.
Europe, while not well known for its military prowess, actually has a really awesome military-industrial complex that the U.S. could learn a lot from. For example, the M27, an assault rifle being fielded now by the Marine Corps, originated in Germany. The now-famous Exocet missile was developed in France. The Beretta ARX-160, that absolute beauty of a gun, was developed in Italy. The U-212, one of the stealthiest of modern submarines in existence, was made in Germany. My point is, any weapons system that's developed by any EU member state will be pooled together in one vast army, which could imbue them with tremendous warfighting capabilities. And with France on board they'd even have a few nukes.

We're probably not gonna get along well with Europe. And there doesn't have to be a particular ideological reason for this; Germany from 1871-1914 was a Protestant, Germanic, capitalist country like Great Britain was, and yet the two countries ended up going at it for 4 years. That having been said, the EU would have plenty of reason to oppose America: they might not like the US's global hegemony, they might not like Israel whereas Americans do, they might really like China whereas Americans don't, they might hate Saudi Arabia whereas Americans will generally tolerate the Arab state, etc. Americans tend to look at Europeans as a bunch of socialist sissies, they see Americans as being racial mutts, not being sufficiently "pure" white (and also as being loud, rude, and stupid). Americans tend to be more conservative than Europeans.
And the U.S. isn't alone in this respect: by this time, even the average Joe in America has probably heard about the Brexit. The British have for 1000 years had to put up with those dang continentals invading their homeland and even today they're too nationalistic to willingly give up their national sovereignty to a bunch of non-democratically elected bureaucrats in Brussels. And the Russians feel extremely uncomfortable with increasing Western encroachment on their borders, they too having been invaded by those dang continentals for as long as anybody can remember.
Hence, there's a good chance that in coming decades America, Britain, and Russia will team up against the EU to restore some semblance of a balance of power in Europe.
Some potential flashpoints for dispute are:
-Crimea
-Kaliningrad
-The Baltic region and other Russian "buffer zones"
-Ulster (AKA Northern Ireland)
-Gibraltar

So there's a lot of potential for a war to eventually break out over one or more of these. Maybe around the 2040s timeframe?
But anyways, this is a discussion about the possibility of an Anglo-Russo-American triple entente against the EU.

Dassault Papillon: I think it's more likely that humans will colonize Mars by 2040, than it is for Europe to be a singular country anytime in the next 200 years.

admin: The EU has already abolished border control between member states. I'm pretty sure it's easier to travel from Belgium to the Netherlands than it is to travel from the U.S. to Canada. Much progress towards further integration has up to this point been vetoed by the UK, which is about to no longer have a voice in the EU's proceedings.

Dassault Papillon: That's quite different from individual statehood. In reality the reasons for EU integration were not to surrender sovereignty but to increase it. That's why Europe has so much anti-EU sentiment right now. The purposes of the EU are almost explicitly anti-nationalist which is why Germany is such as strong supporter of it. Because people aren't seeing it that way anymore, as they did in the 70s, people have stopped supporting it. Which is a shame, because nationalism sucks.

admin: In reality the reasons for EU integration were not to surrender sovereignty but to increase it.
Explain, please?

Dassault Papillon: EU is fundamentally a trade and free association pact, based on the model of the old EEC. Sorta like the TPP was intended to grow the economies of each individual state, so the EU was formed to grow economies and freedom in Europe.

Nationalism (unless it results in colonialism/imperialism) tends to decrease the wealth of a country through protectionist fiscal policy and stuff like that, but I think it could sometimes be worth the cost if it preserves the cultural heritage of a country.
Japan has an extremely distinctive culture, and through learning about it I came to wonder what kind of distinctive culture the English speaking world once had. So I learned a little bit about that too, and I hope to learn more.
But today the English-speaking world doesn't have any distinctive culture. The idea of "culture" in England is eating fish and chips while watching Doctor Who on BBC, as well as reading some gossip about the Royal family in a tabloid magazine. In America it's even worse: we think of movie stars and celebrity gossip as a distinctive American culture in itself, and the only reason we think this is because otherwise, America is a super bland and generic country, the heavily appropriated and commercialized culture of the rural American South aside.
We lost our culture with the Industrial Revolution, which is why the traditional English dress that we think of when we think of the American Founding Fathers completely disappeared in the 19th century and was replaced with generic factory-produced suits and dresses.

Dassault Papillon: Depends on how you measure wealth.

England changed it's culture with industrialization - that's why it's called a revolution. Personally I think our society today is VERY cultured, perhaps more so than any time in the past. For example, cultures of belonging are a thing now.

I'm not saying the English-speaking world should've rejected modernity. But we could be more appreciative of the English traditions that our societies descended from. Most Americans nowadays (myself included, though I learned once when I was really young and then forgot) don't know how to write in cursive.

admin: What the heck is a culture of belonging?

Dassault Papillon: I'm writing an essay on it right now. It's a sociological construct where mutually satisfying, equitable relationships are an integral part of an inclusive power structure. Interesting stuff.

I imagine early farmers sitting there saying "Urgh, these youth have no idea about cave-painting anymore. They should be more appreciative of our heritage!"

Dassault Papillon: I have to say--some of your analysis is terrible. Your '2017 predictions' (in an old thread) have also been pretty inaccurate thus far. You mention Germany and Britain in the 19th/early 20th century having similarities based on religion, but the differences between the two nations were really quite significant. At that point Germany wanted to build empire akin to that of the British and French ones, then other European countries had their agendas; it was a very different time. Nowadays Europe is centred around diplomacy and corporation for the most part (hence why the E.U exists in the first place) so the chances of Europe going to war with anyone, let alone with its own countries, is indeed very slim. The situation with Ukraine/Russia will persist but won't get alarmingly worse, besides that I can't see any substantial disputes over the rest of Baltic or Gibraltar in South Spain for instance. The only 'conflicts' occurring in Europe are likely to be socially-related (such as what's happening in the U.K--a country that's feeling the effects of 7 years austerity), terroristic episodes and perhaps intermittent reactionary violence towards the Muslim community. As for the U.S, most of Europe disapproves of Trump, but it is hardly about to engage in any conflict with him. In Europe, it really is about discussion and negotiation, and rather ironically these days it is Germany that primarily holds all of that together.

Cenc: Britain had colonies and Germany didn't, and they wanted some. Today, while colonialism is dead, spheres of influence are not, and currently the U.S. has the most influence over the world of any country. Naturally, as superpower numero tres, the Europeans may want in on some of that. It wouldn't take much; there are certain countries that the U.S. has given up on being allies with and instead has taken an antagonistic stance towards, such as Iran and Cuba, not to mention North Korea. Europe can expand its sphere of influence by jumping in bed with countries like this, which would put them at odds with us. Right now, Russia's cozying up with the Syrian government, while we want the regime to fall. Hence, when we shot down that Syrian fighter jet the other day, the Russians threatened to target American planes operating in the region. Something similar could eventually happen in some other country, except that you substitute Russia for Europe.
But what happens in Asia or Africa is just the sideshow; the important picture here is what happens on the European continent. If we feel threatened by the EU in any way (such as by them stationing forces in our backyard), the best leverage we can have against them is to have Britain on our side as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" from which to project military force onto the continent. Russia can also help us put pressure on Europe during a diplomatic crisis or the full-on outbreak of war. So we have reason to ally ourselves with these two countries, which definitely would feel threatened by a united Europe.
Realpolitik always trumps sentimentalism; were this not the case, WW1 would not have broken out in an era of unprecedented optimism about the future of humanity.
As for my prediction record: the Front Nationale loss surprised a lot of people, I think. After Trump there was this common perception, that I along with many other people bought into, that polling methods were unreliable in this new wave of right wing populism sweeping the West. This notion has now been dispelled in regards to Europe. The Third Intifada prediction hinged upon Trump actually moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, but it would seem that he backed down from the idea. I've been taken off guard by the slow pace of the Mosul offensive, and Turkey invading Iraq hinged upon the Iran-backed Shi'ite militias advancing on the city of Tal Afar, which appears unlikely now that the Iraqi President explicitly ordered them not to do so (and they seem to be complying with this order). Venezuela's been having serious economic problems for the past few years, so I guess there's no telling what year a revolution happens in (if at all), but hey, 2017's not over yet.

Dassault Papillon: Don't forget France though; they also had colonies and a superior empire. I can see that you're very into the concept of war but the majority of what you've written really is absolute hyperbole. It would take a *great* deal for Europe to go to a war with anyone; and so far, there is virtually no reason to. You mention Israel, but most of Europe largely stays out of U.S-Israel relations, besides the U.K who are an admitted ally to Israel. On a less obvious level, other European countries have helped to sustain Israel and provide it with weaponry over the years as well.

In addition, of course the Mosul offensive is slow-paced. Only the Iraqi army are really fighting on the ground, and they are still under-resourced. The likelihood of anything major happening in Venezuela is also little to none. You seem to have a preoccupation with war or 'conflict' (whether international or domestic) in general, but we live in an age now in which everything is vulnerable to involvement and if there *is* a conflict of any kind, it is not an all-out war or prolonged state of serious, consistent, and significant aggression which engulfs the entire world, but a state of violence within one, two, or multiple countries and the prevention of complete war by other countries. 2017 will be over soon enough, and while I think there will be (and has been) periods of strangeness, there will be nothing like a conflict in Europe or between Europe-U.S. There simply isn't going to be a third-intifada either, at least not for a while. After the 2014 war, the the Palestinisns don't have the durability for it.

And back to France briefly: no one actually expected the National Front to win, there's other policies that people cared/care about for starters, and hardcore nationalism is largely rejected in France. Le Pen isn't exactly seen as a legitimate figure in Europe at all; she's a right-wing populist, with *some* followers, but that is all.

Dassault Papillon: Too add to the comments I made last summer:

Russia will prevent Europe from uniting into one E.U. The Ukraine should be able to join, but Russia will not allow that without initiating further conflict within the region. The U.K, which should be considered a European country, has also left. Other smaller European countries have not joined the E.U and have expressed no desire to. The area in Europe most vulnerable to war is of course the Baltics, and Russia has already caused in excess of 10,000 people to be killed in the Ukraine because of its aggression. Donbass and Luhansk are warzones, and will continue to be. The west is assisting in the training of some Ukrainian soliders and then there's the sanctions placed on Russia since 2014, but that is the extent of western input. I've even considered fighting in the Ukrainian army myself (I've family from there) because what Russia has done and is continuing to do is unjust and in violation of international law.

Cenc: What country are you from?

Germany is the richest in Europe. The British will leave the EU next year. The Armed Forces in Germany should make a little less in strength because it is written 70,000 in the army on Google already at the entrance with minor occupation's defense a disarmament from the current approximately 180,000 occupation. The British should leave which is good thing on the whole thing is not worse for the English. Add Sweden, we have less money than Germany in GDP we have about 530,000 million dollars is just seven times less than Germany.

Russia is underway in the economy since the military, they have prepared for a million defense to reunite to old Russia with the recycling of communism, so they may want them, but not everyone likes it.

Who knows. As long as it doesn't become Europestan.