Europe as a high-ranking "power" is a misnomer and something that belongs in history textbooks. EU doesn't have any of the prerequisites required to be a true federation with streamlined decision making, let alone capable of projecting a meaningful military presence in pursuit of strategic goals.

It's fortunes reflect the fortunes of it's largest member - Germany - an economic powerhouse and a military/political midget.

Europe as a collection of disparate, linguistically and ethnically diverse fiefdoms could never hope to be more than a loose free trade association. Even the EMU seems to be a bridge too far, with a one-size-fits-all monetary policy unable to cater to the specific needs of each and every national economy. Not to mention the differences in mentality coming to the fore, with thieving, lying and parasitic "Club-Med" statelets falsifying their own national accounts and riding the credit boom alongside the convergence of EU borrowing costs, in order to support a ludicrous and bloated social state. Luckily, all bills eventually come due, and Greece faced with several catastrophic alternatives, may yet have no choice but to leave Eurozone and default on all Euro-denominated debt.

Still, it couldn't happen to a bunch of nicer countries, collectively dubbed weirdo Euro-fags Just about the only thing keeping the bureaucratic Euro pigs oinking together at the Brussels feeding trough is collective belief in postulates of socialism, welfare and a "tax n spend" nanny-state, driving the best and the brightest out to Asia and USA. As well as an unhealthy hate and dislike of the United States, conveniently ignoring the fact that today's European prosperity was largely built on American assistance after WW2, as well as the fact that the US almost singlehandedly fought a war of economic/military attrition against the Soviet Union, whilst Europe was too busy moralising and generally indulging in self-loathing which continues to this day.

The future of Europe is one of an economic and demographic decline, a political midget carefully balancing alliances in an emerging multi-polar world.

PS: Everything I've said only applies to the decadent "old Europe" and not to the good people of "new Europe" (to borrow a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld).

Europe is decadent, that is true, but that decadence is reflected, mostly, in its complete reliance on the US. In a nutshell, Europe is tired of living and tries to find somebody who will protect (in military terms) its welfare state. They think the US is most suitable (largely due to the fact that the EU elite is tightly connected with the American one) for the job, and they are paying it by buying US treasury bonds and allowing American military presence in the continent.

It could be different, but that would require a new great leader. As history teaches us, all big changes and accomplishments depend on strong individuals. Therefore, everything is possible.

Europe isn't merely allowing a US military presence on it's soil for protection, it's a manifestation of a parasitic mindset that allows Europe to spend a much smaller % of it's GDP on national defence. Europe's contribution to the Afghanistan military effort is also laughable, with only Holland and Denmark saving Europe's blushes to some extent.

As far as US treasury bonds go, Europe is a fringe player compared to China and Japan. EU countries (ex of GB) hold only 6% of outstanding stock:

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

American foreign policy has suffered some major setbacks in recent months (Ukrainian elections, coup in Kyrgyzstan probably backed by Russia, start of North Stream construction), so it's power projection has diminished somewhat.

Europe is politically weak, and some parts of it are also economically weak, that's true, but things are not that clear cut. The problem is that Germany has allowed a policy of economic colonization of former communist countries, instead of a more long-term policy of investing in technology and infrustructure. All these mistakes from the 90's are now reflected in the crisis. There were alternative possibilities, and there still are, but a shift in the 19 century thinking is required.

Europe can survive only by means of real mutual cooperation, and a balanced and rational foreign policy, instead of being based on the ideology of the same (transatlantic) culture and things like that. How is Croatia, culturally speaking, closer to America than to Russia, is beyond me.

America is a more flexible country and thing is, to be a ally with America pays off, Russia is still a poor country no matter what others say, it's main industries are weapon manufacture, very dirty industry and a communist attitude. That same attitude is keeping them radical, suspicious to all other peoples, even those which lived with them in the USSR and generaly a position of a rebel. Politics is a whore but nobody likes a drunken one armed with a AK-47 and a bad attitude.

Dear Mr. Soldo, with all due respect to your flair for nonchalant summarizing, your entire post was a joke. Your fortune lies with forum members' lack of English speaking skills, hence you've in part preserved your good name.

Dear Mr. Soldo, with all due respect to your flair for nonchalant summarizing, your entire post was a joke. Your fortune lies with forum members' lack of English speaking skills, hence you've in part preserved your good name.

This is very questionable. In my opinion, America treats its allies like slaves, of which Croatia is a prime example. The mere fact that a person is in power who thinks also about his country's interests is enough for America to (try to) depose him. It happened with Radio 101 and Tuđman's disease, less than one year after Dayton.
On the other hand, Russia is currently not in a position to be that arrogant (neither is China), so, potentially, there can be more quid pro quo with them. Of course, it is highly questionable whether those two have enough to offer, but that depends on the particular context of each country dealing with them.