@outlaw
I looked up the definition of "to disarm" and I found but one which offered an unspecified reduction of forces as "to disarm", whereas all the other meanings are about to give up forces or the capability to be hostile altogether.
It makes no sense to write "to disarm" when mere reductions in forces are meant, as there are better fitting words. I presumed and still presume that you meant more than an ordinary reduction. The choice of the word "disarm" was meant to imply that Europe made itself impotent militarily.
In that sense, Europe didn't "disarm" at all. To the contrary; the EU countries could overrun Russia up to Khazan with their armies because they reduced their forces to a level very high above what little forces the Russians have in their Western and Southern (Caucasus) regions.
This is a fact and totally tears apart all the repeated stupid talk and illusions about a supposed European military weakness.

Europe isn't motivated to use more than its left hand's little finger to deal with issues because nobody is even only poking it. The Americans prefer to use their whole left hand, but using a mere little finger only is very different from having no fists.


There's a huge difference between a multi-ethnic state with ethnicities being concentrated in certain regions and thus able to claim independence and a multi-ethnic immigration state in which immigrants can claim to be a majority at most in parts of some cities. The former is no nation-state, while the latter can be (and is in Europe).


You're totally moving goalposts on the money topic. This is what you wrote
"Then the European companies went on a spending and investing binge in Russia as it "appeared" to be the great next business market and they did in fact make great money in their investments"
then I brought forward a source that shows how FDI were only large in a few recent years and mention why and you come back with trade stuff and Cold War trade.
That's bollocks. You wrote about investments in -not trade with- Russia and how these were supposedly "make great money", and you are mistaken. Investments from 2006-2009 are unlikely to have yielded more returns than the original investment already. That would require a ROI of about 15%.


Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Germany whilst economically strong would not frighten Luxemburg militarily(...).
I want everybody to understand that JMA's contributions here should not be taken seriously. He's merely jesting and never serious. For if he was serious, he would be lying and not merely writing nonsense of a failed kind of humour.
Luxembourg has a mere battalion as an army, of course.