So you are now changing your argument.
> The EU didn't rest on it's laurels, it spent and is STILL spending time ensuring no MORE wars happen internally. That involves a LOT of negotiating between countries, cultures and governments. The US didn't have any of that. Do you know how complicated and long it took to get even Ireland into the EU, even when the UK left, there is so much bureaucracy between Ireland and the UK it was one of the blocking points.
First you claim that the lack of tech companies rivaling with the US ones is because the EU countries had to rebuild themselves after the war and now you claim that is because the EU itself was just a baby back in the 90s and that somehow stopped Europe from producing these types of companies.
> People clearly have absolutely no idea about the history of the EU and Europe in general and therefore should take a step back from giving their opinions as if it's some kind of insight
People who claim to have all the answers should refrain from engaging with other people as their feelings could get hurt in the face of reality.
The fact of the matter is that Google, AWS, Microsoft an consorts have existed for multiple decades at this stage. The fact is also that the EU has been preaching about digital sovereignty for the last 10 years++ and that barely anything has come out of it.
The same can be said for the defense of the EU countries which basically has consisted in the EU countries joining NATO because they decided that outsourcing their own defense was cheaper instead of building a proper European military alliance between themselves.
The reason is the same, this military alliance would have required to actually invest in their own armies and taken cash away from other things.
> Again, it was not an assumption, it was an agreement. After WW2. Yet again you're showing either your ignorance or unwillingness to consider what you're saying.
Is the agreement, the article 5 from NATO? Because if it is, this is an agreement for countries to support each other militarily in case of aggression but the agreement never stipulated that the EU should become completely reliant on the US goodwill to insure it's territorial sovereignty.
In fact the NATO agreement specifically stipulates that all member countries need to invest a set amount each year in their own defense and guess what, only a few of them actually fulfill the term of this agreement. So who is at fault here?
If I make contract with you and you don't fulfill your end, am I wrong to think that it is null and void?
The EU is waking up with it's pants down after multiple decades of under investment in many strategic sectors but instead of taking the blame and trying to fix the issue, we just point fingers and claim some sort of wrongdoing. That is the problem here.
It's time for the EU leaders to grow up and make amends and course correct or be relegated to the dustbin of history.