The alternatives will be just as bad or worse if given the opportunity. The decline of the empire only works if a progressive force takes its place.
That's the oxymoron:
We are angry at American Imperialism, but at the same time, we are scared of the prospect of Americans withdrawing their bases around the world. Doing so leaves them open to Russian and Chinese influences, and they are in our opinion quantifiable worse.
Had you asked me just a few years ago if the EU needed a stranding army I would have said no, but in the light of recent events I do not think that EU can continue without one.
It needs a sweeping re-distribution of protocols on every member state that would allow for any member nations armies to be able to work under the command of another. If Poland is attacked or needs peacekeeping forces, how are French and Portuguese soldiers going to take commands from a polish commander?
Due to the differences in armies not to mention languages, the EU needs a massive reconstruction to be able to work as an effective fighting force.
The long peace is possible because anyone who dares attacking the other side have assured mutual self destruction. The domino effects created a limbo where none of the larger powers dare attacking each other because they realize the consequences. This is true until someone truly mad gets in power who doesn't care about the consequences.
EU and Russia are opposites. EU has the wealth, while Russia has a weak economy but has one of the best fighting forces in the world plus the second largest amount of nukes in the world. Russia could easily use smaller tactical "mini nukes". They have a even worse half-life than regular nukes, but their area of devastation is much smaller and thus; the idea of using them makes a lot more sense because damage is controlled. With these smaller razor precision style bombs you could take out a arms factory. It's a lot easier to sell as a non-declaration of war.
It's another oxymoron to the idea. It doesn't make any sense than making smaller bombs would increase the risk of using them, but ironically they do.
And this is not speculation either; This rhetoric of more limited / precise use of force has in previous conflicts proved to be a form of carte blanch to go far and beyond what would have been considered acceptable with larger bombs. In both WW2 and Vietnam they oversold how precise bombers where.
Watch this Malcom Gladwell talk where he talks about Norden bombsights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiZTvlWx2g
So in my mind unless Europe becomes a strong force really soon, Russia might actually try more shit like with Crimea in other eastern European block countries who can quickly become destabilized with russian propaganda, russian rebels, assassination attempts against officials, while Putin and his administration denies and effectively shifts focus. If the US bases are gone it leaves Putin open to taking it. He himself have said he wants to restore the soviet union.
And in this economic recession, we've hit a point in time where enough time has passed without a major war, that enough people have been born and removed from understanding the horrors of what it meant, sort of like how WW1 came after long period of peace, and that anxiety that was born from the industrial revolution which shook europe and disinfranchised millions, the winds start blowing for extreme ideas, radical changes, revolutions and usurping the structures because the way things are going doesn't work for them.
Last month a assassination attempt was halted on the pro-western PM of Montenegro;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37890683
In 2012 when Romney talked about being afraid of Russia it sounded like Tom Clancy, but it is becoming terrifying as anti-western propaganda ignites Russia.
At the same time there also is a lot of Russiaphobia in the west and that is bad as well because many people in Russia are not being heard. Russian has a independent media that is in wars with the national outlets:
http://www.stopfake.org/en/tag/anti-western-narrative/