It seems very clear that the EU and EU leaders had that plan for a long time but that was always a hard sell to the public (even played a part in the Brexit referendum). Ukraine and the current US administration are used tactically to sell the plan to the public.

It is being very naive and gullible not to see that.

Re. JD Vance, I think he actually hit the nail on the head and that's why the reactions from the EU and EU leaders were so strong to attack and discredit him.

Claiming that a course of action is the only way and that there is no alternative, and that opposing it is being an enemy, a traitor, or "suicidal", is an age old trick, too.

In this case, claiming that giving up on our countries as sovereign states must happen to compete against China or the US is an obvious oxymoron and rather insane.

I welcome you to suggest an alternative. Just saying there is one is not enough. How do you envision, idk, Lithuania surviving between Russia and the US?

(I would also invite you to look up the meaning of the term oxymoron, because I do not see how it even fits the sentence here.)

I don't see how the US are an existential threat to Lithuania. Anyway my point is that Lithuania does not survive by committing suicide, which is what disappearing in a federal Europe is... and that's where the oxymoron and fallacy lie.

Why would it be suicide? Do you consider California or New York "dead" because they became part of the US?

I might also point out you didn't address how you would solve for the much more urgent Russian threat.

I think you are being purposedly obtuse.

To give up being an independent and sovereign country to become a province of a federal EU is indeed national suicide, literally. It's choosing death as a country.

Facing he "Russian threat" obviously does not require this, this is a transparent fallacy and scare tactic to push the EU narrative. Europe faced a worse Russian threat during the Cold War without giving up national sovereignty. Cooperation and military alliances do not require national suicide.

Your replies are very good illustrations of the dellusion and, really post-truth disinformation we are constantly fed in Europe, unfortunately if you do believe what you write. This is becoming very sinister.

The Baltic states used to be in the USSR so I doubt that they would be willing to surrender their sovereignty again. Perhaps that's exactly why the people are never asked if that's what they want!

> Europe faced a worse Russian threat during the Cold War without giving up national sovereignty.

That's because Europe could rely on the power of the US back then. If the US was just a patchwork of small independent states, Europe would very likely be a part of USSR now.

> Cooperation and military alliances do not require national suicide.

It may if your opponent is a single large country. Cooperation between many nations each looking out for their own best interests is a lot lot harder and slower than a single command structure. An alliance like that can't win against a more united enemy. The enemy can simply focus on manipulating the small weak countries individually to hamstring the alliance, as has been happening.

I would not want to be a small country caught between larger powers fighting each other, that's never a good position to be in. You'll just be a pawn on the board, getting pushed into proxy wars and civil wars by the bigger powers playing the game. I'd rather give up sovereignty willingly to be a part of a large power and a player in the game, and not on the board being played.

Note that you didn't answer my question about California and New York. Did they "commit suicide?"

as a country means nothing. countries are just bureaucratic units, just like states are.