The European fight modern military wars all around the world, but they do it not on their own but in function of the USA as the leader of the NATO. And the Europeans have been forgetting to defend Europe for so long (too long?).
Where the NATO? The NATO is a defensive alliance!
Is the NATO what you call the “theater of the absurd”?
I am asking where the NATO is in that situation you showed from the Greek border, because the NATO was founded as a defensive alliance. If the NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, then it has no right to exist and is - for example - a “theater of the absurd”. The NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, and, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies! Therefore the question: Why NATO?
It’s a coordinated move by the United States and globalists to take Europe down.
What better way than civil war and an immigration catastrophy…
Yes. And the United States depend on the globalists (global bankers and other globalists).
Exactly.
Europe will never become the “United States of Europe” as some European idiots say but it will become the most chaotic territory of all time if the Europeans will furthermore do what their rivals (competitors) want them to do.
Some notes from Hahaha’s thread “Donald Trump’s Wall”:
So you are saying that all Non-German people of the EU are too stupid, at least not intelligent enough to leave the EU. They have always had the option to leave the EU. 
Do you really not know why they have not been willing to leave the EU?
The UK was totally down before it joined the EU. Guess why Heath wanted to join the EU at that bad time of the UK.
Good luck!
But note: The british empire has failed. It should not repeat the same old error again and again and - if it does not know further - start wars again and again (it will lose them again and again).
I will reply to your comments later, as I don’t have enough time to right now…
Okay, Mags.
Whatever happens I can almost guarantee you that it will be the American military industrial complex that will initiate the next world war whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump gets into office. That’s my bet if I must make one.
You mean that they have no choice, because they - as all other US presidents before them - are the willing executors of the real rulers of this globe.
Pay close attention to United States, NATO, Russian, and Chinese interactions…
Don’t forget the EU (thus: Germany).
I don’t see this coming exactly this way. I try to paint with a large brush, but granted Germany AGAIN is gearing to become a leading global power. The indexes of major currencies shudder at the slightest trouble, but look at it this way:
The struggle of German hegemony is hard wired into German consciousness, and in effect, Germany has had this going on for a very long time, at least 100 years, when the Hapsburg Empire failed, and Germany became the hub of Europe. In these 100 years, millions of lives were lost, costing incredibly large monetary investments. The EU is proof positive of the central dominance of Germany, and it has, in effect won the Continental War, to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire. No one can think for a minute, that after such humongous investments are not already automatic determinants of EU policy, and a United Germany is proof positive that no one can stop this train. It is running on it’s own steam, and the country can support the EU, despite such failures as Greece, Spain, Italy, Britain’s exit, mass immigration, etc. The monetary difficulties may only be strengthened, not weakened due to the momentum of a hundred years of struggle, capped by 25 years of peacefully held victory. The aims of dominance have been achieved, and going back is not an option.
I disagree with the notion that overly conflict will ravage the continent, this period is nothing compared to the debacle of WW’s I & II.
I think in a way, there are military industrial behemoths who could do well in a very large war, but it would contra-effect the gains made over this last century, and wipe out all equity. I don’t think anyone wants that, at least at the moment.
There is not such a struggle of hegemony and not such a hard wired consciousness.
By the way only one example of many others: What do you think about the so-called “Vietnam War” (the correct name is “US War” again)? Did the US start this war in your opinion?
The French did, to retain their Asian assets. Power and territorial rights have longer memories then the masses who participated in the wars which were caused by them.
The French started the so-called “Indochina War” (the correct name is “French War” again), but the other war, the war of the US in Vietnam was a different one, because it was a war of the US interest and not of the French interest who had already lost this war (they lost almost all wars). The US were the aggressor and started their war.
It is easy to find a scapegoat. But when you look at, for example, the First World War, then you will not find one causer but merely many causers on both sides. Those who are blamed by victor’s justice are often innocent. But in the case of the US wars the US were the aggressor, faked, and started their wars. So they are to blame, they are not innocent, but they were not occupied, so that nobody could tell them by victor’s justice that they and only they are to blame.
For the US it is time to become self-critical finally.