It does not really change my argument, if you exclude Russia from the group. It was about possible alignment options Europe now has.

However, any power able to incinerate large parts of the planet is a bit more than a regional power, in my eyes.

When Putin can't take back Kursk, it seems odd to call Russia a super power.

But yes, agree with you about China.

Putin wants people to think Russia is a super power, when it's instead a corrupted inefficient mafia state. Look at research or startups coming from there (not much) or it's economy - the country is not interesting any longer (Putin has damaged it that much). Except for Putin attacking Ukraine, and his nukes and troll farms.

If Pakistan starts threatening other countries with nuclear war, and tries to invade a neighbor but mostly fails, is it then suddenly a super power?

Maybe "terror power" could be a new word

I wish the EU agreed with you. That would surely mean they would not want to go on a 800 billion Euro spend of my taxpayer money to deter an "irrelevant country".

Fundamentally, it's not just about Russia. It's about not being carved up by the US and China.

And you think a 1T EUR will move the needle significantly to maybe deter this?

If it's sustained, then yes. Again, it's mostly important to be less tempting than other areas if we're headed back to a world of great powers and spheres of influence.

We never left such world, it's just that the USA was the only great power for a few decades.

China is a economic superpower but not a military one, at least not yet. Their blue water navy is not credible.

> Putin has nukes, apart from that Russia is a pretty irrelevant country.

Clearly, it's not irrelevant if it's been able to drive a wedge between the US and Europe like this.