Eh, part of the EU pitch was going their own way: I remember reading a book layout out a vision of independent Europe. I think it was published in 2005, certainly some time during the Bush pre 2008 crash, probably the peak time of European sense of superiority over Americans and probably peek optimism of the EU.
Since then, the EU has often seemed to be punching itself in the face.
Meh. Of course they have visions. You can have visions. I can have visions. But they can say anything, it's a good idea in politics to look what people do rather than what they say or what visions they have.
That faction has definitely been there and been in fairly prominent positions. They were talking about the European army as late as, what, last year?
I'm not close enough to know if they were just always louder than their power, or they lost at some point.
Of course they did. But they certainly didn't do that with plans about creating a powerful land army to checkmate Russia with.
They did it with a power grab in mind, cushy European positions, various defense industry grifts for countries that have disproportionate influence but small military, and getting other countries to help float up France's not so ex colonial ambitions.
To the second point, independence generally is having the choice between multiple sources: most people can't supply all their own stuff: European independence is being able to switch between American, Russian, and Middle eastern sources at will, so non can really pull you over a barrel. Cutting off the Russian sources for American interests undermines European independence by making them more dependent on American ones.
Well, let's see how that ability to switch is working out now...
You don't build pipelines if you want an ability to switch as the winds of geopolitics blow, that's the exact opposite of the intended effect. You build ports. Ports can take ships from anywhere. Pipelines go only where they were built, there is very little to no choice there. What they were doing definitely gave Russia an idea that they absolutely do hold Europe, or at least Germany over a barrel, and it's very painful for them to do the switch even with a lot of allied help.
Either Germany wanted to be dependent on Russia and got exactly what it wanted, or took an incredibly stupid way to become "independent" that has achieved the exact opposite effect, and i don't believe Germany's politicians to be so obviously stupid.
And last but not least, there are means to at least reduce need for foreign energy - after all, USA is also undergoing that debate. The EU has the choice of relying on domestic industry and nuclear power, but they would rather import "renewable" generators manufactured in China to show off their leadership in unimportant to any normal people CO2 numbers than do that.
A neutral Europe in this fight would be excellently placed to very handily profit off both sides in this conflict. That requires a mindset of self interest and real politic the European elite seems incapable of.
Would it? Nor really. Even then, this attitude implies an Europe that is not a major actor in global affairs that has own plans and strategies, but some hyena that has to catch opportunities to grab a piece of meat when others fight. That's not an attitude glorious enough for European elites to adopt it.
Frankly, European elites care far more about "setting an example" in climate policies than profiting off any sides in any conflict, they would prefer to wish conflicts away, at least the physical ones, they would rather settle conflicts by means of whiny ads about climate catastrophe and spending taxpayer's money on politically correct grifts.