> Europe existed far before the EU and will continue to exist after the EU finally comes to an end.

First clause: indisputable.

Second clause: maybe, maybe not. Europe hasn't always existed as a concept, and its longevity is unknown.

> Europe hasn't always existed as a concept, and its longevity is unknown.

Europe is the name of a continent. What reason(s) would there be to change the name of a continent?

In contrast, the EU is a trading block, set up to foster greater pan-European trading relations. It's not the only pan-European institution. For example, the Council of Europe ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe ) is a separate pan-European institution, set up in 1946 which was before the EU or any of the predecessors of the EU, and amongst other projects was behind the formation of the European Court of Human Rights. I bring this up to highlight that we do not need the EU in order to have collaboration between European countries.

Do you think the Egyptians called it Europe?

When do you think people began calling "America" "America", and why? Or referring to the largest continent as "Africa" ?

I understand what your point was. I was thinking long term and noting that the future is uncertain, at best.

> Do you think the Egyptians called it Europe?

You haven't given any dates, but if you're talking about ancient Egypt, i.e. the Egypt before 0AD, then yes. The term "Europa" was used to refer to the continent around this time by the Greeks, and I don't see why Egyptian people wouldn't have picked up on a useful term they didn't have before.

I think you maybe missed my footnotes.

Even if you did/did not, vernacular evolves. So at the time that you fervently hope the EU comes to its (clearly deserved, Mr Putin) end, I imagine people will be able to adapt their wrong speak and clearly incorrect thinking to ensure they adhere to the newspeak.

> at the time that you fervently hope the EU comes to its (clearly deserved, Mr Putin) end

I find it funny you think the only reason people would want the end of the EU is if they're a Russian agent. The EU has very little to do with defence. Perhaps your argument would hold more weight if talking about NATO, but even then it's not necessary for countries to be members of NATO in order to collaborate on protection when their collective security interests align.

Well, there are other reasons. For instance if they've been influenced by Russian agents trying to sow discord.

Haha, got to be the Russians right, EU is clearly beyond valid criticism. /s

I guess the difference is the founding of the EU didn’t require multiple genocidal slaughters.

Oh, wait.

This only matters to people outside the EU. Since most of Europe is in or deliberately out. It’s hard to care too much about that.