Europe has a long history of warfare that seemed to have halted around the NATO. I think the presence of a strong military alliance and the presence of peace have a high probability of being connected.
USSRs occupation of the other half also kept "peace" there (and in conflict between the two sides would have escalated to a full global war, which was in nobody's interest).
Yugoslavia for example was only a state because the different nations were kept under the same rule. When that rule was gone, 60 years of "living together" didn't do anything to prevent ethnic tensions.
How things shape in 10 or 20 years is anybody's guess.
The ambitions of the USSR were a reason for war and they had plenty of military resources.
Actually history has shown that they didn't.
The original claim was that "NATO has probably done just as much to insure peace inside it's countries as the EU has.". The counterpoint was that the Balkan wars invalidated this claim. My response was that a single war in 70 years is hardly evidence against the original claim.
What's your line of argument here?
I didn't respond to the "thread of the argument" above, I responded directly to the smaller point made in your comment.
My point regarding the whole argument is in my longer comment above.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czecho...
2: http://www.war-memorial.net/Soviet-Invasion-of-Hungary-3.111