I assume America undergoing their own version of the Spanish Civil War or otherwise occupying themselves to the point where they can't project power beyond their continent is an essential prerequisite for European civil wars, insofar as the oligarchy would use American military force to maintain their puppet regimes against populist revolts unless that wasn't an available option for them. Or to put it another way, say France actually falls, either to a populist latter-day Napoleon who
restores order in the face of riots with the original Napoleon's recommended tactics for that situation and deports the survivors, or the Al-Cliché Caliphate. How long until the American invasion to prop up someone within their accepted range of neoliberal politics? Or if the two are fighting and it isn't clear who's going to win, which side do the Americans back?
As I've said before: what one may expect is basically a civilisation-spanning civil war (or series of wars), with the entrenched establishment of the current international system being confronted with a likewise international assembly of generally aligned populist movements.
Crises, now, are crises of the whole world-system. If the economy crashes, it's not just a national thing. So, to that extent: yes, when things are at their worst in one place, it'll be roughly the same situation in other places. It's all fairly synchronised, largely because of the globalist model itself.
The current wave of populism is already being suppressed (we're seeing how they do it, in real time) ...but of course that won't erase the problems. Once things really heat up again, it'll happen in America and Europe at roughly the same time. The difference is that in the American case, there are concrete avenues by which various disaffected groups can be united against the establishment. In Europe, the disaffected groups are so fundamentally hostile to each other that this is nigh-impossible.
That watershed comes around 2060, based on historical analogy. Like the current wave of unrest, it'll also be crushed. But at that time, the crushing will have to be far more overt and violent, in order to work. At that point, democracy won't even be upheld as a fiction anymore.
By 2090 or so, you may expect the consequences of this to come to a boiling point. Because of the different outcomes three decades earlier, in America and Europe respectively, the result in America is that the establishment is defeated by Caesarism... whereas in Europe, the (counterpart-movements of) Caesarism will not have the critical mass to restore order. The establishment still collapses (again, all crises are global now), but the result will be bloody civil war as military anarchy ensues. Caesarists versus establishment remnants versus ISIS-like mini-caliphates all over the place. (Plus all sorts of militias and warlords of opportunity, as one would expect.)
Of course, Eastern Europe has far less in the way of non-Western immigration, and they aren't as soft and pampered as Western Europe. So they'll come out pretty decently, expecially since Russia will long have ceased to be a threat (and, indeed, ceased to be
country) by then. So Eastern Europe will be another place where Caesarism can really take root.
Hence my prediction that about a decade later -- so at the very close of this century -- an American and a Polish soldier, both Caesarists, will shake hands on the Rhine and discuss their next steps in exterminating any remaining cells of Islamists, establishment loyalists, warlords and basically any incidental degenerates.
--------------------------------------------
I know the conversation has already moved on, but what about sabotage? I doubt the USA and the rest of the world players like Britain will allow this Southern American entity to form. Not without pushing things to the point where CoD Ghosts becomes a "realistic" scenario.
Considering the time-frame, we must question the extent to which "allowing it" is a relevant factor. Did Britain allow the USA to form as it did, post-independence? Well, that can certainly be argued. But mostly it was a passive "I guess this is fine", at least after the War of 1812 resolved all outstanding disputes. Some minor spats notwithstanding, dedicated massive amounts of effort to crushing the USA was way more trouble than it was worth. By the time the USA developed into a truly great power, it was too late to arrest this process.
Now, I would expect roughly the same in the case of... "the United Provinces of South America", or whatever it gets called. Depending on the circumstances (such as this country declaring independence from the Iberial Union at a time when Britain is at odds with said Iberian Union... so any given Tuesday...), they may even enjoy British patronage, and be viewed in Britain as a potential counterweight to the United States (especially as far as trade relationships go).
Meanwhile, by the time the USA gets powerful enough to throw its weight around, this hypothetical South American power should be robust enough to withstand the heat.