The accepted boundary between Europe and Asia predates the discovery of plate tectonics (which I presume is the only geologic, as opposed to historic, social or cultural, reason to make such a boundary), so if the Urals are formed by the collision of two plates, it's just a happy coincidence.
Kazan is about 600 miles due East if Moscow and even Kazan is in Europe, though by then you're getting close to the border, which is the Ural Mountains.
Europe as a geographical entity reaching the Urals is certainly well-attested historically (and yes, I was one of the 18). However, it's pretty useless as a concept, and should probably be retired. The political entity is significantly more useful, and indeed, Moscow's nowhere to be seen.
I think the general attitude in the US (and probably the entire Western Hemisphere) is that political “Europe” is more aspirational and public relations than established fact. I think there's some truth to that view, and some truth to the other side. But nobody I know, when hearing the word, will thnk first of any of the several overlapping political notions. Well, not at home; some who work in the financial industry might while they're at work.
