You can say the same about the US. Nuclear armament seems to be the most effective way to avoid getting bombed or invaded by the US. Iran is still figuring out whether to become the next Afghanistan/Iraq or North Korea.

What there is a future for is nuclear disarmament in the US and in Russia because it’s kinda pointless to kill the whole planet a hundred times over. Every other country needs to be persuaded and needs to trust both the US and Russia. Tough luck, I agree. But there was a time when this was possible in the 80s under no less ruthless imperialist leaderships.

There are already nukes in Europe, specifically in France and the UK. Maybe the Netherlands should get some too to avoid getting invaded when US war criminals are put on trial.

You talk about geopolitical futures with a definitive certainty that is impossible to get in any discipline. Oh wait, there is one, it’s called climate science and you ignore completely how we blow up our civilization at the moment. We are currently the ones blowing it up, not (just) Putin. When we get shortages of food and repeated droughts, fires and floods, it is our fault. Don’t you dare point toward Putin for this failure.

Take a long look in the mirror. The European experiment is gobbling up the ressources of three Earths and rising, we are hit most by temperature changes and we might turn off our gulf stream heating in the next decades. The European experiment is a climate experiment that leaves the stable basis of the last 10000 years for good soon.

Pointing to external threats to unite behind empty nationalist ideology is an old diversion tactic and it’s going to bite us in the ass. People vote more and more for reality-denying far right parties because everything seems more important than to secure our future sustainably. Arming up is a symptom of shortages and apocalypse, not of civilization.

I don’t think we’re in the ressource fight apocalypse yet and we should do everything to avoid getting there, starting with stopping the use of fossil fuels immediately. How can we convince anyone of stopping the cycle of death if we are the ones most guilty?

I’m for a two state solution where Ukraine exists alongside Russia as independent countries. There is no need to fuel the conflict further, just reign in Russia instead of appeasing them.

I’d still like to know why your preferred solution is to apply pressure on the aggressor in one case and to arm the victim in another.

Sure let’s explode civilization in a speerun before we boil alive.

What’s your proposed solution to the conflict then? If it’s not weapons for Palestine, why not?

I admit this is far-fetched. But I really don’t, like 0%, understand how you can propose arming Ukraine as a means towards a lasting peace. Maybe you’d like to explain or maybe you don’t.

And maybe you have a similar proposal for conflicts that involve the US as the baddies, because calling for the US to police themselves surely can’t be your solution.

Then we should probably arm Hamas lest we are guilty of appeasement of Israel. Or wait, now westsplaining away genocide is okay?

Maybe this is a strawman and you are on the correct side of history in the middle east, then I apologize, but too often I see this outrageous hypocrisy in German discourse.