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.

It is worth less in the sense that its impact is less than it could be. Like for example, would you be moved by such a statue being set up in Pyongyang or in 1946 Germany? Of course not. The statue only works because and as long as Europe, the EU, Belgium or the artists who created the statue can claim a moral superiority over China. That superiority largely hinges on whether and how past atrocities are admitted, rectified and prevented from happening again.

Also, what has people like the commenter above outraged is that such a statue is not displayed in a contextless moral void but serves as a propaganda tool to diminish Western or European human rights violations in past and present - even if not intended by the creator. “But look at China” itself is a huge whataboutist argument. If the moral evaluation of states and such is too emotional a topic to see this point, then maybe you can see it at work in the climate catastrophe. “But look at China” has been and is a very popular argument despite being both completely illogical and actually wrong, and it’s a danger to the continuation of our civilization.

The referendum was 8 years ago but the Brexit took place 4 years ago

That’s a pretty German exclusive perspective. German media on the near east is not only extremely one-sided, it is completely isolated in its one-sidedness.

You tell me. You make this extraordinary claim, so you figure out how to prove it. That’s how it works.

Create an experiment where you have a different prediction whether god exists or does not exist, then do the experiment to see whether god exists. If you can’t create a situation where the existence of god has a different outcome than the nonexistence, then you have no evidence at all.

I’m doing a lot myself. I just want you to admit that you have no idea yourself and are giving unsolicited and totally useless advice. Because you have not said anything of value in this whole thread and you are entirely incapable of understanding your own cluelessness.

I dare you to present your idea of God, as the creator of the big bang and absent since then, to any member of a current religious group. You are moving goalposts pretty far and if you really want to argue about such an absent universe-starter god, then what’s really the point?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

So you think what you do is good, but you don’t want others to help you do good by saying what you do and inviting others to do the same? Is it only good if you do it secretly?

Give me all your money or I kill you. It’s not a ban on your finances, coercion, extortion or whatever bad words exist. You can just choose not to live. It’s a choice, your choice : )

Please explain how banning religious symbols is getting rid of religion.

You can stop insisting that this is my personal problem for a start. Are you fine with the rise of fascism? What are you doing against it and how do you believe is it going to work when it hasn’t all those past years?

What do my personal goals have to do with anything? I want a society based on solidarity, justice, human rights, democracy and without discrimination. More and more people vote and voice support for nationalism, social darwinism, fascism and suppression of diversity. I know perfectly well what I want. I take offense that others don’t want my goals and actively want to criminalize me, suppress my rights and more and more openly kill me.

So tell me how do I get my neighbors and fellow citizen to choose peace and love instead of hate and cruelty?

If I knew the path, I’d go it. That’s the point you stubbornly refuse to engage with.

I’m starting to blame you for deliberately not understanding me. I ask you what to do and you just repeat that I should do. But what?? How could I be any clearer? I’m not blaming politicians either in this thread.