LeoDalPozzo

I disagree with a lot of your claims that are at the base of the conversation, like the relationship bretween Russia and China (which have an actual military alliance and it's not a hidden thing) or the state of the battlefield in Ukraine, which is not as flowery as you make it and Ukraine finds themselves in a very critical condition, despite western media focusing on their very succesful strikes inside Russia, which i agree make appear as if Ukraine is in a much stronger position than they actually are. Still, I do appreciate that nobody called me "Putin's bot" yet, it's a great improvement over reddit.

I see your point, but i don't think that alone is a reason strong enough, or nobody should have any trust in the USA as well. On the exact same premises.

Your assumption is that the perception of Trump by MAGA is entirely based on a distorted view made up by Democrats, and that’s not true.

No. My assumption is that Trump did very well politically in not trying to defend himself publicly from the accusation, but to stir the focus on him being persecuted because he wants to fight corruption in the governemnt. More he was ridiculed, more his point of being "the outsider that is fighting the big corrupt powers" gained credibility in the eyes of potential voters.

Nothing changed in between Trump presidencies

Nothing? You have as a president a felon suspected of pedophily that has no shame in insulting allies and enemies, who insults journalists and heads of state publicly without consequences and has sent gestapo in the streets. The first time i could have said as well that it's business as usual and he was just another guy voted with the belly, but now he is openly behaving like he does things because he can. It never happened before. The rule of law has no meaning anymore, he can openly behave as a king with little to no challenge in the US. That's the opposite of nothing. What is happening now in the US has never happened in the last 70 years.

Saying that Trump’s victory is partly a consequence of how Democrats pictured him is also extremely naive

It's extremely accurate in my opinion (and not only mine, you'll find many articles about this subjext on virtually any US newspaper). Half of the merit of trump's victory is no doubt because of the dems and their inhability to talk to people and to relate to them. Choosing Kamala Harris as opponent, with her patronising tone, inhability to take clear stances on sensitive subject and classic politician way of talking was the nail to the coffin. If this is not understood, get ready for many more trumps in the future.

it doesn’t need rearmment for someone to want what the others have.

I guess you mean military power here. How do you achieve that without rearming?

who would otherwise become a victim

This is the assumption that i'm challenging. Obviously, to make people accept spending billions in rearming there must be the threat of becoming a victim dangling above our head, hence the constant scaremongering about Russia attacking a NATO country any moment. Before were the Soviets, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea... at moments it's China, sometimes it's Iran. There is constantly an enemy to defend from, which justifies military spending.

And to that, I’d answer yes

And this scared instinctive reaction, which ignores any other factor that isn't pure and irrational fear (pumped and justified by the state apparatus of every single NATO country) is how the weapons industry is laughing their way to the bank, while we leave in fear because of yet another enemy at the doors.

This is not true. The maginot line was easily avoided by the German and any war historian will tell you that it was a stupid and stupidly expensive idea. In no way it was a threat to the German invasion.

The goal is to show the other side that you are willing to fight and at best a war is impossible to win for them.

So they need to show that they have both the means and will to defend themself. Hence more military spending, moving soldiers closer to Russia and so forth.

And so forth, right. You are proving my point. What's the "so forth"? Russia feels more threatened and feel forced to rearm themselves. Europe sees russia rearm themselves and say "they are getting stronger, we need to rearm even more". Does anybody expect Russia or anybody else to say "Hey our enemies are rearming themselves, better stop producing weapons and start diplomatic relations instead!" Did this ever happen? Does anyone expect it to happen? No, but we have countless proofs of the opposite happening. This is WWI all over again. I wish people would study history to see that the things they are saying are not new, they were said in past and the results were always disastrous.

Is any of the people who praise the rearming have an idea of what happens in case of war with Russia? Did people forget that they are in a military alliance with China, Iran and N. Korea? How do you think a war in this situation will look like? Do you think the world will survive it?

So what's the end goal? Start a war to stop a war? Arms race have very often ended with war. The cold war ended because the Soviet Union disintegrated from the inside, using it as an example of a "succesful" rearming race feels intellectually dishonest, especially when we have countless of examples of arms race ending in war.

What you are saying is misleading from many pojnts of view:

• Russia never stated they want to invade europe, quite the opposite. You can think they are lieing, and that's an opinion,but who is saying that Russia will invade europe any moment is mostly the EU. We have reports from the secret services of Poland, the US and other european countries that sat Russia is definitely not preparing an invasion. These reports are vert underreported in western media, but they are easy to find in specialized media.
• your second statement is false. The concept of "never again" related to wars came out after WWI, not the 2. Seems a small detail, but it's not. Also, the european union is not a political entity, but purely commercial. The political part was never really developed (despite the promises). In fact the articles of reciprocal defense are very weak.
• while the trust in Russia is subjective and i can even agree with you, it's a much weaker point when your main security partner is the US... Also, you don't need to trust Russia to understand that they will not attack NATO, it's enough to take a break from the very partisan info bombardement we receivr every day and look at the geopolitics and geoeconomics.

Exactly. We know very well that 1st world war started because europe was in full rearming, but some powers felt that war was inevitable and was better to do it sooner than later.

War is not a video game or a movie. You are banalizing an extremely complex subject.

This is a bit naive. War and conflicts are way more complicatee than "one lunatic in the world". Conflicts have always a reason. We can agree with it or not, but believing it's all caused by one monster leader that it's followed blindly by the people is just a very common propaganda point, which has been used for the last >2000 years and in basically every conflict we knoe about. One of the main reason armed conflicts happen is because each side feels the other one is rearming. This becomes a circle and a spiral that it's hard to stop, especially when the arms industry has such ppwerful lobbies.

"If you want peace prepare war" right? Now let's look how many years of peace the romans had in their entire history thanks to this doctrine.

This is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. This kind of mentality allowed two world wars to happen. Stop looking at geopolitics like if it was a football game. It's not the politicians dragging us into war, it's common people giving for assumed war is inevitable. You all will be the world's distruction once again. It's really insane how humans have the tendency to repeat history despite having knowledge of it.