Your point was about trust tho. How can somebody trust Russia after they turned out to be unreliable? What i'm asking is, how is this not an even more valid question toward the US and instead we give for assumed our uncodnditional allegiance? Seems like a relationship more similar to that between vassal and overlord.

Maybe i don't, but what i learned in these years of studying history and military history tends to conflict to people's opinion when it's based on very strong feelings and not much more.

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?

You think a relative technological breakthrough is less likely than the guy who is providing Ukraine with Starlink for free is at the same time telling the Russian how to jam it? So he would make sooner or later public a vulnerability in his own technology (which he sells)? Doesn't male any sense. It's easy and satisfying to think that all evil people plan together evil things all the time, but more often than not the answer is simpler than a cospiracy theory based on feelings.

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.

I think most people haven't realised that the world is different from 20 years ago, not even with Trump being Trump.

Banning a party will not magically make the support they have disappear. When people with fascist views get isolated, we only make them close more and more in their own bubble, which will just create more extremism. It's the same with people that make fun of flat earthers. You are not going to change their mind, you are just sending them deeper into their delusions. People still don't get that banning everything we don't like is not a long term solution, but makes the problem worse (war on drugs, forbidding prostitution, etc)