This is why Sholtz and Marcon are having a bit of a public disagreement.
Germany really do not want to send soldiers to Ukraine. For a whole lot of internal very German reasons their military is not in a good position for armed conflict.
And this one on Germany's very cumbersome procurement tgat is part of why Germany is not keen on rearmament (apart from the obvious: they know what they did) https://youtu.be/8jDUVtUA7rg?si=Du6Rrq2TolbIIaw5
that said Macron is at the moment the only European leader outside of the Baltics that is keen on sending people to Ukraine.
This is what we have to deal with. People believing that when our enemies are arming themselves, it is somehow problematic to respond? This attitude is fading in Europe (thankfully) but I still see this far too often.
Considering the invasion of Ukraine for the second time in 10 years, and the official threats of using nuclear weapons, rearming doesn't sound as bad as before.
> and the official threats of using nuclear weapons
"Why are we shocked? Of course if a country has a weapon it also conceives a situation where it would use it. If a country would never under no circumstance use a weapon it would not have the weapon at all. Every country who has a weapon also conceives a scenario when to use it. Even if they don't issue reminders"
-- My own translation from an interview to Alessandro Barbero
To decomission a weapon is to weaken the army. Rulers must be very careful about taking power from the army, as army officials are wary of being stripped of power. A ruler must be in the good grace of the army.
For that reason, it is difficult to get rid of inherited weapons. A plausible justification is required.
With Putin, however, Russia is strenghtening an army. It is correct in this case, I think, to verbally remind your enemies of the threat they represent. E.g.Trump, in the US, has a strong discourse position to pull the US from conflict, because his supporters want "To make America great again", the world be damned.
