It's Schrödinger's war machine.

The story here is that Europe will now re-arm. This will take a decade or more. In the meantime Russia is weak and can be held at bay for that decade.
The fly in the ointment is the possibility that Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin. This will embolden Putin allowing him to replenish his army and threaten Europe before it re-arms and will have a destabilising effect on geopolitics.

In the meantime Russia is capable of throwing a vast amount of artillery at her opponent and is developing her drone capability quickly. A drone arms race is not good and needs to be choked off asap. This situation could become very expensive as Putin is throwing all his remaining money at it. This needs to be avoided and Trump throwing a spanner in the works really doesn’t help.

Memories of the McCarthy trials. Anti commy sentiment runs deep.

Europe's next.

Excuse me.
The U.S. is morally weak right now and Russia is bankrupt (her economy before the war was equivalent to a mid range European country).

Just heard from Sir Bill Browder that he was talking to EU leaders at the summit the other day, about releasing the frozen Russian Funds to support Ukraine.
Apparently it is being seriously considered which would add another €300billion to the war chest.

I don’t know who was responsible for delaying this move. Trump claims it was Belgium, but who would believe a word he says?

Yes 1983 was the point of real danger.

Baerbock let it slip the other day that the EU is prepairing €700billion aid package for Ukraine. Apparently it was being kept quiet until after the German election. Looks like Europe is going to step up to the plate after all.
It was always going to happen, with or without US help. The day Putin threatened Europe with nuclear attack the day of the invasion, European history changed. Now they will re-arm and take care of their own security.

The Manchurian Candidate has finally been activated. Well played, Mr Putin!

This gives Putin legitimacy in his claim that this is Europe’s war, by encouraging and giving military support to Ukraine. Alongside EU expansionism.

Maybe Trump, in his own moronic way, stumbles to putting an end to the war that the US both instigated and prolonged. I doubt it, but who knows?

Although I am dead against the war and was shocked when Putin invaded. I realise that it was a fatal strategic error for Putin. His army is now depleted in arms and feet on the ground. His economy in tatters and all the lucrative energy deals with Europe ended. He is far less a potential threat to Europe and the West than he was before the war.

There is a longer background of US involvement here, I know.

Remember when Biden cancelled the border wall then two years later his own party begged him to restart it again? I bet life was a breeze not having to pay attention back then.

Remember when Trump put kids in cages.

It seems that all agencies will now have a Doge minder.

https://bsky.app/profile/joshtpm.bsky.social/post/3lhx4akbffs2z

That would mean 30-40% of Republicans plus a mass of independent voters don't care about rule of law. I think it's actually higher than that.

Maybe they think it’s corrupt, therefore can’t be trusted.
There’s also this thing where they know that what Trump does is wrong and there will be some economic pain etc. But it’s necessary to make American great again, or to break out of the malaise.

I love watching the USAID debacle unfold. It proves a few things.

The whole intersectional and progressive grip on culture throughout the world is largely astroturfed, payed for by American tax-payer dollars. It is forced; there is nothing organic about it.

Americans have been thanklessly funding foreign NGOs, media, Universities, and subsidizing the aid of other wealthy countries, like Australia.

Hidden beneath the facade of humanitarian benevolence is routine imperialism. “Experts” who lament a lack of access to such a piggy bank are now fearful China will step in to fill the void.

What you describe was the post war settlement. It worked ok for a few decades, until it ran out of steam as a result of the rise of China.
Now the US is committing Hari kari as a response and geopolitics is again in flux.
Fortunately Russia was broken before Trump’s second term, or things would be far worse now.
For me now the question is, will the new world order have two, or three competing superpowers? And will the US be one of them?

I’m a bit late to the thread. Just to put you at ease, mathematical infinities are not the same thing as philosophical infinities. They are precisely defined and used as means to perform mathematical equations. Which is pretty much what sime has said.

I live near the US airbase in Norfolk U.K. on the night when the drones were flying above us here there was a lot of military aircraft activity. While in the media there were just a handful of reports of unknown drone activity around airbases, then it went quiet.
This suggests two things;
It’s being played down, a security blackout.
The drones weren’t being shot down even though with the number of aircraft up there I would expect even one or two to be shot down. Again media blackout.

I would go with SSU’s suggestion, manoeuvres testing of military hardware. Or it’s the Ruski’s and it’s being kept quiet.

Considering the increasing use of drones in the conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine, it has dawned on me that this is the future of warfare. There I was thinking there would be armies of robots fighting wars, when in fact it will be swarms of drones.

I am optimistic about the present and future generations of people. 81% of Spaniards consider climate change, desertification, and CO2 serious issues, and we want to change the situation to better and live in a less polluted country. But I wonder whether we approached this issue too late or not.

As the climate in Europe becomes more unstable and intense, it is going to become increasingly more difficult to grow enough food to feed the population. Adaptation will be vital in fighting food insecurity. In the longer term it is much more serious, when AMOC collapses we will be in for a rollercoaster of unknown climatic changes.

I'm so envious! I listen to Max Richter at least once a week. Also Nils Frahm.

Yes, Nils Frahm too, of course.

I love his soundtrack for The Leftovers.

Yes, likewise.

I saw Max Richter in concert last night. He played the album, Blue notebooks, which he wrote 20yrs ago in protest against the Iraq war.
Sublime experience.

Which pill did they take, the blue pill, or the red pill?

Trump’s enemies have set the blueprint. The crying wolf and the hoaxes are one thing, but Trump’s enemies have also used the state to go after him. Now we have a discredited media, a two-tiered justice system, a political intelligence community, and a swath of activists ready to head the call. The lunatics are already here.

And Trump has stated that all these people will be sent to jail.
Basically, he is now waging war with the American state and if he were to win, he will be taking his revenge.

Who should be in jail, the whole US state, or Trump?

You didn’t answer the question. There is a reason why I asked it.

And if Biden were to halt arms shipments to Israel today. What would happen?
Or what do they fear would happen?

Evil is something that goes on in a person’s head, which is acted out. If someone failed to broker a peace deal a few decades ago, which was partly responsible for the situation as we see it in Israel. How can that be an evil person, when it had disastrous results, further down the line?

Both sides are scared of upsetting the Jewish lobby, or want them onside.
Isreal is a running sore, which previous administrations have tried and fail to cauterise. This isn’t so much evil as the result of repeated political failure.

Yes, the French bureaucracy, painfully slow. Whereas on the other side of the spectrum there are corporate giants like DuPont and Boeing over the pond.

I see now that I was misreading your OP. I was thinking about freedom, rather than morality. Morality is about social behaviour within a species. Whereas freedom is about autonomy within the restraints of the environment of a species/entity.

Presumably you are talking about freedoms within moral frameworks. So this is a discussion about morality, not freedom?

Yes, I see where you’re coming from now. However if you take a look at France, one of the most socialist Western countries. There are maverick’s studying and developing their own unique ideas everywhere. One only needs to look at their culinary diversity. Chefs strive to come up with new novel recipes, breaking the mould, pushing boundaries to win their Michelin star. Also in the arts, artists are given a stipend by the government allowing them to experiment and diversify to their hearts content. I travel around France a lot (I’m going there on Saturday, can’t wait), there are institutions, societies, venues, creative people everywhere. Often supported in their endeavours by the state.

If Thatcherism is socialist, then yes. But that’s not my reading.

Yes southern European countries are in a bind right now, I don’t think left, or right governments make much difference to be fair.

Socialist countries have capitalism and investment capital too. Or are you thinking of Communism?
Anyway I’m just saying they can do it too, just in a different way.

By relative, I mean not universal, but something happening in entities. Each species of entity is different, so the result of the inquiry will be different.
Also without knowing the goal, or purpose of humanity as an example of an entity, the consequentialism can’t be established. (I accept that in an isolated case, or circumstance, one could establish something that could be described as freedom)

Do we know the “role”, or “goal”, or “purpose” of humanity in the wider universe?

Freedom is relative and an attribute of an entity with agency. So there is no solution to the problem, but rather a series of compromised solutions dependent on the nature of the entity/s concerned.

But another thing people forget is that the vaccine was revolutionary. The massive pile of cash coming in to fund it from governments and rich guys was amazing. I really wonder what a socialist world would have done. I'd like to think the freedom to go with a crazy solution would exist there, but I don't know.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was funded by the U.K. government and charitable organisations. This would have been the same under a socialist government.
It’s true that research into RNA vaccines has been funded by investment capital around the world for decades. But that is just how the pharmaceutical systems we have, have developed. In a socialist world, there might have been more money invested in more cost effective ways rather than as a means to generate vast profits for shareholders etc.

Thankyou, you can always rely on Philip Glass to take you out of yourself.

Something to lighten your day.
https://youtu.be/YK_KTXb_Jrg?feature=shared

Guilty as charged.

One of my favourite albums. I like Tax Free Tax Free Tax Free. Do you have a link to this track? I haven’t been able to find one.

Here’s the full speech, people can make up their own minds about who speaks for the people of New York.
https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1795475706979233917

Check out the comments too.

Sums him up nicely.

“ We New Yorkers used to tolerate him when he was just another grubby real estate hustler masquerading as a big shot. A two-bit playboy lying his way into the tabloids. He’s a clown.”

Robert De Niro

In this interview an Israeli soldier speaks out about what he saw fighting in Gaza.
https://x.com/Channel4News/status/1783179575310094524

Two things he said stood out for me. Firstly he said that lots of IDF soldiers would say if you don’t kill the children, then when they grow up they will return to fight us when they are adults. The people we are fighting now were the children from a previous war who have grown up and are now fighting us. They were justifying infanticide.

Secondly they would agree that everyone is Gaza is affiliated with Hamas, so in reality everyone in Gaza is a target.
They were justifying the killing of an entire population, because everyone, including women and children are our enemy.

This is cut and dry evidence of genocide.

Also to assess risks on hypothetical and counterfactual scenarios you need arguments or evidences to support them.

Quite, like words of agressors being backed up by actions.

To my understanding, the risk you are referring to is more specifically grounded on Western divisions, decisional weakness, and military unreadiness, than on Putin’s anger. If the West showed a united front, stable resolve and readiness to make the needed military efforts, Putin could have been and could still be very much deterred from pursuing a war against the West over Ukraine. And notice Putin frames this war mainly as a war against the West, but still Western public opinions are far from getting how existential this war can be to their prosperity and security. That’s why Putin can count on the possibility that the West gets tired of supporting Ukraine.

Of course, the complacency in Europe failed to act as a deterrence against Putin’s expansionism. But the EU along with U.S. attempted to appease Russia following the collapse of USSR and bring her into the fold. Which is something you were suggesting U.S. could do as an anti China policy(appease). An approach which has failed, at least while Putin is in office. Lending weight to my position that Europe will now pull back from cooperation and collaboration with Russia and with help from U.S. weaken Russia and strengthen the boundaries and defence of EU. Thus discredit Russia on the world stage.

The logic is analogous to the one compelling military units to destroy their own military equipment, for example during a withdrawal, out of fear it may fall in enemies’ hands. To the extent Russia comes out emboldened and empowered from this war, the West may experience a surge of anti-Americanism which could further weaken the US power projection and leadership in Europe. So the US, along with Russia, will be compelled to try to play such divisions on their favour at the expense of the rival.

Yes, something an idiot like Trump might do. We see now that under Biden’s leadership $60billion has now been provided to prevent it.
You provide a good reason there for why the U.S. and EU should now form a strong coalition.

Such a claim sounds overly bold given the available polls. I get that such polls can be wrong and there is still time for Biden’s campaign, but no chance of winning looks definitely as an overkill.

I’m thinking ahead to Trump’s name being dragged through the courts throughout the summer. He is currently sitting in a courtroom with a porn star every day for 6 weeks to avoid being arrested for contempt of court.

Non sequitur?! Doubt because...? These are the facts I’m referring to:

I’ve read your links, although apart from them being an interesting read, I don’t see a compelling case for squabbles between U.S. and EU being the cause of why Ukraine hasn’t yet joined NATO. What is often missed in such articles is the complexity of considerations of the political and economic conditions in the countries involved. So what appears as a protracted disagreement on the surface, may just be posturing following negotiations considering these circumstances. While beneath the surface the calculation had been reached and agreed between the players involved.

I think you underestimate the strategic leverages of Middle East regional powers in the international equilibria,

Perhaps, by international equilibria, you are talking about balance between superpowers. I’m not seeing it. The presence, or not of U.S. in the region would make a big difference, otherwise, who’s going to do what?

While Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are regional powers in the Middle Eastern area which are engaging in a hegemonic struggle in the Middle East. They are hegemonic because they are vigorously supporting military and economic projection beyond their borders to primary control the middle-east, but also in Asia and Africa

I don’t see anything out of the ordinary here. Most states are involved in escapades like this. Get back to me when one is about to invade another. If they did, it would risk them becoming a failed state like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Lebanon.

Iran is now military supporting Russia and pressing Israel with its proxies, related to two strategic regions which have compelled, still compel, and risk to compel further the US’ intervention at the expense of pivoting to the Pacific.

Yes, vocally Iran would conquer the whole region. It’s not happening though. Iran is a weak unstable country. The majority of the population would overthrow the regime if an opportunity arose.
As I say, what I see in the region is lots of small countries either in economic trouble, or wanting to hold onto their wealth, or controlling their countries through authoritarian control. All trying to keep quiet in the hope they won’t become one more failed state. They will be well aware of what has happened in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Lybia (this list would be a lot longer if countries in a precarious position were included) in recent years and watching Israel, perhaps becoming a failed state now.

We are talking risks, right? I argued for the risks I see through historical evidences (which you admit but downplay without any counter-evidence) and strategic reasons potentially appealing to geopolitical competitors (which you conveniently narrow down based on hopes).

Perhaps the difference is how we each interpret the available information.

Besides “hopefully” doesn’t mean “probably”, the point is that this wake up call is too recent to have set a stable and compelling trend in Western security.

Oh, so Europe might not rearm now, right oh.

Furthermore also non-Western and anti-Western powers had a wake up call at the expense of the West: Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are acting accordingly.

Yes, perhaps. The whole region is a tinder box, I doubt that will end well.

I didn’t reference that link to argue that desalination will produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. There may be more methods available to tackle water crisis depending on available and evolving technologies. I limited myself to argue that governments in the Middle East show self-awareness wrt climate challenges (as much as geopolitical challenges) and are already making efforts to deal with them. So it’s not evident to me that in the next ten years or so the Middle East will turn into a Mad Max style location because of a water crisis, and will stop playing any significant role in international equilibria.

I’m referring to a fresh water crisis, something which will be widespread in the future. There isn’t a technology that can replace it in sufficient quantities.

Notice that I do not need to argue for the emergence of a superpower in the Middle East. A dominating regional power can be already enough to contain the American power projection on the globe if the US' power projection is already offset by Russia and China's in Europe, Asia and in Africa.

U.S. is just protecting its oil interests in the region. No one is containing their spread in the region and they’re not spreading.

It depends if China and Russia perceive Islam as a greater threat than the West. So far it doesn’t seem to be the case, given the support/cooperation China and Russia grant to Iran (the only country in which the islamic revolution thus far succeeded), Hezbollah, Houthi and Hamas.

Yes, I have said that Russia might play games in the region and China is gradually spreading her economic involvement like an amoeba, like she has been across the world. These things are and will be perceived as a threat to Israel, not so much U.S.
Russia’s deal with Iran is Putin asking for help in a desperate attempt to salvage his catastrophic foreign policy failure in Ukraine.

We didn’t agree on how to measure geopolitical risks.

Well you just seem to be playing the devils advocate. I agree with most of what you say, I just come to a different assessment as to where the risks lie.

My arguments are based on my understanding of how threats are perceived and acted upon by the actual players. The US intervened in support of Ukraine and in support of Israel. And the latter even happened at the expense of the former. This is not what one would expect if the conflict in Ukraine was evidently of grater strategic importance.

It seems now that support for Israel didn’t come at the expense of Ukraine, now that the money has come through ( delayed for internal reasons in U.S.) A couple of days ago PM Sunak described the threat to Europe, NATO, from Putin as existential and that he is putting U.K. arms production on a war footing. Along with similar from Macron yesterday.

than Israeli-Palestinian conflict one can’t reasonable use the former to downplay the latter

I haven’t done this.

two reasons: there is a link between the two, and up until now the US never managed to disengage from both areas to pivot to the Pacific (and that, to me, doesn’t depend only on domestic factors like the pro-Israel lobby or the military-industrial complex)

I don’t subscribe to the pivot ideology. My position is that a pivot is not needed provided Russia is neutered.

Concerning your reasoning, as long as the West and the Rest runs on oil from the Middle East, the Middle East is strategically important for geopolitical developments.

Yes for the foreseeable, on this issue I am talking longer than 10yrs. The U.S. is providing stability here, I don’t see a change in that for now.

I think however that their importance goes beyond that since Middle Eastern’s power projection goes beyond the middle-east. So they can play a role on securing/controlling commercial routes (https://newsletter.macmillan.yale.edu/newsletter/fall-2010/american-grand-strategy-middle-east, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative), immigration trends and political networking (through Islamism, financial means, military aid, etc.). And not only in the Middle East.

Yes I’m aware of all these things and U.S. will continue to secure her interests in the region, namely oil and her coalition with Saudi. Isreal is giving them a headache atm. But it is becoming clear now that despite how provocative Isreal is, her neighbours are not going to be drawn into a wider conflagration, as I explain.

Some anomalies may be more than conjunctural events. See, also re-arming to face the Russian threat is an anomaly in EU foreign policy, yet it happened under the pressure of historical circumstances. And now you may wish to argue it will grow further into a stable, effective and comprehensive defence strategy. On the other side, the prospect of Trump running for a second presidential term suggests me the possibility that Trump’s political base may be wide, strong and persistent enough to survive him. As much as the burden of the imperial overstretch inducing the US to downgrade its commitments to global hegemony. Even more so, if the EU will remain structurally weak.

I have listened to a republican yesterday saying that they had not been prepared for how disfunctional Trump was in office and that they will be prepared now, as he is a liability. Also Republicans against Trump are quite vocal.

Here some more evidence for you to downplay (while you provided none as usual):

I’m not disputing this, European countries became complacement since the fall of USSR. Oligarchs snoozing with European politicians has been going on for a long time now. Again things are changing.

[wuote]
Dude, we clarified our different positions enough. At this point we seem to disagree so much on what constitutes an interesting, if not compelling, argument in support of some claim that I really don’t see the point of dragging this exchange further.[/quote]
No worries, it’s been fun.

Arguing that U.S. should, or may, throw EU to the wolves in some sort of power play with China was never going to end well.

If we’re serious about destroying all oppression we could all just kill ourselves. But in the meantime I say Hamas first - the aggressor and oppressor.

Hamas is like an amoeba, it can’t be destroyed, or removed. This is the legacy of the Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

That’s a possibility, sure, but I would need a more solid argument for the likelihood of something happening in a hypothetical or counterfactual scenario. For example, if Ukraine managed to join NATO, would still Putin attack NATO out of anger? I doubt it and, as far as geopolitical actors are concerned, they seem to doubt it too:

People doubted he would invade a large country like Ukraine too. It’s a risk, we are talking about risks here.

indeed, the reason for Ukraine to join NATO was to deter Putin from attacking Ukraine, otherwise what would be the point of joining NATO if Putin would attack anyway just out of anger?

Again it’s about risks, probability.

Putin may attack NATO out of a more hawkish calculus though to the extent NATO countries show lack of resolve (due to economic dependency) and/or fear for escalation (for lack of readiness and will to fight for allies).

Yes, he might have a trick or two up his sleeve.

First of all, my claim was: “the more the European strategic interest diverges from the US national interest and the European partnership turns unexploitable by the US, the more the US may be compelled to make Europe unexploitable to its hegemonic competitors too.”

This is a complicated claim, I’m not even sure it’s saying anything.
Surely by helping EU and forming a stronger alliance with them. the U.S. would be making Europe unexploitable to its competitors. By contrast why would U.S. make EU unexploitable to herself and her competitors?

Secondly, I argued that the conflict in Ukraine and in Palestine are straining Western public opinion and nurturing conflict of interests among allies, to the point that for example a US candidate for the next presidential elections like Trump dared to say “he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies” if they do not comply with Trump’s demands.
Besides, I do not think EU governments and advisors are downplaying the gravity of such claims, or the US questionable commitment toward the Ukrainian conflict.
https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-nato-russia-attack-white-house-appalling-unhinged/32814229.html
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-nuclear-warfare-detterence-manfred-weber-vladimir-putin-ukraine-russia-war/
Poland's foreign minister on concerns the U.S. will abandon Ukraine, Europe 
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxjutEfhww)
If you do not see that, again do not bother answering me.

I’ve already agreed that Trump is crazy and could upset the apple cart. He’s not really a representation of the U.S. position. He’s an anomaly and I doubt he will make it to the election with any chance of winning.

If it wasn’t a controversial issue between EU and US why didn’t Ukraine join EU and NATO yet?

That’s a non sequitur, I doubt that the fact that Ukraine is not now in NATO is due to squabbling between U.S. and EU.

I think you underestimate the strategic leverages of Middle East regional powers in the international equilibria, considering also the influence they have in the once called “Third World”. And, again, the closer hegemonic powers get in terms of capacity, the greater the impact of smaller powers can be over the power struggle between hegemonic powers.

When you say hegemonic powers here, specifically, are you referring to superpowers, at any point? Or are you just referring to hegemonic power players in the Middle East?

Can you point to a regional power who is in a strong position to influence international equilibria, or a coalition perhaps?
As I’ve already said the only critical resource these players have to play with is oil. But the leverage this can exert is waning and I don’t see how this can be in anyway pivotal atm. Putin could play around with this perhaps, I don’t know.

The point is that the combination of persisting EU vulnerabilities plus incumbent weakening of the US leadership, will turn Europe into a more disputable area for hegemonic competition among the US and other rival hegemonic powers, and this could threaten both NATO and EU project.

You repeat this and I agree that there has been some political interference from Russia in these issues. But I don’t see this fatal weakness you keep alluding to in EU, or U.S.

It’s true there has been a complacency in Europe in becoming involved with Russia in various ways since the collapse of USSR. But the Ukraine war has been a big wake up call and this will be corrected. Likewise in U.S., although the political problems in U.S. recently are due more to populist opportunism and hopefully it will be a wake up call there too.

So this weakening you talk about, I agree has happened, but is well and truly now in the past(the wild card of a Second term for Trump excepted), Whereas you are suggesting it’s in the future and that it will deepen. I see a sea change, one in which Europe pulls together and strengthens along with a closer alignment with U.S. and a significant weakening and failure in Russia.
(Again there’s that word hegemonic, it would be useful to distinguish between hegemonic powers who are superpowers and those who are not.)

You seem to be grounding your arguments mostly on possibilities, but that’s not enough to assess likelihood. Sure it could be just a malaise that the West will manage to overcome, but it is too soon to see in Western re-arming a new stable trend that will succeed in building collective strategic deterrence, despite all persisting conflict of interests. While the decline of the US deterrence and leadership has just kept notably growing since 9/11.

Possibilities and risks are all we’ve got in a discussion like this. Yes there has been a decline in U.S. deterrence. This is probably the shift from the unipole to the competing superpowers we see now.

Sure that doesn’t mean they are hopeless vis-à-vis with climate change:
https://www.watermeetsmoney.com/saudi-water-investment-showcase-at-the-global-water-summit/

Desalination will never produce enough fresh water to replace depleted water tables. The quantities required are vast and desalination a trickle.

Besides, even though they compete for regional hegemony, yet the most acute and local problems they have to face coming from Islamism, environmental challenges, growing population

There aren’t any Middle Eastern powers competing for regional hegemony. Yes there are people’s who hate other peoples in the region, or call for their eradication etc. But this is just heated rhetoric. Of the states in the region, some are wealthy and benefit from international commerce travel etc, these states want to hold onto their comfortable lifestyles. There are states with authoritarian leaders like Iran, Egypt and Syria who are struggling with poverty and keeping power and extravagant lifestyles for themselves and their friends. There are poor countries who just bump along the bottom. None of these countries want war, or hegemony.

(https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/why-the-world-s-fastest-growing-populations-are-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/), plus the mediation of greater powers, like China, may also solicit greater cooperation among them to face shared future challenges, including the threats of a multipolar world like hawkish non-middle eastern hegemonic powers.

Yes, China does seek to work with many countries like this around the world. This is a risk to the west, because of what it could, but might not lead to.

It depends if China and Russia perceive Islam as a greater threat than the West. So far it doesn’t seem to be the case, given the support/cooperation China and Russia grant to Iran (the only country in which the islamic revolution thus far succeeded), Hezbollah, Houthi and Hamas.

I see this more as a case of “my enemies enemy is my friend”, Russia likes to engage in these ways. But has its own fears of Islamophobia and terrorist attacks in Russia.

Clearly mine is just a speculation. But a principled one because I take into account strategic logic of geopolitical players and historical circumstances to assess likelihood. And the conclusion is that we have reasons to worry about how things may evolve in Ukraine but also in the Middle East given the current predicament.

Agreed, with the added emphasis that Putin has hegemonic designs on neighbouring countries and is actively invading them.

Your argument seems mostly about downplaying the evidence I bring, insisting on the need for the US to have a strong EU to counter Russia and China, insisting on the fact of European re-arming, and on the incumbent crisis in the Middle East due to climate change.

Close, I’m insisting on the importance of U.S. EU coalition and cooperation to counter China (this requires the neutering of Russia) and observing a change in EU to re-arm, which will deliver it.

I don’t seek to downplay what you bring to the table, I just don’t find the suggestions that there are big geopolitical risks in the Middle East compelling. Or that there is not a big geopolitical risk in Ukraine compelling.

What I counter is:
1. Downplaying the evidence I bring is rather pointless since what matters is to what extent geopolitical actors take such evidence seriously and act upon it. If Middle East wasn’t important to the US, the US wouldn’t engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the conflict in Ukraine.

As I say, I don’t seek to downplay this evidence. I just don’t find it evidence of important geopolitical developments at this time. (I’m happy to explain why if you remind me of some of it)

2. Insisting that the US needs something doesn’t imply it will get it. Besides the pivot to China, may lead the US to appease Russia’s hegemonic ambitions in Europe to turn Russia against China (which is the raising power, geographically closer to Russia than the US), as argued by various political analysts including Mearsheimer. Indeed, Trump's approach to Russia can be in line with such view (https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/05/24/donald-trump-s-plan-to-play-russia-against-china-is-fool-s-errand-pub-70067). Russia’s appeasement in Europe on the other side may be costly for EU/NATO/Ukraine, and also turn more destabilising than the US may tolerate (if not to Trump’s administration, to post-Trump’s administrations) , soliciting a hegemonic competition in Europe.

You refer to Trump again, yes a Trump presidency might well try to go down such a course. It’s madness of course, a fools errand. Even if Trump does win a second term in office, it is an anomaly in U.S. foreign policy, which will be corrected after he has left office.
Yes that route of appeasement may become U.S. policy, although I would say where it may have seemed rational before the invasion of Ukraine, now following the invasion, it’s is entirely irrational. It
essentially takes the deep trust and cooperation between U.S. and Europe, squanders it and then pretends to have trust in Putin’s regime. Only Trump would be so stupid. Putin would take them for whatever he could get, while winking to Xi Jingping.
Besides notions of turning Russia against China faded a long time ago and prior to the Ukraine war, the U.S. and EU had tried on many occasions to cosy up with Putin and it got nowhere, in fact it had the opposite effect. Now we have BRICS.

3. European re-arming is a recent phenomenon so it doesn't help much to assess the future and effectiveness of the collective European defence strategy (considering various strategic factors like defence industry, conscription, nuclear, etc.) given its controversial costs

I only need to refer to one event which in a moment changed the course of EU foreign policy. On the day of the invasion of Ukraine, Putin threatened the EU with nuclear attack, while invading a large country on its border. Putin’s legacy.

for a population vulnerable to populist rhetoric

This is often exaggerated and refers to a populist reaction to levels of immigration.

(and often pro-Russian)

Lol.

4. Climate change is definitely an incumbent challenge that concerns the entire world, and Middle East governments are aware of its risks and urgency, especially due to how exposed they are. That doesn’t mean they are doomed to succumb to a climate crisis or to geopolitical irrelevance, given how pro-actively and effectively they are already acting wrt climate change and evolving geopolitical challenges.

Climate change will result in oil becoming a stranded asset. Also these countries may become dependent on food imports, when the desert cooks.
Interestingly just last week Dubai experienced 18 months worth of rain in one day.