Russia’s repeated references to nuclear weapons since it started the war in Ukraine have put nuclear weapons back at centre stage of the strategic discussions. This has raised anxieties about a possible nuclear war in Europe and it is a set-back for nuclear arms control. Unfortunately, the Russian mind set has had a fall-out effect: NATO re-emphasises the need for nuclear deterrence, particularly its nuclear sharing programmes in Europe.

Immediately after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, all the governments of the EU and the European NATO countries reacted. Not only with support for Ukraine, but also by announcing an increase of their own military spending. There are some indications that not everything can actually be financed.

In the shadow of the Ukraine war and far from international attention, three problematic developments can be observed in North Korea: COVID-19 infections are a cause for concern, the election of the South Korean president signals a hardening of the fronts and, encouraged by Russia's war in Ukraine, Kim Jong-un’s government continues to focus on the expansion of its nuclear capabilities. This gives rise to fears of nuclear proliferation in Asia.

A glance at the analyses and conclusions of just about any major newspaper or news website will confirm: the self-proclaimed military experts are in charge, ready to explain to us what "heavy weapons", "no-fly zones", "anti-aircraft guns", "flagships" etc. are. Any why not? They’ve been dealing with the matter for quite some time now, a whole two months since February 24, 2022.

At present, historical analogies are very often used to explain reasons for or against the causes of the war in Ukraine or to describe the horrors of this war with historical arguments. Some of these comparisons are downright perfidious, while others are far-fetched or out of place. Historical analogies can provide a framework for orientation. But if arguments are made with historical, moral statements, then they should be applied consistently.

Since 2021, at the latest, there has clearly been a perpetrator for the escalation in the Ukraine conflict: Russia's President Vladimir Putin. By his belligerent and cynical war rhetoric, he has frustrated the possibilities for peaceful settlement. Not only is the demilitarisation of Ukraine being sought, but the country is even being denied its right to exist. Added to this is the bizarre notion of "denazification" and a hint of threatening nuclear escalation should the West stand in the way of the invasion. Putin escalated, operationally and rhetorically, when he alerted of the so-called deterrence forces and equated the West's sanctions with a declaration of war.