When Devastation Becomes Desirable: Ressentiment, Rejection and the Possibility of a Shared Future (Vision 2035 Revision 2027)

A profound sense of injustice can raise questions about who is responsible for an injury and whether a social order deserves continued allegiance. This conceptual study examines a possible widening of condemnation from particular perpetrators to institutions, bystanders and an entire society. Its central proposition is that destruction may become desirable in itself, so recognition of catastrophic danger and mutual dependency cannot establish a shared wish to prevent it. We develop this proposition through philosophical analysis, engagement with Serhii Datsiuk, selected psychological research and a bounded literary comparison from The Three-Body Problem. Ressentiment, rejection and devastation are treated as distinct analytical questions rather than inevitable stages. Destructive intent does not establish ressentiment, and legitimate resistance must remain distinguishable from indiscriminate condemnation. Responsibility for sustaining injustice can coexist with responsibility for a subsequent harmful choice. For Vision 2035 and All-Being Security, dignity, acknowledgment and credible accountability belong at the beginning of security; their value does not depend on their success in preventing retaliation. Protective measures require justification through evidence of harm and scrutiny of their own effects. The article offers conceptual distinctions and research questions, not a validated psychological model or a universal solution to conflicts in which an actor rejects coexistence.