So you say that one side of the treaty (restoring Germany's sovereignity) is valid while the other side (Germany's assurance to never have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, banning nuclear weapons stationed in former Eastern Germany and so on...) isn't?

That's an interesting idea, although one were you might not find a lot of people agreeing. Especially not as the the German side of assurances also includes no territorial claims over any former German areas now belonging to Poland. Do they know that international law is seemingly bullshit and you can just pick which agreements to uphold?

I'm saying your interpretation of the treaty is incorrect. Immediately after the two sentences you quoted is a third one clarifying that the “rights and obligations arising from the [NPT] will continue to apply to the united Germany”, meaning that Germany retains the right to withdraw from the NPT under Article X like any other signatory.

I am actually here, because I keep getting banned off the R website for my extreme views, but that's certainly a nice side effect.

Admins on that site are cucks, lemme (or lemmy, rather, HAHAHAHA) wish death on bad people / things, ffs. Fuck ICE, fuck Trump, fuck Putin. Death to them.

The actual text says the opposite as it continues:
"[...]They declare that the united Germany, too, will abide by these commitments. In particular, rights and obligations arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 will continue to apply to the united Germany."

Sorry, but reading those two sentences as "we will abide by the renunciation of nuclear weapons, by keeping the right to withdraw from the NPT" is quite frankly insane.