It's funny you're phrasing it this way, because none of the "peace movements" can answer the most simple question: How do you ensure peace after whatever treaty you're putting in to "bring peace"? If Russia wins literally anything, even a single square meter, why would they not start the next war in a couple of years? Or will you then stop "calling for peace" yourself?
And the only way to sort this out is by fighting to the bitter end, until either of the two biggest countries in Europe runs out of men? (This, BTW, may take some time, while we're maximizing casualties.)
Force an armistice onto both sides instantly, spare a few 100K lives and a few economies, sort things out. This could have been over for more than 400 days. Seems pretty simple.
You are aware, that H. was actually disappointed that he didn't get what he wanted, namely war? (France and the UK would have missed on getting an entire cycle of the arms race into the field.)
Well, surely you saw this coming, but I'll ask my previous question: how do you guarantee peace after the armstice? Why shouldn't Russia attempt the same thing again in a couple of years, since the war would have netted them territory (you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory)?
> you're not mentioning Russia retreating from invaded territory)
You are aware, you are implying things. (By the same means I could suppose you want the invasion to succeed a 500K dead later, since you weren't ruling out this chance explicitly.)
Nobody can guarantee a specific outcome to the conflict.
Back to the conversation that was happening, it was about hypothetical peace treaties. Are you going to answer the question about your suggested treaty? It was a reasonable question based on your phrasing and you're deflecting. It wasn't some kind of made up gotcha, like your deflection was. And if you won't answer it then you've gone from conversation to trolling.
I guess I'll just add one to the number of "people who say they want peace, but can't answer the most simple question about keeping peace". One day I'll receive an answer, I'm sure!
And I'll add 1 to the number of people who say, "because I can't guarantee the outcome of a political process, I'll go for brute force, because I can't guarantee the outcome of this, as well." Where is the logic to this?
(Isn't this even more at random? How does this contribute to the articulation of the will of the people? Isn't this, why we have such a thing as a political process in the first place? The only thing guaranteed will be slaughtering en mass. Also, if "peace" is just exhaustion, the next round of the conflict will be just around the corner, probably at an even larger scale, compare WWII following WWI. Where is any answer in this? Enforcing treaties – there had been the Minsk agreements, there had been Turkish diplomacy early on – and armistices and following through on this, is, however, at least some answer to the problem. On the other hand, if you reserve for strategic action "beyond politics", this is what you will get eventually. The answer, if there is any, is in removing the strategic option from any armed conflict.)
I am not talking about brute force. Haven't you noticed how I've never said a word about attacking Russia? Surely you can't be saying that defending your own country is "brute force" in any way. You're projecting and strawmanning in every reply.
Funny you should mention the Minsk agreements. Why did Russia not keep to them? Why should we trust them with an armistice considering they already broke the Minsk agreements?
The kicker is: We know that appeasement doesn't work. We know that if Russia gains any territory, they will attack again, and that if they don't the chance of another attack is massively smaller (since the population will not see the current war as a victory, making it political - and most likely literal - suicide). But somehow that doesn't matter to you, just like it doesn't matter to you what happens after the armistice.
You may also note that Zelenskyy was running and was elected on a ticket to stick to Minsk II and fixing relations with Russia, and this wasn't followed trough (eventually appeasing Azov, instead). The conflict is not just the invasion, rather it's the final escalation after years of built-up towards this. Several millions were already displaced before, fleeing to either side. But, apparently, this conflict served some purpose…
But I really don't want to discuss particulars. We may keep in mind, for there being a conflict, there must be several, incompatible perspectives on the subject in question, there have to be "contested concepts". This question of concepts has to be addressed and to be resolved, and this is a political agenda. The question is really, do we want to address the underlying conflict or just the armed escalation, or just a particular of several steps of escalation? However, it must be made clear, beyond any doubt, that armed conflict doesn't resolve anything.
BTW, a story from my own backyard: Austria and Italy were in a state of conflict over the question of South Tyrol for decades. Even with basic treaties (Gruber–De Gasperi agreement), minority protections and autonomy in place, things were escalating steadily. Austria handed out passports, there were dedicated news segments in public broadcasting on a regular basis, and this eventually escalated in tolerated (or even sponsored) terrorism in the late 1960s, which wasn't especially unwelcome on the Italian side in the name of the "strategy of tensions". This was going nowhere. However, in order for Austria joining the EU, this conflict had to be dissimulated and eventually resolved, and both sides managed to crack down on the structures supporting the conflict. And, voila, nowadays, this isn't even a topic. In hindsight, it's just a ridiculous episode. The younger generation probably isn't even aware of this having been a thing.
Sorry, I'm not aware that armed conflict would have solved anything after WWII, with the possible exception of the Cambodia intervention (but this was a short lived action with intensive political reconstruction following up to this.) To me, this just seems naive.
Regarding Austria–Italy as a potential parallel: There are notable differences. There had been an autonomy granted and minority language and cultural rights asserted by Italy, and Austria was the official power of guaranty for the autonomy. Neither of this was ever gained in the Ukraine (some of the rights granted in the previous constitution were eventually revoked). The land in question was the Southern part of Tyrol, with a predominantly German speaking population. (This really goes back to the 19th century and a (failed) military action serving the purpose of a Southern diversion in the greater context of the German unification on the one hand – i.e., blame Bismarck –, and the Italian unification on the other hand, and the territory was eventually granted to Italy in the treaty of St. Germain in the aftermath of WWI, as this had been a promised price for Italy switching alignment.)
I'm not going to respond to another of your comments until you directly address and answer my central question. You've danced around it enough, and have tried accusing me of more than enough things - just come out and answer it directly, or I will assume you are a (possibly paid?) troll and stop engaging.
HOW DO YOU ENSURE THAT PEACE IS KEPT AFTER THE ARMISTICE? WHAT KEEPS RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING AGAIN?
Can't you see there is no special problem? Even after a military conflict, you've to either actually go into that country and start an intensive political reconstruction (e.g., Germany & WWII – which is not an option here, because of the nuclear scenario) or you have to deal with the problem of resurgent conflicts (in the past 70 years or so, they always did pop again).
You were contesting the need for a political solution. So, where is your special, proven way? On the other hand, if there's need for a political resolution, why have the military interlude, at all?
If you are ignoring the conflict, assuming, there's just a bad actor and everyone else is just in the right, you're actually part of the problem and the resurgence will be nearly guaranteed. As can be observed in all those amazingly long-lived zones of conflict, where only instability is stable, we've established after WWII and we're constantly adding to. It simply doesn't work.
You keep criticizing their idea instead of explaining your own. This is a cheap trick to make your idea immune to criticism. You are not acting in good faith.
They're not the one that should have been flagged here, for using all caps for a single line.
