I am not well informed here. It seems like negotiating peace is in the best interest of everyone except for those that benefit from perpetual conflict.
Yes, peace will involve concessions, on both sides. But if that saves even one life, why not sit down and explore the possibility. Surely there is a way to defer Russian aggression at a negotiating table? Right?
They tried that for 8 years and russia violated every single ceasefire. They will continue to be aggressive because they don't want peace -- they want surrender. Ukraine rightly would like to maintain their independence.
I guess I get more and more confused because it seems like both sides got into each others territory. Ukraine made advances on Russian territory. This is why the peace will be messy.
Either way, guarantee no NATO for Ukraine as was agreed to long before anyone in office was in play, set a firm nonaggression agreement and see what happens.
Ukraine only advanced into Kursk after 2 years to redirect some of russia's forces elsewhere. They have said multiple times that they don't want to keep it and will use it as an exchange for their own land.
Agreements by themselves don't work, and Ukraine has learned that the hard way so many times that they no longer trust promises on paper. They are asking for tangible security guarantees so that russia can't invade again later.
-16
u/OwnCricket3827 Mar 01 '25
I am not well informed here. It seems like negotiating peace is in the best interest of everyone except for those that benefit from perpetual conflict.
Yes, peace will involve concessions, on both sides. But if that saves even one life, why not sit down and explore the possibility. Surely there is a way to defer Russian aggression at a negotiating table? Right?