There is no way to ever prevent a hypothetical future invasion of any country. As I said, Ukraine already made a deal with Russia for this to not happen. Any country could send its military over its border any time, regardless of any negotiated peace in the past.
You cannot future-proof treaties. It’s not possible.
Your point is that treaties shouldn’t be negotiated equitably because they can’t be future-proofed? Because that sounds like a “let Russia do whatever they want” argument.
My point that any peace agreement will contain the possibility of future conflict, so pointing that out is not a valid criticism of a specific hypothetical peace agreement.
Yes, if Ukraine agrees to some territorial concessions, it won’t guarantee peace for a thousand years. If they reclaimed all their territory, it wouldn’t do that either. But it would stop the killing and could provide the framework for a lasting peace. That’s a better deal for the average Ukrainian that being drafted and thrown into a warzone to reclaim some rubble.
Russia giving back all the territory they took would also be a framework for lasting peace. You, once again, are saying Russia should get everything and Ukraine nothing.
Russia giving back all the territory they took would also be a framework for lasting peace.
Yes, it would be. Assuming the civil war was also resolved. The problem is that getting there requires throwing a ton of more lives into the meat grinder, which is worse for the Ukrainian people than accepting territorial concessions.
Russia returns to the borders that were negotiated with Ukraine after they gained independence, borders they agreed not to cross if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and in return the world will lift sanctions against Russia. Everyone gains.
There is no way to ever prevent a hypothetical future invasion of any country. As I said, Ukraine already made a deal with Russia for this to not happen. Any country could send its military over its border any time, regardless of any negotiated peace in the past.
You cannot future-proof treaties. It’s not possible.
Exactly my point.
Your point is that treaties shouldn’t be negotiated equitably because they can’t be future-proofed? Because that sounds like a “let Russia do whatever they want” argument.
My point that any peace agreement will contain the possibility of future conflict, so pointing that out is not a valid criticism of a specific hypothetical peace agreement.
Yes, if Ukraine agrees to some territorial concessions, it won’t guarantee peace for a thousand years. If they reclaimed all their territory, it wouldn’t do that either. But it would stop the killing and could provide the framework for a lasting peace. That’s a better deal for the average Ukrainian that being drafted and thrown into a warzone to reclaim some rubble.
Russia giving back all the territory they took would also be a framework for lasting peace. You, once again, are saying Russia should get everything and Ukraine nothing.
Yes, it would be. Assuming the civil war was also resolved. The problem is that getting there requires throwing a ton of more lives into the meat grinder, which is worse for the Ukrainian people than accepting territorial concessions.
A withdrawal as part of a negotiated treaty would kill more Ukrainian people? How?
What’s your plan for getting Putin to agree to such a proposal?