If not for nukes, the West ( really any single NATO country frankly ) could end the war with Russia easily. Russia could not only be pushed out of Ukraine but perhaps the easiest way to do it would just be to occupy Moscow, form a new government, and end the war.

The lesson of history though is that the real problems begin after you do that. While the threat of nukes is real, I think the West is hiding behind that so that we do not have to directly engage. Having Ukraine do it for us is not only preferable to putting our own troops at risk but, perhaps more importantly, there is a lot more legitimacy to them fending off an invader. If it is done that way, the ability to achieve political stability and peaceful progress is greatly enhanced.

The West could be a little faster sending more advanced weaponry. If I was Ukrainian, I would feel like the blood of my countrymen was being spilled unnecessarily. That said, for the same reasons as above, the current pace is probably better for everybody in the long run.

Putin and Russia ( as it has been ) are unlikely to survive this conflict. What they get replaced by remains to be seen. In the long run though, that is the more important question and the more important objective. Ukraine needs to be liberated. In a way, Russia does too.

Honestly, things are being managed pretty well.

I had my kids at Remembrance Day this morning. I think we were there for the right reasons. We need to remember the sacrifice made by those that came before. We need to do what we can to build a world that honours that sacrifice. Patience. The easy answer is not always the best.

We’re currently ignoring genocide in Yemen, and the plight of the Rohingya, and Uyghurs.

Who is "we"? You and I have no power to prevent these things and the politicians we can choose from have no interest in doing more than tweeting about it.

Yes. And Ethiopia. And Sudan. And Myanmar. Doesn't change the point dramatically, except that all of the above are usually framed as internal issues rather than external wars of aggression. There's a legit conversation to be had about increasing peacekeeping forces to diffuse some other conflicts too.

That's why I was so glad to see more feathers this year at the national ceremony. Honestly, even reconciliation aside it feels more familiar that way, and less like footage from somewhere in Europe.

The idea of a day to mark what happens when we let our guard down is good, but the implementation still needs to evolve.

That was called appeasement, and was tried. It helped lead to WW2.

There should always be a forum to talk. However, words must be backed by a big enough stick, and the resolve to use it. Otherwise those who respect the use of words will just be flattened by those who are happy to abuse the situation. Finding the balance of this is the biggest challenge we have as a species.

Assuming you are referring to Russia Vs Ukraine right now. Russia was using and abusing words, with no intent to match them with actions. If they truly wanted to come back to the table, they would be welcomed. The catch is, it would have to be backed with actions. Pull back to the original borders, and present the evidence they supposedly have of issues in Ukraine to the international community. Right now they appear to just be bullies, and are being treated as such.

To echo OP a bit, negotiate based on what? You can't just "negotiate" aggression away if you have no leverage. A country with no military has no leverage.

Maybe you're not a caveman, but plenty of people are, and being pacifists will get us killed.

How many would the Nazis have killed if they weren't stopped militarily?

Philosophically, I am very attracted by what you are saying here. It is certainly something to hope for and not to give up on. We cannot completely ignore the evidence of history however.

Are you familiar with the name Neville Chamberlain and the phrase “Peace for our time”? Neville would be applauding your post. Many people believe his desire for peace allowed a lot of war, death, and suffering that could have been avoided.

The real world is complicated. What you want and what you must do are not always the same thing.

spend billions on peaceful resolutions and negotiations.

Isn't that the exact purpose of the UN?

The same body that, despite being members, is being completely ignored by at least half of the combatants in the various shooting wars that are currently in progress.

The same body that the many countries routinely try to discredit or ignore when it's convenient.

.

I agree that diplomacy should be the way forward, but when aggressors actively ignore and try to subvert the entire process, then unfortunately responding to violence with violence becomes the tool of last resort.

@ininewcrow I think the problem is when there is no one on the other side with whom it is possible to engage in reasonable discussion. When the leadership of one side have shown time & time again that they are dishonest, untrustworthy, & not even sufficiently well informed & self aware to know when their cause is struggling, let alone lost.

And when both sides see the other this way, & are unwilling to look at themselves, or to see similarities with the current enemy which might be used as a foundation for peace…

No, it is specifically about not having another genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_again