he doesn’t get to invade and then negotiate to keep part of the place he invaded
Are you at all familiar with any history at all? How do you think such treaties usually go? Or did you think borders spent the last couple millenia shifting mysteriously without reason?
The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.
The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.
That’s literally how all negotiations work. Hostage negotiations - you take hostages and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for release. War negotiations - you dominate a space and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for ending violence. Unless you’re the USA, where you dominate a region after the majority of forces are already defeated and then when someone tries to negotiate their surrender you nuke 200k civilians.
or because all putin has to do is stop invading ukraine. he doesn’t get to invade and then negotiate to keep part of the place he invaded
Are you at all familiar with any history at all? How do you think such treaties usually go? Or did you think borders spent the last couple millenia shifting mysteriously without reason?
The wider international community has largely rejected wars of conquest as legitimate in modern times.
The exact same argument could be applied to Israel and e.g. the Golan Heights, but I don’t think you’ll find that to be a particularly popular position.
That’s literally how all negotiations work. Hostage negotiations - you take hostages and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for release. War negotiations - you dominate a space and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for ending violence. Unless you’re the USA, where you dominate a region after the majority of forces are already defeated and then when someone tries to negotiate their surrender you nuke 200k civilians.