I get what you are saying. But referring to it as "Peace Talks" is misleading. There is no goodwill or altruism here. It is purely another military strategy. If the outcome is occupation, that is not peace.

> If the outcome is occupation, that is not peace.

This is not a definition of "peace" that you share with the Anglophone community in general. Are the United States and Japan currently at war?

The US is not currently occupying Japan, but they did at some point. The US and Japan are currently in an alliance. Japan's constitution requires a self-defense force, so they don't have a normal military. That was imposed by the US after WWII.

Please don't deflect.

Let me ask you: do you think it would be just to have Russia occupy Ukraine? Do you think countries have a right to self determination and sovereignty?

Russia was signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, basically agreeing to acknowledge and help protect Ukraine's borders.

I wonder why you support occupation.

What comes after can also be occupation, oppression, labor camps, executions, dictatorship. Is that "peace" you say?

Yes, of course. There's a difference between "peace" and "heaven". Who's saying peace is the absence of anything that is subjectively bad?