Ok, but what if another group disagrees and or doesn’t do it well? Won’t you have to enforce it globally or you’re just creating a population which has no countervailing force to counteract it?

And at least right now, wouldn’t that require massive, global, overwhelming force?

No matter how objectively correct or convincing, I could see no way China or Russia would take any such proposal seriously, let alone a large chunk of the rest of the world?

For example, it wouldn’t have mattered one bit how peaceful Ukraine was when Russia started on its rampage.

Near as I can tell, the only reason Ukraine still exists is because Western Europe and the US had massive stockpiles of weapons they gave, Ukraine had enough angry (and murderous) Ukrainians, and Ukraine and the US had been preparing to murder a bunch of Russians for years after the last move Russia made before Russia made it’s move this time.

And even then it is no small, certain, or cheap endeavor. Horrible destruction has been wrought.

But compared to it’s women and children taken (and ‘married off’/‘adopted’ within Russia) and the men slaughtered, conscripted, or imprisoned, and everything that made them, them destroyed, it’s still the better outcome no?

And that is exactly what would have happened, and has been happening in the area they did take.

Which is pretty normal for these kinds of things. NOT having it happen is definitely the notable exception.

So seems to me, these traits, while irritating/disruptive in peacetime, are essential at some level during times of conflict. And conflict inevitably comes, always. Just as death is a part of life.