Before even getting there, how about putting an end to all human slaughter? Call me old fashioned but I like humans. American government and presidency (by both parties) have been pro war and pro weapon sale for the last 5 or 6 decades by now.
> It's not, but I find it distasteful when people are feeling sad for the crab being boiled, while children are dying of hunger in Yemen because of politicians and their enablers.
The issue why I'm "missing the point" is pretty simple: you say we can only pay attention to one of the two things, but you haven't shown that to be the case. You're just saying that's how it is.
I know you believe that attempting these things sequentially will save more human lives. But until you've shown me that we really can only pay attention to one of the two, sequential attempts will only prolong animal suffering, not shorten human suffering!
But just so you realize, your argument sounds EXACTLY like all the right wingers that suddenly care about all the poor americans once immigrants enter the discussion. Most people that make these arguments care about neither, all they care about is not having to actually do anything and still feel moral.
You are aware, you are implying things. (By the same means I could suppose you want the invasion to succeed a 500K dead later, since you weren't ruling out this chance explicitly.)
Back to the conversation that was happening, it was about hypothetical peace treaties. Are you going to answer the question about your suggested treaty? It was a reasonable question based on your phrasing and you're deflecting. It wasn't some kind of made up gotcha, like your deflection was. And if you won't answer it then you've gone from conversation to trolling.
However, I'm not here to discuss specific politics, just principles of reasoning.
(Isn't this even more at random? How does this contribute to the articulation of the will of the people? Isn't this, why we have such a thing as a political process in the first place? The only thing guaranteed will be slaughtering en mass. Also, if "peace" is just exhaustion, the next round of the conflict will be just around the corner, probably at an even larger scale, compare WWII following WWI. Where is any answer in this? Enforcing treaties – there had been the Minsk agreements, there had been Turkish diplomacy early on – and armistices and following through on this, is, however, at least some answer to the problem. On the other hand, if you reserve for strategic action "beyond politics", this is what you will get eventually. The answer, if there is any, is in removing the strategic option from any armed conflict.)
Funny you should mention the Minsk agreements. Why did Russia not keep to them? Why should we trust them with an armistice considering they already broke the Minsk agreements?
The kicker is: We know that appeasement doesn't work. We know that if Russia gains any territory, they will attack again, and that if they don't the chance of another attack is massively smaller (since the population will not see the current war as a victory, making it political - and most likely literal - suicide). But somehow that doesn't matter to you, just like it doesn't matter to you what happens after the armistice.
But I really don't want to discuss particulars. We may keep in mind, for there being a conflict, there must be several, incompatible perspectives on the subject in question, there have to be "contested concepts". This question of concepts has to be addressed and to be resolved, and this is a political agenda. The question is really, do we want to address the underlying conflict or just the armed escalation, or just a particular of several steps of escalation? However, it must be made clear, beyond any doubt, that armed conflict doesn't resolve anything.
BTW, a story from my own backyard: Austria and Italy were in a state of conflict over the question of South Tyrol for decades. Even with basic treaties (Gruber–De Gasperi agreement), minority protections and autonomy in place, things were escalating steadily. Austria handed out passports, there were dedicated news segments in public broadcasting on a regular basis, and this eventually escalated in tolerated (or even sponsored) terrorism in the late 1960s, which wasn't especially unwelcome on the Italian side in the name of the "strategy of tensions". This was going nowhere. However, in order for Austria joining the EU, this conflict had to be dissimulated and eventually resolved, and both sides managed to crack down on the structures supporting the conflict. And, voila, nowadays, this isn't even a topic. In hindsight, it's just a ridiculous episode. The younger generation probably isn't even aware of this having been a thing.