I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful follow-up.

However, your final response ("As for whether ...") does seem to be largely avoiding the question it addresses. If we may try again:

"But if the war does end with parameters in the range of such that can likely expect under a Trump-Vance deal -- including of course major territorial concessions, along with likely some kind of statement acknowledging Putin's grievances, and another guaranteeing that he and his people will never be prosecuted; and very likely also, requiring that Russia pay at most a paltry share of the $1T in financial damages which Ukraine is squarely owed -- will the cause of peace be furthered, or will it hindered?"

Considering not just the current conflict, but possibilities of future aggression, and the likely impact on the international system of such a precedence being set.

(Tweaking the goalposts here, but only slightly)

My apologies, I should have been more deliberate:

The cause of peace will be hindered, but this won't entirely be Trump's (or Harris's in another timeline) fault because Biden already missed the boat on this at least two years ago. You can't board a boat that already left port.

The consequences of warmongering are meaningless economical and political sanctions, and a halfassed proxy war from the sanctioning side; this is set in stone now and there's no going back. Peace is actually valued quite low despite narratives to the contrary, as it turned out.