There is some truth in that. "Safe for a year" or "safe for a decade" would be better than current circumstances, though. (Depending on how you use the year or the decade...)

▲

anovikov 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Why so? Ukraine at this time is enjoying a certainty: Russians are already doing whatever they can to harm them and no surprises are possible. If "peace" will be established they will have to be ready for a surprise attack in an unknown way - because forces will not be committed like they are now - at any moment, and because it will be "peacetime", they will be in a much poorer position to be prepared. "Peace" makes Ukraine a lot more unsafe and in general worse off than just continuing the war - on a permanent basis if need be. Infrastructure will eventually adapt. People already did.

And of course, it makes the rest of the world MUCH better off because Russia can't be much of a trouble anywhere else. It already let Syria and Armenia shake them off because they had no resources to spare.

	▲	AnimalMuppet 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Baloney, on several fronts. Russia's last attack was a "surprise" that, once you stopped thinking "they'll never do that", you could see coming miles and weeks away. You can't do large-scale attacks without moving large numbers of troops, and it's really hard to hide moving large numbers of troops. Peacetime makes it harder to be prepared? Perhaps in a way (psychologically). But in another way, it's a lot easier to prepare when you're not getting shot at and bombed at every step. Peace makes Ukraine more unsafe? You know what makes them really unsafe? Having an army actively shooting at them. Look, I'm not "peace at any price". Some prices are too high, higher than continuing the war. But "Russia continues to exist and is going to come back and attack us again at some point" is not such a price. It's a danger to prepare for, but it's not a price too high to accept an end of this war. (Of course, whether it's worth it is going to depend on exactly what the end looks like...)