On Aggression, Wartime Conduct, and the Terms of an Enduring Settlement
Ending a war requires more than condemning aggression. It requires understanding what the aggressor state seeks, how it interprets a ceasefire, and what conditions could bring its attacks to an end—and how those conditions could be verified and enforced. The aggressor state initiated the war and remains accountable for that decision and for its conduct throughout the conflict.
The attacked state must also answer for its conduct. Its right to defend itself does not excuse unlawful attacks or atrocities committed by people acting on its behalf. Responsibility may extend to other parties who recruit or bring people into the war through unlawful means. These acts require investigation and judgment on their own evidence, without erasing the distinction between initiating a war and defending against one.
The attacked state and its people have a rightful voice in shaping the terms of peace, including security guarantees, reparations, and territorial arrangements. Reconciliation may become possible under conditions that acknowledge wrongdoing and protect against its repetition. It cannot be required of victims or substituted for accountability. A durable agreement would need to address the conduct of all parties while preserving a clear judgment about who began the war.
What terms could bring the fighting to an end, hold each party accountable for its conduct, and leave those who suffered the war with a future they can freely choose?