[JumpCrisscross]

> By this logic the aggressors will always win because the other side should always concede territory for peace

Nope. It’s just being realistic about the priorities at play. And there isn’t a clear aggressor in this conflict, it is as old as both states.

(Also, countries have bought and sold territories for ages. That doesn’t invite aggression or strike me as wrong.)

> if Kashmir is ceded to Pakistan, there is no reason why they'd be done aggressing for more territory

They wouldn’t. New Delhi would have to get something that is worth more than that territory in return.

[ivell]

>They wouldn’t. New Delhi would have to get something that is worth more than that territory in return.

What would that be? Pakistan and India had an agreement to peacefully resolve issues already in 1972 Simla agreement. But they continue to send terrorists to murder indian civilians on indian soil. They never followed the agreement. They invaded twice after that agreement.

Anything that India gets out of Pakistan cannot be trusted. They have been claiming that Osama was not in Pakistan, while taking money from the US to support its war in terror.

I don't think Pakistan has any trustability remaining.

It will continue to provoke and attack India as long as their military rules the nation. Their military's existence is the anti-India stance it propagates.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Anything that India gets out of Pakistan cannot be trusted

Then the only security solution for India is invading and replacing Pakistan’s government. Anything less is needlessly drawing out the violence out of caution and cowardice. The fact that this is obviously overkill belies that there is room for diplomacy.

Also! Not how diplomacy works! A fundamental fact about international relations is it’s anarchic. If your model of international relations requires trust for diplomacy, you’ve fundamentally missed how geopolitics works.

> It will continue to provoke and attack India as long as their military rules the nation

Look at the history of France and Germany negotiating territory exchanges, including under duress. Or the U.S. and Britain while the two hated each other. Et cetera.

[ivell]

>>Also! Not how diplomacy works! A fundamental fact about international relations is it’s anarchic. If your model of international relations requires trust for diplomacy, you’ve fundamentally missed how geopolitics works.

Actually trust is a significant factor in geopolitical setup. This is why NATO was stable for a long time and Trump's statements are read as a threat to NATO.

Many nations trust the signed agreements are kept. If those are not followed, then there is no point in signing those agreements.

If there is no trust, then there will be military build up to manage the risks. The fact that this does not happen to western countries is due to high degree of trust among them (France will not attack Germany tomorrow).

>>Look at the history of France and Germany negotiating territory exchanges, including under duress.

Significantly different economy, society and government. Hard to negotiate when the whole existence of the government depends on anti-India stance, when the economy is dependent upon aid from IMF, and high levels of illiteracy and radicalization (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_in_Pakistan)

[geekasm]

> And there isn’t a clear aggressor in this conflict yes, there is. it is paxtan. They are sponsoring terror bases which commit terror acts within India.