This in their paper suggests? The opposite. Correct. It suggests. There can be no realistic peace talks, prior. There can be no other security guarantees. Except funding, and it can always stop, if public support, and morale don't win much more than rhetoric.

It is also suggesting pressure to produce something else?

I find it ironic, any press keeps using the same talking points, showing that fatigue.

Who really cares except it's now in their press. But there won't be peace until more are dead. They're determined.

There are scenarios it escalates prior. At this rate it's almost as probable. But as doubtful as the presumption of peace. The conflict started by? How does it end? It either escalates, or terms are met, and they are never acceptable.

This in their paper suggests? The opposite. Correct. It suggests. There can be no realistic peace talks, prior. There can be no other security guarantees. Except funding, and it can always stop, if public support, and morale don't win much more than rhetoric.

It is also suggesting pressure to produce something else?

I find it ironic, any press keeps using the same talking points, showing that fatigue.

Who really cares except it's now in their press. But there won't be peace until more are dead. They're determined.

This in their paper suggests? The opposite. Correct. It suggests. There can be no realistic peace talks, prior. There can be no other security guarantees. Except funding, and it can always stop, if public support, and morale don't win much more than rhetoric.

It is also suggesting pressure to produce something else?

I find it ironic, any press keeps using the same talking points, showing that fatigue.

Who really cares excepts it's now in their press. But there won't be peace until more are dead. They're determined.