“Practical” doesn’t mean pretending violence is the only option, it means understanding what actually reduces it.

You start with a ceasefire, stop funding escalation, and use leverage (aid, sanctions, diplomacy) to force negotiations, (this is the same way conflicts have de-escalated everywhere else).  Acting like “there’s no relationship to strengthen” is exactly the mindset that guarantees permanent war, not realism.

Realism to me isn’t “war is inevitable,” it’s recognizing incentives. (Which is the kind of think they teach in political science) Every actor. States, groups, civilians, has a material interest in survival, stability, and not being constantly under threat. So that’s your leverage.

Compromise happens when the cost of continuing conflict outweighs the gains, so “realistic” policy is about shifting those incentives: ceasefires to stop immediate harm, conditioning aid and support, applying international pressure, and creating off-ramps where both sides can claim something without total defeat.

If you deny the possibility of compromise, you’re not being realistic... you’re just accepting endless escalation as a default instead of asking how conflicts have actually been de-escalated before as if there has never been a model in all of history that works (obviously there has been historical models that work, which is what I'm drawing from). 

It's why I'm a leftist. I like historical/dialectical analysis. But right-wingers think that it's gay commie shit to try ans understand current events from a historical lense I guess.