So what's the difference - whether you have a military or not?
Cunning but a bit too obvious.
If Ukraine disbands its military, then in case of war there is no way they will be able to call up enough men to arms quickly enough, so the current defensive line would be lost immediately, and constructing another in the chaos of invasion and countrywide mobilization would be near impossible. That's why Ukraine needs a standing army and the current frontline defensive positions to be manned by adequate forces, not to attack Russia but to defend.
russia does not want peace...
Of course they don't. They are increasing weapons production, recreating wartime military districts and commands, and already started propaganda machine depicting the EU as Nazis (remember the recent Lavrov's ramblings?). From Russia's point of view ending the war now doesn't make any sense. MAGA idiots want to make the biggest mistake one can ever make with Russia - give them передышка.
The only way out of this situation would be to mobilize conventional European NATO armies (and I mean common mass mobilisation) ASAP and simultaneously enter Królewiec, Belarus and Ukraine (with secondary operations in Murmansk, Karelia, Pskov and Leningrad Oblasts). If the United Stated controlled the nuclear escalation (and I don't think gold toilet sh*tters want to live under ground like rats for the rest of their lives), then the blitzkrieg would last 3-4 months and it would be all over. Properly democratic government would be installed in Moscow and era of peace and prosperity would come. However, this won't happen with agent Trumpov in the White House.
So, more European NATO countries need to develop their own nukes (Finland, Germany, Poland and Romania for a start), so that we can control the escalation ourselves. This would also allow to free ourselves from American domination and emerge as the greatest world superpower. Hahahahahahaha (
sinister laugh from horrors).