Ukraine peace plan, could it work?

Yes, it can be part of the negotiations. If Russia refuse, they continue to delete Ukrainians from the face of the earth whilst the west say “Slava Ukraini”

I would negotiate to take as much land back from the adversary but my focus would be peace so my men, women and children don't continue to suffer and be eliminated.

The Ukraine civil war has been going on for nearly 3 years now and it’s costing countless lives a lot of money in aid and weapons supplies that the west can barely afford.
If Ukraine was split down the middle following the course of the Dnipro river, Ukraine could keep the western half and Russia could have the eastern half. The city of Kviv will be divided by the border with West Kviv going to Ukraine and the East Kviv going to Russia. After all that’s how peace was brough to Timor by having a separate East Timor. In this case peace will be achieved by having a separate East Ukraine.
Could this be the solution for peace?

Well which is it then? The 'proposal' in the original post would be to triple the territory the Russians take including half the unoccupied capital.
How is that a good deal for a President to sign?

The front is barely budging.
If Ukraine refuse, they continue to delete Russians from the face of the earth whilst the west say “Slava Ukraini".

The Ukraine civil war has been going on for nearly 3 years now and it’s costing countless lives a lot of money in aid and weapons supplies that the west can barely afford.
If Ukraine was split down the middle following the course of the Dnipro river, Ukraine could keep the western half and Russia could have the eastern half. The city of Kviv will be divided by the border with West Kviv going to Ukraine and the East Kviv going to Russia. After all that’s how peace was brough to Timor by having a separate East Timor. In this case peace will be achieved by having a separate East Ukraine.
Could this be the solution for peace?

Perhaps you will agree with me that it is strange how so many people call for peace in every conflict across the globe - except this one.
I suspect we both know why that is.

No, but it is reasonable to seek peace. It is a human way to think and not want war for other people’s family members whilst you sit miles away.

If not, then I'd suggest not trying to imply a connection with these unknown families or attempting to use them against me in a discussion ie to imply I want them in conflict or harm.

Yes, of course. Most reasonable people would want peace and not allow innocent people to be slaughtered.

So Putin is not a reasonable person.
Think most of us had realised that.

You are very much mistaken.
Everyone in their right mind wants Russia to end their illegal and unjustifiable invasion and fully withdraw from Ukraine today. That would bring about instant peace.
What you call "peace" is just allowing brutal dictators to do whatever they want. That does not bring peace.
Why do you oppose the right for sovereign states to defend themselves against military invasion?

I have set out the current position in some detail in Reply 35.
You make a number of assertions that can be challenged.
"Everyone in their right mind wants Russia to end their illegal and unjustifiable invasion and fully withdraw from Ukraine today."
That is not strictly true. There are a number of contrasting views as to the causes of this conflict and to how blame should be apportioned. However, we are where we are and the purpose of this thread - as prompted by the opening post - is to discuss the prospects for peace.
"What you call "peace" is just allowing brutal dictators to do whatever they want. That does not bring peace."
The term 'brutal dictator' is highly subjective - and, in this context, very much a product of recent Western propaganda. Mr Putin is still on good terms with many world leaders outside the NATO alliance who do not regard him as a dictator. Nor was he described as such by the West until relatively recently. Moreover, the West is only too happy to support 'brutal dictators' when it suits their purposes. One only has to look at the West's dealings with certain Arab states to recognise the truth of that.
"Why do you oppose the right for sovereign states to defend themselves against military invasion?"
I don't. But a state is only truly sovereign if it can fight its own wars. Without Western support, Ukraine would collapse. Sovereignty is a concept drawn from political science; in the real world it exists in degrees. For example, the US is able to exercise much greater sovereignty than the UK because the UK could not defend itself without American help. We saw what happened the last time the UK tried to impose its will through military force against US wishes in the Suez crisis of 1956. We saw what happened when Cuba tried to exercise its sovereignty in 1962. On numerous occasions the US has violated the sovereignty of other states, but its allies turn a blind eye and certainly do not refer to the US as a brutal dictatorship.
Many European and US citizens are openly critical of Western military support for Ukraine because they genuinely believe that the best prospect for peace lies in diplomacy, not on the battlefield. Such views are now spilling over into domestic politics. The German government, for example, has recently halted further military aid to Ukraine.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-halt-new-ukraine-military-aid-report-war-russia/
It is vital that the West does not abandon Ukraine. That would be unforgivable, given that we have encouraged them to fight. But what we should now be doing is telling them that our support from now on will be dependent on their taking a realistic approach to ending the fighting. Once that has happened we should be more than generous in helping them to build the 'Switzerland of central Europe': neutral, prosperous, Western facing but open to constructive relations with its powerful neighbour.

This is the key problem, the more Russia fights and embed themselves, the more difficult it would be to get rid of them. Hence, Zelensky is trying to hit inside Russia to try push them back.
The deal that I had heard was originally on the table was the Donbas region to be ‘independent’ and Crimea part of Russia. He should have accepted that deal.

Clearly they are not doing that if they are desperately seeking Britain’s permission to fire missiles into Russia.

Why should that deal have been taken?
That would have ceded more land than was already out of control.
Since then the President has annexed territory previously controlled by Russia before the special military operations.

How are those things mutually exclusive?
The Western Front of WWI was barely budging in 1916 but Britain wanted the USA to provide more arms. They did, it moved the front.

Has Putin reduced the number of casualties with his actions from January 2022?
What's the counterfactual which would have given the same/more casualties?

My understanding is that Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukraine.