Ukraine peace plan, could it work?

A peace deal.

Uh-huh?
And 9% in January 2022, 25% in March 2022.

I dont think the Donbas and Crimea form 20% of Ukraine.

A peace deal in January 2022 prior to the special military operation/s?

20% was your figure.
Crimea is 9%, Russia had advanced into Karkiv and the edges of Kiev to take 25%.

I was talking about the number of casualties. The number of deaths would have been different if a peace deal occurred in 2022 or 2023.

It was not my figure, it is on wikipedia
“As of 2024, Russian troops occupy about 20% of Ukraine.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=As%20of%202024%2C%20Russian%20troops%20occupy%20about%2020%25%20of%20Ukraine.
If you think that Russia control more land during the early stages of the military operation, I don't know.

Do you think the US would tolerate Cuba forming a military alliance with China and Russia? If no, then they are a vassal state in perpetuity.
The problem with this discourse is the balance between fairness and hypocrisy. We would consider it to be fair that no hostile nation is military-aligned to an adversary whilst being on our doorsteps whether the UK or the US. However, we are happy to not expect the same for other countries.

The US has tolerated Cuba having a military alliance with Russia for over six decades now. There were Soviet troops stationed in Cuba right up until the end of the Cold War. The only real US red line regarding Cuba was that they couldn't accept nuclear weapons being stationed there.

I agree that apologists for brutal dictators and their illegal und unjustified invasions of peaceful, sovereign states might well disagree with me.

It was the essence of my point. A Nato-aligned Ukraine with the potential of having nuclear-powered weapons in the country could threaten an isolated Russia.

You seem to be implying that anyone calling for negotiations in this conflict is an apologist for what you term 'brutal dictators' while conveniently ignoring the fact that the US and its allies unhesitatingly support dictators of all kinds when it suits their purposes.
Sovereignty exists only in degrees, not it the absolute. Decisions taken by one country, even if that country appears on a superficial analysis to be acting peacefully, can threaten the interests of its neighbours. This is often the starting point of conflict.
The United States has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of other countries in the exercise of its own perceived interests, up to and including military action and the setting aside of sovereignty but condemns others for doing the same. That is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
There is, as I have said, more than one interpretation of how this conflict arose and more than one view on how it should be brought to an end. The Western narrative of Mr Putin as a Hitler like figure is increasingly losing credibility, even in the West and has never been accepted elsewhere.
It is inevitable that this conflict will end at the negotiating table. As the article that I cited in Reply 35 shows, many Ukrainians are now leaning towards that view and support for Mr Zelensky is not as solid as it once was. So why prolong the agony?

You seem to misunderstand the nature of nuclear weapons.
They do not have to be on the border to pose a threat to the country over the border. The point about the Cuban missile crisis was that it would have cut the distance of ground based missiles and nuclear armed planes from mainland US by many thousands of miles. So your Cuba analogy fails on another level.
Also, there are already NATO countries that border Russia, so Ukraine joining would not increase your hypothetical threat.
Also also, Russia borders NATO countries and therefore poses the same threat to NATO that a NATO Ukraine would pose to Russia. Does that mean that NATO can legitimately invade Russia and not be the aggressor?

You seem to be implying that anyone calling for negotiations in this conflict is an apologist for what you term 'brutal dictators' while conveniently ignoring the fact that the US and its allies unhesitatingly support dictators of all kinds when it suits their purposes.
Sovereignty exists only in degrees, not it the absolute. Decisions taken by one country, even if that country appears on a superficial analysis to be acting peacefully, can threaten the interests of its neighbours. This is often the starting point of conflict.
The United States has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of other countries in the exercise of its own perceived interests, up to and including military action and the setting aside of sovereignty but condemns others for doing the same. That is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
There is, as I have said, more than one interpretation of how this conflict arose and more than one view on how it should be brought to an end. The Western narrative of Mr Putin as a Hitler like figure is increasingly losing credibility, even in the West and has never been accepted elsewhere.
It is inevitable that this conflict will end at the negotiating table. As the article that I cited in Reply 35 shows, many Ukrainians are now leaning towards that view and support for Mr Zelensky is not as solid as it once was. So why prolong the agony?

Neither President Putin nor President Zelinskyy want to negotiate. Or rather, there is too wide a gap in each other's acceptable positions for there to be a negotiated settlement right now.
Edit
As I understand it:

Imagine if someone broke into your house, but you catch them in the act and some neighbours turn up.
Imagine the burglar insisting that they should be allowed to go free, and keep some of your stuff.
The brassneck of the guy!

Imagine if someone broke into your house, but you catch them in the act and some neighbours turn up.
Imagine the burglar insisting that they should be allowed to go free, and keep some of your stuff.
The brassneck of the guy!

Neither President Putin nor President Zelinskyy want to negotiate. Or rather, there is too wide a gap in each other's acceptable positions for there to be a negotiated settlement right now.
Edit
As I understand it:

That's absolutely correct. But those are the de facto starting points for negotiation.
On paper, Mr Zelensky's current 10 point plan envisages the return of all its 1991 territory, Russian reparations and the prosecution of Russian leaders for war crimes. Clearly that's not going to happen.
The Ukrainian 15 point plan that was almost ratified in the spring of 2022, but withdrawn at the last moment, was far more realistic. At that time, Ukraine was willing to consider a neutral status—whereby Ukraine would not join any military alliances or host forces of other nations on its territory—if it received security guarantees from its European allies. The status of the Russian occupied territory, including Crimea, was to be determined through further negotiations, following a ceasefire.
The NATO Secretary General has suggested that the conflict could drag on for 10 years. That prospect should help concentrate minds on both sides; for the people of Ukraine, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Imagine if someone broke into your house, but you catch them in the act and some neighbours turn up.
Imagine the burglar insisting that they should be allowed to go free, and keep some of your stuff.
The brassneck of the guy!