I'm just curious - that is a wholly meaningless platitude, right
With cryptic statements such as this one, you need to articulate the intended meaning before logic could possibly be used to any effect.
Let's assume that the statement is "Violence never solves anything".
Obviously, if you're subjected to violence, using violence yourself can solve the problem so presumably it's not what the statement means. Rather, the statement probably targets any situation where there is some problem to be solved but no violence yet. In this case, is it a good idea to choose to solve the problem using, i.e. introducing, violence?
Ok, different people will have different views on that but both a "yes" and a "no" would be legitimate answers.
Also, the statement probably does not concern political entities such as states, countries, alliances etc. It's a suggestion to individual people as to how to behave in their lives. It was probably never intended to end wars, invasions, organised crime etc. where the immediate objective is valued over and above any distant or uncertain consequence like, say, the situation in Syria and Iraq now or the possibility of spending the rest of your life in prison.
Then, personally, I can agree with it as an emollient pronouncement that should do more good than harm.
EB