There's no world in which a sequel to Star Wars doesn't disrupt whatever peace ROTJ laid down.
And if you read my post before the one I replied to you, I think the idea that ROTJ "laid down peace across the galaxy" is a creation of the 1997 special editions. While now canon, that isn't intrinsic to how most people enjoyed the ending of ROTJ originally or imagined how things would go after ROTJ.
The sequel trilogy kind of shits on the implication of ROTJ's new 1997 ending, but it doesn't shit on the implication of ROTJ itself. The 1997 ending showing "peace" was basically added after Lucas decided not to do a sequel trilogy. It was a retcon. And now they're retconning that implication itself, to do a sequel trilogy. Irony.
Both versions of RotJ end on a positive note, showing Coruscant (an EU addition at the time) notwithstanding. And it's not about laying eternal peace. You need conflict for a good story. Even the old EU, with all its faults, managed to move the story and characters forward.
One easy way of doing this would have been to just move 50+ years into the future and create a different kind of antagonistic force (Empire was order, so the new one could be chaos?) nad leave the old characters alone (or in positions of power, just not able to help). Or make the FO the underdog, like modern terrorist organisations. Show us the peace that was built by the heroes of the past and the evil people who want to destroy it.
Imagine, if you will, an alternate The Force Awakens, where a decorated retired general Han Solo goes on one last mission into the Outer Rim, because his son went missing on an errand for Luke Skywalker, Jedi Master. Han travels with Poe, they get separated, we get all the stuff with Poe, Finn and Rey Jakku/Tatooine, then Han picks them up and they escape together. At the same time Leia's on a mission to find infromation on some super secret New Republic project, only to find out the Republic is building Starkiller Base! They want to use it as a deterrant for future conflicts (something something A-bomb allegory). Leia opposes this short-sighted militarization, of couse. Then Takodana happens, Kylo takes Rey and the infromation BB8 had (it's the Starkiller Base launch codes!), then the FO hijack Starkiller Base and try to point it at Coruscant. Rest of the movie happens, Han learns Kylo didn't kill his son, he is his son; Kylo kills him, goes to fight Rey, Luke shows up, saving Rey at the last moment (she wasn't ready to face him, but she will have to in a future movie), Starkiller blows up WITHOUT wiping ouf the Republic off the board.
This wasn't very hard to come up with; it salvages 90% of TFA as is. It's still a retelling of ANH, but with a, dare I say it, subversive twist.
I read exactly what you wrote and now you are - unsurprisingly- being disingenuous. Lucas commissioned a script for episode 7. Lucas began pre-preproduction on a new trilogy. Lucas gave his"fabuloso" stamp of approval on pre-production concept art that showed Luke as a Col. Kurtz-type character in exile. Would that type of characterization of Luke be "disrespectful" in your eyes? What is disrespectful of the treatment of Han or Leia?
Again, I don't know what it would be, because it does not exist. That script was never used, some elements of what Lucas was planning made it in, some didn't. Lucas wasn't happy with the ST in the few interviews he did about them. However, to answer your question, if Lucas directed the exact same movie as TLJ, I would be as dissatisfied as I am with Rian Johnson's movie.
