A Reality Check: Negotiations Often Start with Ugly Proposals (The Good Cop, Bad Cop Approach)
Let’s be honest: peace negotiations rarely start with a perfect deal. What may look like a lopsided offer right now could be a deliberate strategic gambit — a way to bring Russia in, give Putin just enough face, and open a real path to compromise. This isn’t about rewarding aggression: it’s about saving lives and establishing a foundation for more meaningful talks.
Critics (including some media outlets) are calling the proposal a disaster for Ukraine, noting “territorial ceded” and “abandonment of NATO hopes.” But that analysis misses the bigger picture. This could be a negotiating entry point, not the final stage.
The Key Features: A Framework, Not a Final Status
Here are the central elements of what’s being proposed — and why they could matter:
Ukraine’s sovereignty is explicitly confirmed.
Despite controversial clauses, the deal starts by affirming Ukraine as an independent state — something that can anchor all future negotiation phases.
A comprehensive non-aggression pact.
Russia, Ukraine, and European states would commit to a non-aggression agreement, addressing decades of ambiguity about borders and security.
No further NATO expansion + Russian promise not to invade neighbours.
Yes, NATO would agree not to expand further under this deal, but in return Russia would commit to stopping invasions. That’s a big part of what Putin claims he fears — and the deal would remove a major justification for his aggression.
A U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO security dialogue.
Rather than letting Russia isolate itself or act unilaterally, this creates a formal channel to resolve broader security issues — potentially reducing the long-term risk of renewed conflict.
“Reliable” U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine.
For the first time in this framework, the U.S. makes a formal security commitment to Ukraine. These guarantees could be powerful — but they’re not yet fully fleshed out publicly, so their enforceability remains to be seen.
Military cap on Ukraine’s forces.
Ukraine would limit its military to a maximum of 600,000 personnel. On the surface, this sounds like disarmament — but is still a large force by European standards, allowing Kyiv to defend itself while reducing the risk of a brutal arms race.
Permanent neutrality for Ukraine.
According to the deal, Ukraine would enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO would codify a commitment not to admit Ukraine either. That’s the kind of concession that might give Putin breathing room — but leveraging that breathing space might make the deal worthwhile in the bigger picture.
NATO troops to stay out of Ukraine.
No NATO bases inside Ukraine. Instead, European fighter jets would be stationed in neighbouring countries like Poland, strengthening NATO’s eastern flank without provoking Russia with a physical force presence in Ukraine itself.
How This Could Be a Strategic Win — Not a Capitulation
Face-saving for Putin: This deal could let him present to his people that he negotiated “peace” — which might reduce his domestic pressure to escalate further. That doesn’t mean he “wins” everything; it means he has cover.
Time to build long-term guarantees: The security guarantees and dialogue mechanism give Ukraine leverage to push for stronger, enforceable protections later — once the immediate risk of war is eased.
Stopping the bloodshed: An initial ceasefire or freeze could drastically reduce civilian casualties, provide breathing room to rebuild, and reset international trust.
Preventing further escalation: By locking in a no-NATO-access clause and security guarantees, Ukraine could avoid being the launching ground for even more intense proxy conflict, while still preserving its statehood.
Risks & Criticisms — But Not Deal Breakers
Of course, the critics have valid points. Analysts worry this deal gives too much to Russia, especially around territorial recognition. Some believe it could make Ukraine vulnerable in the long term. Indeed, analysts cited by Al Jazeera say that limiting Ukraine’s military could leave it exposed.
Al Jazeera
European leaders, in particular, are alarmed: some claim it amounts to capitulation.
The National
Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials are split — some voice concern that the deal undermines national sovereignty.
Defense News
And let’s not forget: Ukraine has signaled it wants a “real” deal, not a quick truce that could be a “Russian trap.”
ABC
Why This Isn’t the End — It’s a Starting Point
Rather than viewing this as Ukraine giving up, it may be more strategic to see this as a launchpad for deeper negotiations — a way to anchor Russia in formal commitments and open a structure for future security.
Yes, parts of the deal are unpalatable. But they may be necessary first steps to bring Russia in and stabilize the situation long enough for genuine, enforceable guarantees to take root.
If the West abandons peace efforts now, it risks perpetual war. This initial deal, ugly as it may be on paper, could be the scaffolding for a real, lasting resolution — not just a ceasefire, but a turn toward strategic stability.
Conclusion: It’s Risky — But Maybe the Risk We Must Take
This is not a naive surrender. It’s a high-stakes diplomatic gambit: Ukraine and its backers are offering Putin a way to save face, in exchange for hard security guarantees, real non-aggression commitments, and a structure for future dialogue.
If it works, it could deprive Russia of its perpetual pretext for war. If it fails, critics will be right — but refusing to try means risking even more lives. Sometimes, the most effective peace deals begin not with victory, but with a compromise that is ugly, uncomfortable, and full of risk.
That’s what this “bad deal” may really be: not surrender — but the first chapter of a longer, smarter negotiation.
Recommended for you
