The only significant benefit for the United States-led NATO in perpetuating the perception of security competition with Russia is that it gives NATO governments an important way of looking like NATO is not responsible for problems within alliance borders. (The Russian government doesn’t need the same benefit but derives it as well. Russians assume a foreign influence is at fault when there are imperfect experiences within Russia.) Talented NATO media have realized this, but mostly play along (while dramatically improving the patterning in NATO news, and showing themselves to prefer peaceful resolutions globally). Perhaps NATO governments are looking for a dignified way out of the Russia-Ukraine competition anyway, and would welcome one if offered. The media may wholeheartedly support a peace deal.
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin in May 2023, “Moscow wants a Peaceful, Free and stable Future.” He went on to say that, "For Russia there are no hostile nations in the West or in the East...”
This writer believes Russia would derive a significant benefit from granting agreement to NATO to a weapons-free Ukraine that allows Ukraine to continue its existing partnership with NATO. The Ukrainian government is tremendously talented. NATO governments correctly want to maintain the close friendships that have formed with exceptional people. Like the Russian people, Ukrainians are extraordinary. The Ukrainian population is welcome globally now for the first time in a century as a result. That includes Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens. Some want to return home. But many Ukrainians have also gained a lot from global acceptance. The population may appreciate a friendly weapons-free resolution that allows the Ukrainian-NATO relationship to continue. The population can enjoy all of Europe and the Americas freely as alliance-members that way.
The United States has not had to tolerate weapons aimed at U.S. citizens from the northern or southern borders of the United States, and obviously would not. The U.S. would remove or eliminate them immediately. Russia understandably has the same policy, which used to precipitate military incursions into Ukraine. But perhaps that past no longer has to be the future. Perhaps all sides can agree to a weapons-free Ukraine that can maintain its NATO relationship anyway.
Keep any peace deal short.
The simpler the better.
Russia probably will only believe a peace deal has been achieved when peaceful behavior on the ground lives up to the increasingly peaceful rhetoric. That’s perfectly understandable from this writer’s perspective. NATO hasn’t yet extended to Russia the same courtesy that Russia has shown to NATO. NATO has allowed capabilities to advance towards the border of Russia through Ukraine. But Russia will believe in the prospects for peace the moment a weapons-free Ukraine begins to be achieved.
An agreement to a weapons-free Ukraine would allow NATO governments to maintain dignity with NATO populations, keep Ukrainians welcomed globally, and completely eliminate any risk to the Russian population of NATO weapons in the region.
This writer believes that would be a superb A+++++ resolution to an extraordinary several years for all of the populations involved.
The minimum all sides should agree to is a return to the "Minsk Peace Treaty," because it's essentially the same line of control that kept the peace there for almost a decade under an agreement entered into by then-Vice President Joe Biden and President Barrack Obama, and that was signed by several European leaders and the Ukraine head of state.
But perhaps NATO, Ukraine and Russia may not need to return to the Minsk peace treaty as a first step towards a comprehensive agreement for the entirety of the country. Everyone can simply commit to a weapons-free nation now. NATO and Russia clearly don’t need to have capabilities near each other (until/unless an alliance forms between the Russian and NATO security teams).