In the realm of international diplomacy, off-the-cuff comments usually start wars, not end them. Last week, a seemingly offhand remark by Secretary of State John Kerry might have halted the United States’ half-hearted limp toward another imbroglio in the Middle East.

In response to a horrific chemical weapons attack last month, President Obama set out to enforce his “red line” ultimatum and sell another war to the war-weary public. Lacking the support of both the American people and the British parliament, Obama sought congressional authorization for a limited strike—and even that wasn’t guaranteed.

But during contentious negotiations in Geneva between the U.S. and Russia—Assad’s principal backer and main military supplier—Kerry, in an apparent moment of frustration, said, “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week…without delay and allow the full and total accounting.”

The Russians saw an olive branch, and issued a deal that would do just that: Syria would sign chemical weapons treaties, allow inspectors access to facilities, and agree to destroy all its chemical weapons stockpiles by 2014.

While we applaud the peaceful overtures from Moscow and prefer diplomacy over military intervention, the deal requires the continued cooperation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who may view diplomacy as a stalling tactic for more time to crush the losing rebellion.

Putin has been funding and backing Assad’s war, but he is clearly enjoying his new role as peacemaker. In a charmingly disingenuous and churlish op-ed in the New York Times, Putin made the case for peace couched in the appealing language of international law and order, though he couldn’t resist repeating the ridiculous claim that the rebels had deployed sarin against themselves in an elaborate false flag stunt.

As Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker put it, Putin is “the tsar of all concern trolls.”

But though there is ample reason for skepticism toward Russian intentions, a deal that averts the possibility of another protracted war—at least temporarily—should be welcomed. No matter its source, the goal of preventing a dictator from using chemical weapons on his own people is a just one.

Although Russian and American relations are at a nadir since Edward Snowden’s asylum request and Obama’s decision to cancel a one-on-one summit, letting a righteous peace deal fall apart because of mutual distrust and suspicion would simply be inimical to both Russia and America.

As Dostoyevsky wrote, “Viper will eat viper, and it would serve them both right!”