won't be as damaging as voluntarily handing over their nationhood
You're being a bit dramatic.
Western experts and Ukrainian realists are saying the plan is not half as bad as it may seem at first glance.
1) The Ukrainians would never have been able to support a standing army of 1.2M people. Even a twice reduced number of 600,000 is too heavy a load for their battered economy.
This means - in effect - that there aren't any real restrictions on Ukraine's army. Even at 200,000 - it would still be one of Europe's largest armies (this, in Europe's poorest country).
2) It seems Russia is agreeing to give up ant least half of its $200B parked in Europe, for Ukrainian reconstruction. Somehow, America also collects 50% of the profits from this reconstruction - which I don't really understand... WTF are profits from reconstruction?
3) Joining NATO was a pipe dream anyway. So Ukraine enshrining its neutral status in its constitution, and NATO amending its charter to say Ukraine can never join the org - doesn't really change anything.
4) It is made explicit that Ukraine can and should join the EU.
5) Ukraine receives US security guarantees. If Russia restarts the war, the US becomes legally obligated to defend Ukraine.
6) Russia (but also Ukraine) agrees to introduce changes to its school programme, promoting tolerance and understanding of each other's cultural legacy.
The worst part for Ukraine, is leaving the Donbass.
That's painful, but not the end of the world. They lost 99% of Luhansk, and about 79% of Donetsk.