Can Deductive arguments change in circumstances?

“All Wars end by Negotiating, therefore we need to negotiate with Russia.” 

I think it’s a none sequitor and the fact the term Negotiating is extremely broad, which can mean anything from Unconditional surrender to prolonged talks back and forth. Or that you can be Negotiating in bad faith or playing hardball .

What I’m asking is if  I tell somebody. Do you still agree agree with that statement if I change Russia to “Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan”. None of them say they do. 

If the first statement does not logically guarantee the second statement wouldn’t it be fallacious or arbitrary to only accept it when its convenient? 

This sounds like equivocation. The word negotiating is ambiguous and used in more than one sense. The statement is thus misleading.

There are many problems with this argument, including the fact that the premise is false.  

From a deductive standpoint, the premise does not imply the conclusion.  There is an implied second premise:     "However wars ended in the past is the way they should end in the future".  

With this added premise the argument would be valid but obviously not sound.