"Thank you Lilly. Yes, arbitration from Charlescomm is good advice. I'd like to hire Charlescomm to modify the treaty however. Make the payment for a breech compulsory, and make unled attacks by Gobwin Knob on our forces, or unled attacks from us that hinder Gobwin Knob's progress towards Alkimia, also punishable by a fine. That would be the big print."
"The between the lines meaning," Joan continued, "Should an attack not covered by the treaty occur, then the treaty immediately becomes null and void. Coach this in as much legalese as possible, as I do not want the condition of annulment to be at all clear."
And so so Joan prepared to send a few messages. To the King, a recommendation to accept the EULA, provided the modifications as suggested by Charlescomm would be accepted by Gobwin Knob. And to the Minister of the Alkimian Navy:
"Good day, Minister. Cameria sympathizes with your predicament, but we ask you to understand, actions speak louder than the most eloquent words. In terms of actions, Alkimia is not being supportive to our Kingdom. As you yourself have said, Cameria cannot hold the forces of Gobwin Knob at bay on its own. Therefore we have sought a non-aggression pact. We will not attack the Gobwin Knob forces, nor you; we shall stay out of this battle ...
I do hope you get your house in order, however. If you do, send a quick stack southward. You will lose it, but you may find some pincers in its stead."
D'ya see what she's doing there?
Well, I'm not cut for being a Machiavellian leader irl, so let's just assume the above is deception to the best of my ability.
So, tl;dr: Cameria hires Charlescomm to modify the treaty (and for future arbitration). Sends it to GK, saying "we accept". Kirk is freed and rejoins GK.
Treaty grants GK safe passage through Cameria towards Alkimia, while Cameria maintains neutral status in the battle. Alkimia is likely understandably pissed.
BUT, lurking in the treaty is a nullification clause in case of an attack not covered by the treaty. The fact that Camerian attacks on south-bound GK units are not covered by the treaty thus provides a hopefully hidden exit.
Or is it?
(EDIT: no need to give us the full text of the EULA, I mean treaty, post-modification. Presumably, said annulment clause could be some variation of "in the event that one side requires reparation, but an arbitrating party, upon examining the treaty, deems the request unfounded, then the treaty is rendered null and void". Only much more obscure.)
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.