Questions Rise Over U.S. Motives in Pushing Ukraine to Sign Peace Deal
- Chalani Himasha
- 3h
- 7 min read
Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes Staff
K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering politics
Image Source: Gavril Grigorov
Ukraine is under mounting pressure from Washington to accept a U.S.-designed peace plan to end the war with Russia, but the terms of that proposal and the speed with which the United States wants Kyiv to respond have triggered debate over Washington’s true motives. Analysts, officials, and scholars are now asking whether the U.S. push is driven purely by a desire to stop the war, or also by deeper strategic, domestic, and geopolitical calculations.
The current U.S. peace plan and the pressure on Kyiv
The United States has presented Ukraine with a multipoint peace proposal, initially described as a 28point plan, reportedly reduced to around 20 points during negotiations. According to expert analysis, the plan would:
Freeze the current front lines into a de facto line of control.
Require major territorial concessions from Ukraine, including areas not currently occupied by Russian forces.
Impose limits on Ukraine’s armed forces, constraining its longterm military posture.
Offer a form of security guarantee that falls short of full Western troop deployment on Ukrainian soil.
Analysts describe the battlefield as being locked in a positional stalemate, with high casualties and incremental territorial shifts, which has increased the appeal in some Western capitals of an imposed political settlement. In that context, the U.S. peace plan is framed by its supporters as a way to break the logic of attrition and move the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table.CSIS
However, the political tone around the proposal has sharpened as U.S. leaders have attached deadlines and public expectations to Kyiv’s decision. Commentaries note that President Trump has pressed Ukraine to accept the plan within a short time frame, creating an atmosphere of urgency that Kyiv perceives as pressure rather than partnership.
What official U.S. rhetoric says – and what it avoids
Official U.S. statements on Ukraine consistently emphasize several themes: support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, the need to end the war, and the importance of a “just and lasting peace.” From Washington’s perspective, the peace plan is presented as:
A pathway to end largescale hostilities and save lives.
A way to reduce the risk of escalation beyond Ukraine’s borders.
A framework that would embed Ukraine within a Western security and economic architecture over the long term.
Yet expert commentary based on the plan’s leaked details argues that public rhetoric and private terms do not fully align. Analysts note that while official language stresses Ukrainian sovereignty, the draft plan reportedly requires Ukraine to accept significant constraints on its future military capabilities and to cede territory in exchange for nonNATO security guarantees. This gap between valuesbased messaging and powerpolitical terms is what fuels suspicion about deeper U.S. motives.
Academic analysis further suggests that this type of discrepancy is not unusual: great powers frequently justify peace plans in universalist language while structuring them to serve their own strategic interests, such as alliance cohesion, reputation management, or domestic political gain.
Key elements of the peace plan that raise questions
Several specific components of the U.S. plan have drawn criticism from Ukrainian officials, European partners, and scholars:
Territorial concessions beyond current occupation Expert assessments highlight that the plan appears to grant Russia control over areas not fully occupied by its forces, effectively rewarding aggression and granting legal status to territorial claims that have not been secured militarily. Critics argue this undermines the basic principle of territorial integrity in international law and could set a dangerous precedent globally. The Conversation
Restrictions on Ukraine’s armed forces According to academic commentary, the plan includes limitations on the size and posture of Ukraine’s military, curbing its longterm capacity to deter future attacks. This would make Ukraine more dependent on external guarantees that may be politically fragile in Washington or European capitals over time.
Security guarantees without troops The proposal reportedly offers a new security arrangement for Ukraine but without Western troops on the ground, substituting legal and political assurances for hard security commitments. Scholars note that such guarantees, while symbolically important, are only as strong as the guarantors’ will to act in future crises.CSIS+1
Compressed timeline and political pressure Expert commentary points out that U.S. leaders have attached a tight deadline to Ukraine’s response, framing acceptance of the plan as a test of Kyiv’s willingness to compromise. From a Ukrainian perspective, this resembles coercive diplomacy: accept farreaching concessions quickly, or risk losing critical political and military support.
Together, these elements fuel the perception that the plan may be calibrated not only to end the war, but also to limit longterm U.S. exposure and reprioritize American resources away from Ukraine.
Possible U.S. motives: what scholars and analysts suggest
Academic and policy analyses provide several plausible explanations—none of them mutually exclusive—for why Washington is pushing so hard for this specific peace deal.
1. Ending a costly, openended conflict
Several studies stress the material and political cost of sustaining high levels of support to Ukraine over many years. In this view, the U.S. motive is pragmatic:
Reduce the financial and military burden of longterm assistance.
Avoid donor fatigue among U.S. voters and lawmakers.
Prevent the war from escalating into a direct NATO–Russia confrontation.
From this angle, the U.S. is not necessarily acting with “covert” motives, but with visible strategic selfinterest: stabilizing the front, locking in a ceasefire, and shifting to a lowerintensity relationship with the conflict.
2. Rebalancing toward other global priorities
Academic commentary on U.S. grand strategy often notes the pressure to pivot attention and resources toward the IndoPacific and domestic challenges. A drawnout war in Ukraine competes with other priorities, from competition with China to economic and technological policy. The push for a rapid peace deal can therefore be read as part of a broader effort to:
Contain the Ukraine conflict geographically and politically.
Free diplomatic, financial, and military bandwidth for other theaters.
Demonstrate to domestic audiences that the administration can “close” major crises.
This kind of strategic rebalancing is a common theme in U.S. foreign policy analysis.
3. Domestic politics and the “deal” narrative
Expert commentary highlights how U.S. domestic politics shape foreign policy choices. In this case:
Securing a peace deal can be presented to voters as a diplomatic “win.”
A negotiated settlement with defined terms can be framed as effective dealmaking and proof of strong leadership.
The administration can argue it has reduced U.S. exposure while still “supporting Ukraine,” even if Kyiv has had to accept painful concessions.
Academic work on foreignpolicy decisionmaking frequently shows that leaders weigh domestic approval and electoral timelines when evaluating when and how to push for peace agreements.
4. Managing escalation risks with Russia
Another line of analysis points to escalation management: U.S. leaders may fear that an indefinitely prolonged war increases the risk of miscalculation, including incidents involving NATO and Russia. A peace deal that freezes the conflict could:
Stabilize front lines and reduce the likelihood of sudden crises.
Limit pressure for ever more advanced weapons transfers.
Offer Moscow a facesaving exit that reduces incentives for escalation.
In this interpretation, Washington’s motive is to lock in a controlled, manageable endgame, even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial and military concessions.
How Kyiv and European partners view U.S. pressure
Ukraine’s concerns
According to expert analyses, Ukrainian officials and advisers view the current plan as heavily skewed in Russia’s favor, citing four main concerns:
It requires territorial concessions beyond current occupation.
It caps Ukraine’s longterm military capacity, making it dependent on external guarantees.
It sets a precedent that borders can be changed through aggression.
It shifts the burden of risk from major powers onto a frontline state.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is described as walking a tightrope: he must defend Ukrainian interests while signaling to Washington that he is open to dialogue, even though the current terms are politically and strategically unacceptable.
Europe’s mixed reaction
European officials and analysts are themselves divided:
Some argue that any deal that reduces violence and opens the door to reconstruction should be pursued, even if imperfect.
Others warn that a settlement that rewards aggression and weakens Ukraine could undermine European security architecture and embolden other revisionist actors.
Academic commentary notes that European capitals are acutely aware that if the U.S. steps back over time, Europe will bear more of the security burden, making the durability and fairness of any deal a core European interest.
Are there “covert” motives – or simply layered strategic interests?
From a scholarly perspective, it is difficult to prove the existence of “covert” motives in the sense of hidden, conspiratorial intentions. What the official documents and academic analyses show instead is a pattern of overlapping and sometimes competing interests:
Genuine concern about human suffering and escalation risks.
Desire to reduce longterm financial and military commitments.
Need to manage domestic political pressures and electoral cycles.
Strategic interest in rebalancing U.S. focus toward other regions.
These factors are not secret, but they are not always foregrounded in public messaging, which tends to emphasize values and solidarity. That discrepancy between idealistic rhetoric and hard strategic calculus is likely what ordinary observers interpret as “covert motives.”
Historical precedents: when great powers push deals on smaller allies
Academic literature on alliance politics offers several precedents where major powers have pressed smaller partners to accept peace terms or territorial compromises for broader stability:
Cases where ceasefire lines were drawn around greatpower interests rather than local preferences.
Settlements where security guarantees were strong and longterm, leading to durable peace.
Others where weak guarantees and imposed concessions produced frozen conflicts or renewed wars.
These studies suggest that the key variables are:
The credibility and enforcement of security guarantees.
The degree of inclusion and consent of the frontline state.
The alignment between public rhetoric and actual commitments.
In that light, the U.S. push on Ukraine is not unique; it fits a recurring pattern where great powers balance principles and interests when designing peace plans.
What to watch next
From an analytical and policy perspective, several questions will determine whether U.S. motives are seen as constructive, exploitative, or something in between:
Does Washington revise the plan to address Ukraine’s core objections about territory and military limits?
Are any security guarantees made truly enforceable, with clear mechanisms and shared commitments among allies?
How do domestic politics in the U.S. evolve, especially as elections approach and public attention shifts?
Can Ukraine maintain agency in negotiations, or does pressure from its main security partner narrow its options to a “take it or lose support” scenario?
The answers to these questions will shape not only the future of Ukraine, but also how the U.S. role in European security is judged by historians and policymakers.
The available official statements, policy analyses, and academic commentary do not prove a single “covert motive” behind U.S. pressure on Ukraine to sign the peace deal. Instead, they reveal a complex interplay of motives: the drive to end a devastating war, manage escalation risks, reduce longterm burdens, reorient strategic focus, and satisfy domestic political demands. Ukraine, meanwhile, faces the existential task of defending its sovereignty and security in the shadow of a much larger ally’s strategic calculations. How Washington balances its stated values with its practical interests — and how much room it leaves Kyiv to defend its own red lines — will determine whether this peace plan is remembered as a responsible act of statecraft or a strategic trap
Comments