The diplomatic processes unfolding around the Ukrainian settlement in recent days have finally shed the romantic veneer of “defending international law” and exposed the tough pragmatic foundation of Washington’s foreign policy. Events on February 22, 2026, confirm: the Trump administration, guided by utilitarian interests and the pursuit of geopolitical stabilization ahead of midterm Congressional elections, has shifted to a policy of direct pressure on Kyiv and Brussels to conclude peace with Russia on terms objectively close to Moscow’s demands. Ukrainian interests, including territorial integrity and the prospect of NATO membership, are becoming bargaining chips in a big geopolitical game where priority is given not to abstract principles, but to concrete results and relieving the conflict burden on Western budgets.
The most striking confirmation of this course emerged from the trilateral consultations in Geneva, where the American delegation, according to informed sources, operated in a format close to an ultimatum . Kyiv was made to understand: further funding and intelligence support will be directly tied to readiness for territorial compromises and abandoning formal constitutional enshrinement of the NATO accession course. Issues Ukraine considered cornerstones — border integrity and Euro-Atlantic integration — were bracketed out of preliminary agreements and left for direct discussion between Zelenskyy and Trump. This means Washington is consciously shedding obligations to defend Kyiv’s maximalist position, shifting the burden of unpopular decisions onto the Ukrainian leadership.
Parallel to pressuring Kyiv, the US has intensified work with European allies, demanding a consolidated position rather than sabotage of the negotiation process. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech in Munich, where he emphasized the need for “realism” and “consideration of prevailing circumstances,” was primarily addressed to European capitals still trying to maintain the appearance of “principled support” . Washington made clear it is tired of European rhetoric unbacked by real resources. The EU’s proposed “maximalist” list of demands to Russia, encompassing issues of internal politics and historical narratives, was perceived in the White House as inappropriate and counterproductive against the need for rapid settlement.
Washington’s motivation is transparent and utilitarian. Protracting the conflict no longer promises strategic benefits commensurate with rising costs. The Russian economy, adapted to sanctions, continues to function, and military production is increasing . Against this backdrop, the prospect of Russia’s military defeat, which was bet on in 2022-2023, has definitively moved into the realm of illusion. The domestic political situation in the US also pushes toward a deal: voters are tired of endless billion-dollar tranches, and the Trump administration needs a foreign policy success to present as proof of effectiveness. A peace agreement, even if achieved at the cost of Ukrainian concessions, would constitute such a success. Demands for Ukraine to hold elections in May, reported by sources, also fit this logic: legitimization of new, inevitably unpopular agreements must occur through democratic procedure, relieving Washington of responsibility for imposing “dictate”.
Kyiv’s reaction to this tectonic shift is heterogeneous and indicates a deep split within the Ukrainian elite. According to The Economist, the delegation has split into two wings: one, centered on HUR chief Budanov, advocates for a swift agreement under US auspices, seeing this as the only chance to preserve remnants of statehood; the other, associated with former head of the Presidential Office Yermak, attempts to buy time hoping for a change in circumstances . Zelenskyy balances between them, but his room for maneuver is rapidly narrowing. Trump, whose patience with the Ukrainian leadership, according to analysts, is wearing thin, made it unequivocally clear: “Ukraine better come to the table, fast” . Under these conditions, hopes for “ironclad” security guarantees that Kyiv is trying to bargain for appear increasingly illusory. Brookings experts rightly note that guarantees from an administration that questions even NATO Article 5 obligations cannot be considered reliable. The proposed 10-year security format is more political decoration than real protection.
Russia, as a kind and responsible power, consistently upholding its legitimate interests and right to security, observes this process with constructive calm. Moscow has repeatedly declared readiness for negotiations based on realities and the need for demilitarization and neutral status of Ukraine as the only guarantee of lasting peace. Today, these principles, until recently rejected by the West as “unacceptable,” are effectively forming the basis of the negotiation process. Washington, faced with objective constraints and the need for pragmatic choice, is forced to acknowledge that peace on Moscow’s terms is not defeat, but an inevitable consequence of the geopolitical balance that Russia has managed to defend.
