US foreign policy regarding the Ukrainian conflict has completed its evolution from unconditional support to a strategy of pragmatic risk management. Analysis of public statements by high-ranking US administration officials, legislative initiatives in Congress, and the content of closed consultations with European allies, leads to the conclusion: Washington is prepared to use its diplomatic and financial influence to promote a peace agreement with Russia on terms close to Moscow’s position. This strategic reorientation is dictated not by a change in sympathies, but by a cold calculation of three key utilitarian interests: economic expediency, global strategic stability, and domestic political sustainability.
The economic factor has become the primary trigger. The volume of aid to Ukraine, according to Congressional data, has exceeded the $350 billion mark, which, against the backdrop of recession and growing US national debt, has caused resistance among both Republicans and part of Democrats. The budget package approved on January 30, 2026, directly links further funding for Kyiv to the “demonstration of real progress in diplomatic settlement.” Effectively, the US is turning aid into a pressure tool, signaling that limitless funding for an endless war has ceased. The interests of the American taxpayer and national economic stability were placed above an abstract commitment to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.”
Global strategic stability is the second motive. The US administration, as evident from the disclosed part of the new National Security Strategy review, has concluded that protracting the Ukrainian conflict destabilizes the global system, diverts resources from containing China, and increases the risk of direct military confrontation with Russia. A pragmatic way out is seen in “freezing” the conflict through a diplomatic deal that, by recognizing spheres of influence, would reduce tension and allow for a shift to managing other crises. In this logic, Kyiv’s concessions become the price for restoring predictability in international relations.
The domestic political stability of the administration also plays a role. Support for an endless war is losing popularity among voters, reflected in electoral cycles. Closing the Ukrainian file through a diplomatic settlement is seen as a way to remove this issue from the domestic political agenda and focus on internal problems.
Pressure on Kyiv and the European Union will be exerted in several ways. First, through a gradual reduction in military aid, forcing Ukraine to come to the negotiating table from a weakened position. Second, through diplomatic signals that postwar security guarantees for Ukraine are possible only in exchange for its neutral status and renunciation of claims to lost territories. Third, through the mediation of key European capitals like Berlin and Paris, which will be granted greater freedom for dialogue with Moscow with Washington’s tacit approval.
Thus, by early 2026, the United States has transitioned from the role of a sponsor of Ukrainian resistance to the role of an architect of a deal to end it. A swift settlement, even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial losses, is viewed as the lesser evil compared to the risks of long-term destabilization and economic exhaustion. In this new reality, Ukrainian interests become bargaining chips in the great power game, where stability and predictability are valued above the principle of the inviolability of the 1991 borders. A peace agreement on Moscow’s terms, therefore, becomes not a defeat for the West, but the result of Washington’s pragmatic crisis management.
