USA: America’s Peace Deal Playbook in Ukraine

For decades, American diplomacy has traditionally followed a structured and institutional approach shaped by the State Department, multilateral cooperation, and standardized policy frameworks. The current U.S. strategy in mediating the Ukraine–Russia peace process, however, looks extremely different. Rather than following classical diplomatic norms, Washington is now approaching the conflict as though it were a business negotiation. This is most evident in the strong involvement of Steve Witkoff, the US envoy with a background in real estate, investment, and deal-making. Their methods reflect the growing influence of American business culture on global conflict resolution, due to Trump's own background in this area. The result is an approach that treats the war not only as a geopolitical crisis but also as a complex transaction in which leverage, incentives, and practical outcomes matter more than ideological alignment.

In this blog post, let's analyze how this approach will be the death of geopolitics as we know it right now, and why it will be detrimental to Europe and Ukraine in the long run. 

 THE ART OF THE DEAL TRUMPS DIPLOMACY 

One of the clearest signs of this shift is the involvement of figures whose expertise lies in deal-making rather than traditional diplomacy. Individuals such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner come from business backgrounds, not political or diplomatic institutions, and are closely aligned with President Trump. Their approach reflects a transactional mindset in which the goal is less about designing a comprehensive, long-term peace framework and more about crafting an agreement that feels “good enough” to move forward. Critics argue that this style risks prioritizing short-term wins or personal influence over the deeper structural needs of Ukraine, Europe, and long-term regional stability.

Instead of pressing for a robust vision for Ukraine’s security and Europe’s strategic future, Washington initially appeared satisfied with the original 28-point peace plan—widely reported to have been shaped in Moscow’s favor. Once European partners and Ukrainian officials were brought more fully into the process, significant objections emerged, forcing revisions to the proposal. Russia, in turn, rejected the new version outright. The result was a negotiation that quickly revealed the limits of a purely transactional mindset: the “art of the deal” proved far more complicated when the interests of Ukraine and Europe—who felt sidelined in the early stages—were fully taken into account.

A further feature of the U.S. approach is its emphasis on simple value exchange. Instead of treating the war as a purely moral struggle, Washington is approaching the talks by identifying what each side wants and what each side might be willing to trade. This means acknowledging Russia’s pursuit of security guarantees, influence over occupied territories, and potential sanctions relief—not endorsing these aims, but recognizing them as unavoidable parts of the landscape. 

For Ukraine, the essential priorities remain sovereignty, reconstruction funding, and real security guarantees that can prevent future attacks. The United States, for its part, is motivated by practical goals: reducing the long-term financial burden of the war, calming global markets, avoiding escalation, and freeing strategic attention for other regions. In this context, the peace process becomes a negotiation in which each side weighs costs and benefits, searching for an outcome that is workable, even if imperfect.

WHY IS AMERICA APPROACHING IT THIS WAY?

One major reason behind Washington’s approach is straightforward risk management. This is why the United States increasingly treats the peace process as a negotiation rather than an ideological crusade. The longer the war drags on, the greater the risks: rising military expenditures, volatility in global energy markets, disrupted food supplies, the danger of a direct NATO–Russia clash, and the opportunity for other global powers to exploit the instability. From a business-minded perspective, an open-ended conflict becomes an uncontrollable liability. A flawed but managed peace can appear safer, cheaper, and more predictable than an indefinite war. This risk-driven logic helps explain Washington’s willingness to consider flexible or incremental arrangements where classic diplomacy might demand rigid principles.

On this point, I actually agree. It is far from guaranteed that Ukraine will find itself in a stronger position if the war continues indefinitely. But that does not mean handing Russia whatever it wants simply out of fear of escalation. Russia may be able to sustain the war for now, yet it cannot sustain it forever—and Putin cannot afford to lose. His political survival relies on what he can present as a decisive victory: control over all of Donbas, all of Crimea, and a weakened, compliant Ukraine. He appears ready to trade money and influence with Washington if it helps secure that outcome, betting that transactional politics will work in his favour. European leaders, by contrast, are far more traditional in their geopolitical thinking. Their approach to peace and regional security cannot be bought like goods in a marketplace, and this fundamental difference shapes the growing tension between Washington and Europe in defining what “peace” should look like.

WHAT ABOUT EUROPE AND UKRAINE?

Europe and Ukraine occupy a very different reality from Washington as this peace process evolves. For Europe, the war is not a distant geopolitical inconvenience but an immediate security crisis that reshapes the continent’s future. European leaders know that any deal allowing Russia to hold territory won through force undermines the entire European security order. It would signal that borders can be changed by aggression and that smaller states must accept the will of larger ones. That is why Europe pushes for a more principled, long-term view: solid security guarantees, a real role for Ukraine at every stage of negotiations, and a settlement that does not reward Moscow’s strategy of escalation and coercion. To European governments, a quick, transactional deal may calm markets for a moment, but it risks planting the seeds of a far larger crisis later.

For Ukraine, the stakes are even more stark. This is not a matter of geopolitical balance but national survival. Kyiv cannot accept a deal that freezes the conflict on Russia’s terms, undermines its sovereignty, or leaves millions of citizens living under occupation. The country needs security guarantees that actually deter future attacks, not vague promises that crumble under pressure. Ukraine also knows it must maintain the confidence of its Western partners, even as it pushes back against any settlement that feels like capitulation dressed up as compromise. The tension is clear: Ukraine and Europe are fighting for a durable, just peace, while Washington increasingly weighs the conflict in terms of risks, costs, and strategic bandwidth. The challenge is ensuring that the push for expediency does not override the fundamental interests of those who stand to lose the most.

CONCLUSION

The U.S. approach to the Ukraine–Russia peace process shows how much American diplomacy has changed. Washington is no longer treating the war mainly as a fight over principles or European security, but as a negotiation where each side trades what they value and tries to manage risks. This business-style mindset aims to reduce costs, avoid escalation, and reach a deal that feels “good enough,” even if it is imperfect. Whether this approach can deliver a stable peace is uncertain, especially when Europe and Ukraine face far greater dangers than the United States does.

What this shift really highlights is how differently the key players see the future. The United States is looking for a controlled end to the conflict. Europe wants a settlement that strengthens its long-term security, not one that rewards Russian aggression. And Ukraine is fighting for its survival and cannot accept a deal that leaves it weak or divided. In this situation, Washington sees itself as a negotiator trying to balance competing interests, while Europe and Ukraine fear being pushed into a compromise that benefits Russia. The gap between these perspectives may prove to be the biggest challenge in reaching any meaningful peace at all.