By John Q. Hosedrinker 
US officials have reportedly informed NATO allies of their expectation to pressure President Zelenskyy into accepting a peace deal with Russia in the coming days, with the threat of a much harsher deal if he refuses. The proposed agreement, which has been negotiated with limited ally input, contains potentially unacceptable provisions for Kyiv, including territorial concessions and amnesty for war crimes. These terms, which are being presented as non-negotiable, have led to concern among European allies regarding Russia’s influence in the negotiations. The US is pushing for a rapid resolution, with the aim of having the deal finalized by Thanksgiving, and sees the agreement as “beneficial to Ukraine” even with its challenging terms.
Read the original article here
If Zelenskyy doesn’t sign a peace deal, Ukraine will face worse in the future, according to the US’s stance conveyed to NATO. This isn’t a simple suggestion; it’s a stark warning. The situation is painted as a form of extortion, a push to concede territory and perhaps more, with the implication that refusal will lead to even greater devastation. The analogy is drawn to 2014, when appeasement of Russia only postponed the inevitable and ultimately resulted in a far more brutal outcome. A security guarantee with an expiration date, a common feature of such deals, is seen as essentially worthless in this context.
This isn’t really a peace deal, it’s capitulation masquerading as a ceasefire. There’s a strong sense of betrayal, of the US leadership being in the pocket of Russia. The fear is that the proposed agreement includes an amnesty for war crimes, a horrifying prospect that raises serious questions about the motives behind the US’s insistence. The criticism is harsh, portraying the current US administration as a pawn of Putin, a source of international humiliation. The feeling is that the administration’s priorities lie elsewhere, perhaps in some undisclosed personal benefits or compromises, not in the well-being of Ukraine. The underlying question is, if Zelenskyy signs, does that actually end the threat? The general consensus is a resounding “no.”
The American perspective is being described as an abusive friendship. If this is the plan, with the US advocating Ukraine ceding its eastern flank and limiting its military strength, all for the sake of “security guarantees,” it’s viewed as a repeat of a disastrous pattern. The US, having previously failed to stop Russia, appears to be rewarding them instead. The potential consequences—lifting sanctions, readmitting Russia to the G7—are seen as a betrayal of Ukrainian lives and a reward for Putin’s aggression.
The sentiment is that the EU, if it backs this plan, would also be signaling a lack of concern for Eastern Europe. It suggests that these nations need to forge their own security arrangements, as the West isn’t reliable. The idea that this is a “Trump deal” is also prominent. The suspicion is that Trump has some kind of leverage over Russia and is using this situation to his advantage, that he is somehow compromised and potentially influenced by the Kremlin. It is a plan to make America and/or Trump rich at the cost of the Ukrainian people and their suffering.
The alternative scenario involves the US actually supporting Ukraine, imposing real sanctions on Russia, and negotiating a peace treaty that brings Russia back within its own borders. The focus should be on holding Russia accountable, not on appeasing them or letting them save face. This means removing the current Russian regime and its Cold War mindset from power. The clear conclusion is that the USA is not acting as an ally. The US could potentially force Russia to surrender but chooses not to.
The consensus is that if Ukraine signs this deal, it would be worse off. This plan, often attributed to the former President, is viewed as a capitulation that would greenlight further aggression. The terms of the deal themselves are criticized as being poorly written, inconsistent, and reliant on negotiations that haven’t even happened. The US appears to be siding with Russia, and this current leadership is not recognizable.
There’s a growing call for NATO to distance itself from the US, or at least from the current administration. The fear is that if Ukraine agrees to the proposed terms, they will be left vulnerable to future attacks. It’s a reminder of the unreliability of the US as an ally.
The whole situation suggests the US is extorting Ukraine. Ukraine doesn’t have an ally in the US and the best outcome for the Ukrainian people would be for them to reject the deal. This is not a peace plan but a chance for Russia to rest and attack later. The ultimate conclusion is the same — the West must not abandon Ukraine and must stand against those in the US who are enabling Putin.