Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States has provided Kyiv with extraordinary levels of military, economic, and humanitarian support. From February 2022 to July 2024, the U.S. has allocated approximately $175 billion, according to the State Department. Beyond being the largest single donor of military assistance, the U.S. has led coordination efforts with allies and partners through the Ramstein format.
Yet this relationship, though intimate and crucial, is not a formal alliance. It more closely resembles a strategic interdependence: Ukraine depends on Western aid, and the West depends on Ukraine's resistance to hold the line against Russian aggression. But this interdependence has limits. As the war endures, major contradictions have emerged between Washington and Kyiv. These contradictions reveal fundamental disparities in priorities, strategies, and visions of victory, weakening the cohesion of their partnership.
Ukraine's geopolitical autonomy remains fragile given its reliance on Western aid, particularly from Washington. However, the Zelenskyy government has also demonstrated political resilience and a capacity for maneuver, asserting a voice that cannot be ignored. Conversely, despite its influence as Ukraine's primary backer, the U.S. has not been able to fully shape Kyiv's war objectives. Even while publicly promoting unity, Washington and Kyiv often find themselves at odds behind closed doors over the direction of the war and the shape of peace.
This situation defies assumptions within structural realism theory, which contends that powerful states can compel weaker, dependent allies to conform. Ukraine's resistance to U.S. pressure suggests that in high-stakes conflict, strategic leverage is not solely derived from material dependence, but from battlefield legitimacy and moral authority. Kyiv, as the victim of aggression and the active combatant, has parlayed this status into political capital that offsets its dependency.
Though U.S. and Ukrainian interests broadly overlap, they are not identical. The war’s significance diverges based on geopolitical positioning: for the U.S., Russia's invasion poses a challenge to NATO's security and Western leadership; for Ukraine, it is a fight for national survival.
Ukrainian officials view the war as existential and national-liberation in nature. Initially, they considered Russian withdrawal to pre-2022 lines as victory. Over time, however, Kyiv’s goals evolved. Zelenskyy’s ten-point peace formula, unveiled in November 2022, demands full territorial restoration (including Crimea and Donbas), withdrawal of Russian troops, prosecution of war crimes, reparations, and robust security guarantees.
U.S. officials, while publicly stating that Ukraine should define its own victory, have offered a more restrained vision. American rhetoric has favored terms like “helping Ukraine secure the best position at the negotiating table” or “ensuring Ukraine’s sovereignty,” avoiding the term “victory” altogether. President Biden’s December 2023 statement defined victory as Ukraine being “a sovereign, independent state capable of defending itself and deterring aggression.”
This semantic restraint reflects Washington’s concern over escalating the conflict. Total Russian defeat, implying regime change or territorial collapse, raises fears of destabilization, nuclear risks, and increased Chinese influence over Russian assets. U.S. policymakers prioritize stability over maximalist outcomes.
Kyiv’s resilience has enabled it to resist U.S. pressure for compromise. After repelling the initial Russian offensive and exposing war crimes in places like Bucha, Ukraine hardened its stance. From spring 2022 onward, it asserted that any peace deal must be on its terms. Zelenskyy frequently increased the stakes while Washington hesitated. These diverging approaches have gradually soured the bilateral relationship.
Key differences center on how the war should end and what follows. The U.S. has consistently maintained that Ukraine will decide the terms of negotiation, but internal communications show a preference for a political settlement, even if it includes negotiating with Vladimir Putin. After Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive stalled, Washington quietly pushed Kyiv toward flexibility while reducing aid. Ukraine, having legally banned negotiations with Putin, refused.
On NATO membership, Ukraine has been assertive, demanding a clear path. The U.S. response has been cautious. While supporting eventual membership in principle, Washington has withheld specific commitments, citing Ukraine’s need for reforms and the risks of direct conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia.
The July 2024 NATO Summit reiterated Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to membership but failed to offer an invitation. Instead, the U.S. promoted interim steps: interoperability reforms, security partnerships, and the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) structure. Critics argue these efforts mask a lack of genuine progress.
To address Ukraine’s immediate security needs, the U.S. signed a bilateral agreement with Kyiv in June 2024. Yet this agreement, while symbolically significant, is nonbinding, lacking specific figures or legal enforcement mechanisms. It resembles a security assurance more than a guarantee, similar to U.S. support for Israel, but without formal NATO obligations. Ukrainian officials continued to refer to it as a “guarantee,” leading to public misperception.
Even within this framework, Washington insisted on vagueness: no specifics on weapons or aid timelines, and no Senate ratification. The Biden administration sought to limit its exposure, while still demonstrating commitment. Critics argue this ambiguity leaves Kyiv vulnerable to changes in U.S. domestic politics.
A fundamental disagreement exists over post-war borders. While Ukraine insists on a return to its 1991 internationally recognized borders, including Crimea, the U.S. quietly considers such outcomes unlikely. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated in January 2024 that Ukraine’s future would be secure “regardless of where the lines are drawn.”
Washington prefers Russian withdrawal to pre-February 2022 positions, a negotiated compromise over Donbas, and excluding Crimea from immediate discussions. Kyiv considers any concession to Russia's annexations as a dangerous precedent. Ukrainian officials stress that rewarding aggression with territorial gains would destabilize international law.
Nonetheless, the U.S. has explored options including leaving Crimea unresolved or even proposing long-term lease agreements. After annexing more territory in September 2022, Putin made clear he would not engage in genuine talks. Zelenskyy responded with a legal ban on negotiations with Putin, further closing the diplomatic door.
On the domestic front, Ukraine’s leadership has been sensitive to public opinion. Repeated Russian attacks, including on civilians and children, have destroyed any appetite for compromise. Zelenskyy, mirroring Putin’s hardline stance, insists on full restoration. Yet U.S. pragmatists argue that reintegrating Crimea and Donbas could trigger internal instability, reintroducing millions of skeptical voters shaped by years of Russian occupation.
Washington’s preference for a political settlement stems from both practical and electoral concerns. As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, support for Ukraine has become a polarizing issue. A Trump return would likely accelerate negotiations and pressure Kyiv for concessions. Trump’s administration would need to broker agreements with both Kyiv and Moscow, placing additional stress on Ukraine’s strategic posture.
Meanwhile, Kyiv’s efforts to advance NATO membership remain stalled. The U.S. has emphasized military reform, anti-corruption efforts, and democratic governance as prerequisites. By mid-2024, Ukraine had adopted only 28% of NATO’s 1,135 standards. While the July 2024 NATO Summit introduced the adapted Annual National Programme (ANP) and declared support for Ukraine’s long-term integration, no invitation was offered. Instead, NATO promised long-term assistance and coordination.
At the summit, the U.S. committed to covering half of a €40 billion aid package in 2025. This aid, though substantial, remains susceptible to changes in American political leadership. Many worry that a Republican administration could abandon or significantly reduce support. Since 2022, the idea of security guarantees has been a focal point. Kyiv initially proposed a Kyiv Security Compact, a multilateral system of legally binding guarantees. The U.S. resisted Article 5-style commitments and instead proposed an “Israeli model”: arming Ukraine so thoroughly that it deters future aggression. This approach, known as deterrence by denial, underpins the June 2024 U.S.-Ukraine bilateral agreement. It includes no firm obligations and remains subject to political winds.
Though labeled a “guarantee,” the document provides only political assurances. Its vagueness reflects the administration’s desire to appear committed without incurring lasting legal or military responsibilities. This dynamic reinforces the imbalance in the partnership, strategic necessity without parity.
U.S.-Ukrainian relations, though grounded in shared goals, are increasingly shaped by structural contradictions. Ukraine, fighting for sovereignty, seeks total victory and territorial restoration. The U.S., managing global stability, supports Ukrainian independence but not necessarily its full war aims. These tensions reflect deeper truths about asymmetric alliances. Despite Ukraine’s material dependence, it has leveraged its battlefield legitimacy to resist political coercion. This paradox complicates Washington’s efforts to shape outcomes. Key disputes, over victory, negotiation, borders, NATO, and guarantees, remain unresolved.
The Biden administration has successfully steered international consensus toward its cautious vision, shaping NATO policy and aid coordination. But Kyiv continues to resist compromise on core principles. This impasse, though managed, underscores the fragility of their strategic alignment. As 2025 unfolds, the future of this relationship hinges on U.S. electoral outcomes, battlefield developments, and Ukraine’s continued balancing act, between gratitude for support and insistence on sovereignty. Should the next U.S. administration attempt to impose a negotiated solution, it may find that even a dependent partner can still say no. In doing so, Ukraine presents a case study in how smaller states can navigate asymmetric alliances during existential crises, leveraging legitimacy, public opinion, and moral clarity to preserve autonomy in the face of overwhelming power.