Kostiantyn Yelisieiev / Dzerkalo Tyzhnya
Ukrainian-American relations are experiencing one of the most challenging crises in recent years. It would be a mistake to underestimate its scale. The greatest cost for the deterioration of strategic partnership with the USA is paid not by Washington and Trump, but by Ukraine, our people, children, and military.
The latest decisions by the White House chief regarding easing the application of the Graham sanctions law cause understandable and justified disappointment. Instead of the expected increase in economic pressure on Russia, the Kremlin receives additional room for maneuver. This looks especially dangerous against the backdrop of the continued Russian terror against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure.
I believe Trump is making a desperate bet on the strategy of engagement, trying to persuade Putin to end the war primarily through negotiations, not coercion. The idea itself is viable, but we have already traveled this path and know where it led.
If Trump’s bet works, we may get a ceasefire on hybrid terms — without reliable guarantees that Russia will not resume fighting.
If it fails, such a strategy will be sidelined in international politics for a long time, and its supporters will receive a demonstrative lesson. This will become a serious argument against attempts by other European capitals to follow a similar approach. In particular, political forces like Marine Le Pen’s “National Rally” in France or “Alternative for Germany” will lose one of their key arguments in favor of rapprochement with Moscow: the thesis that it is possible to negotiate with Putin without forcing him to change his behavior.
A fiasco of the strategy of engagement will provide arguments in favor of returning to the strategy of pressure — seriously and for the long term.
Given the complexity of the overall geopolitical context, Ukraine should not be guided by emotions and today’s indignation, but must think strategically.
Complex negotiations require cold calculation, the ability to listen, understanding the motivation of the interlocutor, and the ability to see consequences many steps ahead. The more complicated the partner, the higher the requirements for the professionalism of Ukrainian diplomacy. Not every thought, even if just, needs to be expressed publicly. Especially when it can close negotiation channels or harm specific defense agreements.
Diplomatic restraint should not be confused with political weakness. We can remain principled about our national interests while avoiding unnecessary confrontation.
We must recognize that despite the extensive support from European partners, Europe is currently unable to fully replace American capabilities in air defense, intelligence, military technologies, and critically important weaponry. Therefore, maintaining strategic relations with the USA is not a matter of political preference. It is a question of national security and saving lives.
That’s why I am concerned about the dangerous tendency toward personalizing relations with Washington. It seems that instead of meticulous diplomatic work, we are increasingly at risk of falling into the logic of personal political confrontation. Demonizing Trump, as well as creating a negative image of the United States in general, works against Ukrainian national interests.
Such an approach has already harmed our relationships with certain European partners. But applying it to the USA would be a strategic mistake of a completely different scale.
Trump is not Orbán. And the USA is not a country whose support Ukraine can afford to neglect.
It is equally dangerous to tie the prospects of Ukrainian-American relations to the outcomes of the upcoming midterm elections to Congress. Regardless of their outcome, Donald Trump will remain the President of the USA. Even if the Democrats gain a majority in one or both houses of Congress, key foreign policy decisions will still largely depend on the White House. Therefore, counting on his political weakening instead of seeking understanding with the current administration is extremely risky.
At the same time, bipartisan support for Ukraine in Congress remains an extremely important resource. Despite the White House’s decisions, the reaction of American legislators has shown that Ukraine retains support among both parties. Our task is to maintain Ukraine as a common strategic interest of American parties. We cannot turn support for Ukraine into a matter of partisan conflict within the USA.
What to do?
Firstly, restore a full-fledged strategic dialogue with the White House, work systematically with both parties in Congress, and ensure continuous practical interaction between defense and security departments.
In relations with the United States, it is necessary to return to systemic, institutional diplomacy that goes beyond phone calls and personal meetings between presidents. At one time, there was a whole network of working mechanisms between Ukraine and the USA, including the Strategic Partnership Commission, its specialized working groups, and other bilateral formats. In 2018, for example, working groups were established within the Commission on security and countering Russian aggression, the rule of law and humanitarian issues, economy, and energy. And in 2021, the parties agreed to resume the Commission’s work and strengthen its role. Where are these mechanisms today? Why are we not using them to their full potential? It’s time to finally appoint Ukraine’s ambassador to the USA. As a professional, I do not accept arguments suggesting that we should wait for elections and then decide on the candidate for ambassador. Ukraine needs constant channels of interaction with the State Department, Congress, the Pentagon, the Treasury, and other American institutions. We need to regularly discuss sanctions policy, military assistance, joint defense production, energy security, and long-term guarantees for Ukraine. The strategic partnership of the two countries cannot depend solely on moods, political statements, or agreements at the highest level. Personal dialogue between presidents is important, but it should be based on the systematic work of ministries, parliaments, intelligence agencies, experts, specialized institutions, analytical centers, civil society, media, and the diaspora.
Secondly, Trump’s decision creates additional responsibility for the European Union. If concessions to the aggressor are perceived as a tool to solve economic problems, it will create a dangerous precedent for European populists and political forces oriented toward Moscow. The EU needs to maintain sanctions, intensify the fight against their circumvention, use “frozen” Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine, and expand its own defense production. A fair and lasting peace is possible only when the cost of continuing the war for Putin becomes higher than the cost of ending it. Europe must demonstrate strategic maturity and not allow economic difficulties or Trump’s antics to be an excuse for appeasing the aggressor. We need a stronger Europe alongside the United States, not Europe instead of the United States.
It’s finally time to persuade Washington to abandon the traditional logic of limited support for Ukraine — to assist enough so that it doesn’t lose, but not enough to ensure strategic success. In my opinion, this is one of the fundamental problems in our relations with the US. American assistance has been and remains critically important. But its scope and limitations have not always matched Ukraine’s real needs. The task of our diplomacy is to change these calculations by proving that Ukraine’s victory and the failure of Putin’s aggressive plans meet the long-term interests of the United States itself. In this context, I would like to inquire about the state of implementation of the breakthrough and historic “minerals agreement” and its potential for revitalizing Ukrainian-American relations in these challenging conditions.
Today, Ukraine needs to grit its teeth, calm emotions, and demonstrate maximum diplomatic professionalism.
We must fight not with the American president, but for American support for Ukraine. Presidents change, but the vital partnership between our nations remains.
At this crucial moment, the European Union must maintain sanctions, Congress must maintain bipartisan support, and Ukrainian diplomacy must maintain dialogue with the White House and effective transatlantic coordination.
After all, the main criterion for the effectiveness of our diplomacy is not the number of loud statements and applause, but the ability to protect Ukrainian cities with sufficient air defense means, obtain reliable intelligence for our soldiers, save lives, and move towards a just and sustainable peace.
