Beyond Crisis Management: Why and How Ukraine Should Change Its Approach to Bilateral Relations With the United States

Politics in the United States operates on multiple simultaneous frequencies that many foreign actors, including European stakeholders, struggle to decode. Ukraine faces particular challenges in several areas.

At first, Ukraine often treats Congress as a binary Republican-Democrat battlefield, seeing modern politics through a very outdated “left/right” lens and ignoring that the case of Ukraine is exactly proving why this approach is outdated. This misses the crucial intra-party dynamics: the populist-internationalist split within the Republicans, the progressive-establishment tensions among Democrats, the power of individual committee chairs, and the outsized influence of specific caucuses. Such an understanding is essential for effective advocacy.

Ukraine has also fallen into a dangerous trap of mistaking pro-Ukrainian statements for actual support - particularly regarding Republican figures like Lindsey Graham. He and several other Republican congressmen have made repeated public declarations supporting Ukraine, which Ukrainian stakeholders eagerly amplify as evidence of bipartisan backing. Yet these same figures consistently align with Trump's anti-Ukrainian rhetoric when it matters politically, vote against aid packages or dilute them with conditions, and fail to challenge the MAGA wing's openly hostile position toward Ukraine. As a result, they appear unable or unwilling to recognize the American political theatrics, where rhetorical support costs nothing and provides plausible deniability while actual voting records and political capital expenditure tell the real story. Ukraine's continued and intense investment in these relationships, treating symbolic gestures as strategic victories, demonstrates a naivety about American political duplicity that borders on willful blindness.

Talking about the congressional dynamics, Ukrainian stakeholders frequently reference Israel's relationship with the United States as an aspirational model, but this comparison reveals more about Ukraine's gaps than its strategy. For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and broader pro-Israel advocacy represent decades of institutional investment, bipartisan cultivation, grassroots organizing across all fifty states, and deep integration into American Jewish community structures that are completely unreplicable in Ukraine's context. More problematically, fixating on this model distracts from developing Ukraine's own authentic approach suited to its actual capabilities and circumstances and even creates more problems when we talk about the lack of cohesion in the Ukrainian foreign policy.

Ukrainians often implicitly treat the United States as a relatively homogeneous entity. But America's extraordinary regional, cultural, religious, and economic diversity creates political dynamics that confound simple narratives. A Polish-American community in Pennsylvania, Cuban exiles in Florida, evangelical Christians in Texas, and tech workers in California each process Ukraine's story through entirely different frameworks. Ukraine's messaging rarely demonstrates awareness of this complexity, instead defaulting to universal appeals that resonate nowhere particularly strongly. In relation to that, the public opinion in the U.S. is shaped by constituencies thousands of miles away from “the DC.” Defense manufacturing in swing states, agricultural interests in the Midwest, energy concerns in Texas and Pennsylvania - these create complex pressure points that Ukrainian advocacy often fails to leverage. A factory producing artillery shells in Scranton or a farm exporting grain competing with Ukrainian imports represents both an opportunity and a constraint that requires a granular understanding.

This is layering on top of the fact that Ukraine maintains virtually no presence in state capitals, city halls, or county governments where American political careers begin, and constituent relationships form. While other countries cultivate relationships with rising state legislators, mayors, and local business leaders who will become tomorrow's congressional representatives and senators, Ukraine focuses exclusively on current federal officials. This shortsightedness means Ukraine perpetually plays catch-up, scrambling to build relationships with newly elected officials rather than having supported their rise years earlier.

In addition to that, Ukraine's communications strategy often focuses on legacy outlets and assumes a shared information environment. But American media has splintered into distinct ecosystems - cable news bubbles, podcast audiences, regional media (which are often overlooked yet crucial), Spanish-language outlets, and social media platforms with radically different demographics. As a result, Ukraine rarely demonstrates sophisticated multi-channel strategies that account for this fragmentation.

Rounding up the part about the importance of nuance, American political discourse is laden with historical references, cultural metaphors, and moral frameworks that do not translate directly from European contexts. Understanding when to emphasize democracy versus security versus economic interests, and how to frame these in distinctly American terms, requires contextual fluency that goes beyond linguistic translation. All of these misunderstandings have also led to unrealistically high expectations for the U.S. engagement in the subject matter, which contradicts the evolution of American foreign policy in recent years and even decades.

Ukrainian public discourse and at times even official rhetoric frequently express frustration with what they perceive as American indecisiveness and excessive caution, particularly regarding President Biden's administration. Ukraine expected - and continues to expect - rapid, unrestricted military aid, immediate NATO membership pathways, and unwavering public commitment to Ukrainian victory on Ukrainian terms. These expectations, while understandable and reasonable given the situation, are fundamentally unrealistic given the contemporary American political and social landscape.

Many Ukrainian voices blame Biden personally for being insufficiently decisive or bold. But this critique ignores the profound constraints any American president operates under following two decades of controversial military interventions. The American public - across the political spectrum - and international community, including the general public in many European countries, remains deeply scarred by the experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, and other interventions that delivered ambiguous outcomes. The Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021 crystallized public skepticism about foreign commitments of the United States and strengthened isolationist impulses. Any American administration providing extensive military aid to Ukraine must navigate overwhelming public fatigue with foreign entanglements and fierce partisan battles.

Biden's caution is not only about personal weakness - it reflects political constraints. Ukrainian officials often seem to expect America to commit to Ukraine's defense with the same existential urgency Ukraine feels - but America's stakes, while significant, are not existential in that case, no matter how sad or disappointing it sounds. Such expectations reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how the U.S. foreign policy works nowadays. It creates a destructive cycle: Ukrainian officials publicly criticize American "timidity," which provides ammunition to American aid skeptics who question whether supporting such an ungrateful partner is worthwhile.

While Ukrainian officials are often deeply knowledgeable about their own country's situation, they frequently lack the specific background in American politics, media training, and cross-cultural communication that effective representation demands. Compare this to how other countries staff their U.S. missions: with individuals who spent years studying in America, worked in American institutions, understand American political culture intuitively, and can translate between worldviews seamlessly. Ukraine's representatives, by contrast, often appear as intelligent but culturally disconnected advocates who speak to Americans rather than with them. The absence of Ukrainian-Americans or dual-perspective figures in prominent diplomatic roles represents a massive missed opportunity.

A particularly acute manifestation of this problem is the language barrier. President Zelenskyi and (ex-)Chief of Staff Andrii Yermak have repeatedly attended critical meetings with congressional leaders and White House officials while refusing to use professional interpreters, instead relying on their limited English proficiency. This has created confusion, miscommunication, and genuine bewilderment on both sides of the aisle in Washington. American officials - both Democrats and Republicans - have privately expressed frustration at struggling to understand Ukrainian positions during crucial negotiations, unable to determine whether disagreements stem from policy differences or simple linguistic misunderstanding. When discussing complex military aid packages, strategic timelines, or political commitments, the inability to communicate with precision and nuance is not merely embarrassing - it is strategically catastrophic. The refusal to use interpreters appears to stem from a desire to project strength, control the narrative, or avoid the vulnerability of relying on a third party. But this false pride costs Ukraine dearly. American counterparts need clarity, and attempting to negotiate such matters in a language one has not mastered is diplomatic malpractice. The fact that Ukraine's top leadership cannot or will not communicate effectively in English with their most critical ally represents a failure of basic professional competence.

Like any government, Ukraine's system involves competing power centers with distinct relationships, ambitions, and strategic visions. These internal tensions systematically surface in ways that confuse or concern American counterparts. When different Ukrainian officials offer varying assessments of military needs or strategic priorities, it complicates Washington's policy formulation. It is a symptom that shows how multiple Ukrainian actors - the president's office, foreign ministry, defense ministry, parliamentary delegations, media workers, and various unofficial envoys - sometimes work at cross-purposes or deliver inconsistent messages. The personalization of diplomacy around President Zelenskyi, while initially effective, has created additional coordination challenges and excessive dependency on a single voice.

Ukrainians often seem genuinely baffled when American counterparts do not fully embrace or understand Ukrainian political positions, yet this expectation itself reveals a fundamental disconnect. Ukrainian domestic politics is extraordinarily dynamic, contradictory, and opaque even to close observers. Political alliances shift rapidly, official statements and laws often contradict actual policy, different power centers send conflicting signals, and the interplay between wartime necessities and peacetime political positioning creates constant strategic ambiguity. Personal relationships, informal networks, and historical grievances shape decisions in ways that defy systematic analysis. For foreigners (even sophisticated American diplomats and analysts), fully comprehending Ukrainian political dynamics is nearly impossible. Yet Ukrainian officials frequently expect Americans to not only understand these complexities but to align their policies with positions that may shift within weeks or contradict other Ukrainian government messaging. This is, to put it mildly, unrealistic. If Ukraine cannot clearly communicate its own political landscape in a democratic and healthy way, expecting foreign partners to navigate that complexity and provide unwavering support is absurd. The burden of clarity falls on the party seeking support, not on the supporter to decode contradictions.

For instance, American hesitancy in providing certain types of aid or removing restrictions is not solely about strategic caution - it directly correlates with specific concerns about Ukraine's political system. Yermak remains in the president’s orbit even after his official resignation, wielding enormous informal power while avoiding formal accountability. American officials across both parties have privately expressed deep discomfort with Yermak's continued centrality, viewing him as emblematic of Ukraine's opacity and informal power structures. Additionally, ongoing corruption issues within Ukraine, despite wartime improvements, create legitimate concerns in Washington about aid accountability and its effective use. Ukraine's failure to fully, honestly, maturely, and comprehensively address these governance concerns, corruption scandals, and particularly the Yermak situation, provides ammunition to aid skeptics and complicates support even among Ukraine's genuine allies. This is uncomfortable to acknowledge, but urgent to understand.

But perhaps most dangerously, Ukraine faces an internal threat to its own strategic clarity - a growing contingent of Ukrainian "experts," media personalities, and even policymakers actively promoting the fantasy of a "pro-Ukrainian Trump." These voices, either through genuine delusion or cynical opportunism, tell the Ukrainian public that Trump's second term will benefit Ukraine, that his pro-Russian rhetoric is merely a negotiating posture, that his team secretly supports Ukrainian victory, or that Kyiv can manipulate him into backing Ukraine through flattery and transactional deals. This narrative directly contradicts Trump's consistent track record: his first impeachment for withholding Ukrainian military aid as leverage for political favors, his repeated praise of Putin, his public statements calling for Ukraine to surrender territory, his selection of officials in the administration who are openly hostile to aid for Ukraine, and his explicit promises to end support.

Yet Ukrainian media and state institutions feature these pro-Trump voices and spread hopeful interpretations of his statements. In addition, some Ukrainian officials cultivate relationships with Trump's circle to spread his political vision in Ukraine. There are indications that President Zelenskyi himself may harbor a personal fascination with Trump - both come from television backgrounds, both cultivated images as unconventional political outsiders, and both have that "business acumen" and “deal-making” patterns. This possible personal affinity, if it exists, would be catastrophically dangerous, representing a fundamental misunderstanding of Trump's actual record and allowing personal projection to override strategic analysis. The danger is not just that Ukraine misunderstands American politics; it is that influential Ukrainians, potentially including the president himself, are actively selling their own country a comforting lie that prevents necessary preparation for a difficult reality.

Ukraine's misunderstanding of American politics does not occur in isolation - it reflects and amplifies Europe's failure to accurately assess American political dynamics. European capitals, including Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London, systematically ignored every warning sign about Trump's return to power and the exact way it would look like, even if all of them were on the surface. European leaders treated Trump's first term as an aberration, his 2020 defeat as a permanent repudiation, his 2024 campaign as a manageable risk, and his return to the White House as an exact version of the first term. This was not an innocent miscalculation, though - it was willful ignorance in the face of abundant evidence.

The groundwork for Trump's resurgence was visible years in advance. Pro-Trump proxy organizations and representatives operated openly across Europe: Hungary's Orbán government actively collaborated with and legitimized Trump's movement (a risk we still have to keep on our radar even after Trump distanced himself from Orbán due to his loss at the recent parliamentary elections in Hungary), far-right parties throughout Europe explicitly aligned themselves with Trumpism and MAGA ideology, American conservative organizations established European chapters and partnerships, and European media platforms gave extensive coverage to pro-Trump narratives. Steve Bannon, one of "the founding fathers" of MAGA, literally held conferences in Europe, building transnational far-right networks since 2018. European politicians made pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago and CPAC - the “holy grail” of Trumpism. The infrastructure of Trump's return was being built in plain sight, and European governments fell into the trap of the second Trump’s term being “calmer than people expect” and “a needed reset” for the whole world. European stakeholders completely ignored Project 2025, which became a literal roadmap of the institutional and political overhaul of the country led by Trump and implemented by his administration.

Ukraine absorbed Europe's complacency wholesale - if “sophisticated” European intelligence services and diplomatic corps could not see or would not prepare for Trump's return, how could Ukraine be expected to? But Ukraine's dependence on American support made this borrowed blindness exponentially more dangerous. Europe can weather American disengagement with economic pain and security anxiety, but Ukraine faces an existential threat. Yet Ukrainian strategic planning apparently included no serious contingency for a Trump administration, no preparation of the Ukrainian public for potential American policy reversal, and no development of alternative narratives or strategies for a hostile White House. The result is that Ukraine now faces Trump's second term as underprepared as Europe, but with infinitely higher stakes. This failure of strategic foresight represents perhaps the single greatest diplomatic malpractice of Ukraine's wartime international engagement.

The shortcomings of the communications strategy of Ukraine in the United States are not only tightly intertwined with political matters, but also extensively contribute to the lackluster nature of the current U.S.-Ukrainian bilateral relations. As one of them, Ukrainian public diplomacy has become trapped in a repetitive cycle of the same cultural tropes - embroidered shirts, sunflowers, folk songs, and historical suffering. While these elements have authentic cultural value, their overuse in American-facing communications signals a shallow understanding of effective cross-cultural engagement, where Russia sees an opportunity and extensively portrays Ukrainians to the U.S. as a nation that cannot be modern and cannot evolve on its own without Russia. American audiences are not moved by folklore they do not understand - they are moved by narratives that connect to their own values and interests. The constant visual repetition of traditional Ukrainian imagery without substantive strategic messaging creates an impression of a country stuck in the past rather than fighting for a modern future. This represents a fundamental failure of public diplomacy and media training, where Ukrainian officials appear unable to adapt their communication style to different audiences and contexts. Adding to that, Ukrainian communications often stress sacrifice, suffering, and moral imperatives. While these resonate emotionally, American political sustainability requires answering the persistent question: "What's in it for us?" Ukraine has been slower to emphasize arguments about degrading a U.S. adversary without American casualties, the return on investment in defense production, the geopolitical costs of signaling abandonment to allies, or the economic opportunities in reconstruction.

Ukrainian officials also frequently appear on American media unprepared for the format, tone, and expectations of American political communication. They give lengthy, complicated answers when the American media demands sharp soundbites. They become defensive or completely silent when challenged rather than pivoting effectively. They do not understand the difference between appearing on PBS, CNN, Fox News, or a podcast, treating all formats identically. The same officials delivering similar messages on the same platforms create “echo chambers” with lukewarm impact. American audiences, even sympathetic ones, experience advocacy fatigue when the communication pattern becomes repetitive. This amateurism, while understandable given the circumstances, significantly undermines Ukraine's message. Effective American political communication is a professional skill that requires training, practice, and cultural fluency, which Ukrainian representatives often lack.

Given resource constraints, institutional limitations, and the urgency of Ukraine's situation, it needs a concrete, realistic, and achievable roadmap for fundamentally improving Ukraine's approach to U.S. relations.

Before any external strategy can succeed, Ukraine must address a few important matters, one of which is the internal narrative problem. The government must immediately cease platforming the "pro-Ukrainian Trump" fantasy and constructively work with “the Trump America,” given things as they are, without utopian attempts to change him. This internal clarity is the prerequisite for everything else, because strategic planning built on delusion produces only strategic failure.

That is also why Ukraine must prioritize brutal honesty about American political realities over comforting narratives. This means recognizing when rhetorical support masks actual opposition, acknowledging when relationships are performative rather than substantive, and preparing for worst-case scenarios rather than hoping for best-case outcomes. Every Ukrainian official, analyst, and media personality must be held accountable for accuracy, not optimism.

Ukraine also cannot effectively advocate for unrestricted American support while maintaining governance structures that legitimately concern American officials. This means: transparently addressing the Yermak situation - either formalizing his role with accountability or genuinely removing him from decision-making and foreign policy shaping influence.

The hardest part is not resources or tactics - it is accepting that Ukraine must adapt to American political culture rather than expecting Americans to understand Ukrainian perspectives. This requires genuine humility from Ukrainian officials accustomed to European diplomatic conventions. Therefore, Ukraine must recalibrate its expectations of American support to reflect American political realities, not only Ukrainian needs. This means publicly recognizing the domestic political constraints American leaders face, and understanding that America's commitment, while significant, is not and cannot be existential in the way Ukraine's fight is. Private advocacy can and should push for more, but public messaging must reflect strategic appreciation that strengthens rather than undermines American support constituencies.

Phase 1: Immediate Triage (Months 1-3)

It is recommended to contract with top-tier American political communication consultants to conduct intensive training for all Ukrainian officials who appear in American media. This is not optional - it is essential. The training must cover: American media format expectations, soundbite development, bridging techniques, handling hostile questions, platform-specific approaches, and cultural communication styles. Create a "cleared for American media" designation that officials must earn through demonstrated competency.

It is also needed to immediately establish a policy requiring professional interpreters at all high-level meetings with American officials, regardless of the English proficiency of Ukrainian participants. Simultaneously, invest in intensive English language training for all senior officials who regularly engage with Americans, with the explicit goal of achieving genuine fluency - not only conversational ability, but professional diplomatic-level mastery. Until that fluency is achieved, interpreters are mandatory.

A fresh and interesting solution could also be to assemble a formal council of 15-20 Americans from diverse backgrounds: former Republican and Democratic officials, business leaders, veterans, local politicians, media professionals, and community organizers. Meet monthly and pay them consulting fees. Their role: provide brutally honest feedback on Ukrainian strategy, open doors, and serve as authentic American voices for Ukraine's interests. At the same time, as it usually happens in Ukraine, the ceremoniality of it should be a complementary, not a core feature.

Establish a mandatory crash course (in a long-term perspective - one-year program) for all Ukrainian officials engaged in U.S. relations. It should feature

• regular consumption of the American traditional and new media content;
• sessions on specific aspects of American culture that shape politics (e.g., the role of high school and college sports in community identity, evangelical Christian worldview and political engagement, the mythology of American exceptionalism and frontier individualism, regional cultural identities, such as Southern honor culture, Midwest pragmatism, Western libertarianism, the cultural power of military service and veteran status, and how American historical narratives shape contemporary policy debates);
• role-playing exercises where Ukrainian officials must argue American political positions - both Democrat and Republican - on Ukraine aid;
• electoral simulations where Ukrainian officials must predict outcomes based on an understanding of American political dynamics;
• crisis response exercises;
• legislative strategy games;
• media appearance simulations with actors playing hostile American journalists.

The goal: create Ukrainian officials who intuitively understand American political culture rather than intellectually studying it.

Move beyond generic messaging to create sophisticated, platform-specific content:

Simplified Messaging Mapping, April 2026

Phase 2: Building Infrastructure (Months 3-9)

Identify 10 critical states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Virginia) and assign a dedicated representative to each - ideally Ukrainian-Americans or individuals with deep ties to both cultures. Their mandate: build relationships with state legislators, local officials, business communities, and media. They should spend 80% of their time outside Washington, in state capitals and local communities.

Create formal protocols to ensure Ukrainian government communications to American audiences are consistent, coherent, and comprehensible. Assign a senior coordinator whose sole responsibility is to ensure that Americans receive comprehensible, non-contradictory information about Ukrainian positions and needs. If Ukraine's internal politics is too dynamic for Americans to understand, Ukraine must do the translation work rather than expecting Americans to decode it.

The Ukrainian MFA and Embassy should also work on detailed political profiles of every congressional district: economic interests, demographic composition, Ukrainian-American population, relevant local issues, key influencers, local media landscape, and the representative's political vulnerabilities and priorities. Update quarterly. Use this intelligence to tailor every engagement. When seeking support from a specific representative, arrive knowing exactly how Ukraine connects to their district's interests.

To enhance that, select 30 congressional districts and execute coordinated local campaigns over 6 months: op-eds in local newspapers, meetings with local business leaders, presentations to Rotary Clubs and chambers of commerce, collaboration with local veterans' organizations, town halls with local Ukrainian communities, and meetings with mayors and city councils. Document the impact and demonstrate to representatives that their constituents care about Ukraine.

Phase 3: Sustained Transformation (Months 9-12)

Establish a dedicated team of 8-10 professionals in the Ukrainian MFA (mix of Americans and Ukrainians) whose only job is understanding and researching American politics. They monitor state elections, track rising political figures, analyze polling data, maintain relationships with American political consultants and strategists, and produce weekly reports for Ukrainian leadership. This becomes Ukraine's permanent radar system for American political dynamics. Inside of it, create ongoing working duos/groups in collaboration with think tanks and research institutions of various political affiliations focused on specific issues: reconstruction economics, defense industrial cooperation, agricultural partnership, technology transfer, anti-corruption reforms, etc. These groups should produce regular reports and recommendations that shape both Ukrainian policy and American perceptions. Make American experts invested in Ukraine's success as professional collaborators, not just sympathetic observers.

Completely overhaul Ukraine's public-facing communications in the U.S. Stop all folkloric imagery unless strategically deployed for specific audiences. Develop audience-specific messaging: defense hawks hear degrading Russia, business leaders hear economic opportunity, progressives hear democratic resilience and human rights. Create different content strategies for different media ecosystems.

This strategy requires significant investment - consulting fees, staff salaries, program costs, and operational expenses. However, this should be treated as essential as military procurement. Reallocate from ineffective ceremonial diplomacy and redundant administrative functions. Results will not be immediate. Leadership must commit to this strategy through political pressure, setbacks, and criticism. The temptation to revert to reactive crisis management during difficult periods must be resisted. Therefore, it cannot be a parallel track to existing diplomacy - it must replace current approaches.