How Yermak Lost America’s Cross-Party Support: The Rise of Bipartisan Backlash

Source: Author’s Facebook page

Yermak’s long-standing monopoly over Ukraine-US relations has steadily backfired, damaging trust and weakening crucial bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington.

Yermak’s monopoly on cooperation with the US has severely damaged both Trump’s and the White House’s attitude toward Zelenskyy, weakening support for Ukraine and raising the risk that the US may shift from mediator to siding with russia. This stems from the president’s refusal to listen to senior officials who urged replacing the negotiator and adopting alternative approaches to managing relations with a key strategic partner.

Only a blind person could fail to see that Yermak “lost America” long ago, and that Washington’s deepening bipartisan aversion to Andriy Borisovich is growing stronger — as well as, apparently, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s.

First, Yermak demonstrates a poor understanding of American domestic politics, geopolitics, and foreign interests.

Consider the completely toothless bilateral security agreement signed last year between the US and Ukraine, which the President’s Office touted as a “security guarantee.” This agreement didn’t even include basic intelligence sharing — a fundamental element of any bilateral security pact.

Defense Minister Umerov, under Yermak’s influence, failed to secure any substantive agreements through programs like Foreign Military Financing or Direct Commercial Sales for acquiring American weaponry. Meanwhile, Poland, Israel, South Korea, and Japan quickly moved to lock in arms contracts with the US. Like Ukraine, these countries cannot guarantee their security without America.

Let’s also recall how, last year, Yermak derailed Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts by scattering focus on the Peace Summit and the Global South, instead of concentrating on intensive technical and institutional work with American agencies to secure long-term supplies of critical weapons—especially air defense systems that cannot be sourced elsewhere.

The list of Yermak’s failures in managing cooperation with the US during Biden’s administration is long and growing.

Second, Yermak imposed a monopoly over Ukraine’s relations with the United States.

Andriy Borisovich jealously guards any Ukrainian official who tries to communicate with America outside his control.

At the same time, Yermak consistently exaggerates his influence and insider knowledge in Washington to the president. Before the full-scale invasion, he reassured Zelenskyy that the Americans were merely trying to intimidate and that the Russians would not launch a nationwide offensive. Instead of preparing for war, they were being lulled into a false sense of security. Now, Yermak appears to be painting overly optimistic prospects of a truce brokered by Trump—an expectation that is likely to prove equally unrealistic.

Yermak shows little faith in traditional diplomacy, acting as if he is rewriting the global playbook for managing international relations.

He relies heavily on personal connections—believing it’s enough to have Jake Sullivan’s phone number to quickly resolve issues by calling a friend. But with Sullivan leaving his post to teach at Harvard, there is no guarantee that his successor will share that same access or be willing to engage in informal interstate communications.

Cooperation with the United States must develop institutionally. Ministers should communicate directly with their counterparts—for example, Sibiga should engage with Rubio. Deputy ministers should coordinate with their equivalents in the US, and so forth. All commitments need to be formalized through appropriate intergovernmental agreements.

At the same time, informal channels of communication should be strengthened at the level of think tanks, businesses (especially relevant now in the miltech and digital sectors), and advocacy groups.

For instance, Israel employs numerous highly skilled lobbyists in the US who consistently help navigate the complex political landscape of Washington. In contrast, Ukraine has only Andy Mack, a longtime associate of Yermak, whose loyalty—to Yermak personally or to the country—is unclear.

Thirdly, Yermak struggles to listen.

Currently, pro-government Telegram channels attempt to whitewash Andriy Borisovich by arguing that he doesn’t need to be liked or convenient to all Americans—that he must defend Ukraine’s interests zealously and boldly, like Netanyahu.

This is a complete distortion. Israel, South Korea, and Japan serve as strong examples of non-NATO US partners that have systematically and institutionally built their relationships with America over many years, gaining a deep understanding of how this strategically vital country operates and thinks.

They don’t approach Americans with an attitude of “you owe us” or “we are the center of the universe,” even if they genuinely believe so.

Typically, they talk less and do more, especially if we take Israel as an example. In those countries, relations with America are built at the level of government institutions, businesses, intelligence agencies, diasporas, and informal networks.

For instance, in the US, the American Jewish Committee invests in young politicians in their districts from an early age to ensure that when they reach power, they remain loyal to Israel.

In the coming months, you will see Yermak doing everything possible to convince Volodymyr Zelenskyy of his indispensable expertise in America. And when our relations with the US are completely and irrevocably damaged (and America even refuses to sell us weapons), Yermak will claim he did all he could and became a victim of his loyalty to the President. And Zelenskyy will believe him without question.

Finally, a quote from a Politico article:

“Yermak’s behavior only fuels voices within the Republican Party and among Trump allies who want to end US support for Ukraine,” said a source familiar with the visit.

“Everyone here who wants to withdraw support and abandon Ukraine is thrilled by Yermak’s presence,” the source added.

Politico recently reported that Ukrainian President Andriy Yermak, the head of the Presidential Office, is increasingly a source of irritation in Washington. This is confirmed by more than a dozen sources among former and current US officials, as well as congressional aides.

According to journalists, some of the interlocutors describe Yermak as overly demanding, harsh in communication, and poorly informed about domestic US politics. Some express concerns that he may have inaccurately conveyed Washington’s position to the Ukrainian leadership. One source described him as a “bipartisan irritant.”

Earlier, Ukrainian politician Volodymyr Omelyan stated that Ukraine should change the destroyed vertical of power, because total corruption and the crisis of governance only benefit the enemy, not our state, as evidenced in particular by the recent visits of the Head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak to the US and his efforts on the diplomatic front.

In addition, People’s Deputy Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze claims that the last visit of the Ukrainian delegation to the White House once again showed that it is worth changing its composition and appointing a new special representative of Ukraine in negotiations with the US because Andriy Yermak cannot continue to perform these functions.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.