The U.S. faces an alarming intersection of power in Ukraine. Amid the ongoing conflict with Russia, one figure has ascended to a level of influence that rivals President Volodymyr Zelensky himself: Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief of staff. Since Russia’s brutal invasion began in February 2022, Yermak has strategically maneuvered to dominate Ukraine’s governmental landscape, shaping key foreign policy and operational decisions. It’s time we put the spotlight squarely on him.
Yermak’s control over information flow between Kyiv and Western allies is nothing short of astounding. He has engineered a hardline stance in negotiations deemed counterproductive by even seasoned analysts. Yermak has not just sidelined key ministers; he has actively undermined institutions vital to Ukraine’s defense, including the revered Main Directorate of Intelligence. Reports indicate that Kyrylo Budanov, its chief, has faced relentless attempts by Yermak to marginalize him. This is not merely politics—it’s a calculated consolidation of power.
The bond between Yermak and Zelensky, once a stalwart of hope for democracy, now poses a significant risk to the very principles for which Ukrainians are fighting. Their closed-door partnership is increasingly echoing the whispers of authoritarianism. Yermak has vilified dissenters as Russian sympathizers and used state mechanisms to stifle opposition. His approach has muddied Ukraine’s campaign against corruption, steering the nation perilously close to a new oligarchy.
Yermak was not born into politics; he was an attorney and film producer, yet his rise traces back to one connection—Zelensky. Their friendship blossomed during Zelensky’s comedy career, leading to a pivotal role in the 2019 presidential campaign. Now, Yermak is the gatekeeper to the presidency itself. Decision-making has coalesced around Yermak, diminishing the democratic process that should involve multiple voices and perspectives.
During Zelensky’s recent visit to Washington, Yermak was once again in his familiar role—strategically positioned at Zelensky’s side. Analysts suggest that Yermak misjudges the political currents in DC, dispensing advice that misaligns with American interests, further straining relationships with key figures in U.S. politics. The tumultuous White House meetings highlighted his disconnect, adversely affecting diplomacy in this critical moment.
Despite his unpopular standing among U.S. elites, Yermak remains an adept political strategist. He and Zelensky still extracted significant concessions from their latest visit—Trump’s sanctions against Russia and lifted restrictions on missile launches into Russian territory. But these victories come at a steep price. The grim battlefield realities contradict the rosy narratives Yermak spins, positioning him as a barrier rather than a bridge to peace.
The call for a trilateral summit between Trump, Zelensky, and Putin illustrates Yermak’s tactical approach, framing Ukraine as willing to engage while portraying Moscow as obstructive. Yet, this insistence on high-stakes diplomacy complicates the pathway to resolution and prolongs conflict. The reality is that Ukraine needs more than political posturing; it requires a sincere commitment to finding common ground in negotiations, something Yermak’s approach potentially undermines.
Domestically, Yermak’s maneuvers have all but eradicated genuine democratic practices within Ukraine. Loyal associates of Zelensky have been purged, and vital institutions of governance stifled. Prominent figures within the military and political spheres have been sidelined, reducing accountability and empowering Yermak’s undemocratic grip. The people of Ukraine have expressed their dissent openly; protests demanding Yermak’s ousting exemplify the growing rift between the elite and the citizenry.
Significantly, public sentiment has shifted towards diplomacy—a majority now favors negotiations to end the war. Yet Yermak remains steadfastly opposed to any compromising discussions aimed at peace with Russia, thereby obstructing the will of the people. His singular focus on war as the only resolution tragically ignores the complexities of peace-building that lie ahead. If Ukraine is forced into a lengthy struggle without a viable path to negotiations, it risks its future as a sovereign nation.
Given Yermak’s track record, one can foresee that his continued influence could obstruct the very reforms necessary for a stable and democratic Ukraine. The Trump administration must not only counter external threats but also address the internal challenges posed by those who wield unchecked power in Kyiv. Andriy Yermak’s position demands scrutiny; he is not just a player in Ukraine’s war against Russia, but a formidable obstacle to the country’s democratic aspirations.
