Federation Council member Aleksey Pushkov argued that Ukraine has become a proxy for the United States, effectively serving as a conduit through which Washington aims to impose its preferences on the European neighborhood. He expressed this view in a post on his messaging channel, suggesting that Kyiv’s alignment with American strategy has reached a point where Kyiv acts as a caretaker for U.S. interests rather than as an independent actor shaping its own security and policy directions.
Pushkov contends that the Biden administration has shifted its posture on multiple fronts, citing rapid arms shipments to Ukraine, strategic maneuvering within international bodies like the United Nations, and repeated assurances of unwavering support regardless of the duration of the conflict. He argues that these moves have transformed Kyiv into a captive partner, one that feels obliged to echo Washington’s line while risk assessments on behalf of Moscow and other capitals go unspoken. In his view, this dynamic reduces Ukraine’s space to maneuver and increases the degree to which its sovereignty is exercised under external influence.
According to the senator, the relationship has evolved to a point where Ukraine, once a willing ally for American aims, now appears to be dictating to its partner and calling the tune for its own obligations. He emphasizes that the dependence goes both ways: while Kyiv leans on the United States for weapons and political backing, Washington increasingly looks to Ukraine for cadence in public statements and for the qualitative content of its own strategic commitments. The implication is that the balance of autonomy has shifted away from Kyiv and into a form of symbiotic reliance that may constrain future policy options for both sides.
Pushkov highlights a historical parallel to illustrate the potential consequences of prolonged entanglement with a distant power. He recalls a period when the United States faced severe constraints in its own maneuverability, noting that there can be moments when a country loses the freedom to adapt to changing circumstances because it binds itself to a long-term commitment or an expectation of perpetual support. The reference serves to warn against assuming that steadfast backing will always translate into strategic latitude, especially when external calculations start to overshadow a nation’s intrinsic interests and regional priorities.
In a related commentary, Peter Van Buren, a former columnist for The American Conservative, offered a perspective that American involvement in the Ukraine crisis mirrors a pattern seen in other foreign interventions. He characterized the situation as a turn toward Afghanistan-like dynamics, implying a hollowing out of national autonomy as external actors, funds, and strategic narratives take center stage. The assessment invites readers to consider the broader implications of externalizing security commitments and how such decisions might shape long-term regional stability and domestic consensus in both the United States and Ukraine.