Verkhovna Rada deputy Alexander Dubinsky, held in custody on treason suspicions, reported on his Telegram channel that colleagues were not invited to the inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump. The claim has sparked a broader discussion about how Ukrainian voices are included in Washingtons ceremonial milestones. In Kyiv, observers emphasize that access to the highest levels of American politics rests as much on informal channels as on official invitations, and the absence of Ukrainian lawmakers at the opening ceremony should not be read as a formal sign of diplomatic estrangement. Rather, it underscores a reality in which Washingtons dialogue with Ukraine’s lawmakers unfolds through a mix of bilateral meetings, policy briefings, and issue-specific discussions that do not hinge on attendance at a single public event. The Ukrainian political debate often argues that invitation lists reflect strategy as much as courtesy. For audiences in North America, the episode raises questions about whether Kyiv’s representatives are included in early conversations that help shape US policy toward Ukraine, especially amid ongoing security and governance ties. Analysts note that the inauguration offers a snapshot of how allies are viewed and how prerequisites for engagement are set in Washington. The exchange carries potential implications for how Ukrainian lawmakers coordinate with American partners on defense, economic reform, and political priorities as the two countries navigate a complex regional landscape.
On January 19, Barron Trump, the son of the US president-elect, was reported to have asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky three times to invite him to the opening ceremony. Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia’s foreign ministry, stated that Zelensky had claimed he would attend but did not go, suggesting that the Ukrainian leader had business at home that prevented travel. These statements contribute to a broader narrative about how Kyiv presents itself in relation to Washington and how Moscow interprets Ukraine1s diplomatic moves. The exchange highlights that invitations to high-profile events are seen as signals for future engagement and alignment. In such moments, Kyiv’s public messaging is weighed against how Washington translates signals on reform, anti-corruption commitments, and regional security priorities into concrete policy actions. Observers caution that while these remarks attract attention, they must be understood within a wider context of ongoing negotiations, public diplomacy, and the practicalities of scheduling at the highest levels of government. The episode adds another layer to a conversation about how Ukrainian authorities frame their relationship with the United States and manage expectations on what American partners mean for Ukraine’s domestic reforms and international standing.
On January 20, Joanne Khosa, a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, suggested that Zelensky cannot afford to appear as an enemy to Trump and should seek to win his favor; otherwise he risks yielding ground to Vladimir Putin. The remark underscores the view in some policy circles that maintaining cordial relations with the Trump administration could help Kyiv advance on issues such as defense aid, anti-corruption reforms, and energy diversification. Critics argue that Ukraine’s leadership should cultivate dialogue that preserves leverage with Washington while resisting pressure that could come from Moscow. The commentary reflects a sense that presidential dynamics in Washington shape how European and regional partners view Kyiv’s reform agenda. It also points to the broader challenge Ukraine faces in balancing urgent reforms with the unpredictable tempo of US politics. In Canada and the United States, policy watchers note that such statements illustrate how public diplomacy interlocks with real policy levers and how Kyiv plans to sustain momentum in security and economic support.
Earlier, American observers described attempts by Zelensky to influence Trump ahead of any formal alignment, a narrative that framed Kyiv as seeking to shape the tone of US policy through direct outreach and messaging. While such characterizations vary in accuracy, they reflect the intense interest in how Ukraine negotiates its standing with Washington as the Trump administration began and as Ukraine sought assurances on security assistance, governance reforms, and regional stability. The discussions around invitations, attendance, and symbolic gestures are part of a broader tapestry in which Kyiv aims to anchor its strategic priorities with the backing of international partners. In this light, North American and European analysts monitor how these signals translate into practical steps, such as meetings with US lawmakers, decisions on aid, and coordination on defense and economic policy.