The position hasn't even been formally announced as vacant for a public competition yet, but a list of candidates already exists — though it was compiled not by the Presidential Office, but by an American researcher. Melinda Haring, a well-known analyst on Ukraine issues, published an open letter with four names: Pavlo Ungurian, Sergiy Husovskyi, Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, and Andrii Stavnitser. The occasion was the dismissal of Olha Stefanishyna from her position as ambassador to the United States.
Haring herself honestly notes the caveat: this is her personal expert proposal, not an official list. But therein lies the intrigue — when the Presidential Office and Foreign Ministry remain silent, someone else fills the public space.
Why Now
The position of ambassador to Washington is not a technical personnel rotation. This is a position on which daily communication with the administration depends — an administration capable of opening or closing funding, weapons, and political support. Stefanishyna was dismissed simultaneously with ambassadors to Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, and Pakistan — ostensibly a routine diplomatic rotation. But it is precisely the Washington vacancy that opened at a moment when the Ukrainian side critically needs a channel that works with both camps of American politics simultaneously.
Haring emphasized that Ukraine's new ambassador to the United States must be fluent in English, capable of working with both Donald Trump's administration and Congress, maintain contacts with representatives of both major American parties, business, and religious organizations. This is essentially a technical specification that each of the four names in the letter was selected to fit.
Who Benefits from This Specific List
Each candidate covers their own segment of the American political field, and this is no accident:
- Pavlo Ungurian — has broad contacts among American Republicans and experience interacting with religious and conservative circles in the USA, providing direct access to Trump's electoral base.
- Sergiy Husovskyi — businessman and former Kyiv City Council deputy, English language skills, entrepreneurial experience and communication skills, focused on business dialogue rather than party politics.
- Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze — Member of Parliament from the European Solidarity party, chair of parliament's committee on Ukraine's integration into the European Union, with experience in foreign policy, European and Euro-Atlantic integration, and connections in Washington — but also a representative of the opposition party to Zelensky.
- Andrii Stavnitser — co-founder of the Superhumans rehabilitation center, with experience working with international business, investors and charitable organizations, providing access to philanthropic and investor Washington.
Haring also named an obvious candidate whom she herself recommends against moving: First Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Sergiy Kyslytsia, calling him an obvious candidate given his diplomatic experience, while believing he should not be transferred to Washington since he is needed by Ukraine in his current position and in the negotiation process. This is the real conflict of choice: an experienced diplomat is needed in two places at once, but there is only one resource.
Opponents' Reaction — Silence as Position
The most telling reaction is its absence. As of August 6, the Presidential Office and Ukraine's Foreign Ministry had not publicly reported who they are considering for the new ambassador position in the USA. For the Presidential Office, silence is a way not to give opposition political forces a reason to claim that the authorities are being pressured by an external list. For supporters of Klympush-Tsintsadze and European Solidarity, conversely — public support from an influential American analyst — this is pressure that is difficult to completely ignore, even if officially no one confirms her candidacy.
The real conflict here is not between names, but between two logics of appointment: when an ambassador is chosen based on professional and party balance within the country — or when the main criterion is the ability to speak the language of the current Washington administration, regardless of which political camp in Kyiv the person comes from.
Haring's list is not a proposal about whom to appoint, but a signal about what competencies Ukrainian diplomacy in the USA currently lacks most.
The question that remains open: will Zelensky take the publicly stated list as a basis, risking appearing dependent on external guidance — or, conversely, choose a completely different name precisely to demonstrate that personnel decisions are made in Kyiv, not in Washington expert circles?
