If the Trump administration still had any hopes Ukraine could decide to open an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, they likely evaporated on Friday.

The phrase “he loves your ass” might not be the grandest line to go down in history. But already Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s awkward phone counsel to President Trump – as belatedly reported by US diplomat David Holmes in newly released testimony – has left the strongest of watermarks in Kiev.

The disparaging remarks that Ukraine’s new president Volodymyr Zelensky would do “anything” Trump asked of him – have only added to a sense the war-afflicted country is no longer treated seriously by its main military ally.

“Those words will have hurt President Zelensky greatly,” says Pavlo Klimkin, who served as Kiev’s foreign minister from 2014 until September this year, just before the full extent of Ukrainegate went public. “Zelensky doesn’t like critics in general, but this is humiliating, and he’ll have taken it very badly.”

Since entering office, Zelensky’s administration has found itself at the receiving end of increasingly irregular campaigns of influence from the White House. The extent of that pressure is only beginning to become clear following dramatic public testimonies in House impeachment hearings, which continue this week.

Those testimonies detail how the Ukrainians reluctantly – and apparently against their better judgment – contorted themselves to accommodate US presidential whims.

Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Show all 26 1 /26 Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Donald Trump Accused of abusing his office by pressing the Ukrainian president in a July phone call to help dig up dirt on Joe Biden, who may be his Democratic rival in the 2020 election. He also believes that Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails - a key factor in the 2016 election - may be in Ukraine, although it is not clear why. EPA Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal The Whistleblower Believed to be a CIA agent who spent time at the White House, his complaint was largely based on second and third-hand accounts from worried White House staff. Although this is not unusual for such complaints, Trump and his supporters have seized on it to imply that his information is not reliable. Expected to give evidence to Congress voluntarily and in secret. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal The Second Whistleblower The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower is also representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions. Attorney Mark Zaid said that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who is said to work in the intelligence community and has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general. The second whistleblower has not yet filed their own complaint, but does not need to to be considered an official whistleblower. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Rudy Giuliani Former mayor of New York, whose management of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in 2001 won him worldwide praise. As Trump’s personal attorney he has been trying to find compromising material about the president’s enemies in Ukraine in what some have termed a “shadow” foreign policy. In a series of eccentric TV appearances he has claimed that the US state department asked him to get involved. Giuliani insists that he is fighting corruption on Trump’s behalf and has called himself a “hero”. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Volodymyr Zelensky The newly elected Ukrainian president - a former comic actor best known for playing a man who becomes president by accident - is seen frantically agreeing with Trump in the partial transcript of their July phone call released by the White House. With a Russian-backed insurgency in the east of his country, and the Crimea region seized by Vladimir Putin in 2014, Zelensky will have been eager to please his American counterpart, who had suspended vital military aid before their phone conversation. He says there was no pressure on him from Trump to do him the “favour” he was asked for. Zelensky appeared at an awkward press conference with Trump in New York during the United Nations general assembly, looking particularly uncomfortable when the American suggested he take part in talks with Putin. AFP/Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Mike Pence The vice-president was not on the controversial July call to the Ukrainian president but did get a read-out later. However, Trump announced that Pence had had “one or two” phone conversations of a similar nature, dragging him into the crisis. Pence himself denies any knowledge of any wrongdoing and has insisted that there is no issue with Trump’s actions. It has been speculated that Trump involved Pence as an insurance policy - if both are removed from power the presidency would go to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, something no Republican would allow. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Rick Perry Trump reportedly told a meeting of Republicans that he made the controversial call to the Ukrainian president at the urging of his own energy secretary, Rick Perry, and that he didn’t even want to. The president apparently said that Perry wanted him to talk about liquefied natural gas - although there is no mention of it in the partial transcript of the phone call released by the White House. It is thought that Perry will step down from his role at the end of the year. Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Joe Biden The former vice-president is one of the frontrunners to win the Democratic nomination, which would make him Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election. Trump says that Biden pressured Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that Biden’s son Hunter was on the board of, refusing to release US aid until this was done. However, pressure to fire the prosecutor came on a wide front from western countries. It is also believed that the investigation into the company, Burisma, had long been dormant. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Hunter Biden Joe Biden’s son has been accused of corruption by the president because of his business dealings in Ukraine and China. However, Trump has yet to produce any evidence of corruption and Biden’s lawyer insists he has done nothing wrong. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal William Barr The attorney-general, who proved his loyalty to Trump with his handling of the Mueller report, was mentioned in the Ukraine call as someone president Volodymyr Zelensky should talk to about following up Trump’s preoccupations with the Biden’s and the Clinton emails. Nancy Pelosi has accused Barr of being part of a “cover-up of a cover-up”. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Mike Pompeo The secretary of state initially implied he knew little about the Ukraine phone call - but it later emerged that he was listening in at the time. He has since suggested that asking foreign leaders for favours is simply how international politics works. Gordon Sondland testified that Pompeo was "in the loop" and knew what was happening in Ukraine. Pompeo has been criticised for not standing up for diplomats under his command when they were publicly criticised by the president. AFP via Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Nancy Pelosi The Democratic Speaker of the House had long resisted calls from within her own party to back a formal impeachment process against the president, apparently fearing a backlash from voters. On September 24, amid reports of the Ukraine call and the day before the White House released a partial transcript of it, she relented and announced an inquiry, saying: “The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law.” Getty Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Adam Schiff Democratic chairman of the House intelligence committee, one of the three committees leading the inquiry. He was criticized by Republicans for giving what he called a “parody” of the Ukraine phone call during a hearing, with Trump and others saying he had been pretending that his damning characterisation was a verbatim reading of the phone call. He has also been criticised for claiming that his committee had had no contact with the whistleblower, only for it to emerge that the intelligence agent had contacted a staff member on the committee for guidance before filing the complaint. The Washington Post awarded Schiff a “four Pinocchios” rating, its worst rating for a dishonest statement. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman Florida-based businessmen and Republican donors Lev Parnas (pictured with Rudy Giuliani) and Igor Fruman were arrested on suspicion of campaign finance violations at Dulles International Airport near Washington DC on 9 October. Separately the Associated Press has reported that they were both involved in efforts to replace the management of Ukraine's gas company, Naftogaz, with new bosses who would steer lucrative contracts towards companies controlled by Trump allies. There is no suggestion of any criminal activity in these efforts. Reuters Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal William Taylor The most senior US diplomat in Ukraine and the former ambassador there. As one of the first two witnesses in the public impeachment hearings, Taylor dropped an early bombshell by revealing that one of his staff – later identified as diplomat David Holmes – overheard a phone conversation in which Donald Trump could be heard asking about “investigations” the very day after asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political enemies. Taylor expressed his concern at reported plans to withhold US aid in return for political smears against Trump’s opponents, saying: “It's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the White House. It's another thing, I thought, to leverage security assistance -- security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the security assistance and the demonstration of support." Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal George Kent A state department official who appeared alongside William Taylor wearing a bow tie that was later mocked by the president. He accused Rudy Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer, of leading a “campaign of lies” against Marie Yovanovitch, who was forced out of her job as US ambassador to Ukraine for apparently standing in the way of efforts to smear Democrats. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Marie Yovanovitch One of the most striking witnesses to give evidence at the public hearings, the former US ambassador to Ukraine received a rare round of applause as she left the committee room after testifying. Canadian-born Yovanovitch was attacked on Twitter by Donald Trump while she was actually testifying, giving Democrats the chance to ask her to respond. She said she found the attack “very intimidating”. Trump had already threatened her in his 25 July phone call to the Ukrainian president saying: “She’s going to go through some things.” Yovanovitch said she was “shocked, appalled and devastated” by the threat and by the way she was forced out of her job without explanation. REUTERS Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Alexander Vindman A decorated Iraq War veteran and an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, Lt Col Vindman began his evidence with an eye-catching statement about the freedoms America afforded him and his family to speak truth to power without fear of punishment. One of the few witnesses to have actually listened to Trump’s 25 July call with the Ukrainian president, he said he found the conversation so inappropriate that he was compelled to report it to the White House counsel. Trump later mocked him for wearing his military uniform and insisting on being addressed by his rank. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Jennifer Williams A state department official acting as a Russia expert for vice-president Mike Pence, Ms Williams also listened in on the 25 July phone call. She testified that she found it “unusual” because it focused on domestic politics in terms of Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Kurt Volker The former special envoy to Ukraine was one of the few people giving evidence who was on the Republican witness list although what he had to say may not have been too helpful to their cause. He dismissed the idea that Joe Biden had done anything corrupt, a theory spun without evidence by the president and his allies. He said that he thought the US should be supporting Ukraine’s reforms and that the scheme to find dirt on Democrats did not serve the national interest. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Tim Morrison An expert on the National Security Council and another witness on the Republican list. He testified that he did not think the president had done anything illegal but admitted that he feared it would create a political storm if it became public. He said he believed the moving the record of the controversial 25 July phone call to a top security server had been an innocent mistake. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Gordon Sondland In explosive testimony, one of the men at the centre of the scandal got right to the point in his opening testimony: “Was there a quid pro quo? Yes,” said the US ambassador to the EU who was a prime mover in efforts in Ukraine to link the release of military aid with investigations into the president’s political opponents. He said that everyone knew what was going on, implicating vice-president Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo. The effect of his evidence is perhaps best illustrated by the reaction of Mr Trump who went from calling Sondland a “great American” a few weeks earlier to claiming that he barely knew him. AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Laura Cooper A Pentagon official, Cooper said Ukrainian officials knew that US aid was being withheld before it became public knowledge in August – undermining a Republican argument that there can’t have been a quid pro quo between aid and investigations if the Ukrainians didn’t know that aid was being withheld. Getty Images Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal David Hale The third most senior official at the state department. Hale testified about the treatment of Marie Yovanovitch and the smear campaign that culminated in her being recalled from her posting as US ambassador to Ukraine. He said: “I believe that she should have been able to stay at post and continue to do the outstanding work.” EPA Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal Fiona Hill Arguably the most confident and self-possessed of the witnesses in the public hearings phase, the Durham-born former NSC Russia expert began by warning Republicans not to keep repeating Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. In a distinctive northeastern English accent, Dr Hill went on to describe how she had argued with Gordon Sondland about his interference in Ukraine matters until she realised that while she and her colleagues were focused on national security, Sondland was “being involved in a domestic political errand”. She said: “I did say to him, ‘Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, this is going to blow up’. And here we are.” AP Trump impeachment: Who's who in the Ukraine scandal David Holmes The Ukraine-based diplomat described being in a restaurant in Kiev with Gordon Sondland while the latter phoned Donald Trump. Holmes said he could hear the president on the other end of the line – because his voice was so “loud and distinctive” and because Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear – asking about the “investigations” and whether the Ukrainian president would cooperate. REUTERS

A stream of text messages, for example, indicate how Zelensky’s officials first protested against, but were then cajoled into, opening an investigation into a gas company that employed Hunter Biden, son of Mr Trump’s clearest presidential rival.

That move would have meant seriously undermining bipartisan support in Washington, the cornerstone of Ukraine’s security policy. But the alternative – the continued hold-up of $391m in military assistance at the time of a hot war with Russian-backed separatists – was apparently considered to be even worse.

In the event, Zelensky’s administration was saved by circumstances.

In early September, on the eve of what appears to be a planned Ukrainian announcement of an investigation into Burisma during a CNN interview, a US whistleblower broke ranks. His complaint led to the immediate unblocking of military support to Ukraine and the cancellation of the interview. In time, it would also lead to impeachment proceedings against the American president.

In Kiev, the Zelensky administration has entered crisis management mode. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one high-ranking official told The Independent that government policy was now not to give any interviews on the subject.

“Any words can now be used against Ukraine,” he said.

As a result, a lot still remains unclear – most especially about what the Zelensky administration knew and when. In his marathon press conference in October, for example, Ukraine’s President Zelensky claimed he did not know about military aid being withheld until after his infamous 25 July call with President Trump.

Writing on Twitter on Sunday, the US leader picked up on Mr Zelensky’s denial. “They didn’t even know the money wasn’t paid, and got the money with no conditions,” he wrote.

But others have suggested a radically different timetable. According to Valeriy Chaly, the former Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, for example, Kiev was first made aware of a delay to military aid in June or early July. Speaking on local radio earlier this month, Mr Chaly said that this was the time he found out that the Pentagon had failed to renew deals with several US military sub-contractors.

Mr Chaly passed on the worrying news immediately – via a cable to President Zelensky’s office.

It is possible the presidential office ignored or failed to grasp the significance of the ambassador’s cable. According to the independent political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko, relations between Zelensky’s office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are somewhat fraught.

“Zelensky and his team are sensitive to trust issues, and they don’t believe in the Foreign Ministry, and its diplomats,” he said.

A more likely interpretation is that Zelensky’s staff were aware of problems at the time of the now-infamous 25 July call – but are choosing not to admit it out of fear of implicating President Trump in an obvious quid-pro-quo.

The former foreign minister Klimkin admitted to The Independent that he heard “rumours” about problems with military aid “much earlier in the year.” Initially, his foreign ministry did not immediately link those problems with Mr Trump’s desire for an investigation into the Bidens. But the linkage became explicit “sometime in July,” he said – in other words, well before the military aid hold-up was published in Politico on 28 August.

Kiev has long worried about Donald Trump. In his election campaign, the American president showed little interest in the country or its war. He suggested he might recognise Russian claims to Crimea. Since taking office, Mr Trump’s foreign policy outlook has consistently aligned itself with Moscow. He supported President Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence services. He undermined Nato and the European Union, and abruptly pulled out of Syria.

But nobody in Kiev was prepared for the near breakdown in bilateral relations that has occurred in the last few months.

Links with Washington are now only functional along Pentagon and Congress lines, The Independent understands. Elsewhere, the United States is a largely absent player.

Traditionally strong links to the State Department, the embassy in Kiev, White House and National Security Council have all been broken by the scandal. There is a growing expectation that US ambassador to Kiev Bill Taylor, considered a strong champion of Ukraine, will be recalled to Washington following his very public criticism of Trump’s informal diplomacy.

Ukraine also has ambassador problems of its own. For unclear reasons, the United States is stalling on confirming a replacement for Valeriy​ Chaly in Washington. By some accounts, President Zelensky’s office is now on to its third candidate.

All of this has contributed to a sense of nervousness in Kiev. Some even wonder if the country is about to be sacrificed to a bigger game – whether, like the Kurds in Syria, Ukraine is about to be forgotten by its most important military ally.

Things do not look much better in Europe. There, Brexit; pro-Russian sentiment in Italy, Austria and Hungary; and French president Emmanuel Macron‘s increasingly maverick foreign policy in regards to Russia have combined to weaken the security consensus on Ukraine.

“Ukraine no longer feels the solidarity it felt in 2014 and 2015,” said Valery Kalnysh, the host of Ukraine’s leading political radio talk show.

“Europe already has a new generation of leaders, people who have no experience of the horrors of our war. Putin has always viewed his opponents as temporary actors that are here today and gone tomorrow. He doesn’t see them as equals. He is there for the long haul.”

Europe already has a new generation of leaders with no experience of the war. Putin has always viewed his opponents as here today and gone tomorrow. While he is there for the long haul Ukrainian journalist Valery Kalnysh

But experts suggest dramatic policy reversals on either side of the Atlantic are unrealistic – at least in the short to mid-term.

Steven Pifer, a former United States ambassador to Ukraine, and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Congress retained the upper hand in United States Ukraine policy and was on Kiev’s side.

“Even Republican members of Congress challenged Trump over Syria, and it’s clear members care much more about Ukraine than they do about Syria,” he said.

Marie Mendras, professor at Sciences Po’s Paris School of International Affairs, said the emotions of crisis risked overshadowing what she described as the “fundamentals” of security. Europe and NATO were still “committed” to protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty, she said.

But, she added, Mr Macron’s efforts to engage in a dialogue with Vladimir Putin have added new dynamics to the relationship with Ukraine. The French president has, for example, encouraged President Zelensky along a high-risk trajectory to a truce with Russia. It is yet to be seen if Vladimir Putin is seriously interested in negotiations.

“The stakes are high, and Macron wants to believe in his relationship with Putin,” she said. “He sees peace in Donbass as a way of furthering that goal, and he expects Kiev to make more concessions than Moscow.”

Somewhere along the line, Ukraine has moved from being a true subject of international relations to being an object of negotiations.

“Ukraine is now essentially a problem you discuss,” she said. “Something you think you can barter with. Ukraine is partly to blame for that, but the French president also needs to remember that the Kremlin does not wish a sovereign, democratic Ukraine well.”

The former foreign minister Klimkin said the next year was gearing up to be a make or break period for Ukraine. Kiev was being stretched on multiple fronts, he said: from US domestic politics to war in the east and the prospect of losing lucrative gas transit fees as NorthStream II comes online in early 2020.

“I’m increasingly worried about the predicament we find ourselves in, and I believe our very survival as a nation at risk,” he said.