Kyiv’s Middle Eastern Gambit: Ukraine Steps In as a Security Provider

Against the backdrop of escalating tensions in the Middle East, Ukraine has unexpectedly stepped into a role that until recently would have seemed improbable—that of a provider of security solutions. Volodymyr Zelensky’s visits from March 27–30 to Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Amman, along with his talks with the region’s political leaders, signal a broader shift: the world is entering a phase in which combat experience and technological adaptability are emerging as decisive assets. Kyiv, notably, has already learned how to convert both into strategic capital.

Together with experts, Ukrinform assesses the outcomes.

FROM RECIPIENT TO PROVIDER: UKRAINE’S NEW ROLE

In analyzing Zelensky’s March tour, experts agree that its primary significance lies less in the formal agreements signed than in a deeper transformation of Ukraine’s strategic positioning. A country long associated with seeking external assistance is now presenting itself as a capable supplier of effective—and, critically, battle-tested—solutions to contemporary security challenges.

Middle East expert Vyacheslav Likhachov notes, with a touch of irony, that Saudi Arabia’s capital city today is hardly safer than Kyiv. Yet Zelensky’s very presence in the region underscored an unprecedented level of mutual interest. Crucially, Likhachov argues, that interest is no longer one-sided—it has become genuinely reciprocal.

“I really liked the words Volodymyr Zelensky pronounced about Ukraine becoming a donor of security,” Likhachov emphasizes. “It fundamentally overturns the stereotype that has taken shape over the past four years—of Ukraine as merely a recipient, a country others support when they can, but one they are gradually growing tired of. What has become clear instead is that Ukraine has accumulated unique experience, expertise, and technologies and is now effectively producing what other countries critically need—capabilities no one else can offer. This inevitably reshapes perceptions of Ukraine’s role in international politics, security, and the global economy.”

Political scientist Ihor Petrenko likewise interprets these visits not as a tactical diplomatic maneuver, but as evidence of a deeper structural shift in Ukraine’s status. In his view, Ukraine is undergoing a transformation that in some respects mirrors the rise of defense industries in the Middle East in the mid-20th century—albeit adapted to contemporary technological realities.

“What we are witnessing is a change in status. Ukraine is moving from being a country that asks for help to one without which others cannot ensure their own security,” Petrenko states. “Israel once underwent a similar transformation, turning the experience of constant threat into a globally competitive defense industry. The difference is that the Ukrainian model is built on accessibility and scalability rather than exclusivity.”

The expert also cites a telling remark from Ukraine’s tech sector that captures this shift:

“As Yaroslav Honchar of Aerorozvidka said in an interview with NBC News: ‘We were in that position—we were under attack, and we had to beg the world for help. Now it has happened to others.’ There is pragmatism in this, as well as morality—and, to call things by their proper names, a strengthened negotiating position. For the first time in a long while, Ukraine possesses something everyone wants, and that gives it leverage it never had before,” the expert emphasizes.

Following this line of reasoning, one could add: Ukraine has capitalized on a moment when traditional security systems in the Persian Gulf have shown their limitations, offering an alternative grounded not in political guarantees but in the demonstrable effectiveness of counter-drone warfare.

UKRAINE’S STRATEGIC HAND: WHAT KYIV GAINED FROM ITS GULF OUTREACH

In assessing whether the March 27–30 tour can be described as a full-fledged military-diplomatic breakthrough, experts strike a tone of cautious optimism. They stress the importance of distinguishing between political declarations and the institutional follow-through required to translate them into tangible outcomes.

The Arab world operates according to its own distinct logic, where the signing of a memorandum is less a conclusion than an opening move—a formalized invitation to continue negotiations. Against this backdrop, the key question is not the symbolism of agreements, but what concrete “cards”—or indeed “trump cards”—have entered Ukraine’s diplomatic hand.

Diplomat Vadym Tryukhan underscores that the very timing of the visit—amid acute regional turbulence—already makes it an extraordinary development. In his assessment, Volodymyr Zelensky became the first European leader to visit the Gulf monarchies following the outbreak of large-scale hostilities in the region—an initiative that could not have gone unnoticed by local elites.

“Secondly, Zelensky did not return empty-handed. It is important to understand that this visit was preceded by substantial preparatory work: direct presidential-level calls, active engagement by the foreign minister with his counterparts, and the groundwork laid by expert delegations that had already shaped the agenda on the ground. This is precisely what ensured a practical, rather than merely declarative, outcome.

As a result, the president secured framework agreements with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as a memorandum with the United Arab Emirates. Only in Jordan did the visit focus primarily on political dialogue—without formalized documents, but with a clear emphasis on strengthening relations and aligning positions.”

At the same time, Tryukhan cautions against overstating the results:

“It is premature to speak of a breakthrough. This is not even a step—rather a cautious movement in the right direction. One must take into account a fundamental variable: the political culture of the Arab world differs significantly from the European one. Achieving truly substantive outcomes—particularly long-term, systemic contracts—requires more than a single visit or even several signed documents. The key lies in consistent, methodical implementation of the agreements reached.

In effect, the ball is now in the government’s court, particularly its economic bloc, which must translate framework understandings into concrete contracts. For Ukraine to fully capitalize on the current moment and emerge as a genuine ‘game changer,’ it must sustain the pace set by Zelensky and Ukrainian diplomacy since the outset of the escalation around Iran. If that momentum is maintained, it is entirely realistic to expect multi-year, multi-billion-dollar agreements within months.”

Beyond the memorandums on airspace protection, experts point to a more substantive outcome: a marked strengthening of Ukraine’s negotiating position. Diplomat Roman Bezsmertnyi argues that Kyiv has acquired not merely additional opportunities, but fundamental instruments of influence over the evolving architecture of regional security.

“This is a very serious step—and a bid for a role in global politics,” Bezsmertnyi emphasizes. “To use Trump’s language, these are no longer just ‘cards’—they are already trump cards. The key now is to institutionalize this role: to ensure that Ukraine’s position as a country that is first to respond becomes systemic.”

Ukraine has, in effect, gained access to vast financial resources from states that critically need its expertise. This is not simply a transactional exchange of technology for funding; it signals the potential emergence of structural dependence, with the security systems of wealthy Gulf monarchies increasingly tied to Ukraine’s military-engineering capabilities.

“A separate, highly sensitive issue is the potential strengthening of Ukraine’s air defenses—particularly the acquisition of interceptor missiles or other means of countering ballistic threats. For now, as they say, this remains ‘a secret behind seven seals,’” Vadym Tryukhan notes.

At present, it remains unclear whether Zelensky succeeded in persuading Gulf leaders that contributing to Ukraine’s air defense would serve their own strategic interests. Nevertheless, Tryukhan outlines two theoretical pathways for such support:

“The first is the direct transfer of interceptor missiles, assuming these countries possess the necessary stockpiles. However, this scenario appears unlikely given the intensity of hostilities in the region and their own security requirements. The second—and far more realistic—option is financial participation: funding Ukraine’s procurement of the required systems, for instance through international mechanisms such as PURL, or investing in the establishment of joint production facilities.

This includes, in particular, the development of co-produced air defense systems—especially those capable of countering ballistic threats—with the involvement of both Middle Eastern and European partners. The very fact that these discussions are taking place at a high level is already a clear positive for Ukraine.”

Commenting on the notion of new “cards,” Tryukhan argues that Ukraine’s advantages are now evident not only in the Middle East but across Europe:

“If we speak of ‘cards,’ the real question is not the cards themselves, but whether Ukraine possesses tangible advantages. And the answer is unequivocal: it does. This is no longer up for debate—it is well understood in European capitals. A telling signal came recently from Estonia, where it was suggested that it is no longer only Ukraine that requires security guarantees from NATO, but that the Alliance, in a certain sense, also needs guarantees from Ukraine. This may sound paradoxical, but it reflects a deeper shift in Europe’s security architecture. Ukraine’s ‘cards’ are real and concrete: combat experience, adaptability, technological innovation, and the proven capacity to deter one of the largest military threats on the continent.”

WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY: INVESTMENT, ENERGY, DEFENSE INDUSTRY

In assessing the broader implications, experts emphasize that the central challenge lies in converting short-term interest into long-term geopolitical dividends. This applies in the first place to soliciting large-scale investment into Ukraine’s defense-industrial base and strengthening energy resilience.

“The implications of this visit are fairly clear—the only question is how effectively Ukraine can capitalize on them.

First, this concerns long-term security arrangements with regional states. These can form the backbone of a new architecture of cooperation for years to come,” notes Vadym Tryukhan.

The second key dimension is energy:

“After the war, there are realistic prospects for expanding cooperation with the Gulf states in energy supplies—both in terms of increased volumes and more favorable pricing conditions.”

The third pillar is investment:

“We are talking about countries with enormous financial resources and substantial sovereign wealth funds. Even partial attraction of these funds would provide a significant boost to Ukraine’s economy—from infrastructure reconstruction to job creation and the launch of major projects.”

At the same time, experts caution against premature optimism. The signing of framework agreements and memorandums should not be confused with tangible results -- they merely open the door. “The key task now is to walk through it: to convert political agreements into concrete contracts,” the diplomat stresses.

Vyacheslav Likhachov develops this argument further, suggesting that the exchange of competencies and resources is likely to acquire a strategic dimension. Given Saudi Arabia’s strong interest in Ukrainian expertise and technologies, he believes Riyadh is capable of providing resources that could become critical for strengthening Ukraine’s defense capacity. In this configuration, Ukraine acts not as a recipient, but as a provider of security services—offering capabilities that Gulf monarchies are prepared to pay for.

“Right now, the entire world is watching the war in the Persian Gulf and reassessing its military-technical strategies. The fact that we already have this experience and the relevant technologies gives us a head start in this global market,” Likhachov notes.

At the same time, this cooperation extends well beyond purely commercial considerations:

“Of course, this cannot be measured in monetary terms alone. What matters is that Ukraine, despite the negative consequences for its economy and security caused over the past month by the war in the Middle East, has an opportunity to use this window to redefine its status in the international market.”

Roman Bezsmertnyi concurs that countries in the region will increasingly rely on Ukrainian expertise, given the persistence of security threats:

“This is not just about supplying hardware—it is about transferring the mindset and practical experience of modern warfare.”

At the same time, this optimism must be tempered by a clear understanding of underlying risks.

Bezsmertnyi highlights the fundamental divergence in values between democratic Ukraine and the absolute monarchies of the Middle East:

“Differences in political culture will inevitably generate friction over time… Ukraine and the Gulf states can be situational, pragmatic partners, but they are unlikely ever to become allies in the classical sense.”

A further structural risk is the enduring influence of Russia:

“It must be understood: Russia has consistently sought to block Ukrainian engagement in this region. I say this as someone who has been directly involved in such processes,” Bezsmertnyi notes. “Any attempt to build relations in the Middle East or Africa immediately encountered resistance from Moscow… Just as Ukraine cannot be placed on the same pedestal as Russia, there will always be limits in these countries regarding what is acceptable in relations with Ukraine. Wherever the Russian factor is present, risk remains—and it must be factored in.”

THE TRUMP FACTOR: POLITICS, EMOTION, AND AMERICAN ISOLATIONISM

Assessing Kyiv’s growing activity in the Middle East also requires factoring in the reaction of a key external player—Washington, and more specifically, Donald Trump. Ukraine’s increasingly autonomous diplomatic engagement in a region long viewed as a core U.S. sphere of influence has triggered a measure of irritation within the American political establishment.

Why? Experts point to a combination of personal irritation at the Ukrainian leader’s growing geopolitical profile and a broader structural tension between American isolationism and Ukraine’s increasingly proactive foreign policy.

Vadym Tryukhan argues that Kyiv has found an effective way to navigate Donald Trump’s often erratic rhetoric—by adopting a strategy of restrained non-engagement with his most provocative statements.

“Trump has reached a point in Ukraine where the priority is not to react emotionally and not to build expectations,” Tryukhan notes. “And Volodymyr Zelensky is largely succeeding in this. His response to openly dismissive remarks—such as when addressing journalists’ questions about the potential use of Ukrainian interceptor drones in the Middle East—was notably measured and mature. To statements like ‘we don’t need anything from Ukraine’ or ‘Zelensky is the last person I would turn to for help,’ the response was calm: ‘this is rhetoric.’ And that is, in essence, the most accurate characterization.”

The diplomat adds that expectations of constructive action from Trump remain limited—at least until there is a shift in the balance of power in Congress:

“If, after the November elections, he loses control of even one chamber, this would significantly constrain his ability to pursue abrupt and poorly calibrated foreign policy moves—similar to those we have already observed in the context of escalation with Iran.”

As for Washington’s broader reaction to Ukraine’s growing activity in the Middle East, Tryukhan acknowledges that a degree of jealousy is indeed present. At the same time, he stresses:

“Within the U.S. administration, there are many who understand that Ukraine is acting as a constructive player—a rational actor that offers tangible added value to its partners. The fact that the Ukrainian president is being received at the highest level in the Persian Gulf is not coincidental; it is the result of sustained, systematic work.

In this context, the United States effectively faces two options: to engage with Ukraine and retain it as a partner, or to attempt to contain—or even undermine—it. The latter scenario appears unlikely, not only because of U.S. constraints but also due to shifting dynamics within the region itself. Gulf states have grown increasingly disillusioned with the United States as a security guarantor. The war against Iran—launched without a clear strategy or defined endgame—has only reinforced these doubts.

As a result, regional actors are actively seeking alternative security models—more flexible, more diversified, and less dependent on a single external power.”

Roman Bezsmertnyi also highlights the disruptive role of the American factor in this context. According to the analyst, following Trump’s tense reaction to the visits of the Ukrainian delegation, traditional Russian resistance in the region has been compounded by a degree of American pushback. Yet this has not halted the advance of Ukrainian interests:

“The objective need of Arab countries to ensure their own survival outweighs any political irritation coming from across the ocean.”

CONCLUSION

Ukraine’s diplomatic push into the Middle East has, in effect, exposed a deeper erosion of American hegemony in the region. Gulf states, increasingly disillusioned by the inconsistency of U.S. policy and the absence of reliable security guarantees, are actively searching for alternative partners and models.

In this context, Kyiv’s proposition is difficult to ignore. A country that possesses unique, battlefield-tested capabilities for countering contemporary threats—particularly those associated with Iran—offers not abstract assurances, but practical solutions. For regional actors, this carries more weight than geopolitical sensitivities, including potential friction with Washington.

As Vadym Tryukhan notes, the near-term outlook points to a series of reciprocal visits and an expansion of Ukraine’s engagement to Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. The focus will likely be on launching joint production of high-tech defense systems—an evolution that could ultimately consolidate Ukraine’s position as a global player in the security market.

Myroslav Liskovych. Kyiv

Photos via Office of the President of Ukraine