What is at stake is not who pockets the immediate gains from higher energy prices, but which country secures lasting strategic advantage: Russia’s short-term windfall from the Iran war, or Ukraine’s longer-term diplomatic and military gains.
Immediate prize: Russia’s short-term energy windfall
When the US and Israel began military operations against Iran on Feb. 28, Russia was quickly identified as a chief beneficiary of the chaos that ensued. The article reports that the Trump administration’s lifting of U.S. sanctions on Russian oil, combined with a surge in global energy prices, has helped Moscow with its budget deficit and provided a boost to its defense spending.
Those gains, however, are described as temporary. The author notes that a cessation of hostilities would likely return oil prices to levels “unfavorable to Moscow’s undiversified economy.” The piece also points to continuing frictions that constrain Russia’s oil sales: the EU’s commitment to maintain sanctions, the threat to Russian tankers from Ukrainian attacks and European seizure, and deliberate Ukrainian strikes on refineries and energy-related sites that harm Moscow’s capacity to sell hydrocarbons.
Geopolitical backlash: Gulf states and Russia’s Iran alignment
The article argues Moscow’s visible support for Iran—ranging from providing targeting data and drones to public pronouncements of solidarity—has likely harmed the Kremlin’s relationships with Gulf monarchies. Those states, the author says, view Moscow’s assistance to Tehran as aligning it with an “Axis of Upheaval” that threatens the regional stability and prosperity the Gulf has sought to cultivate.
That damage compounds perceptions formed earlier: the Gulf monarchies previously read Russia’s inability to sustain the Assad regime or to prevent the capture of Nicolas Maduro as signs of limited influence. By contrast, aiding Tehran now allegedly demonstrates Russia’s long-term commitment to instability—an outcome Gulf capitals are unlikely to welcome.
Kyiv’s diplomatic harvest in the Middle East
Ukraine has, according to the piece, turned a regional crisis into opportunity. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s trip to the Middle East in March produced defense agreements with the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Those deals are described as “decade-long agreements” in which Kyiv exchanges wartime know‑how for energy shipments, financial aid, and missile interceptors.
Ukraine is also pursuing three similar deals with Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait. The author frames these pacts as durable, long‑lasting agreements that will deepen political, military, and economic ties with resource-rich partners who can support both Ukraine’s current defense and its postwar reconstruction.
Ukraine’s domestic defense innovation: Fire Point and the Drone Age
The article highlights Kyiv’s growing domestic defense ecosystem as central to its longer-term advantage. It points to advances in air defense development, including work by Fire Point—the Ukrainian company responsible for the Flamingo cruise missile—which is collaborating with European firms to create a low-cost air defense system by 2027.
Those programs are presented as part of a broader transition into a “Drone Age” of decentralized, low-cost aerial threats, where Ukraine is carving out a role as “the vanguard of armed resistance.” The piece also notes that concerns about the Iran conflict preventing transfer of American interceptors to Ukraine create near-term risks, but that domestic alternatives and European partnerships are already emerging.
How Washington, Brussels, and the Gulf monarchies can align with Kyiv
- Washington and European capitals: The author argues it is in the national security interests of both Washington and Europe to encourage regional powers to tie up with Ukraine, citing U.S. military bases in the region and the Strait of Hormuz’s importance to Europe’s energy security and the global economy.
- Gulf monarchies: The piece suggests these states can be incentivized to treat Ukraine as a “trusted and capable partner,” including through potential multilateral arrangements that tie security assistance from Kyiv to strategic investments and coordinated pressure on Moscow from countries affected by Iran’s attacks.
- Kyiv and its traditional supporters: The author recommends using diplomatic heft to help Ukraine negotiate balanced agreements more quickly, leveraging the U.S. and European experience in navigating the Middle East’s complex political systems and incentive structures.
The article concludes with a clear judgment: despite short-term financial relief for Moscow, Russia will ultimately be the loser of the Iran war because its long-term calculus—betting on global divisions and instability—erodes its standing with potential partners. By contrast, Kyiv has seized the moment to expand symbiotic partnerships, deepen defense-industrial capabilities, and secure resources that could outlast the temporary payouts to Moscow. The final prescription is pointed: Europe and the U.S. should support Kyiv’s outreach to regional powers to secure those durable gains.
