Great Britain, France, and Germany are ready to cooperate with the US and partners to stop Iran's attacks. They declare their shock at Iran's strikes and their readiness for defensive actions.
Ukraine's role in this war is being defined right now. The decision of Ukrainians to agree to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's request for assistance in countering Iranian drones has not only a military but primarily a political dimension.
International expert, PhD in Political Science Stanislav Zhelikhovsky, in an interview with UNN, explained why Kyiv could not refuse a strategic partner, how this could strengthen Ukraine's position before Trump, whether the situation in the Middle East will affect the negotiation process with Russia, and whether this conflict can be called World War III.
Ukraine strengthens the alliance, not just "returns the favor"
According to the expert, Kyiv's agreement to help London is a logical step given the scale of support Britain has provided to Ukraine since the beginning of the full-scale war.
Zhelikhovsky emphasizes that, in a psychological and political sense, Ukraine could not refuse one of its key partners, who has systematically supported it in the war against Russia.
Psychologically, Ukraine could not refuse, because this is a request from our powerful partner, who has done a lot to enable us to effectively resist the aggression of the Russian Federation. In addition, Ukraine has repeatedly stated that it is ready to share technologies, jointly develop unmanned systems, including interceptor drones. This fits into the logic: you help us now, we help you strengthen your defense capabilities in the context of new challenges.
The expert emphasizes that such cooperation should be mutually beneficial. Ukraine is already demonstrating its readiness to share experience, but expects further support and clear security guarantees.
Ukraine can use this situation to its advantage. By transferring technologies and experience, we should expect concrete decisions from partners – particularly regarding security guarantees in the post-war period. So far, we do not see full clarity from Europe on this issue. But such steps can become an argument for providing Ukraine with effective guarantees, and not just declarations on paper.
He adds that this also concerns Ukraine's deeper integration into Western structures, particularly the European Union, which in itself is a powerful security tool.
Will the Middle East affect negotiations with Moscow?
Assessing the possible impact of the Middle East escalation on the negotiation process between Ukraine and Russia, the expert notes that risks always exist, but the very fact of transferring technologies to the West is unlikely to be a decisive factor.
Risks always exist, but I don't think this particular aspect will significantly affect the negotiations. Ukraine is already openly cooperating with the West in the field of defense technologies. There were agreements with Germany, Poland, and other partners on the joint production of drones. This is not a surprise for Russia.
At the same time, if the conflict in the Middle East drags on, the Kremlin could theoretically try to use the situation as a pretext to withdraw from negotiations. But, according to Zhelikhovsky, this would primarily harm Russia itself.
If Moscow withdraws from negotiations, for example, under the pretext of disagreement with US policy in the Middle East, it will mean the actual collapse of Putin's attempts to emerge from international isolation. He is counting on a certain "window of opportunity" in relations with Washington. Withdrawing from negotiations will mean an almost complete break with the Trump administration and the loss of the achievements that have already been made.
According to him, the Kremlin is trying to balance between deepening cooperation with China, Iran, and North Korea and the desire to improve relations with the West. A sharp demarche would disrupt this strategy.
Is the world approaching World War III?
Commenting on the statements of European states about possible participation in the war against Iran, Zhelikhovsky emphasized that the world is already in a state of global confrontation.
Russia's war against Ukraine already has signs of a global conflict. On Russia's side are North Korea, Iran, China, Belarus. On Ukraine's side are dozens of states that support us politically, financially, and militarily. The consequences of this conflict are felt all over the world - from food security to energy.
In his opinion, the events in the Middle East are part of a broader confrontation between the conditional "free world" and states that oppose it.
If these conflicts are combined, one can speak of an element of global war - a confrontation between the collective West and the so-called "axis of evil." Now the international system has reached a peak of tension, and it is actually being decided what the architecture of world security will be.
He also suggests that a direct Iranian strike on NATO territory would be a turning point and could lead to the formation of a full-fledged international coalition against Tehran.
If Iran launched a missile strike on a NATO country, it would be grounds for invoking the articles of the Washington Treaty. In such a case, a broad anti-Iranian coalition could be formed. And then the Iranian regime would hardly withstand such pressure.
In conclusion, according to Stanislav Zhelikhovsky, Ukraine's decision to help partners counter Iranian drones is not only a gesture of solidarity but also an element of a large geopolitical game. Kyiv demonstrates that it is not only a recipient of security assistance but also a supplier of unique combat experience and technologies.
At the same time, such cooperation should translate into concrete political results - strengthening integration with the West, clear security guarantees, and maintaining international support for Ukraine both during the war and after its end.
Also, according to Stanislav Zhelikhovsky, Moscow is unlikely to withdraw from the negotiation process, even if the escalation in the Middle East continues. For the Kremlin, this would mean the actual disruption of attempts to emerge from international isolation and the breakdown of established contacts with Washington. Most likely, Russia will continue to feign interest in dialogue, trying to maintain maneuver for its foreign policy game.
The expert also notes that the global confrontation has actually been ongoing since 2022. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine became the point of open confrontation between the collective West and the countries that support Moscow. The events in the Middle East are not a separate conflict, but an element of a broader systemic struggle. And in this architecture, Ukraine is no longer just an object of assistance, but a full-fledged participant in the formation of a new security reality.