By Nina Bachkatov
On March 21, President Volodymyr Zelensky said talks between Ukrainian and American negotiators would continue for a second day, underlining the urgency of the moment. Timing has become critical. A trilateral meeting aimed at ending the war, scheduled to take place in Abu Dhabi on February 28, has been postponed indefinitely for obvious reasons. Zelensky went further, stating that he was “requiring” from Washington a “clear” timetable for the next round of negotiations with Russia.
What he described as a “political delegation” has been tasked with persuading its interlocutors, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, that Ukraine seeks peace—unlike Russia—and that it is therefore incumbent on the US to sustain diplomatic efforts.
The outbreak of Israeli strikes on Iran has heightened concerns in Kyiv that Ukraine risks slipping from the centre of international attention. This helps explain the swift trip to Miami, reflecting his main objective – to keep Donald Trump engaged. The US president alone could, for instance, ease sanctions on Russia, beginning with secondary measures. He remains pivotal to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations and to decisions on arms production for Kyiv, even if financed by European allies.
At the same time, Zelensky fears that some European partners—under pressure from voters and industries hit by high energy costs—might eventually return to Russian energy markets. Officially, this remains out of the question. On May 16, EU energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen insisted the bloc would not re-import a “single microgram” of Russian energy. Following Iranian strikes on Qatari gas infrastructure, however, he urged member states to refill storage to 80 or even 75 per cent of capacity, rather than the 90 per cent previously mandated, “in order to reassure markets”.
Zelensky’s cards
Contrary to Trump’s oft-repeated claim, President Zelensky does retain some leverage. Militarily, the winter has been costly, but the anticipated Russian offensive failed to materialise. Domestically, this has offered him a degree of respite from critics. Internationally, he has sought to “Ukrainise” the Middle East conflict, applying the same logic used to frame Russia’s invasion as a pan-European security issue. In this narrative, Iran and Russia represent a shared threat to their neighbours and to the wider liberal order. Russia, after all, has tested Iranian-made Shahed drones on Ukrainian territory.
Zelensky has also tried to position Ukraine as an active contributor to global security rather than merely a recipient of support. Kyiv has promoted its expertise in drone warfare, claiming that 11 countries—including the US, European states and Gulf monarchies—have requested assistance with interceptor drone technology days before those countries made it public. Reports later indicated that Ukrainian specialists had been deployed to several Arab producer states and to Jordan. Not for the first time, he has floated the idea of industrial partnerships, proposing that Ukraine could supply technical expertise and personnel in exchange for deliveries of Patriot or other air defence systems urgently needed to protect its cities.
Yet such ambitions face practical constraints. Replicating Ukraine’s battlefield experience across vast desert regions would take time and adaptation. Questions also arise over the prudence of offering assistance abroad while still reliant on external support at home. Rapid technological evolution in drone warfare further complicates large-scale production.
Even Ukrainian military experts acknowledge that the country’s industrial and financial capacity is more limited than presidential rhetoric suggests. While Ukraine’s defence sector could secure additional contracts for interceptor drones, much of its production capacity remains in the hands of start-ups backed by foreign capital, implying shared control over profits and intellectual property.
Diplomatic limits
Zelensky has often been granted latitude by European allies for his forthright rhetoric. That tolerance may be tested, for instance when he directly contradicted Trump’s assertion that Kyiv was not assisting US drone defence efforts in the Middle East. In an interview with Fox News, Trump dismissed such claims as “rhetoric, just rhetoric”.
Zelensky then moved quickly to express unequivocal support for Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This stance is consistent with Ukraine’s positioning: Iran is both an ally of Russia and an adversary of the West. However, even Western partners have expressed unease at Israel’s widening military operations, particularly in Lebanon. They are also mindful of the broader geopolitical consequences, including reactions across Muslim communities worldwide and the economic impact of disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz, which disproportionately affect poorer and emerging economies.
Russia’s positioning
For its part, Moscow is equally keen to maintain Trump’s engagement. President Putin has described Israeli strikes on Iran as “inappropriate” and the attack on Natanz as “irresponsible”. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov characterised the trilateral talks as being on a “situational pause” due to the conflict with Iran.
Following attacks on energy infrastructure in Arab producer states, Russia accused Kyiv of attempting to sabotage the Blue Stream and TurkStream pipelines—key routes delivering Russian gas to Turkey and south-eastern Europe while bypassing Ukraine. The allegation implicitly casts Ukraine as a contributor to global energy instability.
Meanwhile, Russian media have amplified narratives portraying Zelensky’s diplomatic activism as evidence that the war in Ukraine is a regional issue, in contrast to the global significance of the Middle East conflict. Commentaries highlighting European frustration—such as a Daily Telegraph article describing Zelensky’s recent European tour as a “don’t forget about me” exercise which reflect panic in Ukraine —have been widely circulated.