Ukraine’s evolving international partnerships examined in collection of essays

A collection of essays by five international experts reflects on how Ukraine’s relationships with countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East have evolved since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

CMI has published five short essays by journalists, academics and specialists in international relations and diplomacy that consider how external perceptions of Ukraine have shifted over the past four years. The authors trace some of Ukraine’s regional engagement strategies, and present opportunities and challenges for cooperation in the future.

The collection is a byproduct of CMI’s work in supporting relationships and mutual understanding between Ukrainian actors and international counterparts. According to Edward Marques, Head of CMI’s Eurasia Programme, the contributions “reflect the diversity of perspectives that now shape international discussions about Ukraine and, more broadly, about the future of international order.”

The reflections come from Ukrainian journalist Nataliya Gumenyuk, founder and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab; Gilbert M. Khadiagala, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa; Yasar Al-Qatarneh, a specialist in conflict diplomacy and dialogue processes in the Middle East and Horn of Africa; Swasti Rao, an Indian geopolitics and defence expert; and Horacio Saavedra, a former Mexican diplomat.

Understanding different national interests

One of the themes in the reflections is how Ukraine can develop relationships with countries that have different interests and interpretations of the war.

Nataliya Gumenyuk argues that Ukraine has become more pragmatic in its international engagement since 2022. Initially focused on persuading other countries to recognise the suffering caused by Russia’s invasion, she says Kyiv has increasingly recognised the need to understand individual countries’ domestic politics, interests and priorities.

She also highlights the importance of civil society, independent media and people-to-people contacts in building lasting partnerships. These channels have sometimes proven more effective than official diplomatic engagement, in her view, particularly in countries where governments have been reluctant to support Ukraine’s position.

In Horacio Saavedra’s examination of Latin America, he describes how perceptions of Ukraine vary across the region, shaped by different political traditions, historical experiences and national interests.

Saavedra says that scarce information about Ukraine has been a major obstacle to engagement. In Mexico, he says, it has been more effective to explain the war’s economic and geopolitical implications for particular audiences rather than providing information about developments in the conflict.

The distinction matters, he says. For businesses in northern Mexico the consequences of the war for energy, fertilisers and food security are a more immediate reason to engage with Ukraine than broader geopolitical arguments.

Saavedra also observes that engagement on Ukraine is increasingly extending beyond Mexico’s federal government to local authorities, businesses, universities and civil society. These actors are helping to reshape discussions about Ukraine, he says, and that means creating opportunities for practical cooperation.

In Gilbert Khadiagala’s analysis from South Africa, he observes a gradual shift towards closer cooperation with Ukraine despite its longstanding ties with Moscow and its initial reluctance to condemn Russia’s invasion.

Several developments illustrate this change, he says. In February 2025, South Africa voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution reaffirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity, departing from its earlier voting record. President Zelenskyy’s visit to Pretoria followed in April 2025, while South Africa subsequently supported a UN resolution calling for the return of Ukrainian children from Russia.

Khadiagala argues that Ukraine and South Africa have focused on finding common interests while managing their differences. Beyond diplomatic engagement, he identifies opportunities for cooperation in trade, energy and defence technology. These developments, he suggests, could contribute to South Africa recalibrating its relations with Russia in the long term.

Building cooperation despite political differences

Writing on the Arab Gulf states, Yasar Al-Qatarneh argues that Ukraine’s relationships in the region have been driven by practical cooperation rather than political alignment. Saudi Arabia has played a role in diplomatic mediation, he notes, with the United Arab Emirates influential in prisoner exchanges and economic cooperation, and Qatar in efforts to reunite Ukrainian children with their families.

These initiatives have come about, he says, despite all three countries maintaining relations with Russia. This is a key point, says Al-Qatarneh, noting that the Arab Gulf states’ ability to communicate with both sides has been an important pillar in the success of their mediation and humanitarian efforts.

He also says there is longer term significance in these developments. Repeated cooperation on specific issues can establish channels of communication, institutional relationships and opportunities for more durable partnerships, he argues, even when broader political differences remain unresolved.

Swasti Rao, in her assessment from India, argues that India’s longstanding relationship with Moscow remains important, but it is changing. While India’s dependence on Russian defence imports has declined, its purchases of Russian oil have increased significantly, she points out.

These factors help explain why India has maintained its relationship with Russia, despite the invasion. Rao argues that expecting New Delhi to abandon Moscow overlooks the various interests underpinning that relationship.

Pointing to Ukraine’s military innovation – particularly in drone warfare, and its existing role in supplying technology for Indian naval vessels – Rao says that these are opportunities for cooperation that do not depend on India changing its wider geopolitical position.

Rao’s argument echoes Al-Qatarneh’s assessment; that practical cooperation can develop without agreement on every aspect of the war.

Ukraine’s growing role as a security partner

This is something also highlighted by Gumenyuk, who argues that Ukraine’s growing military and technological capabilities are transforming how other countries perceive it. Rather than being seen primarily as a recipient of international assistance, Ukraine is increasingly able to offer security expertise and technology developed through its experience of the war, she says.

Rao says that India can benefit from these capabilities, while Khadiagala notes that South Africa too has an interest in acquiring Ukrainian defence technologies, including drones. It was one of the areas explored during Zelenskyy’s 2025 visit, he writes.

Ukraine’s international relationships are increasingly shaped not only by diplomatic and material support, but also by the expertise, technology and opportunities for cooperation it can offer other countries.

Taken together, the essays describe an international landscape in which Ukraine’s relationships are developing in different ways and at different speeds. Some countries have moved closer to Kyiv diplomatically; others have maintained their existing geopolitical positions while developing cooperation on specific issues.

Established political relationships, domestic priorities and differing interpretations of the war continue to shape what is possible, with progress in one area not a guarantor of agreement in another.

As Edward Marques writes in his introduction, this collection of essays is situated within a changing landscape. “States are no longer merely choosing sides; they are increasingly seeking to shape the rules, institutions, and relationships that will define the next phase of international politics.”