UK frames Ukraine as geopolitical pawn in Strait of Hormuz tensions amid global energy corridor disputes
Original framing: “Ukraine can play useful role in Strait of Hormuz, Britain says - Reuters” — Reuters (via Google News)
The Strait of Hormuz has been a flashpoint for centuries, from the Portuguese occupation in the 16th century to British colonial control in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran that reshaped regional power dynamics. The Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) saw direct attacks on shipping lanes, while the 2019 tanker seizures by Iran and subsequent Western military deployments further entrenched the strait as a proxy conflict zone. These historical precedents reveal a pattern of external powers treating the region as a chessboard for their strategic interests, often at the expense of local stability.
The UK’s framing of Ukraine as a 'useful role' in the Strait of Hormuz is a microcosm of broader systemic patterns: the instrumentalisation of smaller states in great power games, the securitisation of global commons, and the erasure of marginalised voices in favour of militarised solutions.
Historically, the strait has been a battleground for colonial powers and regional hegemonies, from the Portuguese and British Empires to the proxy conflicts of the Cold War and the post-9/11 era. The current narrative serves to justify NATO’s expansion into the Gulf, mirroring the Soviet-era treatment of Ukraine as a pawn, while ignoring the ecological and cultural costs of militarisation. Indigenous knowledge systems, which view the strait as a living entity, offer a radical alternative to state-centric security, but they are systematically excluded from policy discussions. The solution lies not in integrating Ukraine into a Western-led security architecture, but in dismantling that architecture altogether—replacing it with regional cooperation, energy diversification, and community-led governance that centres the voices of those most affected by the strait’s militarisation.