Analysis of: ‘Massive’ Russian strikes on Ukraine hit negotiation table as well as people, Kyiv says – Europe live
The Guardian | January 24, 2026
TL;DR
Russia bombs Ukrainian cities during US-brokered peace talks, exposing how imperial powers use negotiation as theater while pursuing military objectives. The real stakes: energy infrastructure, territorial control, and Europe's growing subordination to competing great powers.
The Abu Dhabi peace talks represent not a genuine attempt at conflict resolution but a reconfiguration of imperial spheres of influence, with the United States positioning itself as arbiter between Russian territorial ambitions and Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia's simultaneous military strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure during negotiations reveals the fundamentally coercive nature of these discussions—Moscow negotiates while demonstrating its capacity to inflict material suffering on 800,000 Kyiv residents left without power in -10°C temperatures. The material stakes extend far beyond Ukraine's borders. Germany's debate over repatriating €164 billion in gold from US vaults signals a crisis of confidence in transatlantic relations, while the EU-India trade negotiations represent attempts by secondary powers to hedge against both American unpredictability and Chinese competition. Trump's involvement of real estate developer Jared Kushner and businessman Steve Witkoff in Kremlin discussions underscores how US foreign policy increasingly serves capital accumulation strategies rather than traditional diplomatic objectives. The working class bears the concrete costs of this imperial maneuvering: Ukrainian civilians die under bombardment, energy workers labor to restore infrastructure repeatedly destroyed, and European workers face the economic consequences of prolonged instability. Denmark's outrage at Trump's dismissal of NATO allies' sacrifices in Afghanistan reveals fracturing within the Western alliance, while the Greenland crisis demonstrates how territorial expansion remains central to great power politics. These developments mark a deepening of inter-imperial rivalry characteristic of capitalism's current crisis phase, where declining hegemony generates increasingly aggressive competition for resources, markets, and strategic positioning.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Ukrainian working class (bearing casualties, power outages, displacement), Russian military apparatus (executing strikes on civilian infrastructure), US capitalist class (represented by Kushner, Witkoff in negotiations), European ruling classes (navigating between US and Russian pressure), Energy sector workers (maintaining and repairing infrastructure under attack), Ukrainian state officials (Zelenskyy, Sybiha representing national capital), Russian oligarchic class (benefiting from war economy), Military-industrial complexes (US, Russia, Europe), Indian and EU industrial bourgeoisie (pursuing trade agreements)
Beneficiaries: US capital gaining leverage as 'peace broker' while maintaining arms sales, Russian state consolidating territorial gains during 'negotiations', Energy companies profiting from infrastructure destruction and reconstruction, Arms manufacturers across all involved nations, Financial capital benefiting from instability-driven gold price increases
Harmed Parties: Ukrainian civilians (1 dead, 23 wounded in single night, 800,000 without power), Ukrainian and Russian soldiers (expendable in territorial disputes), European workers facing energy price volatility and economic instability, Danish veterans dismissed by Trump's rhetoric, Global working class paying through inflation and military spending
The trilateral talks formalize a hierarchy where the US claims arbiter status, Russia exercises military leverage, and Ukraine negotiates from weakness despite nominal sovereignty. European powers are notably absent from direct negotiations, relegated to managing consequences. The involvement of Trump's personal business associates rather than diplomatic professionals signals the privatization of foreign policy, where state power serves particular capital interests rather than any coherent national strategy.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Control of Ukrainian energy infrastructure as strategic objective, European energy dependence creating political leverage, €164 billion German gold reserves as symbol of financial subordination, EU-India trade deal as hedge against US-China competition, War economy benefiting military-industrial production, Destruction and reconstruction cycles generating profit opportunities, Grain and agricultural export routes through Black Sea
The conflict centers on control over productive infrastructure—energy facilities, agricultural land, industrial capacity in eastern Ukraine. Russia's systematic targeting of power generation reveals war as competition for control of the means of production and social reproduction. The involvement of real estate and business figures in US diplomacy demonstrates capital's direct role in state negotiations. Workers perform the dangerous labor of maintaining and repairing infrastructure while having no voice in the political decisions determining their fate.
Resources at Stake: Ukrainian energy generation and distribution infrastructure, Eastern Ukrainian industrial capacity (Donbas), Black Sea access and grain export routes, European energy markets, German gold reserves in US custody, Strategic minerals and rare earth deposits, Natural gas transit pipelines
Historical Context
Precedents: 19th century Great Power diplomacy carving spheres of influence, Post-WWI territorial settlements creating subsequent conflicts, Cold War proxy conflicts with civilian populations as pawns, NATO expansion and post-Soviet territorial reorganization, US 'peace broker' role historically favoring strategic interests (Israel-Palestine, Korea)
This conflict exemplifies capitalism's tendency toward inter-imperial rivalry during periods of hegemonic decline. The US attempt to maintain global dominance while managing relative economic decline mirrors British imperial decline in the early 20th century. Russia's territorial aggression and the EU's scramble for alternative economic partnerships (India deal) parallel the pre-WWI period of intensifying great power competition. Trump's Greenland ambitions and dismissal of NATO allies suggest the US may be transitioning from multilateral hegemony to unilateral imperial assertion, destabilizing the post-WWII order.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction lies between capital's need for stable conditions of accumulation and inter-imperial rivalry's tendency to destroy productive forces. The US simultaneously brokers peace while maintaining conditions for continued conflict; Russia negotiates while bombing—both require prolonged instability to maintain leverage while needing eventual stability for economic extraction.
Secondary: Ukraine's dependence on Western support contradicts Western powers' willingness to sacrifice Ukrainian interests for broader deals with Russia, European desire for strategic autonomy contradicts material dependence on US security guarantees and financial systems, Trump's 'peace' rhetoric contradicts his dismissal of allied sacrifices and territorial ambitions (Greenland), Germany's economic power contradicts its political-military subordination evidenced by gold storage in US vaults, Russia's military gains contradict its economic isolation and long-term productive capacity
Short-term resolution likely involves territorial concessions that reward Russian aggression while the US claims credit for 'peace.' This unstable settlement would intensify European-US tensions and accelerate EU pursuit of alternative partnerships (India, potentially China). Long-term, these contradictions point toward either: (1) consolidated multipolar blocs with intensified inter-imperial competition, or (2) systemic crisis forcing more fundamental reorganization. The working class path—genuine peace through solidarity across borders—remains suppressed but could emerge through anti-war movements and labor internationalism.
Global Interconnections
The Ukraine conflict cannot be understood apart from global capitalist dynamics. European gold reserves in US vaults, EU-India trade negotiations, and Greenland territorial disputes all form parts of a single system of imperial competition for resources, markets, and strategic positioning. The timing of Russia's strikes during negotiations demonstrates how military force and diplomacy function as complementary tools of great power competition rather than alternatives. This moment reflects broader shifts in the global order: US hegemonic decline generates unpredictable policy (Trump's erratic diplomacy), rising powers (China, India) create new alignments, and secondary powers (EU, Russia) maneuver for advantage. Energy remains central—Russia weaponizes it against Ukraine and Europe while the US leverages its position as 'broker.' The working class across all nations pays through casualties, displacement, inflation, and the opportunity cost of resources devoted to destruction rather than human needs.
Conclusion
The Abu Dhabi talks reveal 'peace' under capitalism as the reorganization of exploitation rather than its elimination. Any settlement will reflect the balance of imperial forces rather than justice for those who suffer the war's consequences. For the working class, the lesson is clear: neither Washington, Moscow, nor Brussels acts in workers' interests. Genuine peace requires international solidarity that transcends the national frameworks through which capital organizes competition. The fracturing of NATO, European uncertainty, and US imperial overreach create openings for anti-war movements and labor internationalism—but these possibilities require conscious organization against the logic of inter-imperial rivalry itself.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how capitalism's development into monopoly and finance capital generates inter-imperial rivalry directly illuminates the competition between US, Russian, and European powers visible in these negotiations.
- The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' helps explain how the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure creates opportunities for capital through reconstruction, while territorial conquest represents primitive accumulation in the 21st century.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's documentation of how crises are exploited to impose favorable conditions for capital illuminates how both the war itself and eventual 'peace' will be leveraged for privatization and market opening in Ukraine.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the state as instrument of class rule helps explain why negotiations between capitalist states cannot produce genuine peace—only temporary arrangements reflecting current power balances.