“Vladimir Putin has not achieved his goals,” said a defiant Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a televised address marking the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The February 2022 invasion was meant to be a “short and successful military operation” that would “force Kyiv back into Moscow’s orbit” and “overturn the entire post-Cold War security architecture in Europe”, said the BBC’s Russia editor, Steve Rosenberg. “It didn’t go to plan”, leaving Russia with an ever-mounting cost.

What did the commentators say?

As the conflict enters its fifth year, Russian victory seems as far away as ever and it has little to show for its estimated 1.2 million casualties, according to Seth G. Jones and Riley McCabe at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. The average pace of Russia’s progress has sometimes been as little as 15 metres per day, “slower than almost any major offensive campaign in any war in the last century”.

Russia’s economy is finally starting to teeter. It faces a huge shortfall in oil revenues and has been forced to sell gold reserves to cover its budget deficit.

The West has always believed that domestic discontent as a result of the ongoing sanctions would “persuade Putin to abandon the war”, said Peter Rutland and Elizaveta Gaufman on The Conversation. This, in turn, was “based on the assumption that the legitimacy of Putinism rests on a social contract” that offers Russians stability and income in exchange for loyalty.

But this approach “tends to downplay the role of ideology”, which has been successfully exploited by the Kremlin to spin the war as an existential threat and maintain support for the president, according to data from Statista.

This narrative has also been deployed externally, towards Russia’s opponents. The idea emanating from the Kremlin that Ukraine’s front line faces “imminent collapse” is “an effort to coerce the West and Ukraine into capitulating to Russian demands that Russia cannot secure itself militarily”, said the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. This is a “false narrative”.

The West should “stop buying into Moscow’s bluff that Russia is invincible” and “use the Kremlin’s weaknesses and double down on its support for Ukraine to bring about real negotiations to end the war”, said Jana Kobzova and Leo Litra for the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“The notion that ‘time is on the Russian side’ betrays a lack of strategic patience and, even more importantly, squandered opportunities to exploit Moscow’s growing structural vulnerabilities.”

What next?

“Standard economic theory suggests that deteriorating conditions should push the Kremlin towards negotiations on ending the war,” said The Economist. “A rational actor facing mounting costs seeks an exit.”

Yet there is little sign that Putin has any intention of yielding on his push for the “capitulation” of Ukraine, Russian political scientist Tatiana Stanovaya told The I Paper. If no peace deal can be struck, the war could even “escalate further”, with the possible involvement of China a “growing factor”, as well as fears of a “new nuclear race”, said The i Paper.

Russia can “probably continue waging war for the foreseeable future”, said The Economist, but every additional year “raises systemic risk: of fiscal crisis, of institutional breakdown, of damage so severe that no post-war policy can repair it”.

So the question for Western allies is “what kind of Russia will emerge” when its appetite for war finally fades, “and whether anyone has a plan for what comes next”.

What happened

The U.S. and Ukraine said Sunday that a round of “highly productive” negotiations in Geneva had resulted in an “updated and refined peace framework,” following days of confusion and pushback against a Russia-friendly 28-point plan the Trump administration presented to Kyiv last week. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who led the U.S. delegation, said the two sides made “substantial progress” and he felt “very optimistic that we can get something done.”

Who said what

The U.S. and Kyiv agreed in a joint statement that a final peace deal “must fully uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and deliver a sustainable and just peace.” But neither side explained how the revised plan differed from the original, which required Ukraine to cede unconquered land, cap its army and arsenal, and other measures long rejected by Kyiv as tantamount to capitulation.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Saturday that the initial 28-point proposal was “not my final offer,” but if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not accept it by a Thursday deadline, “then he can continue to fight his little heart out.” Trump said on social media Sunday morning that “UKRAINE ‘LEADERSHIP’ HAS EXPRESSED ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS.” Rubio also downplayed Trump’s Thanksgiving deadline.

Adding to the uncertainty, “there seemed to be continued confusion about the original proposal,” The New York Times said. A bipartisan group of senators said Rubio had told them Saturday that it was a Kremlin “wish list” that the U.S. was just passing along. But the State Department said that was “blatantly false,” and Rubio wrote on social media that it was “authored by the U.S.” It was “absolute chaos,” a U.S. official told The Washington Post, “because even different parts of the White House don’t know what’s going on. It’s embarrassing.”

What next?

The U.S.-Ukrainian statement said the two sides would “continue intensive work on joint proposals in the coming days.” When that work is done, “obviously the Russians get a vote here,” Rubio said, before flying back to Washington, D.C., on Sunday. Kremlin officials “have been rejecting” the original 28-point plan, the Institute for the Study of War said, suggesting “Russia is unlikely to accept any proposed peace plan that falls short of Ukrainian capitulation.”

What happened

Russia fired more than 800 attack drones and 13 missiles at cities across Ukraine on Saturday night and early Sunday, in Moscow's largest aerial assault since launching its full-scale invasion in 2022. At least four people were killed, including a woman and her infant, and a main government building, in a heavily guarded section of Kyiv, was struck for the first time in the war.

Who said what

Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said the fire-damaged Cabinet of Ministers building would be restored, "but lost lives cannot be returned." President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on social media that "such killings now, when real diplomacy could have already begun long ago, are a deliberate crime and a prolongation of the war." European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the Kremlin was "mocking diplomacy."

French President Emmanuel Macron said last Thursday that 26 countries had agreed to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine after fighting stops. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded on Friday that such European troops would be considered "legitimate targets for destruction."

What next?

President Donald Trump said "yes" last night when asked if he was ready to move to a second phase of sanctioning Russia. That's the "closest he has come to suggesting he is on the verge of ramping up sanctions against Moscow," Reuters said, though "he did not elaborate." The "latest in a series of deadlines Trump has given Putin to show progress toward peace came and went last week," The Wall Street Journal said.

What happened

Russia launched a massive attack on Ukraine Thursday, killing at least 23 people in Kyiv and damaging the European Union's diplomatic office and the nearby British Council office, along with scores of other civilian buildings.

Ukraine said it shot down most of the 598 attack drones and 31 missiles Russia fired across the country over 11 hours starting at about 3 a.m. But among the damage was a five-story residential building reduced to rubble. "As of 11 p.m. rescue efforts were still underway," Reuters said.

Who said what

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the strike, the second-largest since Russia invaded in 2022 and the deadliest since President Donald Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin to jump-start peace talks, showed that Moscow is choosing "ballistics instead of the negotiating table." It was the "clearest signal" since the summit that Putin planned to "eschew Trump's peace efforts" while "also striking a blow to the Western institutions supporting Kyiv," The Wall Street Journal said.

Trump "was not particularly perturbed" by "Putin's overnight bombardment," Politico said. He "was not happy about this move, but he was also not surprised," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, equating Russia's "attack on Kyiv," with Ukraine's recent "blow to Russia's oil refineries."

What next?

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the EU was preparing a 19th sanctions package to force Putin "to the negotiating table," and vowed that European security guarantees would "turn Ukraine into a steel porcupine."

What happened

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Sunday marked his country's 34th Independence Day from Soviet Russia with a speech in Kyiv's central Maidan square, flanked by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg. From Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told NBC's "Meet the Press" that President Vladimir Putin had no plans to meet with Zelenskyy for peace talks pushed by President Donald Trump.

Who said what

"We are building a Ukraine that will have enough strength and power to live in security and peace," Zelenskyy said. "Putin can be stopped," said Carney, announcing that Canada will invest $1.5 billion (2 billion Canadian dollars) in military assistance for Ukraine. "The Russian economy is weakening. He is becoming increasingly isolated, while our alliance is growing stronger."

Norway said Sunday it was working with Germany to provide Ukraine with two more Patriot air defense systems. The Trump administration, meanwhile, "has for months been blocking Ukraine's use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russia," The Wall Street Journal said, "limiting Kyiv from employing a powerful weapon in its fight against Moscow's invasion."

What next?

"Trump thought the red carpet would impress Putin," Mykhailo Samus, the director of a Kyiv think tank, told The New York Times, but "Putin just wants to grab Ukraine and is not interested either in money or in red carpets." Russia had already "made significant concessions," Vice President J.D. Vance told "Meet the Press," including recognizing that Ukraine would have "territorial integrity" after the war and Moscow cannot "install a puppet regime in Kyiv."

What happened

Kyiv Wednesday said it was seeking clarification about the Trump administration's surprise decision to halt shipments of air-defense missiles and other weapons approved for delivery to Ukraine. The Defense Department acknowledged the canceled arms deliveries on Tuesday and said Wednesday the suspension was part of a global review of where the Pentagon is sending its limited supplies of munitions.

A spokesperson "declined to say whether the military had paused the delivery of weapons to other countries," The New York Times said.

Who said what

The move to halt Ukraine weapons shipments was "driven by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby" without any evident consultation with Congress or other parts of the administration, Politico said, and it "blindsided even people who are usually closely briefed on such matters." The withheld munitions include Patriot air defense missiles, "precision-guided GMLRS, Hellfire missiles and Howitzer rounds," The Associated Press said, "some of the most formidable weapons" in Ukraine's arsenal.

The halt comes at a "particularly precarious time for Ukraine," with Russia "pounding the country every few days" with hundreds of drones followed by "powerful ballistic missiles that only Patriot missiles can intercept," the Times said. President Donald Trump "has not approved new military aid packages for Ukraine," and to "compensate," Ukraine has "recently launched joint arms production programs with European allies."

It's "no surprise" that this "conscious decision to deny Kyiv weapons it was counting on before Russia's summer assaults" came from Colby, a Ukraine funding skeptic whose "chief patron" is Vice President J.D. Vance and top "outside cheerleader is Tucker Carlson," The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. Trump "says he wants to end the war to save lives, but denying arms to Ukraine will mean more death and a longer war."

What next?

Cheering the halt, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said "the less weapons are supplied to Ukraine, the closer the end" of the war. Ukraine's Foreign Ministry said "any delay or hesitation in supporting Ukraine's defense capabilities will only encourage the aggressor to continue war and terror, not seek peace."

What happened

President Donald Trump said he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had a "good" 75-minute phone conversation Wednesday, "but not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace." Putin said, "very strongly, that he will have to respond" to Ukraine's weekend drone strikes on Moscow's most prized warplanes deep inside Russia, Trump recounted on social media.

Who said what

Trump's recap of the call did not say "how he reacted to Putin's promise" of retaliation, The Associated Press said, and it "showed none of the frustration" Trump has expressed in recent weeks over Putin's "prolonging of the war." Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov did not mention Putin's retribution vow in Moscow's readout, but said the leaders discussed the drone strike "at some length." In Russia, CNN said, pro-Kremlin pundits and bloggers are "seething with calls for retribution, even nuclear retaliation."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Wednesday night that none of the phone calls with Putin "have brought a reliable peace," and "with every new strike, with every delay of diplomacy, Russia is giving the finger to the entire world." The powerful "share responsibility" with Putin if they don't stop him, he wrote on social media, "and if they want to stop him but cannot, then Putin will no longer see them as powerful."

What next?

U.S. officials assess that Ukraine's explosive drones hit 20 Russian strategic bombers and spy plans and destroyed 10, Reuters said, about "half the number" Zelenskyy claims but still a "highly significant" strike that could "drive Moscow to a far more severe negotiating position in the U.S.-brokered talks."

What happened

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Monday that his government, France, Britain and the U.S. had lifted "any range restrictions for weapons that have been delivered to Ukraine," allowing Kyiv to "defend itself by, for example, attacking military positions in Russia." His comments followed Russia's biggest drone and missile attacks of the war, which prompted President Donald Trump to claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin "has gone absolutely CRAZY!" Russia suggested Trump's criticism stemmed from "emotional overload."

Who said what

"I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin," Trump told reporters Sunday in New Jersey. "I've known him a long time, always gotten along with him, but he's sending rockets into cities and killing people and I don’t like it at all." Putin is "needlessly killing a lot of people" for "no reason whatsoever," he said on social media a few hours later.

When asked by reporters, Trump said he was "absolutely" considering new sanctions on Russia. But he has made empty threats about sanctions before and "expressed shock that the Russian president was unleashing attacks on Ukrainian civilians," while refusing to give Kyiv new weapons or missile defenses, said The New York Times. "The result is a strategic void" in which Trump "complains about Russia's continued killing" but won't make Putin "pay even a modest price."

Trump's decisions on Ukraine are "colored" by his "dislike" for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his belief that Putin "would end the war as a personal favor" to him, The Wall Street Journal said. After Putin "refused" to meet with Zelenskyy in Turkey for peace talks, Trump "claimed that the only way to achieve progress in the war would be by him speaking directly" with Putin, The Washington Post said. "The two men spoke for several hours by phone last week, and Russia has since ramped up its devastating attacks across Ukraine."

What next?

Merz, speaking at a forum organized by public broadcaster WDR, was "tightlipped" on whether his new government would supply Kyiv with Tarsus missiles, which have a range of 310 miles, The Associated Press said. He cited a need for "strategic ambiguity."

What happened

Russian President Vladimir Putin again raised the specter of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, in a state film broadcast Sunday. A day earlier, Kyiv said it shot down two Russian Su-30 fighter jets over the Black Sea using modified U.S.-made missiles fired from Ukrainian sea drones. As Russia intensifies its airstrikes on Ukraine, Kyiv is getting at least one more U.S. Patriot air-defense system, The New York Times said Sunday.

Who said what

One Patriot system is being moved to Ukraine from Israel after refurbishment and "Western allies are discussing the logistics of Germany or Greece giving another one," the Times said. President Donald Trump's "public remarks on the war have softened in favor of Ukraine," but a former White House official said the "Biden administration had secured the agreement with Israel in September."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy late Saturday called Ukrainian intelligence's first-ever downing of a Russian warplane from a marine drone "brilliant" and "a testament to Ukraine's capabilities." The attacks "demonstrate the threat Ukraine poses to Russia" and "seek to challenge Moscow's narrative that its victory in Ukraine is inevitable," The Wall Street Journal said. The Kremlin is "trying to scare Ukrainian people into essentially accepting capitulation, when the realities of the battlefield for Russia are far from Russia actually winning," Kateryna Stepanenko of the Institute for the Study of War told the Times. Last year "was the deadliest for Russian forces" since 2022's full-scale invasion, the BBC said.

What next?

"There has been no need to use [nuclear] weapons ... and I hope they will not be required," Putin said in the Russian state film. "We have enough strength and means to bring what was started in 2022 to a logical conclusion with the outcome Russia requires."

What happened

Russia hit Ukraine with missiles and drones early Tuesday after striking more than half of the country's regions early Monday. The barrage killed at least four civilians on Tuesday and seven on Monday, and attacks on energy and water infrastructure caused outages in Kyiv and elsewhere. Ukrainians sought shelter overnight in basements and subway stations.

Who said what

Ukraine's Air Force said Russia fired 236 cruise and supersonic missiles and attack drones on Monday and Ukraine shot down or disabled 201 of them. Air Force commander Mykola Oleshchuk called it Russia's "most massive aerial attack" in 30 months of war. The previous one-day record was 158 missiles and drones in December, the BBC said.

The attack's "main target" was energy infrastructure, but Moscow also wanted to "strike at Ukraine's reserves of another key resource: morale," the BBC said. Ukrainians have been "electrified" by Kyiv's recent incursion deep into Russian territory, and the Kremlin wanted to show it can "still inflict misery on the Ukrainian population" at will.

What next?

Ukraine's defense minister and a close Zelenskyy adviser will present the Biden administration this week with a list of targets Kyiv wants to strike inside Russia with long-range U.S. weapons, Politico said. To sidestep Western restrictions, The Associated Press said, Ukrainian officials said they have developed a homegrown missile-drone hybrid, the Palianytsia, that can strike deep within Russia, without U.S. approval.

What happened

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his top commander, Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, said that Ukrainian forces now control about 390 square miles of Russian territory, after Kyiv's surprise Aug. 6 attack on the Kursk region. Vladimir Putin demanded that Russian security forces crush Ukraine's cross-border incursion as Kursk's acting governor acknowledged Ukrainian forces have captured 28 settlements. 

Who said what

Invading Kursk was "purely a security issue for Ukraine," Zelenskyy said. "Russia must be forced to make peace if Putin wants to fight so badly." Putin said Ukraine's incursion would fail to "improve its negotiating position in the future" or draw Russian troops from their grinding gains in eastern Ukraine.

"Even as Putin spoke, Russian officials were evacuating civilians from a second region, Belgorod," The Washington Post said, and "Russian military bloggers reported fierce fighting" in Kursk. "This is the first time Russia has had war on its territory since World War II," a Ukrainian soldier said to The Wall Street Journal. "Everybody was afraid of Russia, but we are showing there is nothing to be afraid of."

What next?

Kyiv's "lightning" gains have embarrassed Putin, "shocked Russia and lifted spirits in Ukraine," the Journal said. But the operation's goals remain unclear and Ukraine appears to be pulling troops from its "already threadbare units on the eastern front."

Thousands of Ukrainians are using an app to file compensation claims and access funds to rebuild homes destroyed by the Russian bombardment.

It's the first digital government compensation programme for damaged or destroyed homes ever rolled out in wartime, said Foreign Policy. Since its launch last year, eRecovery has processed more than 83,000 claims by Ukrainians, and paid out more than half of them, simplifying what, in conflict zones, is typically a "tortuous and expensive process that can last decades", wrote Yuliya Panfil, director of New America's Future of Land and Housing programme, and Allison Price, senior adviser with New America's Digital Impact and Governance Initiative. 

The scheme's "potential to transform the way governments get people back into their homes following a war, natural disaster, or other calamity is hard to overstate".

'The digital tiger'

Ukrainians have a "high degree of digital fluency and trust in digital platforms", wrote Panfil and Price, which long predates the Russian invasion. By 2019, the "tech-savvy government" had already developed the backbone of a digital public infrastructure, creating Ukraine's Ministry of Digital Transformation.

The vision, according to the Harvard Social Impact Review, was to build the "most convenient digital state in the world without bureaucracy, absolutely paperless, and without the need to visit government offices". 

Mykhailo Fedorov, then a 29-year-old entrepreneur and founder of a digital marketing start-up, was chosen to lead the ministry and implement President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's vision of "the state in a smartphone". The idea was to digitise government services so that the state would work "with a few clicks" – like Uber, or Airbnb. 

That year, the ministry launched Diia, a platform now used by more than half of Ukrainians for accessing electronic IDs, paying taxes and registering companies. Ukraine became the first country in the world where smartphone passports were legally equivalent to paper documents. 

Fedorov, who is now Ukraine's deputy prime minister for innovation, education, science and technology as well as minister for digital transformation, "tapped the country's thriving tech scene", said Wired, which grew 20% in 2020, powered by a boom in outsourcing from "more expensive countries".

In 2022, within three days of the first Russian missile falling on Kyiv, the ministry had launched a campaign to pressure US tech giants to "cut off Russia", secured access to Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet service, began accepting cryptocurrency donations to support the military, and recruited a volunteer "IT army" to "hack Russian targets". The ministry's projects made it a "linchpin of Ukraine's fight against Russia – and the country's broad support among world leaders and tech CEOs". And at last year's Davos summit, Ukraine was called the "digital tiger". 

Digital infrastructure can 'pay big dividends'

Now, Diia also provides a way to donate to the Ukrainian military, or submit images and videos of Russian troop movements. 

As part of eRecovery, any Ukrainian whose home has been damaged can report it through Diia, file a compensation claim and open a specialised bank account. Claimants can file from anywhere, reducing the risk of setting up a brick-and-mortar centre in a war zone, via a platform they already recognise and trust. 

The digital system also "minimises opportunities for corruption and increases transparency", said Panfil and Price. The speed of processing makes it less likely that an abandoned home would become occupied by someone else.

eRecovery "appears poised to get Ukrainians back into their homes in a matter of months, not decades", reducing the risk of tens of thousands of people freezing to death in makeshift tents during winter. 

But beyond Ukraine, the programme provides a "preliminary blueprint" for other countries who need to help victims of war or natural disasters. It shows that investing in digital infrastructure can "pay big dividends in moments of upheaval", and make governments "more resilient to a range of shocks and changes". 

"It's painful to wonder," said Panfil and Price, how much the US and other developed countries might have benefited from a "trusted digital government platform" in the chaotic months at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

No matter what happens next in its desperate defence against Russia, Ukraine's wartime digital innovations serve as an example of how to "rapidly return displaced people to their homes".

Ukraine is set for a major leadership reshuffle after Volodymyr Zelenskyy hinted he would replace the "extremely popular" head of the armed forces.

"A reset, a new beginning is necessary," the Ukrainian president told Italian national broadcaster Rai TV on Sunday, following reports that he had told the White House he would fire General Valery Zaluzhny, who rejected a request to step down. 

The pair are "locked in a dispute over a new military mobilisation drive", a source told Reuters, with Zelenskyy "opposing Zaluzhny's proposal to call up 500,000 fresh troops" to bolster Ukraine's beleaguered forces. Last Thursday, Zaluzhny claimed in an article for CNN that his government had failed to mobilise enough troops, ahead of the second anniversary of Russia's invasion. 

Zelenskyy told Rai TV that "I have something serious in mind, which is not about a single person but about the direction of the country's leadership", with "a replacement of a series of state leaders, not just in a single sector like the military". 

What did the commentators say?

Before Russia's invasion in February 2022, Zelenskyy "frequently hired and fired top government officials", said Time. But if this reshuffle goes ahead, "it could be the first major personnel shake-up in Ukraine's government since the war started".  

Despite Ukraine's unsuccessful counteroffensive last summer, Zaluzhny, known as the Iron General, "remains Ukraine's most trusted public figure", said The Times. He has an approval rating of more than 90%, according to a poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology – higher than Zelenskyy. 

The poll found that 75% of Ukrainians would disapprove of Zelenskyy firing the "gruff and no-nonsense general who has led the country's armed forces since 2021", said the paper. Replacing him would also be "massively unpopular" with the armed forces and could wound morale on the battered frontlines. 

Ukraine's Western allies are "nervous about the looming shake-up" too, said the FT's Ukraine correspondent Christopher Miller. Any change of command, military or otherwise, would come "at a critical juncture in the war". 

Russia started this year with "unprecedented barrages aimed at overpowering Ukraine's air defences", while Ukrainian forces are rationing weapons. Kyiv is still awaiting a "vital" $60 billion aid package from the US, which has stalled in Congress amid a dispute between the White House and Republicans. And while the EU last week agreed a €50 billion aid package, the bloc is "still quarrelling about military funding".

Military strategist Mick Ryan, a retired Australian army major general, said in a post on his blog that the holdouts in the US Congress "could exploit a change in the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, and any public fallout afterwards, as additional evidence for why they shouldn't support further packages of US assistance for Ukraine". 

Zelenskyy will almost certainly have to dismiss Zaluzhny to "assert his authority", said Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King's College London, in The New Statesman. 

But it could backfire. Although Zaluzhny has denied political ambitions, he is seen as the only credible rival to Zelenskyy when Ukraine finally holds its delayed presidential election. Without a government role, Zaluzhny can "maintain his profile and become a rallying figure for the opposition".

And if Zelenskyy replaces Zaluzhny, everyone will assume that a successor is merely "implementing the president's preferred strategy", said Freedman. So if this year proves even more difficult than the last for Ukraine, "it will be on him".

What next?

The planned reshuffle "may signal Kyiv's desire for a fresh approach to the conflict", said Reuters. Oleksandr Syrsky, commander of land forces, and Kyrylo Budanov, head of the defence ministry's intelligence directorate, are "the two leading candidates to replace Zaluzhny", said Al Jazeera. 

However, Syrsky, 58, is "widely disliked" among Ukraine's soldiers, said the FT's Miller, as they blame him for unnecessary loss of weapons and lives. Budanov, 38, "does not have the experience of Zaluzhny and Syrsky as an army commander", and his "famously brazen tactics" have put Kyiv's allies "on edge".

Crucially, neither can hope to replicate the "rapport" Zaluzhny has built with counterparts in Nato countries, said Freedman. 

But this situation "needs to be resolved soon". In times of war, political leaders must "think about sustaining morale and international support", Freedman added. With each big strategic decision, "many lives and the very survival of the state" are at stake.

The withdrawal of Russian troops from around Ukraine’s capital city this week has fuelled hopes worldwide that a breakthrough in ongoing peace talks could be imminent.

The Kremlin has said that Russia is refocusing its efforts on consolidating control over areas in the east of the neighbouring country. But reports from Kyiv suggest that fighting on the outskirts of the city has not ended entirely.

As speculation about a potential peace agreement continued, US, UK and European intelligence services warned that Vladimir Putin is out of the loop about the reality on the ground, because his advisers are fearful of delivering bad news.

White House spokesperson Kate Bedingfield told reporters that the failure to keep the Russian leader properly informed had created “persistent tension between Putin and his military leadership”.

An unnamed ​​US official told CNN that Putin was not even aware that his forces were “using and losing conscripts in Ukraine, showing a clear breakdown in the flow of accurate information”.

To find out how closely you’ve been paying attention to the latest developments in the news and other global events, put your knowledge to the test with our Quiz of The Week:

Need a reminder of some of the other headlines over the past seven days?

• The Metropolitan Police began handing out fines over lockdown breaches in Downing Street.
• Prince Andrew was embroiled in yet more scandal as the High Court heard that the royal accepted a £1m “gift” from a Turkish “fraudster”.
• Keir Starmer launched Labour’s local elections campaign as the clock ticks down until the May vote.
• A Conservative politician announced his wish to become the country’s first openly transgender MP.
• Laura Kuenssberg announced her new role as host of BBC One’s flagship Sunday morning politics show, ramping up speculation about who will succeed her as the broadcaster’s political editor.
• The Ethiopian government announced a “cessation of hostilities” with Tigrayan rebels, raising hopes that the long-running conflict may be nearing an end.
• And opposition parties in Pakistan announced plans for a vote of no-confidence in prime minister and former cricketing hero Imran Khan.

Want a weekly dose of quirky news stories to make you smile? Sign up for The Week’s Tall Tales newsletter, delivered to your inbox every Wednesday.

The government in Kiev is predicting that up to five million people would be forced to flee Ukraine if the Kremlin gives the order for a Russian invasion.

Poland is preparing to take up to a million “real refugees” from the neighbouring eastern European nation, where 1.5m people have already been “displaced from their homes by fighting in the east of the country”, The Times reported.

Officials in Slovakia and the Czech Republic also “estimate that tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees might arrive if Russia attacked”, the paper added. And Kiev’s ambassador to London has said that the UK and France could also face a “wave of people fleeing conflict” that “could be the equal of the exodus seen in Syria”, according to The Telegraph.

‘Threat of annihilation’

Ukrainian ambassador Vadym Pristaiko told The Telegraph last week that Britain might face a major influx of refugees from his country if Nato failed to step in if war erupted. “I believe if [Western countries] get into their heads that actually today, this nation is under threat of annihilation, to ask for forces on the ground is not the last thing that a nation under such stress could call for,” he said.

“Imagine you start seeing pictures of Ukrainians killed, bodies lying in the road, cities bombed by the Russians looking like Grozny in Chechnya, and millions of immigrants fleeing. I’m not threatening people with this. We will have to face this.

“I don’t want to threaten people, say millions of Ukrainians will come here like Syrians did. But they will.”

Amnesty International has also raised a red flag over the “devastating consequences for the human rights of millions” if Russia gives the order for a troop incursion into Ukrainian territory.

“Another escalation of the armed conflict” would risk “threatening civilian lives, livelihoods and infrastructure; driving acute food shortages; and potentially causing mass displacement”, the human rights organisation warned.

Agnes Callamard, Amnesty’s secretary general, said: “The consequences of actual military force are likely to be devastating. Ukraine’s recent history is punctuated by conflicts involving Russian troops in Donbas and the illegal annexation of Crimea.

“These episodes have torn communities and lives apart, as military forces have trampled on the rights of civilians with impunity. It’s time to break that vicious cycle.”

Poland’s deputy interior minister, Maciej Wasik, told Polish television last week that his country, which shares a 330-mile border with Ukraine, was bracing for “an influx of real refugees, people fleeing from the inferno, from death, from the atrocities of war”.

“As a government, we must be prepared for the worst-case scenario,” he said. “And for some time the Interior Ministry has been taking steps to prepare us for the arrival of even a million people.”

Reluctant hosts

Kiev’s ambassador Pristaiko told The Telegraph that Vladimir Putin’s aggression could trigger a smaller wave of refugees even without a full-blown invasion.

“One of the problems we might face is that Putin will achieve his goal without even stepping across our border,” he warned. “He will be able to achieve his goal by sowing panic in Ukraine. Investors will pull out their month, the economy will stop working.”

Ukraine is also flanked by countries that were “reluctant to accept asylum seekers during the 2015 migration crisis and in the stand-off on the Polish-Belarusian border last autumn”, The Times said.

Poland and Hungary “refused to take in any refugees under a 2015 deal that was supposed to allocate 160,000 people among EU member countries” in order to “take the load off Greece and Italy”, noted Politico in 2017. Warsaw’s then-interior minister Mariusz Blaszczak told reporters in Brussels that “in agreeing to take in refugees, the [previous government] put a ticking bomb under us. We’re defusing that bomb.”

A question mark also hovers over how Minsk would respond to a refugee crisis, since the Kremlin supports the regime of Belarus’ dictator Alexander Lukashenko.

And Hungary’s strongman leader Viktor Orban has repeatedly moved to “defy the EU over immigration law”, the BBC said.

However, countries that have traditionally been hostile to refugees fleeing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa may be more open to accepting what Politico described as “ethnically homogenous” Ukrainians.

Interior minister Wasik has pledged that Poland will not “run away from” its responsibilities should refugees begin flooding in from Ukraine.

“Where there are refugees we must help them,” he said. “This is international law, but also the principles of the co-existence of civilised people.”

Germany has offered financial aid to Ukraine in an apparent bid to calm a diplomatic storm triggered by Berlin’s refusal to provide military assistance to deter Russian aggression.

Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said that “economic stabilisation” was “one of the decisive measures” of support that Germany could provide to the war-threatened former Soviet state. “It is important that we especially keep the economic situation in Ukraine in mind,” she told reporters ahead of a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday.

Baerbock added that “we are very closely on Ukraine’s side in terms of both financial and economic support”, but refused to specify what such aid would entail.

Friends like these

Baerbock’s promise of economic aid came after Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko accused Germany of “betraying its friends” by banning arms exports and supporting the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Europe.

In an article published in German tabloid Bild on Monday, former world heavyweight boxing champion Klitschko wrote: “There is huge disappointment in Ukraine that the federal government is sticking to Nord Stream 2. That it does not want to supply defence weapons and at the same time prevents states like Estonia from supplying us with weapons.

“This is failure to provide assistance and betrayal of friends in a dramatic situation in which our country is threatened by Russian troops from several borders.”

Germany’s relationship with Russia has long been a sticking point for Berlin’s EU allies. Eastern European member states claimed to have been sidelined last summer as Berlin pressed ahead with plans for the controversial Nord Stream project.

President Frank-Walter Steinmeier had also triggered anger months earlier by defended the pipeline project “with the argument that his country owed Moscow a debt of guilt for the atrocities of the Second World War”, The Times reported. Steinmeier told the Rheinische Post that “for us Germans there is another, very different dimension” to the deal, owing to Germany’s “chequered history with Russia”.

Ukraine’s ambassador in Berlin, Andrij Melnyk, said it was “cynical to bring the atrocities of the Nazi reign of terror into play in precisely this debate”.

Officials in Kiev have been angered further by comments by Germany’s most senior navy official last week.

Kay-Achim Schonbach, the inspector of the German Navy, was widely criticised after arguing during a think-tank discussion in India on Friday that the West should show some “respect” to Vladimir Putin, adding that Crimea was “gone” and would “never come back”.

Schonbach resigned the following day and said his comments had been “ill-considered”.

Arms ban

As Russian troops mass on Ukraine’s eastern border, Germany is sticking to its long-standing policy against exporting weapons to conflict zones. Berlin is also considering whether to allow Estonia to send howitzers under a veto that was a condition of their export from Germany.

Criticising this refusal to help arm Ukraine, Kiev Mayor Klitschko accused Germany of allowing “Putin sympathisers” to “seize political control on many issues”.

“The billions that Russia has invested to buy German corporations, ex-politicians and lobbyists have paid off for Vladimir Putin,” Klitschko wrote in his Rheinische Post editorial.

The export ban has fuelled Nato fears that Berlin is “dividing from the US and the UK” on “how to respond to any future Russian act of aggression in Ukraine” and its “assessment of the imminence of the threat”, said The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour.

Major efforts are being made behind closed doors to “minimise” this potential split, he continued. But “they may be impossible to avoid since they reflect not just different short-term assessments on intelligence, but a deep fissure going back decades”.

The UK and US have long “been openly critical of Germany for leaving itself so dependent on Russia for energy, and Berlin’s recent refusal to allow Estonia to send German-manufactured arms to Ukraine”. But in the corridors of the Bundestag, “the idea of Germany providing weapons to be used against Russia for the first time since the Second World War is anathema”.

Eastern front

As Germany drags its feet over support for Ukraine, its allies have “begun to question what price Berlin is prepared to pay to deter Russia, and even its reliability as an ally, as it wavers on tough measures”, The New York Times (NYT) reported.

While Nato forces “bulk up their military commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe”, Berlin “has stood out more for what it will not do than for what it is doing”.

“As Germany struggles to overcome its post-World War II reluctance to lead on security matters in Europe and set aside its instinct to accommodate rather than confront Russia, Europe’s most pivotal country has waffled in the first crucial test for the new government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz,” the paper added.

In an article for The Wall Street Journal, US national security expert Tom Rogan argued that on “the two most consequential security threats to America and to the post-World War II democratic international order” – China and Russia – Berlin is failing in its role as a “credible ally”.

Germany has “abandoned the Nato defence-spending target of 2% of gross domestic product” and “allows Russian chemical-weapons research” used in Moscow’s “assassination campaigns” against high-profile figures including Alexei Navalny to take place “on its soil”, he wrote.

The UK and US still depict the European powerhouse as one of their “most important allies”. But given Germany’s stance on Russian aggression, “it’s hard to see” how that “claim holds up”, Rogan concluded.

Germany increasingly looks like “the West’s weak link in the Russia-Ukraine stand-off”, said NBC News. The “reluctance of Europe’s leading economic power to join the more robust Western posture” has been attributed by many experts to “a mixture of short-term economic goals and the long shadow of its 20th century history”, the broadcaster reported.

“These are the complexities of World War II, and Germany’s dealings in Ukraine and Russia during the Soviet Union times,” said Kiev-based political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko, the head of the Penta Centre think-tank. “Economically and politically, they just don’t want to quarrel with Russia.”

Berlin’s “evident hesitation to take forceful measures” has triggered “concerns that Moscow could use German wavering as a wedge to divide a united European response to any Russian aggression”, said the NYT.

And given that the “wrenching debate over where precisely German loyalties lie is not new”, its Western allies are increasingly losing patience.

Snowy streets, iron grey skies, and an ongoing war with Russia: this may not seem like the best time visit Ukraine. But for travellers passionate about contemporary art and culture, Kiev is one of the most fascinating cities in the world today.

Take, for example, artist Lesia Khomenko. Khomenko has projects on show simultaneously in the two largest arts venues in Kiev. At Pinchuk Art Centre, her solo show includes a cardboard model of the artist’s Soviet-era studio building on the recently renamed Perspektyvna street as well as large-scale paintings of anonymous soldiers mounted in specially made wooden frames.

In Kiev, the very fabric of the city has become an ideological battleground, with developers seizing public space and the government tearing down statues and renaming streets under a policy of decommunisation that aims to erase history. In response, Khomenko ponders whether objects such as buildings or picture frames – or even art itself – can bear the meanings we attribute to them.

An interesting comparison is Khomenko contribution to Revolutionize, a lavishly produced exhibition that situates Ukraine’s recent political events within a broader historical and geographical context. The exhibition, curated by Kateryna Filyuk and Nathanja van Dijk, takes place under the high brick vaulting of the state-funded Mystetskyi Arsenal, a vast former arms warehouse built at the end of the eighteenth century.

Revolutionize speaks directly to local events and feels close to the ground in its detailed approach to the practice of protest. Alongside contributions from dozens of Ukrainian and international artists, Khomenko presents a series of portraits she made of Maidan protestors. But she gave away the original drawings to those she depicted, so only carbon copies are on show: “the art system,” reads the accompanying text, “can only claim a copy of reality”.

Some Kiev artists who were involved in Maidan feel that Revolutionize focuses too much on objects rather than people, images over ideas. I think the curators are aware of this possibility: a key part of the exhibition is The Revolution of Dignity Museum project to conserve artefacts from the Maidan revolution of 2014. As an outsider, I’m especially struck by the fashioning of consumer goods into protective equipment highlighted in a project by James Beckett: the tiny shin guards that one protestor wore to face the government snipers carry a powerful emotional charge.

It is a good sign for Kiev that neither Pinchuk Art Centre nor Mystetskyi Arsenal are shying away from tackling politics head-on (even if both tread carefully as they do so). Despite the country’s well-documented problems, cultural institutions provide a degree of shelter behind which ideas can be discussed.

Pinchuk’s major winter exhibition is Democracy Anew?, which brings together works by art world megastars such as Olafur Eliasson, Damien Hirst, and Takeshi Murakami to comment on the parlous state of democracy today.

Across sculpture, installation, video, painting, and even some extremely delicate biro drawings by Goshka Macuga, the exhibition attempts to deal with feelings of disappointment about the direction that democracy has taken in Ukraine and elsewhere. The inclusion of Zoe Leonard’s famous ‘I Want a President’ poem, recently revisited for the US midterm elections, feels especially provocative in this context: “I want a dyke for president. I want a person with Aids for president,” read the opening lines.

Vital to such exhibitions are the discussions they generate. Democracy Anew? is visually theatrical but can feel emotionally detached. It is the young art students acting as mediators who really bring the exhibition alive. Their passion rubs off on visitors and animated discussions take place throughout the galleries. This is one of the best things about visiting Pinchuk Art Centre: the opportunities that art can provide to discuss complex and important subjects that could otherwise be very difficult to address.

The mediator I speak with most, currently studying for a PhD in philosophy, is especially forthright on the limitations of contemporary art: it makes for hugely refreshing discussions.

At the smaller end of the scale, three very different institutions are doing some of the most important artistic work in Kiev: Visual Culture Research Centre (VCRC), a collaborative curatorial initiative; Soshenko 33, an artist residency space on the outskirts of the city; and Izolyatsia, a gallery, co-working, and residency space. All three have been instrumental not only in providing platforms for contemporary artists in Ukraine but also in facilitating exchanges between Kiev and the international art world.

To visit Izolyatsia, take a short walk from Tarasa Shevchenka Metro station, across overgrown railway tracks, and into an unprepossessing industrial zone on the banks of the river Dnieper. Izolyatsia was located in Donetsk in the east, until Russia’s aggression forced the team to relocate to Kiev and start all over again. Their latest exhibition, We Were Here by Anton Shebetko, highlighted the roles played in the war against Russia by LGBT soldiers in the Ukraine army. By presenting LGBT people in roles that even Ukraine’s far-right must acknowledge as heroic, Shebetko deftly pulled the rug from under the feet of the prejudiced.

And there is more good news for the city’s art scene. Opening this December is The Naked Room, a new space on Reitarska Street which, with its concept stores selling clothing by Ukrainian designers, is rapidly becoming Kiev’s creative hang-out. The gallery has been conceived by Swiss film director Marc Wilkins, who fell in love with Kiev and moved to the city from Berlin in 2017.

With curators Lizaveta German and Maria Lanko overseeing the programming, the gallery will showcase the work of what they describe as “the artists of our generation”. The opening exhibition sets the tone with photographic tales from Ukrainian suburbia by Olena Subach and Viacheslav Poliakov. The Naked Room also plays host to a library and bar-restaurant.

At the state level, things are moving too. 2017-18 saw the launch of two new cultural funding programmes: the Ukrainian Institute, which will represent Ukrainian culture abroad, and the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation, established in order to “facilitate development of culture and arts in Ukraine”. It is early days for both, but the mere fact that they now exist suggests Ukraine’s government increasingly recognises the importance of art and culture.

In the absence of long-term public funding for the arts, Pinchuk Art Centre has been a vital focal point since it was founded in 2006. Spread across six floors, the gallery is funded by Ukrainian billionaire businessman Victor Pinchuk. Under artistic director Björn Geldhof there has been a consistent focus on big-name international artists like Marina Abramović, Anish Kapoor and Ai Weiwei alongside a championing of the artists of Ukraine.

Pinchuk Art Centre’s other big initiatives have been annual prizes for artists under the age of 35: the Future Generation Art Prize for international artists and the Pinchuk Art Prize for artists from Ukraine. Both seek to generate discussion between Ukraine and the wider art world. This diverse programme provides a significant draw for Kiev’s art-hungry audiences. Every day the galleries are humming with young people discussing the works on show. Entry to Pinchuk Art Centre is completely free and around 1,500 people visit every day.

But arguably Pinchuk Art Centre’s most important work is what goes on behind the scenes. For the past two and a half years, the centre has employed a twelve-strong team of researchers to build a more accurate picture of recent Ukrainian art history. During the Soviet era the most interesting art was being produced outside of official channels. Documentation, if it still exists, can be hard to find. So by bringing together, organising and digitising the personal archives of many important artists, Pinchuk Art Centre is helping a new generation to get a clearer sense of Ukraine’s art historical legacy.

This research also leads directly into the public programming, which is good news for visitors to Kiev. On show right now is A Space of One’s Own, a group show that celebrates the vital and frequently overlooked work of Ukrainian women artists from 1980 right up to the present day. Highlights include paintings with embroidery by Maryna Skugareva and a series of dress-like sculptures made by Zhanna Kadyrova from the tiles of now demolished Soviet-era buildings.

In a political context that can feel overwhelming in its complexity, such exhibitions demonstrate that art has a vital role to play in discussions over Ukraine’s past, present and possible futures.

Where to stay in Kiev

Bursa is a brand-new 33-bedroom boutique hotel housed across two early 19th century buildings in historic Podil. With café, art gallery, shop, library and rooftop bar, this is theplace to mingle with the city’s young artists and designers. For those after a slice of the oligarch lifestyle, Premier Palace is a feast of reproduction nineteenth-century paintings and lashings of gilt and wood veneer, but the service is great and the breakfasts stupendous.

Where to eat

The legendary Yaroslava café is a must-visit: its interiors – like a Soviet interpretation of National Romanticism – as extraordinary as the array of home-baked sweet and savoury buns. Those in search of something more contemporary should check out vegetarian cafe Orang + Utan, The Cake, a pastry specialist with a love of Jeff Koons, or all-white top-floor café at Pinchuk Art Centre. For brunch, go to Zigzag on Reitarska Street and try the savoury oatmeal or sweet dumplings swimming in berries and home-made yoghurt.

The best coffee in town is at Kashtan, also on Reitarska Street, or Blur. Come evening, JZL is a lively hangout with Middle Eastern tinges (halloumi salads and grilled shrimp pitas) while Kanapa does an upmarket take on traditional Ukrainian cuisine.

After dark

Kiev has long been famous for its clubbing scene and the centre of it all is Closer. This is the place to go for gigs and parties that will last long into the next day. But Closer is not just a night-time escape valve for Kiev’s beautiful youth; the club also plays host to calm concerts, discussion events, and an excellent programme of exhibitions in its dedicated gallery space. There’s a snazzy new restaurant too.

Kiev has urged Nato to send ships to police waters near Crimea in response to Russia’s alleged seizure of three vessels belonging to the Ukrainian Navy.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko told German newspaper Bild that his country hopes “that states within Nato are now ready to relocate naval ships to the Sea of Azov in order to assist Ukraine and provide security”.

Following Sunday’s naval stand-off, Nato stated that it will offer its “full support” to Ukraine, which is not a member of the international military alliance. However, Nato has not confirmed that it will deploy the requested military resources.

The organisation’s ambassadors have agreed to meet Ukraine’s envoy for emergency talks in Brussels on Monday, after Poroshenko warned of a possible “full-scale war” with Russia over the Azov Sea clash.

But doubts remain over whether Nato will agree to get involved.

What does Poroshenko want?

Tensions in the Black Sea region have been high since Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, but escalated dramatically over the weekend when three Ukrainian sailors were wounded after Russian border guards opened fire on two gunboats and a tug near the Kerch Strait.

The strait is a vital transport route for Ukrainian ships sailing from the Black Sea to the Azov Sea, and a bilateral treaty gives both countries the right to patrol the waters - so the military confrontation sent shockwaves through Kiev.

In the interview with Bild, Poroshenko claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin “wants nothing less but to occupy the [Azov] sea”.

“We cannot accept this aggressive policy of Russia. First it was Crimea, then eastern Ukraine, now he wants the Sea of Azov,” said the Ukrainian leader. Calling for Nato members to act, Poroshenko said that “the only language he understands is the unity of the Western world”, adding: “Germany, too, has to ask itself, what will Putin do next if we do not stop him?”

What will Nato do?

The alliance has called for calm ahead of the emergency talks, to be attended by Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in Brussels on Monday.

In a statement, the alliance said that it “will continue to provide political and practical support to the country [Ukraine] within the framework of our established cooperation” and will “continue to monitor the situation”. No mention was made of military intervention in the Black Sea, which Nato routinely patrols.

However, a spokesperson said that Nato ships have spent 120 days in the area this year, compared with 80 in 2017, says the Associated Press.

Despite that increased presence, Canada-based news site CBC predicts that the bloc “will be unlikely to heed Poroshenko’s request, which could trigger a confrontation with Russia”.

For its part, Russia has dismissed Kiev’s claims of aggression. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Poroshenko’s request to Nato is “clearly aimed at provoking further tensions” and was driven by the Ukrainian leader’s “electoral and domestic policy motives”.

Recent polls suggesting that only about 10% of the electorate plans to vote for Poroshenko in next year’s elections, according to the BBC.

Putin has gone so far as to claim that Ukraine staged the naval clash, in what he calls a “provocation” of Russia, to boost Poroshenko’s popularity.

“The authorities in Kiev are successfully selling anti-Russian sentiments as they have nothing else left to sell. They can get away with whatever they do. If they want to eat babies for breakfast today, they will likely serve them too,” Putin added.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has demanded an explanation from President Putin over reports that Russia has sent soldiers to fight in the southeast of Ukraine.

"The latest reports of the presence of Russian soldiers on Ukrainian territory must be explained," said Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert. "She emphasised Russia's major responsibility for de-escalation and watching over its own frontiers."

The Ukrainian government has accused Moscow of supporting pro-Russian rebels who have opened a new front near the port of Mariupol, Reuters reports.

The BBC's Barbara Plett Usher said that the suspicion in Washington was that Russia is leading an assault on the southeast of the country to divert Ukrainian forces from the besieged cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Denis Pushilin, a rebel leader in Donetsk, insisted that Russia was not involved in the fighting. "If Russia entered into the war, the counter-offensive would already be in Kiev," he said. "For now, we do without outside help."

The separatist resurgence "dimmed the glimmer of optimism" that had begun to emerge from talks held in Minsk between Putin and President Poroshenko, The Times says. The two leaders had previously been "cautiously positive" about their discussions and Poroshenko had promised to deliver a "road map" to peace.

Some analysts say that the latest fighting could be an attempt to establish a land corridor from Russia to Crimea, which would also offer control over the entire Sea of Azov.

Such a corridor would "transform the geography of Europe", The Times says.

Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said on Wednesday that a column of five armoured personnel carriers had been seen crossing the Ukrainian border.

"Five armoured infantry carriers and one Kamaz truck entered Amvrosiyivka with men in them," Lysenko told journalists in Kiev. "If this tactical group got lost and accidentally came into Ukraine like the paratroops of the 98th paratroop division, then it remains for us to remind them that they can return to Russia, taking an easterly direction," said Lysenko.

President Putin appears to be moving towards a face-saving settlement in eastern Ukraine, but with Ukrainian government troops on the front foot it is unclear whether Kiev is in any mood to offer Russia an easy way out.

In the past few weeks, Putin has been withdrawing Russian commanders and diminishing his support for pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine, the New York Times says.

The Russian president is searching for "a way to escape a losing situation without puncturing his strongman image or antagonising the ultranationalists at home who were expecting him to follow up his annexation of Crimea with an invasion of Ukraine".

The “Ukrainianisation” of the leadership

As recently as last month, many rebel leaders were either Russian, or had a connection with Russia. One by one, the leaders have stepped down to make way for Ukrainians.

Russian national Aleksandr Borodai recently resigned as prime minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic in favour of Ukrainian Aleksandr Zakharchenko, in what The Guardian described as "a move aimed at dampening claims that the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is being masterminded by Moscow". Another Russian citizen, Valery Bolotov, announced last week that he has “temporarily resigned” as prime minister in the Luhansk region. A Ukrainian former health inspector, Igor Plotnitskiy, took his place.

And according to the New York Times, a collection of soldiers tarnished by rumours of involvement in the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 – including Igor Bezler, a Crimean native who once identified himself as a lieutenant colonel in the Russian army – have also gone missing.

A new conciliatory attitude

Putin is due to meet Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko next week for the first top-level talks between the two countries in more than two months. But as the Daily Mail notes, a diplomatic solution at this stage "would have to resolve a contradiction: with his troops advancing and victory possibly within reach, Poroshenko has little incentive to offer the kind of compromises that would allow Putin to achieve a face-saving deal".

Is Putin just playing a long game?Some analysts argue that Putin is playing a "long game" by continuing to supply weapons to the pro-Russian rebels, while protecting himself by withdrawing direct lines of command.

According to the incoming rebel leader Zakharchenko, Donetsk rebels have just been reinforced by 1,200 troops who "trained for four months in Russia".

The Daily Telegraph reports that on Friday Zakharchenko gave a speech to a "people's council" in which he said: "The following reserves have been gathered: 150 armoured vehicles, of which about 30 are tanks and the rest are BMPs and BTRs [infantry fighting vehicles and armoured personnel carriers], 1,200 military personnel, who are there now, who underwent training for four months on the territory of the Russian Federation. They were brought into action at the most crucial moment."

Or is a ceasefire imminent?

Despite the arrival of reinforcements, the New York Times says, the "rebellion is crumbling", which gives Putin an incentive to stop the conflict before the side he backed risks a humiliating defeat in battle.

As the meeting between Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart approaches, European and Ukrainian officials sound increasingly hopeful that a diplomatic resolution may be reached: "I have the feeling both are at the moment seeking ways to find a path to a ceasefire," German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the Wall Street Journal.

UKRAINE'S acting president has called for the immediate resumption of military action against pro-Russian separatists after the body of one of his supporters was found showing signs of torture.

Oleksandr Turchynov said that two "brutally tortured" bodies had been discovered near the eastern city of Slavyansk. One was said to be a politician from Turchynov's Batkivshchyna party named Volodymyr Rybak.

"The terrorists who effectively took the whole Donetsk region hostage have now gone too far," he said, reports The Guardian.

Earlier in the day the Ukrainian defence ministry said that a surveillance plane was hit with small arms fire while flying over Slavyansk. The crew made an emergency landing without injuries, the ministry added.

The events came against the backdrop of US Vice-President Joe Biden's two-day visit to Ukraine. Biden urged Russia to "stop talking and start acting" to bring an end to the crisis. The vice-president called on Moscow to instruct pro-Russian separatists to leave buildings they are occupying and abandon checkpoints in eastern Ukraine.

The relaunch of military action comes as international monitors report "a worsening in the security situation" in rebel-held cities. An American journalist working for Vice News, Simon Ostrovsky, is reportedly being held by the separatists running Slavyansk. The Guardian says that Ostrovsky's capture is just one of "a growing number" of abductions, arrests and disappearances.

Yesterday three people were killed in a shootout at a checkpoint manned by Russian-speaking gunmen. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) described the gunfight as "a worrying deterioration of the situation".

Before leaving Kiev, Biden pledged support for Ukraine's new leaders. The US also announced on Tuesday that it would deploy 600 troops to Poland and Baltic countries including Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

The US government blames Russia for fuelling the crisis, which has pushed East-West relations to their "most critical point" since the Cold War, the Daily Telegraph says.

WHEN it comes to the crisis in Kiev and the agony of Ukraine, the word 'complex' is bandied freely by pundits far and wide.

Sure, Ukraine is a deeply divided, ethnic mix - but, frankly, not that mixed. More than three-quarters of those who live there are Ukrainian, under 18 per cent are ethnic Russian, and under five per cent are of other stock, including Greek, Turkish and Jewish.

Ukraine was one of the richest, and at times most reluctant, components of the USSR. Now, Vladimir Putin wants it to be a partner of his post-Soviet imperium through a customs union, sweetened by the offer of cut-price Russian gas.

Accordingly President Viktor Yanukovych chose the Russian union against the EU offer of association and a generous trade deal.

What Yanukovych didn't bargain for was the accumulation of protest that would greet his decision. This week it has led to running battles between the state police, who have resorted to sniper rifles and light machine guns, and the protesters who are becoming increasingly armed. And a death toll of 75.

From Thursday night's events, it is clear that the Interior Ministry forces and the police can no longer hold the capital. Overnight they set up sandbagged sniper positions in the upper floors of the president's office to make a last stand.

On the streets, activists have been forming 'hundreds' - sotni - a traditional term for a unit of Cossack cavalry. Other groups of nationalists have emerged in the protests such as Patriots of Ukraine, Trident and White Hammer under the umbrella of the Right Sector coalition.

Some trace their lineage back to the wartime nationalist Stepan Bandera, who declared an independent state of Western Ukraine as the Soviet forces retreated in 1941 - only to be captured and imprisoned by the invading Germans.

Romano Prodi, the former president of the EU commission and ex-prime minister of Italy, roundly condemned the protesters' use of firepower and violence in Thursday's New York Times, but cogently argued that this was no excuse for Yanukovych to call on his friend Putin to help out by sending in Russian military muscle.

Probably just as disastrous for Yanukovych would be to order in Ukraine's own army, traditionally neutral, as opposed to the police and security forces.

He has been shuffling appointments in the army's high command over the past three months, in order to get his men in place should he decide to declare martial law. But Ukraine's army, a byword for corruption and graft when it was deployed alongside Nato forces in peacekeeping in the Balkans, is deeply divided. It is thought it would split if ordered onto the streets, with up to a half going over to the protesters.

In the new geopolitical jargon, there are 'wicked problems' - that is, problems with no solution - and 'complex puzzles', ones that may have some way out, however tortuous and difficult it proves to be. Ukraine this weekend is teetering between the two.

Yanukovych appears to have offered some respite by offering elections. But a simple rerun of what happened in 2010 - elections Yanukovych won - will not suffice. A wholesale constitutional overhaul is required with representation and rights of minorities and parties guaranteed.

There must also be a declaration of non-interference from Moscow, Washington and Brussels. In the meantime, the foreign ministers of Europe, led by Laurent Fabius of France and Radislaw Sikorksy of Poland, must hang on in there in Kiev as they have much of this week, quite literally.

For all the bluster, the position of Vladimir Putin is not as strong as it might appear. This is not like Prague in 1968 or Georgia in 2008 when Moscow could deploy its tank columns almost without prejudice. Given the chronic state of separatist and Islamist insurgency in the Caucasus, not to mention Putin's internal security problems, Russian military interference is surely unrealistic.

Ukraine is now in the grip of spontaneous communal combustion - modern versions of jacqueries (medieval French peasants' revolts) - in more than half a dozen major centres which the Russian military wouldn't be capable of controlling, shy of putting in a force of more than 100,000.

But the biggest warning to Putin as to why this isn't Prague '68 or Georgia '08 is given eloquently by Maria Alyokhina, founder member of Pussy Riot, about her arrest in Sochi, printed today in the New York Times.

"This week in Sochi, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, another Pussy Riot member, and I were detained three times and then, on Wednesday, assaulted by Cossack (pro-Russian this time) militiamen with whips and pepper spray. Mr Putin will teach you how to love the motherland."

The images of the punk rockers assaulted by whip-wielding Cossacks has gone viral on YouTube and social media, as has footage of Kiev's bloodied protesters and machine-gunning snipers. Putin and Yanukovych should know that this is what they're up against.

THE scale of yesterday's violence in Ukraine, which left scores of people dead, many at the hands of police snipers, took many by surprise.

But analysts say that the conflict has been brewing for some time, and that it has now progressed far beyond a dispute about membership of the EU.

What is behind the violence?

The discord began last autumn when demonstrators took to the streets to protest against the government's last-minute rejection of a trade agreement with the European Union. Many years of work had been put into the deal and President Yanukovych's /volte-face/ was seen within the country as yet another capitulation to the ruling regime's Russian paymasters.

The protests began with students, writes Timothy Snyder, a history professor at Yale University, in the New York Review of Books, but swiftly they were joined by middle-aged veterans of the USSR's Afghan war. "Former soldiers and officers of the Red Army, many of them bearing the scars of battlefield wounds, came to protect 'their children'," he says. When riot police came to beat the protesters, a popular movement coalesced, and the issue shifted from the collapse of the European deal, to a much broader and more vital "defence of decency".

Then there is the role of the president, who was a divisive figure long before the demonstrations began. "Mr Yanukovych's mandate was always threadbare, based on an election widely seen as rigged," The Times reports.

When the president enacted wide-ranging new laws on 16 January that put an end to public freedoms of speech and assembly, and simultaneously removed the few remaining checks on his own executive authority, the protests swelled. "People from the cities and the countryside, people from all regions of the country, members of all political parties, the young and the old, Christians, Muslims, and Jews [joined in]," says Snyder.

In the wake of the new legislation, the previously peaceful protests took a violent turn, with dozens killed. Snyder argues that the government's measures bore the signs of Russian intervention: "The dictatorship laws of 16 January were obviously based on Russian models, and were proposed by Ukrainian legislators with close ties to Moscow. They seem to have been Russia's condition for financial support of the Yanukovych regime. Before they were announced, Putin offered Ukraine a large loan and promised reductions in the price of Russian natural gas."

Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev maintained the Kremlin's hard line this week, insisting that Yanukovych must maintain his present course: "Of course we will continue the cooperation with our Ukrainian partners on all previously agreed directions... It is necessary for the partners themselves to maintain their tone and for the active authorities in Ukraine to be legitimate and effective, not a doormat for everyone to clean their feet," Medvedev said.

Where next?

Some analysts believe that the violence could lead to civil war. But is this likely? Orysia Lutsevych, a Ukraine expert at the Chatham House think tank in London, told USA Today that in her view the protests do not signal the start of a long-term conflict.

"It will not turn into a civil war because those who are supporting the government are not prepared to risk their lives," she said. "Ukraine will not split because there are not significant numbers of Ukrainians who are supporting the use of violence against civilians. It will not turn into people fighting with people. It is basically just civilians fighting with the riot police."

Joerg Forbrig, of the German Marshall Fund of the US, disagrees. "There is the possibility this could spin out of control into a confrontation amongst Ukrainians," he told Bloomberg.

Alexander Motyl, a professor at Rutgers University and an expert on Ukrainian affairs, told The Atlantic[5] that a split might in fact be the best possible result. If the eastern provinces were to go their own way, he said, "the economy [of the remaining Ukraine] would automatically improve, the politics would automatically improve, Ukraine would automatically become more democratic, richer, more prosperous, and stable".

Can the international community do anything?

The EU has agreed to impose sanctions on the Ukrainian officials "responsible for violence and excessive force" in the capital. EU foreign ministers have proposed an assets freeze and visa bans. The US announced it would undertake similar measures.

The Times argues that "Europe's sanctions plan is welcome but insufficient". The only solution is for Yanukovych to go. "The sooner its leaders accept that their time is up, the better. Europe can hasten that day and shorten the blood-letting by standing firm against a government that has lost the right to govern," The Times says.

UKRAINE is currently experiencing violent anti-government rioting. Barricades disfigure the centre of the capital, Kiev. Five protesters have been shot dead by the security forces so far. Its first post-independence president has warned that the country could be sliding towards civil war. Why? Because large numbers of people in the country want closer ties to the European Union. They thought they were on a promise to get them and now it turns out they were wrong. Viktor Yanukovych, the current president, was properly elected in 2010 and initially seemed to be heading for closer ties with the EU, until he scuppered a planned trade deal a few days before it was due to be signed last November. His decision to go instead for a £9bn bailout from Russia to prop up wobbly public finances caused consternation among westward-looking Ukrainians. Many Ukrainians have lost faith in a political process they see as dominated by vested interests and self-serving political elites, including an ineffective opposition. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the current crisis is that Yanukovych seemed to be one thing and then turned out to be another. So large numbers of them have taken to the streets - not the troublemakers you find in British riots intent on looting white goods and expensive trainers, but normal people in despair and prepared to take direct action. It's difficult to see how the tensions in the country are going to be resolved. Probably the best course of action would be to put the whole question to a national referendum but it seems unlikely to happen. The similarities to our own situation are obvious. Two major issues aside from the economy dominate UK voters' minds - immigration and Europe. My gut feeling is that in reality they are the same thing. Anti-EU feeling is being most strongly driven by a sense that we have lost control over our borders. Nature in her bounteous wisdom conferred upon us the gift of a natural barrier and checkpoint, the Channel, and most of us want to re-activate it, now. But no major political party currently represented in parliament seriously proposes re-imposing traditional border controls. Theresa May's immigration bill currently being debated in the Commons merely promises to begin to tinker at the edges. Net immigration to the UK is currently running according to the dubious official statistics at 180,000 every year. You cannot vote to stop it. For much of recorded history the inhabitants of these islands have been a famously disorderly people. Remembrances of violence are all around us. For instance, if you stroll down Threadneedle Street past the Bank of England you might ask yourself why it is that an imposing, windowless wall surrounds the bank. It looks like a fortress for a reason. In July 1780 the previous building on the site came within a few minutes of being looted and torched in the Gordon Riots, a violent reaction to the first steps towards Roman Catholic emancipation - a deeply unpopular cause then. It was made worse by the inability of Lord North's government to defeat a rebellion in the American colonies. As a result, from 1780 until 1973, Christopher Robin didn't have to go to Buckingham Palace to see the changing of the guard. He could have gone to the Bank of England where the Bank Picquet stood guard every day of the year. There were two sentry posts manned by guardsmen in scarlet tunics and bearskins, carrying weapons and live ammunition - one outside the Counting House Parlour and another outside the bullion vaults. One of the really frightening things about the Gordon Riots was that many in authority were so disenchanted with the government that individuals and institutions that could normally be relied on to preserve the King's Peace were slow to react. The Lord Mayor of London refused to mobilise the City militias as the mob attacked Catholics and their property around Moorfields. In the end, Lord North sent the army in to restore order across London. More than 250 rioters were shot dead and a similar number wounded. About 30 were tried and sentenced to death - many according to time-honoured custom being publicly hanged close to the scene of their crimes. But in the 19th Century we became, internally at least, peaceful. Perhaps the empire absorbed our national violent impulses. Generally, we have remained so with the odd hiccup. Even during the horrors of the Second World War national discipline held up. It wasn't all cheery cups of tea served up to a Vera Lynn soundtrack, however. Both Churchill and the Queen Mother were booed in the East End during the Blitz, though looting and violent disorder were rare. But what if a sense of frustration takes hold as it has in Ukraine? What if a large number of people decide that the political process can have no effect on their deepest concerns and aspirations - indeed, deliberately ignores them? History teaches us that the journey from widespread disdain for a political system to serious violence can be a short one.

THE prime minister of Ukraine, Mykola Azarov, has offered his resignation following a wave of deadly protests across the country.

In a statement published today, Azarov said: "I have taken a personal decision to ask the president of Ukraine to accept my resignation from the post of prime minister with the aim of creating an additional possibility for a political compromise to peacefully resolve the conflict."

Under the constitution, the departure of the prime minister means the resignation of the entire government. Azarov's resignation has yet to be accepted by the president, but that appears to be only a formality.

It came just hours before the Ukrainian parliament repealed the anti-protest laws that sparked the latest round of demonstrations in the capital city of Kiev. The decision was made today at an extraordinary session aimed at easing the crisis.

At least four activists have died in incidents connected with the protests in recent days, with the unrest spreading across Ukraine.

The anti-protest laws, which were passed on 16 January, banned the wearing of masks or helmets at demonstrations, and also outlawed unauthorised tents in public areas. Anyone blockading public buildings or slandering government officials also faced punishment under the legislation.

Despite today's significant concessions to the protesters, several key issues remain unresolved, says The Guardian. This includes the opposition's repeated demands for President Viktor Yanukovych to resign and a new election to be held.

The original protests began in November after Yanukovych refused to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union at the Eastern Partnership summit in Lithuania in November, derailing three years of talks with the EU.

Protesters argued that by refusing to loosen ties with Russia, Yanukovych was denying Ukraine the economic and social benefits of a relationship with the EU.