Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Attack during talks in Abu Dhabi: Sibiga — Putin struck both the negotiating table and the energy sector

The missile-and-drone attack on January 24 struck Kyiv region and infrastructure just as peace consultations were taking place in the UAE. Why this matters for the negotiation process and for your heating — briefly and with facts.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 24, 2026 · 2 min read

Attack during talks in Abu Dhabi: Sibiga — Putin struck both the negotiating table and the energy sector

What happened and why it matters

On the night of January 24, Russia launched a series of strikes across Ukraine that the Foreign Ministry described not only as attacks on people and energy infrastructure, but also as an attempt to undermine the diplomatic process taking place at the same time in Abu Dhabi. Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha directly linked the timing of the attack to the work of delegations meeting under U.S. chairmanship.

"Peace efforts? A trilateral meeting in the UAE? Diplomacy? Cynically, Putin ordered a brutal, massive missile strike on Ukraine precisely when delegations are meeting in Abu Dhabi... His rockets struck not only our people, but the negotiating table as well."

— Andriy Sybiha, Ukraine's foreign minister

Facts in numbers

According to official sources, in the night operation the enemy used 21 missiles and 375 drones. Air defense systems responded: about 357 drones and 15 missiles were shot down. On the ground — human losses and serious infrastructure damage: in Kyiv one person was killed and four injured; in Kharkiv 19 people were hurt, residential buildings, a medical facility and a maternity hospital were damaged.

The impact on civilian life is significant: in Kyiv about 6,000 households were left without heating, and in the Chernihiv region hundreds of thousands of customers were left without power.

What it means for the negotiations

The Foreign Ministry and Ukrainian analysts interpret this move as an attempt to weaken Ukraine's position in the dialogue, undermine confidence in the possibility of a peaceful settlement and increase pressure through a humanitarian and energy crisis. This is not only a symbolic blow "to the negotiating table," but also a practical tool of influence: to disrupt everyday life, create arguments for compromises on terms unfavorable to Ukraine.

"This barbaric attack has once again proven that Putin's place is not on the Peace Council, but on the dock of a special tribunal."

— Andriy Sybiha, Ukraine's foreign minister

Consequences for energy and response

Damage to energy infrastructure increases risks for millions of people — from heating to the operation of hospitals. That is why the minister thanked both state services and volunteers, including initiatives like WarmthForUkraine, which rapidly join the response and assist those affected.

What next?

An attack during diplomatic talks poses a simple question to Ukraine's partners: will diplomatic declarations be turned into concrete decisions — additional air defense systems, delivery of energy equipment, financial support for restoration and strengthening protection of critical infrastructure? Analysts point out that such investments now are not only a humanitarian need, but a strategic contribution to the resilience of Ukraine's negotiating position.

Now the ball is in the partners' court: declarations must be transformed into concrete actions that will halt the mechanism of offensive pressure and protect people's lives and the ability to negotiate from a position of strength.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026