.webp)
As diplomats gathered for a third day of peace talks aimed at ending the nearly four-year war, the skies over Ukraine lit up with fire. In the early hours of December 6, Russia launched one of its largest aerial assaults of the conflict, deploying 653 drones and 51 missiles across the country. The timing was not coincidental—it was a message, a demonstration of force delivered while negotiators discussed the future of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The attacks struck 29 locations, targeting energy infrastructure, power stations, and civilian zones. Air raid sirens echoed from Kyiv to Lviv, and the Ukrainian Air Force scrambled to intercept the barrage, successfully neutralizing 585 drones and 30 missiles. Yet despite these efforts, at least eight people were wounded, and critical systems were disrupted, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which temporarily lost all external power.
This escalation unfolded as U.S. and Ukrainian officials met to outline a postwar security framework, hoping to establish conditions for long-term peace. But the contrast between diplomacy and destruction was stark. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the strikes as a direct attack on civilian infrastructure and a deliberate attempt to undermine the peace process.
For Ukraine’s armed forces and political leadership, the stakes are existential. Any peace that involves ceding territory is viewed not as compromise, but as capitulation. Ukrainian officials insist that such an outcome would reward aggression and set a dangerous precedent—not just for Ukraine, but for the international order. “There can be no peace without justice,” one military spokesperson declared. “And justice means defending every inch of our land.”
The sentiment resonates deeply across the country. After nearly four years of war, the scars are not just physical—they are emotional, historical, and symbolic. Cities like Mariupol, Kherson, and Bakhmut have become emblems of resistance. To surrender them would be to erase the sacrifices made, to silence the voices of those who died defending them.
Meanwhile, Russia’s strategy appears twofold: negotiate while escalating, using military pressure to shape the terms of peace. The scale of the latest attack suggests a desire to test Ukraine’s resolve and perhaps fracture international support. But so far, the response from Kyiv has been unwavering.
As talks continue, the question remains: can diplomacy survive under bombardment? And if peace is to be achieved, whose terms will define it—those of the aggressor, or those of the defender?