Credits: State Emergency Service of Ukraine / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0.
Kyiv says that the announced ceasefire starting at midnight on the night of Tuesday, May 5, to Wednesday, May 6 did not prevent new Russian strikes. Ukrainian authorities report drone, missile, and guided aerial bomb attacks in several regions. At the same time, Volodymyr Zelensky announced a unilateral suspension of hostilities. However, Moscow did not recognize this interpretation. It also said it had intercepted Ukrainian drones over Russia and occupied Crimea.
A Ukrainian Truce Announced Before Moscow’s
The sequence begins against a backdrop of competing truces. The Kremlin had previously announced a pause in fighting around the May 9 commemorations, a highly symbolic date in Russia. In response, Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukraine would observe a ceasefire starting at midnight on May 6. However, he warned that any Russian attack would trigger a Ukrainian military response.
This Ukrainian initiative was never presented as a bilateral agreement reached with Moscow. It was first and foremost a political gesture: to show Kyiv’s partners that Ukraine was ready to stop fighting. It also aimed to convince foreign public opinion that a ceasefire broader than the May 9 truce was possible. From that point on, the issue was not only military. It also concerned the credibility of ceasefire offers in a war where every announcement is immediately disputed.
Strikes Reported Overnight and on the Morning of May 6
By morning, Ukrainian authorities accused Moscow of continuing its russian strikes ukraine despite the unilateral ceasefire taking effect. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said Russian forces launched 108 drones and three missiles overnight. These figures should be understood as official Ukrainian data, not an independently verified tally.
The Ukrainian president then said Russia was continuing its bombardments, including with drones and guided bombs. He also said it was trying to advance along the front line. Air Force alerts in the course of the day mentioned threats to several regions in the east and south, including around Zaporizhzhia. At this stage, not all of the locations cited in the first hours are documented with the same precision. Therefore, caution is needed regarding the exact scope of the strikes.
Outlets such as RFI, France 24, Le Monde, and Libération relayed this Ukrainian accusation on the morning of May 6. Their common point is clear: none presents the ceasefire violation as a definitively established fact. In addition, it is not confirmed by an independent source. However, all report that the attacks continued according to Kyiv. Moreover, this is unfolding in a highly contested truce context.
Moscow Denies It Implicitly and Highlights Ukrainian Drones
The Russian response did not take the form of acknowledging strikes carried out despite the Ukrainian truce. According to the Associated Press, citing Russia’s Defense Ministry, Russian air defenses instead shot down 53 Ukrainian drones over Russian regions, annexed Crimea, and the Black Sea between Tuesday evening and Wednesday dawn. Authorities installed by Moscow in Crimea also reported deaths after a Ukrainian attack on Dzhankoi.
In other words, Moscow does not accept the framework proposed by Kyiv. The Russian authorities are suggesting that Ukraine itself continued operations during this period. This gap in narratives is central: it prevents us from speaking of a truce accepted by both sides. Instead, it points to a clash of stories, each side accusing the other of stripping the announcement of any concrete meaning.
This blurring is nothing new. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, several limited, partial ceasefires or ones tied to religious and symbolic dates have been announced unilaterally and then disputed almost immediately. The May 9 truce fits this pattern: a gesture with strong political weight, but without a shared enforcement mechanism or even minimal trust between the belligerents.
Still-Shifting Tolls and a Political Stakes Ahead of May 9
The full human toll of the strikes reported between the night of May 5–6 and the morning of May 6 remains in flux. It would be unwise to freeze a total at this point without clearly distinguishing the victims of the attacks from the previous day. According to Ukrainian authorities, there are already many. In addition, the new wave that opened during the ceasefire announced by Kyiv must be taken into account.
Yet the stakes go beyond military arithmetic. For Ukraine, insisting that Moscow is striking despite a unilateral ceasefire discredits Russia’s upcoming May 9 truce. It also supports the idea that the Kremlin is mainly trying to secure its ceremonies. Moreover, for Russia, highlighting Ukrainian drones brought down on its territory challenges the image of a Ukraine that is strictly on the back foot.
As of May 6, the most solid conclusion is therefore limited but clear: Kyiv says it opened a unilateral ceasefire, then accuses Moscow of continuing its strikes; Moscow does not accept that conclusion and insists on Ukrainian attacks. Between these two versions, the military facts available describe less an effective truce than another episode. Indeed, the announcement of a stop in fighting becomes itself an instrument of war.
Video unavailable