Kyiv says the announced ceasefire from midnight on the night of Tuesday, May 5 to Wednesday, May 6 did not prevent new Russian strikes. Ukrainian authorities report attacks by drones, missiles and guided aerial bombs across several regions. At the same time, Volodymyr Zelensky announced a unilateral suspension of hostilities. However, Moscow did not acknowledge that interpretation. It also said it 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 earlier announced a pause in fighting around the May 9 commemorations, a highly symbolic date in Russia. In response, Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine would observe a ceasefire from 00:00 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 with Moscow. It was first and foremost a political gesture: to show Kyiv’s partners that Ukraine was ready to halt fighting. It was also intended to persuade foreign public opinion that a ceasefire broader than the May 9 truce was possible. Thus, the issue was not only military. It also touched on the credibility of ceasefire offers in a war where every announcement is immediately contested.
Strikes Reported During the Night and Morning of May 6
In the morning, Ukrainian authorities accused Moscow of continuing its Russian strikes despite the unilateral ceasefire coming into 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 independently verified totals.
The Ukrainian president then said Russia was continuing its bombardments, including with drones and guided bombs. He also specified that Russia was attempting to advance along the front line. Ukrainian Air Force alerts during the day cited threats to several eastern and southern regions, notably around Zaporizhzhia. At this stage, not all locations mentioned in the first hours are documented with the same precision. Therefore, caution is required regarding the exact extent of the strikes.
Media 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. Moreover, it is not confirmed by an independent source. However, all report continued attacks according to Kyiv. Furthermore, this occurs in the context of a highly contested truce.
Moscow Denies 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 the Russian Defense Ministry, Russian air defenses instead shot down 53 Ukrainian drones over Russian regions, annexed Crimea and the Black Sea between Tuesday night and Wednesday dawn. Moscow-installed authorities in Crimea also reported deaths after a Ukrainian attack on Dzhankoi.
In other words, Moscow does not validate the framework proposed by Kyiv. The Russian authorities imply that Ukraine itself continued operations during this period. This divergence of narratives is central: it prevents talking about a truce accepted by both sides. Rather, it points to a clash of accounts, each accusing the other of rendering the announcement meaningless.
This confusion is not new. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, several limited, partial or religiously and symbolically linked ceasefires have been announced unilaterally and then contested almost immediately. The May 9 truce fits this pattern: a gesture with strong political significance, but without a shared monitoring mechanism or minimal trust between the belligerents.
Still-Shifting Totals and a Political Stake Before May 9
The full human toll of the strikes reported between the night of May 5–6 and the morning of May 6 remains fluid. It would be imprudent to fix a total at this time without clearly distinguishing victims from the previous day’s attacks. Those are already numerous according to Ukrainian authorities. In addition, one must consider those from the new sequence that opened during the ceasefire announced by Kyiv.
The stake goes beyond mere military arithmetic. For Ukraine, stressing that Moscow struck despite a unilateral ceasefire undermines Russia’s upcoming May 9 truce. It also supports the idea that the Kremlin is mainly trying to secure its ceremonies. Conversely, for Russia, highlighting Ukrainian drones falling on its territory challenges the image of an exclusively withdrawn Ukraine.
As of May 6, the clearest finding is therefore limited but sharp: Kyiv says it declared a unilateral ceasefire, then accuses Moscow of continuing its strikes; Moscow does not adopt that finding and insists on Ukrainian attacks. Between these two versions, the available military facts describe less an effective truce than a new episode. Indeed, the announcement of a halt to fighting becomes itself a weapon of war.