IN 30 SECONDS
- What happened? The unilateral ceasefires proclaimed by Russia and Ukraine for Victory Day collapsed within hours with a Russian attack of 108 combat drones and three missiles on Kharkiv and other Ukrainian cities on May 6.
- Who is behind it? The Kremlin and Kyiv blame each other. Moscow threatens with a ‘massive missile attack’ on the center of Kyiv if reprisals occur, while Zelenskyy reports 1,820 Russian violations.
- What impact does it have? The collapse worsens the Russian offensive and consolidates a pattern of instrumental ceasefires that erode the credibility of any negotiation and leave NATO facing a bogged-down conflict.
In the early hours of May 6, just hours after Russia and Ukraine announced unilateral ceasefires for the commemoration of Nazi Germany’s surrender, the Kremlin launched a bombardment with 108 Shahed-136 combat drones and three missiles on Kharkiv and other Ukrainian cities. The ceasefire envisioned for May 8 and 9 —the Victory Day dates— collapsed even before it officially began. The Russian Defense Ministry had declared a ceasefire conditional on no attacks against its territory, but at the same time issued an evacuation warning for residents and diplomatic staff in Kyiv and threatened with a ‘massive missile attack on the center of the Ukrainian capital’.
On the Ukrainian side, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had proclaimed a ceasefire starting at midnight on May 6, though he stressed that he had not received any official proposal from Moscow. We will respond symmetrically if Russia breaks the ceasefire, he declared. The response was not long in coming: at 10:00 a.m. the same day, Zelenskyy already reported 1,820 ceasefire violations by Russian forces, including nearly 30 assault operations and more than 20 airstrikes with more than 70 guided glide bombs. A daycare center in the Sumy border region was hit, with at least two dead. The following dawn, the offensive did not stop.
The escalation fits into an already consolidated pattern of ‘false ceasefires’ that both sides use as an information weapon. During Orthodox Easter of this same year, a 32-hour ceasefire collapsed amid cross-accusations: Ukraine then reported 2,299 Russian violations (a figure later raised to 10,721), while Moscow accused Kyiv of 1,971. That episode, like the current one, served to feed each side’s narrative that the adversary has no real willingness to negotiate.
The repetition of unilateral ceasefires that collapse in less than a day not only proves the futility of tacit agreements; it is an information-warfare tool that drains the meaning from any call for peace.
Victory Day, which every May 9 commemorates Nazi Germany’s surrender, used to be a display of military and diplomatic muscle. This year, the parade at Moscow’s Red Square will take place in a greatly reduced format: for the first time there will be no tanks, armored vehicles, or missile launchers, and the attendance of military academies has been limited. Russian authorities cited ‘operational situation and terrorist threats.’ Only an aerial pass is planned. The St. Petersburg parade has undergone similar cuts, and the list of confirmed leaders is tiny: Slovak Robert Fico (who, contrary to Russian statements, will not attend the parade) and Belarusian Alexander Lukashenko. A contrast with last year, when 29 heads of government, including Xi Jinping and Lula da Silva, attended the ceremony.
Balance of Power
The failure of this truce, viewed from the Washington-Brussels-Moscow axis, reinforces the perception that the war in Ukraine does not have a near-term negotiated exit under the current Trump administration. The White House maintains a transactional posture toward NATO, pressuring European allies to raise their military spending to 5% of GDP, a figure Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez appears willing to accept after months of resistance. Each new collapse of a ceasefire —such as this Victory Day one— adds pressure on European capitals to increase their contributions to collective defense and accept that the American umbrella is no longer free. For Spain, with its Rota and Morón bases at the forefront of the United States’ missile-defense system and a vulnerable southern flank in the Maghreb and the Sahel, the prospect of an indefinite conflict in Ukraine poses a double risk: resources diverted eastward while the border with Morocco and the instability in the Sahel demand attention.
From a strategic standpoint, the repetition of failed ceasefires reveals a doctrine of ‘one-day ceasefires’ that neither side has an incentive to fulfill. Moscow uses the threat of massive retaliation to push for a halt to Ukrainian attacks on its territory, while it launches drones from the rear without admitting a formal breach. Kyiv, for its part, cites Russian violations to keep up international pressure on its allies. The result is a vicious circle that discredits any mediation attempt and pushes the horizon of a negotiated peace further away. This only serves to intensify the war fatigue already felt by several European partners, though paradoxically it strengthens the argument of those in Washington and Brussels who defend the need to keep arming Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes.’ The upcoming NATO summit in The Hague, scheduled for June, will inevitably be shaped by this dynamic: allied leaders will have to decide whether to double down on the military commitment or, conversely, explore de-escalation avenues that, after episodes like this, seem increasingly unlikely.
The Kremlin, in any case, has managed to maintain an asymmetric capacity to punish with cheap drones that saturate Ukrainian defenses, while Kyiv’s planned counteroffensive with Western armor continues to lack the anticipated decisiveness. The announcement of a massive attack on the center of the capital, though perhaps more intimidating than real, adds an extra element of uncertainty in the hours leading up to May 9. We observe that the duel between the two capitals is not settled on the conventional battlefield but in the realm of information and symbolic coercion. And on that board, the ceasefire again proved to be a damp piece of paper.
