By Nina Bachkatov
The war in Ukraine has transformed modern warfare since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022. The most visible innovation has been the strategic use of drones. Less expected has been the emergence of what might be called “unilateral truces”: temporary ceasefires declared by one side without prior negotiation or agreement with the other. Rather than opening a path towards peace, these pauses have become instruments of political and information warfare. Each side seeks to corner the other, gambling that its opponent will violate the truce first and thereby reinforce competing domestic and international narratives.
The latest episode unfolded in early May. On May 4, Vladimir Putin unexpectedly announced that Russian forces would observe a ceasefire on May 8-9 to mark the anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in 1945. Volodymyr Zelensky initially dismissed the proposal, arguing that no serious observer could trust Russian guarantees and that any meaningful ceasefire should be permanent rather than symbolic. Later the same day, however, Kyiv responded with a proposal of its own: a unilateral Ukrainian truce beginning on May 5.
The announcements came amid continuing escalation. Ukrainian drones had targeted Moscow for three consecutive nights, including strikes near the Russian capital’s centre, while Russia continued large-scale drone and missile attacks across Ukraine.
This was not the first such episode. Previous unilateral ceasefires had been declared around Christmas, New Year and Easter, often with little reduction in hostilities. Yet the current exchange appears particularly dangerous because both sides have openly linked possible violations to retaliatory strikes on each other’s capitals.
Zelensky warned that May 9 could become “a difficult day” for Russia if Moscow failed to respect Kyiv’s proposed ceasefire. Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s military intelligence service, stated that Ukraine was “ready for any development”.
Contradictory symbols
In recent months, both Putin and Zelensky have used religious and historical commemorations as political instruments. References to Christmas, New Year and Easter ceasefires have highlighted the widening symbolic divide between Russia and Ukraine, including the use of different religious calendars.
Since 2022, Kyiv has increasingly aligned its commemorative practices with western Europe. Ukraine shifted its official World War Two remembrance ceremonies from May 9 to May 8, underlining its political and cultural movement away from Moscow’s orbit.
Other symbolic changes followed. Christmas celebrations were officially moved from January 7 to December 25, aligning Ukraine more closely with western Christian traditions. The issue of Easter remains more sensitive, however, because many Orthodox churches — including some historically linked to the Moscow Patriarchate — continue to celebrate it on the same date.
For Putin, by contrast, the memory of the Soviet victory in the second world war remains central to Russian state identity as it has been in its time for Soviet identity. Victory Day is not only a commemoration of wartime sacrifice but also a reaffirmation of Russia’s claim to great-power status and historical legitimacy.
The symbolism of May 9 has therefore become increasingly geopolitical. While many western leaders now avoid Red Square commemorations, Russia has sought to present the event as evidence of an emerging non-western alignment, particularly through its growing partnership with China, with accent on the victory of 1945 on the Asiatic front.
The trap
Putin appears to have confronted Zelensky with an uncomfortable choice: accept the truce and follow the Kremlin’s timetable; reject it and allow Russian propaganda to portray Kyiv as unwilling to pause the fighting; or escalate by carrying out Ukrainian threats of “something spectacular” during the May 9 celebrations in Moscow and other Russian cities. Russian authorities appear to have taken the risk seriously. Moscow, along with several regional administrations, scaled back or cancelled parts of Victory Day celebrations amid concerns over possible Ukrainian strikes.
Many Ukrainian commentators have welcomed Zelensky’s proposal of a “preventive truce” beginning two days before Russia’s own ceasefire, arguing that Kyiv had seized the political initiative and shifted pressure back on to Moscow. In this reading, Ukraine is attempting to demonstrate that it — rather than the Kremlin — is setting the diplomatic tempo.
Yet the strategy carries significant risks. Any strike on Moscow during commemorations attended not only by military personnel but also by civilians and foreign dignitaries would hand the Kremlin a powerful propaganda opportunity. Russian officials would almost certainly portray such attacks as proof of their longstanding narrative that Ukraine is led by extremists supported by western governments eager to minimise the Soviet contribution to victory in the second world war — including the role played by millions of Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army.
Such an episode would also reinforce Moscow’s efforts to depict Zelensky as a leader willing to escalate the conflict indefinitely in order to preserve his political position.
Risky gambles
As the Ukrainian ceasefire expired amid continuing Russian drone and missile strikes, Russia’s foreign ministry advised foreign embassies in Kyiv to consider evacuating their nationals, warning that Moscow was prepared to retaliate against any attacks during the May 8-9 commemorations.
The prospect of a prolonged and indecisive war of attrition now appears clearer than at any point in recent months. Donald Trump’s political attention has largely shifted elsewhere, while the EU’s 90bn support package for Ukraine has eased immediate pressure on Kyiv to negotiate. Ukrainian officials increasingly appear convinced that sustained military and economic pressure could eventually force a weakened Russia into talks on terms more favourable to Kyiv.
At the same time, the risks of escalation continue to grow. Ukraine’s expanding use of drones, including operations affecting areas close to NATO airspace and Baltic maritime routes, increases the possibility of miscalculation and unintended confrontation.
In reality, these ceasefires are not part of any meaningful negotiating framework. Formal peace talks are now rarely discussed openly in either Moscow or Kyiv. At best, such truces provide limited humanitarian respite: an opportunity to recover the dead and wounded, rotate exhausted troops and offer civilians a temporary pause from bombardment.
They postpone military operations. They do not end them.