Ukrainian attacks kill six civilians during Victory Day ceasefire
Six Russian civilians were killed and 23 others wounded in Ukrainian attacks during the 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire, top Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik has said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a unilateral truce from May 7-8 to May 10-11 to mark the 80th anniversary of Soviet victory over Nazi Germany and to encourage unconditional peace talks with Kiev. However, Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky declined to support the ceasefire, dismissing it as a Russian ploy and an 'attempt at manipulation.'
Miroshnik, who is the Russian Foreign Ministry's ambassador-at-large tasked with documenting Kiev's alleged war crimes, told TASS on Monday that ahead of the start of the truce 'the Ukrainian Nazis not only failed to reduce the intensity of attacks on civilian targets, but increased the number of such strikes by almost a quarter,' compared to previous days.
During the ceasefire, Ukrainian forces targeted 'residential buildings, medical transport, civilian vehicles and commercial facilities,' he said.
According to the diplomat, the 'most flagrant' attacks took place in Kursk Region bordering Ukraine. In one of the incidents, a man lost his life as a result of a strike by a US-supplied HIMARS multiple rocket launcher on the village of Zvannoye, and in another a woman was killed after an aerial bomb was dropped on the village of Glushkovo, he said.
Overall, during the past week, the Ukrainian military fired at least 2,636 munitions at civilian targets inside Russia, with the border regions of Kursk, Belgorod, and Bryansk being affected the most, Miroshnik said. The majority of those attacks were carried out with the use of drones, he added.
The strikes killed 21 civilians and left 70 others wounded, the diplomat said.
The intensification of attacks by Kiev over the past seven days was an attempt 'to intimidate the civilian population' of Russia, he stressed.
Russia's Defense Ministry said earlier that the Ukrainian military has committed more than 14,000 violations of the Victory Day truce, including making five unsuccessful attempts to cross into Russian territory in Kursk and Belgorod regions. According to the ministry, the Russian military strictly observed the ceasefire regime, only responding to attacks when they happened.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
German intelligence chief claims Russia could attack NATO
Russia could attack NATO countries after the Ukraine conflict is over, Bruno Kahl, the head of the German foreign intelligence agency (BND), has claimed while defending the drive to boost defense spending. 'We are confident, and have the intelligence data that Ukraine is merely one step on [Russia's] path toward the West,' Kahl stated when asked why the Germans should agree to take on 'additional debt' to fund the rearmament program and potentially reintroduce conscription abolished in 2011. 'There are people in Moscow who no longer believe that NATO's Article 5 would be upheld — and they would like to put it to the test,' the spy chief said. He argued that Russia is skeptical about the US resolve to defend its allies and send American troops 'across the Atlantic to die for Tallinn, Riga, or Vilnius.' Russia could 'send little green men to Estonia' under the guise of protecting the Baltic state's Russian-speaking minority, Kahl claimed. Western media used the term 'little green men' to describe commandos sent to protect the residents of Crimea ahead of the 2014 referendum, in which the largely ethnic Russian region rejected the US-backed coup in Kiev and voted to secede from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. Kahl suggested that Russia's ultimate goal is to 'catapult NATO back to where it was in the late 1990s,' and push the US out of Europe. Moscow views the US-led alliance's expansion eastward as a threat, and has cited it as one of the root causes of the Ukraine conflict. President Vladimir Putin, however, said that Russia has no intention of attacking NATO states unless it is attacked first. Moscow also warned that Western military aid to Kiev de facto makes NATO 'a direct participant' in the conflict. Germany has ramped up its hostile rhetoric against Russia under new chancellor Friedrich Merz who said last month Ukraine could receive long-range Taurus cruise missiles. He also pledged to assist Ukraine in the production of its own long-range weapons. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has responded by accusing Germany of undermining the peace process.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
US to cut Ukraine aid
The White House will be slashing military funding for Ukraine as the administration of US President Donald Trump seeks a peaceful resolution to the conflict, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said. The Pentagon chief made the statement before the House Appropriations Committee in Congress on Tuesday. 'It is a reduction in this budget,' Hegseth said when asked about upcoming military aid funding for Ukraine. 'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,' he added. Trump has worked towards negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict and has diplomatically re-engaged with Russia. Since he took office in January, Moscow and Kiev have restarted direct talks for the first time since 2022, when Ukraine unilaterally left the first Istanbul negotiations. 'A negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests especially with all the competing interests around the globe,' Hegseth said. The Trump administration has also touted an 'America First' pivot and significantly cut foreign assistance, including aid to Ukraine, promising to channel funds towards domestic issues. Last week, US Vice President J.D. Vance echoed Trump's criticism of his predecessor Joe Biden, accusing his administration of spending 'crazy' amounts of money on supporting Kiev. 'They sent $300 billion to Ukraine,' without 'trying to force a diplomatic settlement,' he said. In April, Trump signed a major deal with Kiev allowing the US priority access to Ukraine's mineral wealth, in what he described would be a way for Washington to 'get back' the hundreds of billions it spent on Ukraine under Biden. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has often complained of a constant shortage of US-supplied air defenses, and waning assistance from Washington in recent months. Additionally, the Trump administration rerouted some 20,000 anti-drone missiles – initially earmarked for Kiev under Biden – to the Middle East, the Ukrainian leader claimed on Sunday.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
WHISPERING GIANT: Russia's quiet power leaves the West in the dust
One of the central paradoxes of Russia's foreign policy is this: while its primary goal has always been to secure full autonomy in its decision-making, success has often hinged on the international environment in which it pursues that aim. Even today, as Russia enjoys a degree of internal stability unmatched in the past 25 years, global shifts are helping shape the country's ability to resist what can only be described as the increasingly destructive efforts of the collective West. Chief among these global changes is the unmistakable decline of Western Europe's centrality in world affairs. Though the region still remains geographically and symbolically important – given its proximity to Russia and its alignment with the United States – it has lost the capacity to act as an independent player in global politics. Simply put, Western Europe no longer matters as much. It is no longer the center of decision-making or initiative, but a stage on which others perform. The true centers of gravity today are countries like China and India. Their behavior no longer forms the 'background noise' of international affairs – it drives global developments. For Russia, this transformation is both a strategic opportunity and a conceptual challenge. On the one hand, it liberates Moscow from the old and often fruitless task of seeking allies within the West to safeguard its interests, particularly along its most dangerous frontiers. On the other hand, it compels Russia to reconsider the nature of its role in the world. What does global responsibility look like for a nation whose foreign policy has never been driven by messianic ideals or the desire to impose its values on others? Historically, Russia's strategic posture has not been animated by ideological expansionism. Unlike the Western European colonial empires, Russia never pursued dominance over distant territories to extract resources or spread its worldview. Even during the height of its imperial strength, such as in the 19th-century annexation of Central Asia, the Russian Empire did not develop a colonial policy comparable to that of Britain or France. The reason lies not in a lack of capacity, but in a fundamentally different orientation: Russia has always been more concerned with preserving its internal sovereignty and strategic autonomy than with exporting its model. Even the oft-cited concept of 'Moscow as the Third Rome' is misunderstood in the West. It was never a call to global proselytizing. Unlike the United States, which often ties its foreign policy to ideological missions, Russia's approach is deeply pragmatic and rooted in the idea of national self-preservation. The Soviet period, of course, was an exception. The revolutionary zeal of 1917 gave Moscow a temporary ideological edge, and during the Cold War, the USSR promoted its values as part of a broader geopolitical confrontation. But even then, ideological outreach was quickly subordinated to the central strategic aim: maintaining national stability in opposition to American-led containment. Another consistent feature of Russia's foreign policy has been the tactical use of divisions within the West. Whether confronting Sweden, Napoleonic France, or Nazi Germany, Russia always benefited from securing at least one Western partner. In the Crimean War of the 1850s and again during the Cold War, Russia suffered political setbacks in part because the Western front was unusually united. After the Cold War ended unfavorably for Moscow, Russian strategy relied on the hope that the EU would eventually drift from Washington's orbit and reclaim some degree of autonomy. That, clearly, has not happened. Internal crises, the erosion of elite leadership, and the rise of bureaucratic inertia have left Western Europe politically paralyzed. When the Ukraine crisis escalated into a military confrontation, the region's powers not only failed to act independently – they leaned even harder on the United States. This failure of EU emancipation has not strengthened Washington, however. On the contrary, Western Europe's strategic irrelevance only underscores the West's shrinking role in global affairs. That chapter of world history – where Europe stood at the helm – is now closed. Today, Russia faces a world where resistance to Western pressure no longer requires fractures within the Western alliance. What matters now is the emergence of a truly global system – one in which power is no longer concentrated in Euro-Atlantic hands. In this environment, Russia's ability to assert its interests has improved not because the West is weaker per se, but because the world is more balanced. The failure of the previous US administration to 'isolate' Russia is significant not only as a diplomatic defeat for Washington, but as evidence of this wider trend. The global South has not turned against Russia. On the contrary, many emerging powers are increasingly assertive in defining their own paths, free of Western tutelage. This structural shift works to Russia's advantage. And yet, this new reality also imposes obligations. In a world that is waiting for Russia's presence, Russia must now ask: what kind of global actor does it wish to be? This is not a question of abandoning its historical pragmatism or inward-facing strategic culture. Rather, it is about integrating that realism with the unavoidable demands of global responsibility. Unlike the missionary democracies of the West, Russia does not seek to reshape the world in its own image. But as one of the few nations capable of independent action on the global stage, it must now participate in shaping that world, not simply reacting to it. This is the conceptual challenge of the coming years. How can Russia remain true to its tradition of self-defined interest while also engaging with a multipolar world that increasingly demands initiative, leadership, and presence? The answer will not be found in grand ideological blueprints or universalist visions. It will lie, as it always has for Russia, in a careful balancing of national sovereignty with the strategic realities of a changing global article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
