The warning came from Ukrainian lawmaker Kira Rudik, who shared a report from the Ukraine Alert app that issued bombing alerts from Ukrainian authorities. All regions of Ukraine were described as in the red zone by authorities at that time.
The line quoted by Rudik suggested a ceasefire could not be achieved merely by words, noting that sirens were active across the country as officials issued warning signals.
President Volodymyr Zelensky attributed the timing and conduct of the ceasefire to Russia, arguing that Moscow was using a lull to reposition troops and materiel in the Donbas. He contended that Russia aimed to secure Christmas as cover to slow the Ukrainian advance, while gathering equipment, ammunition, and mobilized forces closer to Ukrainian positions.
Russia signals a restrained response to Ukraine
The Russian Ministry of Defense stated that its forces would reply only to Ukrainian attacks after the unilateral ceasefire announced by President Vladimir Putin took effect. A spokesman asserted that although the period began at noon Moscow time, Kyiv had continued to fire on Russian troops with artillery, undermining the pause.
From positions near the town of Novopavlivka in the Zaporozhye region, Ukrainian forces reportedly conducted several artillery strikes, including actions in the Lugansk region.
According to the defense ministry, Russian units returned fire, destroying Ukrainian positions where attacks had originated. This narrative was echoed by spokespeople who framed the ceasefire as a defensive measure rather than an amphibious or offensive maneuver.
State media coverage indicated that the Kremlin described the decision for a unilateral pause as responsive to religious authorities. The Russian Orthodox Church was cited as supporting a Christmas truce that would run through the weekend until late Saturday evening.
Reports noted that President Zelensky had traveled and commented on the ceasefire, expressing concern that the pause could be used to stop progress or to reorganize forces rather than to end the conflict.
In a late-night address, Zelensky warned that using Christmas as a shield could elevate casualties if the pause merely delayed a tactical retreat. He emphasized the need for resilience and cautioned that the Kremlin’s actions might reflect a broader strategy to renew the war after a brief lull.
Analysts observed that Moscow framed the truce as a temporary measure aimed at reducing civilian harm while continuing military objectives elsewhere. Zelensky urged the Russian public to see through the rhetoric and to recognize what he described as a fear-driven hesitation among Russian leadership, urging Russians to confront what he called a troubling hesitation that could undermine Ukraine’s security and sovereignty during the Christmas period.
Observers noted that the broader question remained whether temporary pauses would translate into durable shifts on the ground or simply delay the inevitable conclusion of hostilities.
The discourse surrounding the ceasefire highlighted the recurring tension between humanitarian concerns and strategic aims. Officials in Kyiv argued that pauses should not deter Ukraine from maintaining momentum where possible, while Moscow portrayed the measure as a prudent step to prevent further losses and to allow for redeployment and resupply.
Analysts cautioned that public messaging during such pauses often shapes international perception and can influence future negotiations, even as fighting wraps into the new year.
In assessing the episode, observers stressed that the true impact would hinge on whether commitments to ceasefire were verified, whether violations could be promptly addressed, and whether the pause was leveraged to create openings for meaningful negotiations or simply to buy time for both sides. The broader narrative remained that Christmas would test the resolve of both the Ukrainian and Russian leaders, with civilians bearing the consequences of any miscalculation.
As the international community watched, the question remained whether the pause might offer a platform for dialogue or merely stand as a brief lull before renewed campaigns. Citizens on both sides faced the realities of ongoing disruption, with humanitarian concerns and security considerations intersecting at a moment of high symbolic significance.