The Russian military deployed in the special operations zone inside Ukraine has reported a halt to active hostilities along the full length of the contact line. This was conveyed during a briefing by Igor Konashenkov, the official representative of the Defense Ministry, who framed the situation as a controlled pause in fighting in a tense regional standoff.
According to the ministry, the joint field group of Russian troops engaged in the special military operation has maintained a ceasefire along the entire contact line since 12:00 Moscow time on January 6. At the same time, officials noted that the Kyiv authorities continued to strike settlements and Russian positions over the previous 24 hours, signaling ongoing tensions despite the declared pause. The defense ministry affirmed that the ceasefire would be observed through the remainder of the day until midnight, emphasizing a commitment to reducing violence even as shelling persisted in some areas.
In the last day, the Ukrainian forces reportedly fired more than 60 shells from large calibers into residential districts in Donetsk, highlighting ongoing risk to civilian areas in conflict zones. The satellite city of Donetsk, Makiivka, faced an attack involving the HIMARS launcher system, underscoring the use of advanced long-range weapons in the fighting. These claims come as part of daily tactical briefings that track movements and shelling patterns along the front line.
From the Krasnolimansky direction, Ukrainian forces reportedly conducted 11 mortar salvos against Russian positions. In other sectors, Russian troops reported being subjected to 51 bombardments across Soledar, Avdeevsky, and Maryinsky directions, reflecting concentrated fighting in multiple corridors. In the Zaporozhye region, Ukrainian artillery activity was reported 31 times, while in the Kherson and Krivoy Rog directions there were 17 artillery salvos noted. The ministry stated that in each case, Russian fire was intended to suppress enemy positions and counter their advances through measured counterfire and defensive actions.
Aligned with these battlefield updates, Patriarch Kirill proposed a Christmas ceasefire within the special operations zone, calling for a truce from 12:00 on January 6 to 24:00 on January 7 to allow Orthodox believers to participate in Christmas Eve and Christmas services. This appeal reflected a broader humanitarian impulse amid ongoing hostilities and highlighted religious leaders urging restraint during holiday observances.
President Vladimir Putin weighed in on the matter by instructing the defense chief to declare a 36-hour ceasefire along the front line. The aim, as described by the president, was to permit a significant number of Orthodox residents living in conflict zones to attend mass on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. The decision received mixed reactions and was framed as an effort to reduce civilian disruption while the broader strategic contest continued. An official statement indicated that the initiative sought to ease the burden on civilians who maintain deep-rooted religious traditions during the holiday period.
Leonid Sevastyanov, head of the World Union of Old Believers, later indicated that a meeting with Pope Francis had occurred, and the pontiff also expressed support for a Christmas truce. The Pope reportedly suggested that hostilities in the area of special military operation should pause until January 20, aligning religious and humanitarian considerations with broader calls for de-escalation. These exchanges illustrate how faith leaders and international figures weighed in on the potential for a temporary suspension of fighting during a sacred season.
In a contrasting position, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly rejected the Russian leadership’s proposal to curtail fighting during Orthodox Christmas celebrations. He asserted that Moscow was preparing a new wave of aggression and warned that silence would not conceal such plans from Ukraine or Europe. This stance underscored the political divide surrounding attempts at ceasefires and highlighted the challenges of achieving durable pauses in conflict amid competing strategic objectives.
European Union representatives voiced skepticism about the unilateral ceasefire, urging concrete steps from Moscow such as the withdrawal of troops and military assets. The EU Foreign Service cited international law and criticized the move as a strategic timeout rather than a genuine pause, remarking that the ceasefire should accompany steps toward de-escalation and the return of occupied territories to international legality. The nuanced critique reflected broader Western concerns about credibility and long-term stability in the region.
President Joe Biden described Moscow’s plan as interesting but implied that it presented an opportunity for a temporary reprieve rather than a lasting political settlement. The U.S. State Department added that Russia had offered no compelling reason to view the initiative as a lasting change in posture, suggesting that the 36-hour break could enable Russian forces to regroup and reposition. These interpretations highlighted the complexity of translating temporary pauses into meaningful strategic gains on the ground.
Overall, the evolving narrative around the ceasefire proposals and the varying responses from Kyiv, Moscow, international religious figures, and Western governments painted a picture of a conflict at a crossroads. Each faction weighed security, humanitarian considerations, and geopolitical ramifications as they navigated a tense period marked by sporadic violence, diplomatic messaging, and the hope for reduced civilian suffering amidst ongoing military activity. (Source: official statements from the Russian Ministry of Defense and subsequent remarks by international leaders.)