Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 7, 2026

Toplines

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced the terms for Russia’s unilaterally-declared May 9 Victory Day ceasefire. The Russian MoD stated on May 7 that Russia will unilaterally enact a Victory Day ceasefire starting at midnight local time on May 8 to midnight on the morning of May 10.[1] The Russian MoD claimed that Russian forces will completely cease hostilities, including on the ground, frontline drone and artillery strikes, and long-range drone and missile strikes. The Russian MoD called on Ukraine to “follow this example” and reiterated its warning that Russian forces will launch a “massive” missile strike against Kyiv City if Ukraine does not comply with the ceasefire either on the battlefield or in strikes against Russian and occupied regions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on May 7 that Russia responded to Ukraine’s May 5 to 6 unilateral ceasefire with additional strikes and new threats[2] Zelensky stated that Russia “wants Ukraine’s permission” to “safely take to Red Square for one hour once a year” for the Victory Day parade before returning to its war against Ukraine.  Russia will likely use its unilaterally imposed ceasefire to justify threats of or actual escalation against Ukraine.

Russia is issuing increasingly dramatic threats of escalation against Ukraine in the lead up to the unilaterally-declared Victory Day ceasefire. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed on May 7 that Russia will take “appropriate steps” if Ukraine conducts strikes against Russia to “disrupt” the May 9 Victory Day celebrations, including strikes against decision-making centers in Kyiv City.[3] Zakharova and the Russian MoD reiterated the Russian MoD’s May 4 call for Ukrainian civilians and personnel of foreign diplomatic missions to leave Kyiv City immediately.[4] Zakharova claimed that the Russian MFA sent this warning to all foreign diplomatic missions and international organization representative offices due to the possibility of a Russian retaliatory strike against the city.[5] Russian State Duma deputies, who often act as bullhorns for the Kremlin’s rhetorical lines, claimed that Russian forces may use Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) in the retaliatory strikes against Kyiv City and that these statements are Russia’s “last warning to Brussels.”[6] European Commission Spokesperson Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Anouar El-Anouni stated on May 7 that the EU will not change its presence in Kyiv City and noted that Russian strikes have already damaged several diplomatic missions in Kyiv City, including the EU’s mission to Ukraine.[7] El-Anouni stated that Russia is again attempting to shift the blame for its war onto Ukraine and that Russia is only escalating its war instead of showing a serious intent to make peace.

The Kremlin is likely attempting to establish that it can depopulate Kyiv City and control the decision-making of Ukraine’s partners with threats of escalating the war, even as Russian President Vladimir Putin likely seeks to disguise the weakness that Ukrainian deep-rear strikes against Russia have exposed. ISW continues to assess that Russia’s threat to retaliate against Ukraine for allegedly planning strikes against Moscow for Victory Day celebrations reflects Putin’s recognition that he cannot reliably defend his capital or other deep-rear areas from Ukrainian strikes.[8] The Kremlin’s escalating threats leading up to the May 9 Victory Day likely intend to obfuscate this weakness by threatening or demonstrating a show of force against Ukraine and its allies, including with the Duma deputies’ invocation of the Oreshnik. The Kremlin has periodically launched or otherwise invoked the threat of its Oreshnik IRBMs in order to unsuccessfully compel Ukraine to capitulate at key points in the war and has also used the deployments of Oreshniks to Belarus to threaten Europe.[9] Russia has conducted failed efforts to compel Ukrainians to leave Kyiv City through cognitive warfare efforts falsely portraying Russian forces as able to make a rapid drive on Kyiv City and through intense drone and missile strikes against Ukrainian energy facilities in Winter 2025-2026.[10] Russia is likely attempting to continue its cognitive warfare effort in part by issuing escalating threats against Ukraine and its partners.

Russian milbloggers criticized Russian threats to strike central Kyiv City and questioned the Kremlin’s willingness to carry out such a strike at all. Russian milbloggers criticized the MFA’s threats, claiming that Russian forces should have struck Ukrainian decision-making centers earlier in the war if they have the capability to do so.[11] One milblogger questioned why Russia does not similarly respond to daily Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil infrastructure and cities.[12] Another milblogger claimed that the Kremlin must follow through on its threats in order for them to be convincing.[13] Another milblogger associated with the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) claimed that a Russian strike on central Kyiv City would need to be a systematic and well-planned campaign, not a “vague” one-off strike.[14] The milblogger claimed that Russia would have to launch a large package of drones and missiles, including Oreshniks, to have the desired media effect. The milblogger claimed that a large-scale strike against central Kyiv City would “waste” Russian options for leverage to compel Ukraine to surrender to Russia, leaving only Russian strikes against Ukraine’s military or the use of nuclear weapons.

The Kremlin continues to set informational conditions to justify possible future air defense activity against NATO airspace. The Latvian National Armed Forces reported on May 7 that several drones entered Latvian airspace from Russia and two drones crashed in Latvian territory.[15] Latvian Defense Minister Andris Spruds stated on May 7 that preliminary information suggests these drones were Ukrainian drones directed at targets in Russia but emphasized that Ukraine has every right to defend itself and to strike legitimate targets on Russian territory.[16] The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed on May 7 that the Russian forces detected six drones, two French Rafale fighter jets, and two F-16 fighter jets in Latvian airspace at 0400 local time on May 7, that five drones disappeared near Rezekne in eastern Latvia, and that Russian forces downed the sixth drone in Russian airspace near Likhachevo, Pskov Oblast at 0441 local time.[17] The Russian MoD’s regular report on Russian air defense activity overnight did not claim that Russian air defense shot down Ukrainian drones over Pskov Oblast but did claim to have shot down drones other Russian regions that Ukrainian drones could plausibly have flown through en route to Russian Baltic Sea ports from Ukrainian territory, including Bryansk, Kaluga, Smolensk, Tver, and Novgorod oblasts.[18] The MoD’s attempt to portray Ukrainian forces as using Baltic airspace to target Russia is a continuation of Russian officials’ efforts to set conditions to violate Baltic and Finnish airspace for allegedly allowing Ukrainian strike drones to use Baltic and Finnish airspace.[19]

Internal Russian Presidential Administration documents suggest that Russia remains unwilling to meaningfully compromise on an end-state to the war in Ukraine. Russian investigative outlet Dossier Center published on May 7 presentation slides titled “After Victory,” which employees of Russian Presidential Administration Deputy Head Sergei Kiriyenko reportedly created to outline the “most plausible scenario” for the end of the war in Ukraine and ways to “sell” a peace agreement to the Russian population.[20] Dossier Center reported that Kremlin employees began working on the presentation as early as February 2026. A source close to the Presidential Administration told Dossier Center that the Presidential Administration created the presentation due to the Kremlin‘s worry about poor Russian battlefield performance and the effect of the war on the Russian economy. The presentation’s “most plausible scenario” reportedly envisioned the United States signing two separate peace agreements with Russia and Ukraine in which Russia would gain control over Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, withdraw from Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts, and freeze the frontline in Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts. The scenario foresees that the United States will lift sanctions against Russia, that European sanctions will remain in place, that Ukraine would have a neutral status and serve as a “buffer zone” between Russia and the West, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would remain president, and that Russia would achieve only the “symbolic and restrained denazification” of Ukraine. The presentation noted that continuing the war in Ukraine would be risky as it would require Russia to transfer its entire economy to a full wartime footing and conduct a general mobilization and would further damage Russia’s demographic problems due to high losses. The presentation acknowledged that parts of Russia’s ultranationalist community, including milbloggers, will most likely oppose this peace scenario but that Russian authorities would threaten the milbloggers with discrediting Russian forces and would strengthen the voices of moderates in the media space to counter them. The slides also discussed rhetorical frameworks for explaining the peace agreement to the Russian population, including narratives that Russia prevented a humanitarian catastrophe in Donbas, that Russia achieved maximum results without a general mobilization, that Putin thwarted Western efforts to expand and prolong the conflict, and that Putin knows what is best for Russia.

The Russian Presidential Administration may have leaked the slides as part of a cognitive warfare effort intended to portray Russia as willing to make compromises to end the war in Ukraine. The slides are not part of the official Russian position on negotiations, but the presented scenario for the end of the war is similar to what the Kremlin has framed as acceptable in recent months.[21] Leaking the presentation slides may have been intentional in order to demonstrate Russia’s alleged willingness to cede territory in exchange for Ukraine handing over the rest of Donetsk Oblast. The Presidential Administration is falsely presenting this war termination scenario as a major Russian concession, however, as Russian forces are unlikely to seize the rest of Donetsk Oblast militarily in the near- to medium- term, if at all.[22]