Home › Security › Drones and casualties: security reports before 6 May 2025
Drones and casualties: security reports before 6 May 2025

Summary
A look back at the security reports from 30 April to 3 May 2025 that framed the situation on 6 May 2025.
What did the security picture look like on 6 May 2025? The reports from the preceding days pointed to a war fought increasingly by drone, at sea, in Ukrainian cities and on Russian territory.
Drones in both directions
On 1 May, an overnight Russian drone attack on Odesa killed two people and injured 15 others. According to the Governor of Odesa Oblast, Oleh Kiper, the targets included high-rise apartments, residential homes, a supermarket and a school.
Ukrainian strikes were reported on 3 May. Four people were injured when an overnight Ukrainian drone strike hit an apartment building in Novorossiysk, in Russia's Krasnodar Krai. The mayor of Novorossiysk declared a state of emergency after the strikes.
The same day, the Ukrainian intelligence directorate claimed it had shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jet over the Black Sea with a MAGURA naval drone. The claim was Ukraine's own, as reported at the time.
North Korean troops
On 30 April, South Korean intelligence claimed that North Korean troops involved in the Russian invasion had suffered around 4,700 casualties, including about 600 fatalities, out of 15,000 soldiers. It also said their combat capability had improved significantly, with growing proficiency in new weapons such as drones.
Mobilisation in the courts
On 1 May, the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled against religious exemptions from military service in wartime. The case concerned a member of Jehovah's Witnesses who had refused to be mobilised.
What the reports show together
Taken together, the reports show drones recurring across the different fronts: Russian attacks on civilian areas of Odesa, a Ukrainian naval drone credited with downing an aircraft, and a foreign intelligence assessment that North Korean troops were improving with the same technology. The court ruling shows the legal side of keeping the army manned during wartime.