April 13, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Russian ballistic missile attack on Sumy causes more than 100 casualties

Institute for the Study of War

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that ongoing US-Russian negotiations are unlikely to result in “lightning-fast results,” contrary to US President Donald Trump’s stated objective of achieving a general ceasefire and lasting peace agreement in Ukraine in the near future. Peskov told Kremlin journalist Pavel Zarubin on April 13 that “everything is moving very well” regarding US-Russian bilateral talks and discussions about the war in Ukraine but that there will likely not be immediate results.[1] Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Second Department of Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Director Alexei Polishchuk gave an interview to Russian state media group Rossiya Today (RT)and stated that Russia is willing to engage in negotiations that “take into account the modern realities” of the war and eliminate the “root causes” of Russia’s war in Ukraine.[2] Russian officials have repeatedly claimed that any peace process in Ukraine must address these so-called “root causes.”[3] Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously defined “root causes” as NATO’s alleged violation of obligations not to expand eastward and Ukraine’s alleged discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine.[4] These so-called ”root causes” are a reference to Russia’s pre-war demands that effectively amount to Ukraine’s full capitulation and the installation of a pro-Russian government in Ukraine.[5] Peskov’s and Polishchuk’s comments also reflect the Kremlin’s continued rejection of President Trump’s stated approach of first establishing a ceasefire and then negotiating a broader peace agreement and the Kremlin’s commitment to war aims that are incompatible with President Trump’s goal of achieving a lasting peace in Ukraine.

Any future general ceasefire or peace agreement must include robust monitoring mechanisms, given the Kremlin’s ongoing efforts to portray Ukraine as violating the long-range energy infrastructure strikes ceasefire without providing evidence of these strikes and despite the lack of public details about the ceasefire’s terms. It remains unclear what monitoring mechanisms the West could leverage to enforce and monitor a future general ceasefire or if the Kremlin would accept any such mechanisms. Peskov and Polishchuk reiterated ongoing Russian claims on April 13 that Ukraine is violating the temporary moratorium on long-range strikes against energy infrastructure.[6] Russian officials, led by the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD), have accused Ukraine of violating the temporary ceasefire almost every day since March 29 but have not provided evidence to substantiate most of these claims.[7] Russian officials have repeatedly claimed that Ukrainian forces are striking energy infrastructure along Ukraine’s northern border with Russia, although it remains unclear if strikes with tactical first-person view (FPV) drones or routine shelling would be a violation of the energy infrastructure strikes ceasefire as the terms of the ceasefire are publicly unclear. Russian officials appear to be weaponizing the vague conditions of the ceasefire and exploiting the absence of independent monitoring mechanisms to flood the information space with unsubstantiated claims about supposed Ukrainian ceasefire violations.

Russian officials may attempt to flood the information space with unsubstantiated claims of Ukrainian ceasefire violations in the future if a general ceasefire does not include robust independent monitoring mechanisms. Russian forces may conduct false flag attacks along the frontline in the event of a future general ceasefire in order to accuse Ukraine of violating the ceasefire and justify reigniting the conflict. ISW has previously assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claims that the current Ukrainian government is illegitimate are setting conditions to legitimize future Russian ceasefire violations.[8] The Kremlin is weaponizing the lack of monitoring mechanisms for the temporary energy infrastructure strikes ceasefire, and any future general ceasefire must have more robust monitoring mechanisms to deter, adjudicate, or at least properly record future violations.

Russian forces conducted a devastating ballistic missile strike against Sumy City on April 13, causing more than 100 casualties. Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces struck the center of Sumy City with two missiles on the morning of April 13, killing at least 34 civilians and injuring at least 118.[15] Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Head Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov reported that elements of the Russian 112th Missile Brigade (1st Guards Tank Army [GTA], Moscow Military District [MMD]) and 448th Missile Brigade (20th Combined Arms Army [CAA], MMD) launched the two Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles that struck Sumy City from near Liski, Voronezh Oblast and Lezhenki, Kursk Oblast.[16] Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation Head Lieutenant Andriy Kovalenko reported that the Russian missiles were equipped with cluster warheads.[17] Images and footage of the aftermath show fires, casualties, and extensive damage in central Sumy City.[18] The BBC Russian Service reported that Russian forces struck the Sumy State University’s Congress Center and noted that locals reported that the Congress Center hosts various classes and clubs, including classes for children.[19]

US Special Envoy for Ukraine and retired General Keith Kellogg condemned the Russian ballistic missile strike against Sumy City and stated that the strike “crosses any line of decency.”[20] US Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink acknowledged that Russian forces used ballistic missiles equipped with cluster warheads against Sumy City and expressed condolences.[21] UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, European Council President Antonio Costa, European Commission Vice President Kaja Kallas, EU Ambassador to Ukraine Katarina Maternova, French President Emmanuel Macron, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics, Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen, Spanish Ambassador to Ukraine Ricardo Lopex-Aranda, the Irish Embassy in Ukraine, and the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and a host of other Western officials condemned the Russian strike against Sumy City.[22]

Key Takeaways:

  • Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that ongoing US-Russian negotiations are unlikely to result in “lightning-fast results,” contrary to US President Donald Trump’s stated objective of achieving a general ceasefire and lasting peace agreement in Ukraine in the near future.
  • Any future general ceasefire or peace agreement must include robust monitoring mechanisms, given the Kremlin’s ongoing efforts to portray Ukraine as violating the long-range energy infrastructure strikes ceasefire without providing evidence of these strikes and despite the lack of public details about the ceasefire’s terms. It remains unclear what monitoring mechanisms the West could leverage to enforce and monitor a future general ceasefire or if the Kremlin would accept any such mechanisms.
  • Russian officials continue to weaponize the vague terms of the current ceasefire on long-range strikes against energy infrastructure and ongoing ceasefire negotiations in an effort to falsely portray Ukraine- and not Russia- as unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue.
  • Russian forces conducted a devastating ballistic missile strike against Sumy City on April 13, causing more than 100 casualties.
  • Ongoing milblogger complaints about the Russian military’s conduct of the war in Ukraine reinforce ISW’s assessment that Russian tactics will degrade Russia’s manpower and materiel resources and contribute to slowing Russian advances along the frontline.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Toretsk and Russian forces recently advanced near Kharkiv City, Borova, and Chasiv Yar.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.