April 20, 2025

Institute for the Study of War:  Ukraine charges Russia with mulstiple violations during cease-fire

Institute for the Study of War

The snap Russian-proposed Easter truce underscores the necessity that the text of any ceasefire or peace agreement be publicly available, formally agreed to in advance by all parties, and include robust monitoring mechanisms. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported at 2000 local time April 20 that Russian forces in “all main frontline directions” conducted ground attacks and drone and artillery strikes against Ukrainian forces in violation of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 30-hour unilateral truce from 1800 Moscow time on April 19 to 0000 Moscow time on April 21.[1] Zelensky also stated on April 20 that Russian forces conducted attacks in the Siversk, Toretsk, and Zaporizhia directions and are conducting offensive operations most intensely in the Pokrovsk direction.[2] Zelensky’s statement from 1600 local time April 20 also reported Russian truce violations in Kursk Oblast, although Zelensky stated earlier at 0000 local time April 20 that Putin did not extend the truce to Kursk or Belgorod oblasts.[3] Zelensky reiterated that an effective ceasefire agreement must provide monitoring mechanisms of potential violations and that Ukrainian forces will respond “symmetrically” to Russian assaults.[4] The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed on April 20 that Russian forces had “strictly” observed the truce and claimed that Ukrainian forces conducted drone and artillery strikes against Russian positions and Russian-occupied settlements since the truce began.[5] Ukrainian and Russian sources noted that fighting abated but did not fully cease in some directions, including the Kupyansk, Pokrovsk, and Toretsk directions, and that fighting in other directions temporarily ceased around 1800 on April 19 but has since resumed with variable frequency and intensity.[6] NASA Fire Information for Resource Management (FIRMS) data shows satellite-detected heat anomalies along the frontline on April 20 that may suggest military activity, but ISW is unable to independently verify the specific reports of violations made by Russian or Ukrainian sources.

 Zelensky reported that Russian forces did not conduct long-range strikes against Ukraine on the night of April 19 to 20 and during the day on April 20 and proposed a temporary moratorium on long-range strikes against civilian infrastructure.[7] Zelensky stated that Ukraine and Russia achieved a long-range strikes ceasefire between April 19 and 20 and during the day on April 20 and such a ceasefire is the easiest to extend. Zelensky proposed a temporary ceasefire on long-range missile and drone strikes against civilian infrastructure for a minimum of 30 days, with the opportunity to extend the ceasefire beyond 30 days. Russia and Ukraine repeatedly accused each other of violating the temporary energy infrastructure strikes ceasefire, but Putin and other senior Russian officials have repeatedly rejected the March 13 joint US-Ukrainian 30-day full ceasefire proposal over the last five weeks.[8] A temporary civilian infrastructure strikes ceasefire agreement — and especially a general ceasefire agreement — would require robust monitoring mechanisms, public and formal terms, and a clearly defined time frame. The Kremlin may continue to leverage any vague future ceasefire agreements to obfuscate Russia’s rejection of US and Ukrainian ceasefire proposals and to accuse Ukraine of violating such ceasefire terms.[9]

Ukrainian officials continue to highlight Russia’s systematic persecution of religious communities throughout occupied Ukraine, including against Christians. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported on April 20 that Russian forces have killed or tortured 67 Ukrainian priests, pastors, and monks and destroyed 640 religious sites, most of which are Christian sites, since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.[10] ISW has previously reported on Russia’s religious oppression in occupied Ukraine, including arbitrary detention and assassinations of Ukrainian clergy or religious leaders and the looting, desecration, and deliberate destruction of places of worship.[11] ISW has also reported at length on Russia’s systematic repression of Orthodox Church of Ukraine and other religious minorities, particularly Ukrainian Protestants and Baptists, who have faced Russian brutality and other repressions throughout Ukraine.[12]

The Kremlin continues to repurpose narratives that Russian officials have repeatedly used to justify Russia’s invasions of Ukraine in an effort to further militarize Russian society in the long term, likely in preparation for a potential future protracted conflict with NATO. Russian state journalist Pavel Zarubin asked Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a question on April 20 about the EU’s recommendation that European leaders refrain from attending Russia’s May 9 Victory Day Parade in Moscow.[13] (Victory Day is Russia’s principal patriotic holiday and commemorates the Soviet Union’s contributions to victory over Nazi Germany in the Second World War, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War.) Lavrov accused the EU of stoking “neo-Nazi ideology” in Europe and stated that Russia “will make every effort to ensure that this ideology does not raise its head,” and will destroy Nazism “once and for all.” Lavrov’s statements are part of a long-standing Kremlin effort to invoke the Soviet Union’s contributions to victory over Nazi Germany and the wider mythos of the Great Patriotic War and vilify Europe and NATO. These efforts aim to exacerbate negative sentiments among Russia’s population and drum up support for the militarization of Russian society in the long term.[14] The Kremlin has previously appealed to the mythos of the Great Patriotic War to persuade the Russian population that their increasing social and economic sacrifices for the Russian war effort in Ukraine can help achieve overwhelming victory.[15]Russian President Vladimir Putin and other high-ranking Kremlin officials regularly invoke the vague term of “denazification” to call for regime change in Ukraine and the installation of a pro-Russian proxy government, and Putin leveraged claims that supposed Nazis control the Ukrainian government to justify the full-scale invasion in February 2022.[16] The Kremlin is increasingly employing the same playbook that it used against Ukraine towards Finland and former Soviet states, including Estonia and Moldova to justify its attempts to control independent countries and set informational conditions for possible future Russian aggression.[17]

Key Takeaways:

  • The snap Russian-proposed Easter truce underscores the necessity that the text of any ceasefire or peace agreement be publicly available, formally agreed to in advance by all parties, and include robust monitoring mechanisms.
  • Zelensky reported that Russian forces did not conduct long-range strikes against Ukraine on the night of April 19 to 20 and during the day on April 20 and proposed a temporary moratorium on long-range strikes against civilian infrastructure.
  • Ukrainian officials continue to highlight Russia’s systematic persecution of religious communities throughout occupied Ukraine, including against Christians.
  • The Kremlin continues to repurpose narratives that Russian officials have repeatedly used to justify Russia’s invasions of Ukraine in an effort to further militarize Russian society in the long term, likely in preparation for a potential future protracted conflict with NATO.
  • Russian forces recently advanced in Kursk Oblast and near Toretsk before the start of the Easter truce.
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.