April 21, 2025

Russian Ministry of Defense: up To180 Ukrainian casualties during Easter cease-fire;  4,900 alleged  Ukrainian cease-fire violations

Russian Defense Ministry

Russian Defence Ministry on progress of special military operation as of 21 April 2025

🪖 In accordance with the order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, all the Groups of Forces deployed in the special military operation zone have been strictly observing the state of ceasefire from 18:00 of 19 April to 00:00 of 21 April remaining in previously taken positions.

💥 Despite the announced Easter ceasefire, the Ukrainian Armed Forces continued to conduct artillery fire and strike by unmanned aerial vehicles against the positions of Russian troops as well as civilian facilities in the border areas of Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk regions and the Republic of Crimea.

 In total, there were 4,900 ceasefire violations.

📍 The Armed Forces of Ukraine have attempted to launch attacks six times including in the areas of Sukhaya Balka, Bogatyr, Pershe-Travnya, Belogorovka, and Tarasovka (Donetsk People’s Republic) as well as Oleshnya (Kursk region). All those attempted attacks were repelled.

🎯 The enemy employed 90 fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles, eight of them outside the special military operation zone during the ceasefire. All UAVs have been shot down.

💥 The enemy shelled for Russian positions for 1,404 times from artillery pieces, MLRS, and mortars, plus 3,316 strikes by quadrocopters.

📊 In the border areas of Bryansk, Kursk, and Belgorod regions, 19 fire attacks, 49 strikes by FPV drones, and 16 ammunition drops from copter-type unmanned aerial vehicles (25 strongholds of the Russian Armed Forces and 51 settlements) had been carried out from 18:00 of 19 April till 00:00 of 21 April .

▪️ In general, during the daytime, the density of fire and operations by the enemy was significantly reduced along the front line.

💥 The Zapad Group of Forces engaged a mechanised brigade of the AFU near Kupyansk (Kharkov region). 

▪️ The enemy lost up to 30 troops.

🔥 The Yug Group of Forces delivered strikes at manpower and hardware of two mechanised brigades of the AFU, a territorial defence brigade, and a national guard brigade close to Shcherbinovka, Yablonovka, and Konstantinovka (Donetsk People’s Republic).

▪️The AFU losses amounted to up to 45 troops, a Kazak armoured fighting vehicle, and two field artillery guns.

💥 The Tsentr Group of Forces hit a mechanised brigade, an unmanned aerial vehicle, an assault regiment of the AFU, and a marine brigade near Krasnoarmeysk, Novopavlovka, and Alekseyevka (Donetsk People’s Republic).

▪️The AFU lost up to 80 troops, a Kazak armoured fighting vehicle, and a pickup truck.

🔥 The Vostok Group of Forces delivered strikes at manpower and hardware of a marine brigade near Bogatyr (Donetsk People’s Republic).

▪️ The enemy losses were more than 25 servicemen, an armoured personnel carrier, and a motor vehicle.

💥 The Dnepr Group of Forces damaged units of a mechanised brigade of the AFU and a territorial defence brigade near Novodanilovka (Zaporozhye region) and Ponyatovka (Kherson region).

▪️ Up to 10 troops, an electronic warfare station, and a U.S.-made AN/TPQ-36 counter-fire radar have been eliminated.

✈️ Operational-Tactical Aviation, strike drones, Missile Troops and Artillery of the Russian Groups of Forces have engaged the infrastructure of a military airfield, ammunition and unmanned aerial vehicles depots as well as temporary deployment areas of the Ukrainian armed forces in 74 areas.

🎯 Air defence systems have shot down 104 fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles.

📊 In total, since the beginning of the special military operation the AFU lost: 

 661 aircraft, 

 283 helicopters, 

 52,935 unmanned aerial vehicles, 

 604 anti-aircraft missile systems, 

 22,970 tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, 

 1,544 MLRS combat vehicles, 

 23,916 field artillery guns and mortars, 

 34,389 units of support military vehicles.

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.