German Chancellor Olaf Scholz condemned the Russian missile attack on Sumy, Ukraine, which killed at least 32 people, including two children, on April 13, 2025, as a “barbaric attack.” He stated on X that the strike, which occurred during Palm Sunday celebrations, showed Russia’s lack of sincerity in seeking peace and underscored its continued aggression. Scholz expressed solidarity with the victims’ families and emphasized Germany’s commitment to working with international partners for a ceasefire. Incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz also called the attack a “deliberate and calculated war crime,” noting the second wave of strikes hit as emergency workers responded, and signaled openness to supplying Ukraine with Taurus missiles.
Ceasefire efforts in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, particularly around April 2025, have been marked by complex negotiations, partial agreements, and persistent challenges. The Trump administration proposed a 30-day ceasefire to pause hostilities across the entire front line, aiming to create space for broader peace negotiations. Ukraine accepted the proposal in early March during talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. The U.S. agreed to resume intelligence sharing and military aid to Ukraine as part of the deal.
Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed cautious support in principle but raised conditions that complicated agreement. These included: Ukrainian withdrawal from Russia’s Kursk region, where Kyiv’s forces held territory from a 2024 incursion. Halting Ukraine’s forced mobilization and Western arms supplies during the ceasefire. Guarantees to prevent Ukraine from using the pause to regroup or rearm.
Russia rejected the full 30-day ceasefire, with Putin stating that unresolved issues, such as monitoring mechanisms and Ukraine’s military activities, needed clarification. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called Russia’s response “manipulative,” accusing Moscow of using conditions to prolong the war. On March 18, during a call with U.S. President Donald Trump, Putin agreed to a partial ceasefire halting strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, provided Ukraine reciprocated. Ukraine, though initially committed to a broader ceasefire, accepted this limited truce. Both sides reportedly stopped targeting energy facilities by late March, with Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry confirming no attacks on energy targets after March 25.
Mutual accusations of violations emerged. Russia claimed Ukraine attacked a gas facility in Sudzha and other sites, while Ukraine denied these and accused Russia of shelling its own territory to discredit Kyiv. The agreement lacked clear enforcement mechanisms, leading to confusion. Ukraine expressed skepticism about Russia’s commitment, citing past ceasefire breaches. This partial truce was seen as a step toward de-escalation, benefiting both sides—Ukraine’s strained energy grid and Russia’s oil revenue—but fell short of halting broader hostilities.
On March 24, parallel talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, led to Russia and Ukraine agreeing to “eliminate the use of force” in the Black Sea, focusing on safe navigation. Ukraine noted an informal ceasefire was already in effect, with Russian forces avoiding attacks on Ukrainian ports. Russia tied the deal to sanctions relief on its agricultural exports, a demand Ukraine and the U.S. resisted. Zelenskyy clarified that no sanctions relief was required for the truce to start, accusing Moscow of distorting terms.
The ceasefire was initially self-policed, with Ukraine suggesting Turkey or Saudi Arabia could monitor compliance. No formal enforcement was established, raising concerns about sustainability. The deal aimed to secure grain exports and reduce naval tensions, but its scope remained limited, and Russia’s insistence on concessions stalled progress toward a broader ceasefire. Russia’s demands for a ceasefire include Ukraine dropping NATO aspirations, recognizing Russian control over annexed regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson), limiting Ukraine’s military size, and easing Western sanctions. These are largely non-starters for Ukraine and its allies, who prioritize Kyiv’s sovereignty and security guarantees.
Ukraine supports ceasefires but insists on a phased approach: an immediate halt to fighting, followed by negotiations for a durable peace with Western-backed security guarantees. Zelenskyy has rejected any deal freezing the conflict with Russia occupying Ukrainian territory, citing past failed agreements like the Minsk accords. The Trump administration has prioritized diplomacy, with Trump personally engaging Putin and Zelenskyy. However, U.S. pressure on Russia has been tempered by threats of sanctions rather than concrete actions, and some European allies worry about Washington’s softened stance toward Moscow.
Germany, the UK, France, and others have bolstered military aid to Ukraine (e.g., Germany’s €7 billion package in 2025) and pushed for Russia to commit to peace talks. EU ministers have called for deadlines to pressure Moscow, but leverage remains limited due to existing sanctions. China has proposed vague peace plans, emphasizing dialogue and territorial integrity but also suggesting Western arms supplies prolong the war. These have gained little traction. Saudi Arabia has hosted talks, positioning itself as a neutral mediator.
By early April, Russia’s additional conditions—such as installing a temporary administration in Ukraine to oversee elections—further delayed progress. The U.S. threatened sanctions on Russian oil, but Trump expressed hope Putin was not stalling. Despite partial truces, Russia intensified attacks, including the April 13 missile strike on Sumy, which killed 32 and was condemned by German leaders as “barbaric.” Ukraine reported increased Russian assaults along the front, undermining ceasefire credibility.
A comprehensive ceasefire remains elusive due to mismatched goals. Russia seeks to lock in territorial gains and weaken Ukraine’s military, while Ukraine and its allies prioritize restoring pre-war borders and ensuring long-term security. Partial agreements (energy, Black Sea) show limited cooperation but lack trust and enforcement. A ceasefire without strong guarantees could allow Russia to regroup, as it outpaces Ukraine in recruitment and weapons production. Ukraine fears a repeat of past truces that collapsed, leaving it vulnerable. Conversely, prolonged fighting risks further losses for Kyiv, especially with U.S. aid uncertain.
Upcoming talks, including NATO-led discussions on peacekeeping and Ukraine Defense Contact Group meetings, may clarify monitoring mechanisms or expand partial truces. However, Russia’s battlefield advances, particularly in Kursk and eastern Ukraine, strengthen its negotiating leverage, complicating diplomacy. Ceasefire efforts in April 2025 are fragmented, with limited success in energy and Black Sea truces but no agreement on a full halt to hostilities. Russia’s stringent conditions and ongoing attacks, like the Sumy strike, undermine trust, while Ukraine’s commitment to peace faces pressure from dwindling resources. International mediation, led by the U.S. and supported by Europe, continues, but a lasting deal requires compromises neither side seems ready to make.
