Olaf Scholz Condemned Russia’s Missile Attack on Sumy

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Condemned the attack on the Russian missiles against Sumy, Ukraine, who killed at least 32 people, including two children, on April 13, 2025, as a “barbaric attack”. He said on X The fact that the strike, which occurred during the Palm Sunday celebrations, showed the lack of sincerity of Russia to seek peace and underlined its continuous assault. Scholz expressed his solidarity to the families of the victims and underlined Germany’s commitment to work with international partners for a cease-fire. Incoming chancellor Friedrich Merz Also qualified the attack on “deliberate and calculated war crime”, noting that the second wave of strikes struck as the emergency workers responded, and reported the opening to the supply of Ukraine with Taurus missiles.

The cease-fire efforts in the Russian-Ukraine conflict, in particular around April 2025, were marked by complex negotiations, partial agreements and persistent challenges. The Trump administration proposed a 30-day ceasefire to interrupt hostilities throughout the front line, aimed at creating a space for wider peace negotiations. Ukraine accepted the proposal in early March during the talks in Djeddah, Saudi Arabia, with US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. The United States has agreed to resume information sharing and military aid to Ukraine as part of the agreement.

Russian president Vladimir Putin expressed prudent support in principle but raised conditions which complicated the agreement. These included: the Ukrainian withdrawal from the Russian Kursk region, where the kyiv forces held the territory of an incursion in 2024. The judgment of the forced mobilization of Ukraine and Western weapons supplies during the ceasefire. Guaranteed to prevent Ukraine from using the break to regroup or rearm.

Russia has rejected the full 30-day ceasefire, Putin declaring that unresolved problems, such as monitoring and military activities in Ukraine, needed clarification. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy Called the “manipulative” Russia’s response, accusing Moscow of using conditions to prolong the war. March 18, during a call with the American president Donald Trump, Putin agreed that a partial cease-fire interrupted strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, provided Ukrainian reciprocity. Ukraine, although initially engaged in a larger ceasefire, accepted this limited truce. The two parties would have ceased to target the energy facilities at the end of March, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirming any attack on the energy objectives after March 25.

The mutual accusations of violations emerged. Russia said that Ukraine had attacked a gas installation in Sudzha and other sites, while Ukraine has denied them and accused Russia of bombing its own territory to discredit kyiv. The agreement lacked clear execution mechanisms, leading to confusion. Ukraine expressed skepticism about the commitment of Russia, invoking violations of the ceasefire. This partial truce was considered a step towards de -escalation, benefiting the two parties – the tense energy network of Ukraine and the oil revenues of Russia – but has failed to interrupt the wider hostilities.

On March 24, parallel speaks RiyadhSaudi Arabia has led Russia and Ukraine to accept “to eliminate the use of force” in the Black Sea, focusing on safe navigation. Ukraine noted that an informal cease-fire was already in force, the Russian forces avoiding attacks against Ukrainian ports. Russia has linked the agreement to sanctions in its agricultural exports, Ukraine demand and the United States have resisted. Zelenskyy clarified that no relief of the sanctions was required for the truce to start, accusing Moscow of distorting the terms.

The ceasefire was initially self-political, with Ukraine suggesting that Turkey or Saudi Arabia could monitor compliance. No formal application has been established, which raises concerns about sustainability. The agreement aimed to secure cereal exports and reduce naval tensions, but its scope has remained limited, and the insistence of Russia on concessions blocked progress to a wider ceasefire. Russian ceasefire requests include the decline in NATO aspirations, recognizing Russian control over the annexed regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson), limiting the military size of Ukraine and the softening of Western sanctions. These are largely non-starters for Ukraine and its allies, which prioritize the guarantees of sovereignty and security of kyiv.

Ukraine supports the ceasefire but insists on a progressive approach: an immediate stop of the fighting, followed by negotiations for lasting peace with guarantees of security supported by the West. Zelenskyy rejected any agreement freezing the conflict with Russia occupying Ukrainian territory, citing past agreements such as mininsk agreements. The Trump administration prioritized diplomacy, Trump personally engaging Putin and Zelenskyy. However, American pressure on Russia has been tempered by threats to sanctions rather than concrete actions, and some European allies are concerned about Washington’s softened position towards Moscow.

Germany, the United Kingdom, France and others have strengthened military aid to Ukraine (for example, the German package of 7 billion euros in 2025) and pushed Russia to engage in peace talks. EU ministers have called for deadlines to put pressure on Moscow, but the lever effect remains limited due to existing sanctions. China has proposed waves peace plans, emphasizing dialogue and territorial integrity, but also suggesting that Western weapons supplies prolong the war. They have gained little traction. Saudi Arabia organized talks, positioning itself as a neutral mediator.

In early April, Russia’s additional conditions – such as installing a temporary administration in Ukraine to supervise the elections – more delayed. The United States has threatened sanctions against Russian oil, but Trump has expressed the hope that Putin did not corner. Despite partial trues, Russia intensified the attacks, including the April 13 missile strike on Sumy, who killed 32 years and was sentenced by German leaders as “barbarian”. Ukraine has reported an increase in Russian attacks along the front, undermining the credibility of the ceasefire.

A complete ceasefire remains elusive due to incompatible objectives. Russia seeks to enclose territorial gains and weaken the soldiers of Ukraine, while Ukraine and its allies favor the restoration of pre-war borders and long-term security insurance. Partial agreements (energy, black sea) show limited cooperation but lack confidence and application. A ceasefire without strong guarantees could allow Russia to regroup, because it exceeds Ukraine in the recruitment and production of weapons. Ukraine fears a repetition of past trèces that have collapsed, leaving it vulnerable. Conversely, the fight against prolonged combat risks for Kyiv, in particular with uncertain American aid.

The upcoming talks, including the discussions led by NATO on peacekeeping and meetings of defense contact groups of Ukraine, can clarify the monitoring mechanisms or expand partial. However, the progress of the battlefield of Russia, in particular in Kursk and in the east of Ukraine, strengthened its leveraging effect, complicating diplomacy. The cease-fire efforts in April 2025 are fragmented, with a limited success in energy and the Black Sea, but no full-term agreement of hostilities. The strict conditions and the ongoing attacks of Russia, such as Sumy’s strike, undermines confidence, while Ukraine’s commitment to peace is facing the pressure of declining resources. International mediation, led by the United States and supported by Europe, continues, but a lasting agreement requires compromise that none of the parties seems ready to do.