Ukraine accused Russia of committing a war crime after Palm Sunday’s missile strike on Sumy. Kiev’s claim that Russia targeted churchgoers was echoed by Trump’s Envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg, but the Russian Defense Ministry insisted that it targeted “a meeting of the command staff of the Seversk operational-tactical group”, which Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later added was attended by NATO servicemen. Trump also chimed in and said that “I was told they (Russia) made a mistake, it was terrible.”
A debate is therefore raging over whether this was a war crime like Ukraine claimed, a terrible mistake like Trump alleged, or a legitimate strike like Russia insists. In the order that these explanations were shared, Ukraine’s is aimed at further rallying the West to apply more pressure upon Trump to pull the US out of its talks with Russia. Claiming that Russia deliberately targeted churchgoers on Palm Sunday is meant to make it more difficult for these talks to continue and for Trump to one day meet Putin again.
As for Trump’s explanation of events, he wasn’t going to discredit himself by denying that it took place, but he also didn’t want to fall into Ukraine’s trap of lending credence to its war crime claim. That’s why he instead opted for the middle ground of acknowledging what happened but attributing it to some vague “mistake” by Russia such as a wayward missile or faulty intelligence. Trump can’t approve of any Russian strike that causes civilian casualties, but he also won’t let such ruin their ongoing talks either.
And finally, Russia’s explanation maintains the country’s integrity by insisting that the targets were legitimate, though it also accounts for the reported civilian casualties by mentioning how Ukraine employs de facto human shields by illegally deploying military assets in civilian areas. While critics might scoff at this version, it’s lent credence by the mayor of nearby Konotop declaring on video that the regional military governor “organized an award ceremony for the soldiers of the 117th brigade” that day.
He also said that civilians were invited to attend the event, which he claimed that the regional military governor was earlier warned not to hold, presumably due to the risk of a Russian strike. This additional information, which is omitted from many of the Mainstream Media reports about Palm Sunday’s missile strike, contextualizes Russia’s decision-making process on that fateful day and the reported civilian casualties. Accordingly, it was neither a war crime nor a terrible mistake, but a legitimate strike.
To elaborate, the regional military governor thought that inviting civilians to attend an award ceremony for the soldiers that he decided to host inside the city on Palm Sunday would deter Russia, yet Russia’s cost-benefit analysis was different than what he expected. From Russia’s perspective, taking out those VIP targets at the possible cost of some civilian casualties could hasten the end of the conflict, thus ultimately saving more civilians in the long run than if the conflict continued.
Moreover, observers should remember that Russia has the international legal right to strike military targets anywhere in Ukraine, while Ukraine has the international legal responsibility not to deploy military assets in civilian areas. For whatever one might think about the morality of Russia’s decision-making process, it was the regional military governor who irresponsibly assembled this legitimate target in Sumy, which he then surrounded with de facto human shields in a failed attempt to deter Russia.
As was earlier assessed, what took place wasn’t a war crime nor a terrible mistake, but a legitimate strike that was carried out after weighing the humanitarian-political costs and military-strategic benefits. This bold action was also undertaken to help push Ukraine out of the rest of neighboring Kursk Region since the targets that had assembled in Sumy were directly responsible for this invasion of Russian territory. Fully removing its forces from there is a prerequisite to any cessation of hostilities in this conflict.
From Ukraine’s perspective, the civilian casualties caused by the collateral damage from this strike serve as the perfect pretext for rallying the West against the Russian-US talks, which takes on an even greater urgency considering that the consequences that this strike had on Ukraine’s operations in Kursk. If Ukraine is soon pushed out of this entire region as a result, then Russia might expand its counteroffensive into Sumy in order to pressure Kiev into complying with Moscow’s peace demands.
Ukraine obviously wants to prevent that, to which end it believes that rallying the West could help, especially if the media-manipulated optics of this strike complicate the Russian-US talks. The timing also couldn’t have been more opportune since Putin will have to decide by Friday whether or not to extend the lopsided “energy ceasefire” with Ukraine. If he opts against doing so right after the Palm Sunday missile strike, which would be his right, then Ukraine might more easily rally the West against Russia.
Nevertheless, Trump might not be pressured to pull the US out of talks with Russia nor pass along more arms to Ukraine, at least judging by what he said on Monday. According to him, “[Zelensky is] always looking to purchase missiles. When you start a war, you got to know that you can win the war. You don’t start a war against somebody that’s 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.” These aren’t the words of someone interested in further perpetuating the conflict.
With that in mind, Ukraine is unlikely to get what it wants from exploiting this incident, the goals of which Trump is very well aware of and believes to be contrary to US interests. That explains why he wisely chose the middle ground of attributing what happened to some vague “mistake” instead of taking either Ukraine or Russia’s side on this issue. For the time being, the peace process will therefore probably remain on track, but it’ll still take some time before anything major is agreed to.
