Russian forces conducted a shocking double-tap missile strike on civilian worshippers in the North-Eastern Ukrainian city of Sumy, while they were celebrating Palm Sunday. This concerning game of inflammatory escalation led to at least 34 deaths and more than 100 wounded. This latest attack has drawn condemnation from near and far, including some of the strongest denunciations yet from U.S. legislators and from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He pointed out that this marks the second month in a row that President Vladimir Putin has dismissed US demands for a complete, unconditional ceasefire.
His tweet on the strike and the subsequent comments made to reporters clearly signal that his frustration with the whole mess continues. He admitted that he was told the Russians had made a “mistake” when hitting Sumy. This assertion was made less than 48 hours after Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, met with Putin in St. Petersburg, raising concerns among several Republican lawmakers regarding Witkoff’s perceived pro-Kremlin stance. They subsequently reached out to National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. Then we started calling Secretary of State Marco Rubio to tell him we were mad.
Lindsey Graham, then Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, a Republican congressional leader, declared that “Putin and peace apparently do not belong in the same sentence.” His statement underscores a growing consensus within the party. They argue that increasing economic pressure on Russia is the only concrete way to end the conflict. He urged that a drastic turnaround needs to occur immediately. If not, he thinks the only way to stop this warfare is by debilitating Russia’s economy and penalizing markets that are enabling Putin’s brutality.
Yet Texas representative Michael McCaul was even more blunt in voicing these sentiments. As long as…
bloodshed prevails
…he added, “Even as Ukraine has accepted President Trump’s ceasefire proposal, Putin is proving he cares about bloodshed more than peace.” The mounting dissatisfaction within the Republican Party regarding Witkoff’s approach to Russia indicates a shift toward a more hawkish stance among Trump’s advisers.
Witkoff made waves when he put his hand to his heart in greeting to Putin. Foreign policy observers in Washington condemned this gesture as excessively fawning and hopelessly naive. This episode has added fire to the establishment’s desire to reexamine Trump’s foreign policy pivot to Russia.
In reaction to this latest escalation of violence, Zelenskyy reiterated the need for urgent action in light of Russia’s blatant rejection of all diplomatic efforts. And now it’s been two months since Putin rejected the US offer for a comprehensive and unconditional ceasefire,” Surabov said. He was particularly concerned by the need for a more forceful international reaction to Russia’s aggression.
Keith Kellogg, a fellow at the America First Policy Institute and former national security advisor, decried the most recent attack on Ukrainian civilians. He continued, “Today’s Palm Sunday attack by Russian forces on civilian targets in Sumy violates any remaining line of decency. These declarations are emblematic of a widespread belief—including among leading members of the U.S.
Yet Trump has done little to demonstrate his sincerity toward bringing an end to the war. He wrote, “I HAD NO PART IN THIS WAR, BUT AM NOW WORKING HARD TO END THE KILLING AND MAYHEM.” This statement is an important signal of his aim to position himself as a credible mediator in the crisis. Skepticism about the administration’s approach to Russia is starting to become overwhelming.
As the situation continues to unfold, it remains clear that Putin’s actions have drawn ire not only from Ukraine but from within Trump’s own party. Such lofty rhetoric from Trump’s first efforts at peace looks ridiculous in light of the current grim realities of war. This surprising gap sheds light on the complex dynamics driving U.S.-Russia relations.