Easter "ceasefire" under fire: systemic violations, attacks on the wounded, and new evidence of war crimes
Despite the declared Easter ceasefire, which was supposed to take effect at 16:00 on April 11, the actual situation on the front demonstrated the opposite: the intensity of hostilities not only did not decrease but was accompanied by widespread violations and incidents indicating serious breaches of international humanitarian law.
According to the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as of the morning of April 12, approximately 2,300 ceasefire violations were recorded since its announcement. These included 28 assault operations, 479 shelling incidents, 747 strikes by kamikaze drones such as "Lancet" and "Molniya," as well as over a thousand FPV drone attacks. On the previous day alone, April 11, Russian forces carried out 58 airstrikes using 184 guided aerial bombs. In total, 120 combat engagements occurred throughout the day across nearly all front-line directions, effectively nullifying the very concept of a "ceasefire."
Particular attention should be paid to strikes on civilian infrastructure. According to the State Emergency Service, on April 12 a Russian drone attacked a shop in Zolochiv, Kharkiv region, injuring two people. Such actions directly violate the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets, which is fundamental to international humanitarian law.
The Russian side, in turn, accused Ukraine of violating the ceasefire, claiming more than 1,900 shelling incidents. Mutual accusations in such conditions are typical; however, verified facts — especially those supported by visual evidence and investigations — are of primary importance.
The Ukrainian OSINT project DeepState released video materials indicating not only violations of the ceasefire but also deliberate attacks on wounded and captured Ukrainian servicemen. In particular, according to their data, at approximately 17:30 on April 11, in the Huliaipole area of the Zaporizhzhia region, Russian forces attacked a Ukrainian evacuation group using FPV drones. The footage shows kamikaze drones striking two wounded soldiers who were unable to move independently, which may indicate intentional targeting of persons hors de combat.
An even more high-profile episode published by DeepState concerns the alleged execution of four Ukrainian prisoners of war near the village of Veterynarne in the Kharkiv region. Although the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has not officially commented on these materials, the fact of assault operations in the area was confirmed in the April 11 report. At the same time, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office officially confirmed the incident.
According to the investigation, Russian servicemen captured four soldiers from one of the mechanized brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and then deliberately shot them with automatic weapons. Criminal proceedings have been initiated regarding the cruel treatment of prisoners of war leading to their deaths. Such actions constitute a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and qualify as a war crime.
Additionally, an attack on medical transport was recorded — another critically important element of humanitarian protection during war. On the night of April 12, in the Sumy region, a Russian drone struck an ambulance in the Hlukhiv community. Three medics were injured and promptly received assistance; their lives are not in danger. Targeting medical transport constitutes a direct violation of norms guaranteeing the protection of medical personnel and evacuation means for the wounded.
In conclusion, the Easter ceasefire demonstrated a deep crisis of trust and the absence of effective mechanisms to ensure compliance even with temporary agreements. The scale of recorded violations, attacks on civilians, the wounded, and medical personnel, as well as confirmed cases of the execution of prisoners of war, indicate not only disregard for the ceasefire regime but also the systemic nature of violations of international humanitarian law.
Such incidents highlight that formal agreements without real monitoring and accountability mechanisms remain declarative. At the same time, each documented case represents potential evidence for international justice and serves as a reminder that the issue of accountability for war crimes remains open and fundamentally important.
