War in Ukraine in light of the Sumy attack: Civilian Suffering, Military Technology, and the Fragile Search for Peace

As the war in Ukraine drags into its third year, the world continues to witness a grim pattern of destruction, displacement, and deepening humanitarian crises. Events like the recent missile strike on Sumy, a regional capital less than 25 kilometres from the Russian border, underscore the tragic human cost of the conflict and illuminate the complex interplay of military strategy, weapons technology, and international diplomacy.

Location of Sumy, close to the Russian border (marked in grey) and about three hours' driving time of the principal northeastern city of Kharkiv. The nearest major Russian urban conglomeration is Belgorod, just over the border from Kharkiv.

The Sumy Strike: Civilian Tragedy and Military Calculus

Sumy, a city of approximately a quarter million residents in northeastern Ukraine, was struck by what Ukrainian authorities say were two Russian Iskander missiles. The first blast levelled buildings in a central district, and the second, reportedly equipped with a fragmentation warhead, exploded amid the crowd of first responders and bystanders, maximising casualties. The current death toll is 34 killed with more than 100 injured, making it one of the more grizzly one-off incidents against civilians in the war in Ukraine.

The use of Iskander missiles is distinctive and unusual against urban population centres, although Iskanders have been used to strike targets in Kharkiv. Iskanders are advanced tactical hypersonic ballistic missiles developed by Russia. The Iskander-M variant, likely used in this strike, carries a warhead of up to 700-800 kg and has a range of 500 km. With a price tag estimated at up to ten million dollars per unit, these missiles are relatively scarce and are normally reserved for high-value military targets. Their use in a dense urban area raises critical ethical and strategic questions — particularly since fragmentation warheads are specifically designed to inflict the greatest possible damage to soft targets, including people, by dispersing deadly metal fragments over a wide radius.

A launch of an Iskander-M from a special purpose ground vehicle. It is a huge, fast missile, fairly accurate for its large payload.

The notion that such an attack could have been a “mistake,” reportedly relayed by US political figures citing anonymous sources, strains credibility. Precision-guided munitions like the Iskander are not typically deployed without deliberate target acquisition and command authorisation, and are accurate. They have a so-called "circular error probable" (CEP) - the radius of a circle around the target point that 50% of strikes will hit - of 5-7 metres. Therefore the likelihood of two of them simultaneously malfunctioning and both accidentally striking central Sumy, a small, walkable district - is astonishingly unlikely. The implication is that this was a deliberate strike and either a message — or a test.

Civilian Toll: Patterns of Attacks and Total Casualties

Since the full-scale Russian invasion began in February 2022, tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been killed or injured. While precise figures vary by source, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) estimated over 30,000 civilian casualties as of early 2025 — a number that likely understates the real toll due to gaps in data from the occupied territories.

Major incidents such as the Kramatorsk railway station bombing, the Mariupol theatre airstrike, and the Bucha massacre have shocked global audiences. In each case, weapons designed for battlefield engagements — including cluster munitions, thermobaric explosives, and cruise missiles — were used in or near civilian areas.

The costs of these weapons are as staggering as their effects. A single Kalibr cruise missile can cost $1 million or more; a Kinzhal hypersonic missile, upwards of $10 million. Their repeated use against non-military targets demonstrates not only Russia’s military capacity but a potential intent to erode Ukraine’s civilian morale and economic functionality, at great cost to the Russian Armed Forces' budget. It may also indicate an absence of significant military targets to strike at, given that this is a predominantly ground-based, infantry-based war. There is no point, so the cynic's logic goes, in spending $1m or $10m on a rarely produced ballistic missile to kill a handful of infantry soldiers in trenches. They are better used, by the logic of the Russian government, to terrorise civilians and cause damage to civilian infrastructure.

The Technological and Humanitarian Interface

This use of civilian suffering as a weapon to advance war goals reflects a deeper pattern in modern hybrid warfare: the deliberate targeting of non-combatants not only as collateral damage but as strategic objectives. Russia’s ability to maintain such a campaign depends in large part on the continued viability of her war economy — one heavily financed by hydrocarbon revenues, especially through shadow fleets and discounted sales to sanction-evading partners.

On the Ukrainian side, defensive innovations — including drone warfare, radar systems, and Western-supplied air defence platforms — have made significant strides. But they remain incomplete shields against ballistic and cruise missile attacks.

The result is a war of asymmetries: between high-cost, high-impact Russian strikes and the ongoing, decentralised Ukrainian defense; between the immediacy of civilian death and the slow pace of diplomatic negotiation.

The Diplomatic Equation: Stalling or Shifting?

Diplomatic overtures are occurring, even if largely behind closed doors. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s recent visit to Moscow — followed almost immediately by the Sumy strike — has fuelled speculation. Was this attack meant to test American resolve, to demonstrate Russia’s unwillingness to scale back its campaign, or to pre-empt potential new sanctions or military aid?

Simultaneously, Europe is beginning to fill what some observers see as a growing vacuum in US security leadership. At a meeting of the European Council’s Foreign Ministers today, emergency funding for Ukrainian defence and reconstruction is on the agenda, along with contingency planning should US involvement diminish further in a shifting political landscape.

Germany, France, Poland, and the Nordic states have signalled readiness to expand their contributions, as has the United Kingdom (outside the European Union but acting in coordination with the EU on Ukraine defence matters). Yet questions remain: Will this be enough to prevent Russian breakthroughs along the front lines, attempts at which are anticipated for the Russian 2025 summer fighting offensive particularly in the northeastern regions around Kharkiv and Sumy? Or does Ukraine require immediate, dramatically escalated assistance to avoid losing ground?

Holding the Line, Saving Lives

As the summer fighting season intensifies, the calculus for Ukraine’s allies is sobering. Delayed assistance or a fragmented response could lead to irreversible shifts on the battlefield. A well-coordinated infusion of air defence systems, long-range munitions, and logistical support may prevent Russian forces from advancing — but only if deployed swiftly and in sufficient volume. At the current time, in the absence of dramatically increased US military support, the prospect of a Ukrainian counter-offensive retaking significant proportions of occupied territories seems remote in the near future. It might happen, in the absence of successful negotiations, with massively increased European military support, training and soldiers in Ukraine, over the course of the next several years; but Europe needs time to build up its military resources after letting them lie fallow over the course of the period after the end of the Cold War.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. Every missile strike — like the one in Sumy — represents not just a tactical decision by Russia, but a test of Western willpower. The international community must recognise this dual dynamic: military assaults as both physical and psychological warfare, and diplomacy as both opportunity and provocation.

Conclusion: War, Peace, and the Space Between

The Sumy attack, brutal and pointed, exemplifies the ongoing human tragedy of the war in Ukraine. It is a symbol not only of suffering but of the intricate web that binds together weapons systems, geopolitical strategy, and international diplomacy. Any sustainable resolution will require more than military deterrence or economic sanctions. It will demand a clear and unified vision of peace, one that acknowledges the enormous cost already paid — and commits fully to preventing its repetition. This vision will either have to be negotiated with Russia - something which so far has not proven fruitful - or imposed upon her.