During the 2025 Ukrainian Studies Conference "Revolutions of Hope: Resilience and Recovery in Ukraine," a panel of scholars addressed the environmental aspects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine through various viewpoints. This panel was chaired by Diane Desierto, professor of law and global affairs at the University of Notre Dame, and the panelists were:
- Kristina Hook (Kennesaw State University);
- Carl Bruch (Environmental Law Institute);
- Olga Degtiareva (Odesa National University of Economics);
- Albina Dioba (Copenhagen Business School); and
- Natalia Slobodian (Canterbury Christ Church University).
The speakers discussed the wide-ranging environmental impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While armed conflicts naturally draw attention to the immediate loss of life caused by hostilities, the panelists emphasized that the long-term consequences of environmental damage can also lead to human rights violations—both in Ukraine and beyond.
Layers and intent
Hook highlighted that the environmental impact of the war manifests across multiple layers and “arenas,” including energy, air, water, soil, natural landscapes, and urban settings. The war’s victims span various categories—not “only” Ukrainians, who suffer in terms of economic hardship, identity, and mental health consequences, but also the natural world. The conflict has led to a loss of biodiversity, further endangering numerous animal species. On the broadest scale, the war threatens global food security, exacerbates air pollution, and disrupts essential resources. However, thanks to the efforts of the Ukrainian military, grain transportation through the Black Sea corridors has become possible again.
Hook also underscored the importance of assessing intent in cases of environmental damage, distinguishing between collateral effects and deliberate targeting. In the latter case, discussions on the crime of ecocide become particularly relevant, especially in light of a possible Russian strategy aimed at systematically dismantling Ukraine. She concluded with a message of hope, acknowledging the resilience of the Ukrainian people—while also lamenting the tragic reality that they are forced to be so resilient.
In a similar vein, Bruch emphasized the importance of assessing intent in cases of environmental damage. He noted that establishing criminal responsibility requires proving that specific individuals either intended the damage or were at least aware of it and failed to take action to prevent it, despite having the ability to do so. Relevant sources of international law in this context include the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit widespread attacks that could cause long-term and severe environmental damage. These instruments also forbid the intentional targeting of civilian objects, the destruction of property, and pillaging. Bruch further noted that ecocide is recognized as a crime under Ukrainian national law and in 14 other countries. Potential forums for bringing claims include Ukrainian courts, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICC, other international courts and tribunals, and the Register of Damages, which collects claims related to war-related destruction.
However, Bruch also highlighted several challenges that must be addressed, such as assessing environmental damage in areas not under territorial control, navigating issues of military necessity and proportionality, identifying individual perpetrators, and securing long-term funding for compensation. Despite these difficulties, he stressed that even “rough justice” can be a crucial step toward achieving lasting peace.
Assessing and planning for restoration
Degtiareva and Dioba highlighted empirical data and statistics illustrating the impact of the war in Ukraine. For instance, the destruction of Ukrainian energy infrastructure ranges between 50% and 80%, with energy consumption now reduced to approximately 50% of the average EU level. As of the time they prepared their presentation, shortly before the conference, there had been 309 attacks on physical energy infrastructure since February 2022—a number that has since increased. The speakers emphasized the critical need for decentralizing Ukraine’s energy system to enhance sustainability, adaptability, and resilience against external threats. One key strategy for achieving this is the expansion of energy communities—associations of individuals, businesses, and organizations dedicated to implementing local renewable energy projects. They stressed that Ukraine possesses both the necessary human capital and significant renewable energy potential to support this transition.
Slobodian, the final speaker, focused on environmental restoration, including the concept of environmental peacebuilding. This approach involves integrating education and cultural initiatives with a gender-sensitive perspective. She emphasized that, for Russia, energy is a weapon, as it directly impacts Ukraine’s economic stability and the ability of its people to meet their basic needs. This challenge is further compounded by the fact that approximately 30% of Ukraine’s territory is potentially mined, exacerbating the already dire situation. Given these realities, she stressed the importance of ongoing discussions on reparations for environmental harm, particularly as awareness of environmental damage continues to grow among Ukrainians.
The full panel may be watched above.
Reflecting on these discussions, I could feel the weight of the war not just as an abstract policy issue, but mostly as a human tragedy crossing many dimensions. Environmental harm may appear secondary to bullets and bombs, but it is no less cruel—it creeps into the air people breathe, the water they drink, and the land they depend on for survival. And it lingers long after the last missile falls. The efforts to remedy the harm should be part of the common endeavor, not only because of the need for solidarity among people and nations, but also because of the consequences that degradation of one nation’s environment in wartime might have for the stability of our shared human ecosystem.