|
Dear
friends!
The war in
Ukraine continues and is far from over. Despite
its stated position of readiness for “peace
talks,” Russia recently launched one of the most
powerful strikes on Ukrainian cities in the
entire full-scale invasion. Civilians have been
killed. Offensive operations to create a “buffer
zone” continue, in reality meaning the
occupation of new territories.
Today,
military tensions are on the rise all over the
world, as are increasingly powerful
authoritarian governments. Nature is
increasingly becoming a hostage to private
interests. Protecting peace and the planet are
challenging, and at this time the question of
what else can be done to prevent more
catastrophic consequences than those we are
already facing today is especially
acute.
The Work
Group continues to analyze the war’s
environmental consequences, but today it is
obvious that action is needed. Greater
solidarity, the search for solutions and their
implementation are needed. Otherwise, humanity
may not see another
tomorrow.
The sabotage of the
Kakhovka Hydropower Plant dam remains one of the
most significant environmental consequences of
Russia’s invasion. Two years have passed since
this tragedy, and Ukraine and the world has
become only more outspoken about ecocide. The
former Kakhovka Reservoir remains on the front
line. Nature, however, is pursuing
self-restoration there, not only regrowing
floodplain forests in Velyky Luhi (“Great
Meadow”), but also the Dnipro River ecosystem as
a whole. Native species such as sturgeon, for
example, are returning to spawn in parts of the
river freed from the reservoir and dam. UWEC
Work Group’s position statement highlights the
importance of strategic decision-making to
protect nature’s recovery in the vicinity of the
former Kakhovka Reservoir:
The
war in Ukraine affects nature not only in places
where military action is happening. It also
threatens places far from the front line.
Community monitoring has been limited since
2014, when Ukraine first faced Russian
aggression. Oligarchs and toxic businesses have
taken advantage of the situation in the country,
filling their coffers and satisfying their
private interests at nature’s expense. The
situation only worsened in 2022, after the start
of the full-scale invasion. Despite these
challenges, environmental activists and
organizations continue to fight both external
and internal aggressors to preserve Ukraine's
unique natural ecosystems. In this issue,
Oleksii Vasyliuk examines the challenges
of community monitoring in wartime
Ukraine:
In
conditions where in situ monitoring is not
possible, satellite data analysis can help.
OSINT analysis is actively developing in
Ukraine, making it possible, for example, to
examine the situation with agricultural lands.
Many have been significantly damaged during
combat action and shelling. The situation not
only jeopardizes Ukraine’s food security as it
does other nations as well, but is also creating
additional pollution. Of course, many
agricultural areas were already contaminated
with pesticides and other harmful substances
before and during the war, the extent of that
pollution only increased. Read about how
satellite monitoring helps analyze and make
decisions in both agriculture and ecology in the
article by Leonid Shumilo, Sofia Drozd and
Natalia Kusul investigate how satellite
monitoring can analyze impacts and inform
decision-making for both agricultural and
environmental strategies.
It may
seem premature to discuss restoring Ukraine’s
nature until after the war ends. But without an
initial plan, there is a high probability that
the “restoration” process will be even more
destructive to the environment than the war. It
is also important to prevent areas directly
impacted by the conflict from spreading invasive
species, a priority that is especially true in
agricultural areas. Read Stanislav Viter’s
exploration of how best to approach biodiversity
restoration on lands used for
agriculture.
Sanctions
remain an effective economic tool to combat
Russian aggression. One key issue is ending
purchases of Russian fossil fuels. The RePower
EU plan was developed and launched in 2022 in
order to implement this policy in Europe. The
European Commission met in May 2025 to decide on
how to achieve its environmental and climate
goals over the next two years. However, experts
note that in order to achieve the goals declared
in RePower EU, it is important to move beyond
the optics of refusing “bad” liquefied gas,
uranium and coal in favor of “good” ones. There
are no “good” fossil fuels, and supporting their
consumption only plays into the hands of
authoritarian governments. Today, energy
efficiency programs need to be implemented and
the energy independence of EU countries
promoted. Eugene Simonov writes about the EU’s
energy “divorce” and the latest news regarding
sanctions against Russian fossil
fuels:
Environmental and
climate organizations are not just speaking out
about the consequences of the Russian military
invasion for Ukraine and the world. They are
also organizing direct actions. For example,
this spring, representatives of
Greenpeace-Ukraine took part in an action in the
Baltic Sea, writing “RISK” in large letters on
one ship belonging to Russia’s shadow fleet. WWF
is involved in the restoration of forest belts
destroyed by the war in southern Ukraine. NGO
Ecology People Law continues to fight for the
recognition of “ecocide” at the international
level. Read more about research and actions by
activists and NGOs in our
review:
Friends,
we need your support for our work and to
implement new initiatives to analyze the
environmental consequences of war and find
solutions. If you can, please support
us with a one-time or monthly
donation.
You can
find more coverage of the environmental
consequences of Russia’s full-scale invasion of
Ukraine on our website, on Twitter (X),
Bluesky, Facebook and Telegram.
We wish
you strength and peace!
Alexei
Ovchinnikov, editor of UWEC Work
Group | 
