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