Dear Friends!
Unfortunately, war is becoming commonplace in today’s world. Governments are increasingly investing in defense programs rather than in climate change adaptation and mitigation. Moreover, environmental issues are becoming part of the propaganda that governments use to advance their interests. In 2025 for example, Russia claimed that Ukraine was launching attacks on the captured Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. However, a study by Greenpeace Ukraine, conducted in collaboration with McKenzie Intelligence Services (MIS), showed that these claims were disinformation. No evidence of attacks by Ukraine was found, while Russia continues to build up its military presence at the occupied nuclear power plant. Another example is the push to grant occupied territories environmental protection status, as is happening in Velyky Luh. When de-occupation begins, the aggressor’s propaganda machine will be able to quickly switch to telling stories about how Ukraine harms nature and destroys the environment. Meanwhile, “inconvenient” stories are hushed up by Russian propaganda. The destruction of Kreminski Forest National Park or the impact of the war and annexation on Crimea on the lives of Black Sea marine mammals are good examples. Read more about these and other examples of how Russia’s war in Ukraine is affecting the environment in our review:
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster. On April 26, 1986, a nuclear accident at the power plant resulted in a radiation release that rendered vast areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia uninhabitable. At the time, traces of radiation were detected as far away as Sweden. Unfortunately, nearly half a century later, Chornobyl remains a security threat to Europe. During the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the occupation of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 2022, Russian troops not only built fortifications in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone, but also stirred up radioactive dust with tanks and other military equipment, sparked forest fires and destroyed research laboratories. After a Russian drone struck the sarcophagus of destroyed reactor Unit 4 in February 2025, a fire broke out that could have led to new radiation leaks. Fortunately, the fire was extinguished, but today the protective structure requires costly repairs. This war has once again made this nuclear threat a reality. On the other hand, the lands around Chornobyl are an example of how nature recovers when left undisturbed. Read about the Chornobyl experience during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in our article:
The Black Sea has already suffered significantly since the war began in Ukraine in 2014. In addition to high-profile consequences such as the destruction of the Kakhovka Hydropower Plant dam, there are less obvious but nonetheless tangible effects. For example, forced changes in logistics have led to more active use of the Danube Delta, a safer port than those in the Odessa region. Additionally, the construction of infrastructure projects such as the Kerch Bridge is disrupting the migration of fish and marine mammals. As a result, the local ecosystem weakens, a situation exploited by invasive species. Invasive species have been one of the Black Sea’s critical environmental problems since the second half of the 20th century, and the war has only exacerbated it. Read more:
We have repeatedly covered how Russia’s war in Ukraine affects not only the region but the entire world. It was Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 that brought energy security issues to the forefront. Believing that Europe could not survive without Russian resources and would abandon its support for Ukraine, Russia bet on a quick war. Nevertheless, the European Union managed to diversify its energy portfolio and phase out Russian coal, oil, and gas. The focus shifted to liquefied natural gas (LNG). But has this made Europe more energy-independent? How has the new energy strategy impacted the goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050? Find the answers in this article, written as part of the Pulse project:
Meanwhile, discussions continue in Ukraine regarding the prospects for post-war reconstruction. The most serious challenge the country will face—and one that may take several decades to resolve—is the issue of demining and specifically, a demining strategy that takes into account environmental and ecological standards. In December 2025, the Demine Ukraine forum was held in Kyiv, where demining issues were discussed and modern technologies were presented that will ensure demining not only humanitarian in approach but also environmentally-friendly. Read more:
Postwar reconstruction depends largely on the international community and financial support. However, ambitions in this area appear to be waning. The latest “Rapid Damage and Needs Assessments” (RDNA) report, compiled under the auspices of the World Bank, pays less and less attention to issues of ecology, environmental protection and public engagement in Ukraine’s reconstruction. It is crucial not only for the country but for the entire region to restore these ambitions; otherwise, Ukraine’s reconstruction will have consequences no less catastrophic than the war itself. For more details on the RDNA report and the World Bank’s position, read the article by our experts Eugene Simonov and Oleksiy Vasyliuk:
Today, the UWEC Work Group team works on a largely volunteer basis, striving to continue and raise global awareness about the environmental consequences of Russia’s war in Ukraine. In order to grow and do our work effectively, we need financial support. If you are able, we ask that you set up a monthly donation subscription or support us with a one-time 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, peace, and good news!
Alexei Ovchinnikov, editor of UWEC Work Group