Dear friends!
Recent months of the war have been marked by attacks on oil refineries and energy infrastructure by both Russia and Ukraine. In peacetime, virtually every one of these attacks would have been called an environmental disaster. Today, unfortunately, it has become routine wartime news.
Destruction of oil infrastructure to weaken the enemy has been a military strategy since World War I. In 1916, British engineers blew up an oil refinery near the Romanian city of Ploiești ahead of advancing German and Austro-Hungarian troops. Oil infrastructure was also destroyed during World War II. However, the most severe environmental consequences ever recorded occurred during the Gulf War in 1991, as well as during the current war with Iran in 2026.
During the full-scale invasion, Russia destroyed a major oil storage facility in Vasylkiv, Ukraine, with missile strikes as early as February 2022. Over time, reciprocal strikes against the oil industry became part of the hostilities, and the fact that they have now spread to Russian territory constitutes a legitimate response to the invasion. However, this does not make things any easier for the environment. Eugene Simonov explores consequences of escalating attacks and the environmental impacts that may result:
Experts have differing assessments of the shelling and destruction of Russia’s oil and energy infrastructure. Oleh Savytskyi of the Ukrainian organization Razom We Stand holds the position that the destruction of oil refineries in Russia causes less harm to nature and the planet Earth than the use of Russian oil. Russia is a resource-rich country that finances its military machine using its natural resources—including the extraction, refining, sale, and combustion of fossil fuels. It is precisely this exploitative policy that results in significant contributions to climate change by Russia and other countries, which remains a major problem for all of humanity. By destroying Russia’s oil infrastructure, Ukrainian troops are also helping to reduce production levels and, as a result, lower emissions. Read more in his opinion piece:
The environmental consequences of the war for Ukraine itself remain severe. Following yet another attack on Kyiv’s civilian infrastructure, two lakes were contaminated with petroleum products. Additionally, forests near Chornobyl continue to burn as a result of shelling. Despite it all, Ukrainian experts and activists continue analyzing the consequences and holding perpetrators accountable for crimes against the environment. For example, in the Sumy region, a court granted a motion in an ecocide case, which could be a step toward ecocide’s international recognition. Read about these and other consequences in our review:
In Russia, the environmental movement is trying to adapt to increasing repression. Today, Russian activists and NGOs have adopted a “chameleon” strategy, seeking to depoliticize the environmental agenda and use every possible mechanism for environmental protection under the conditions of a military dictatorship. This approach may draw criticism as an attempt to retreat into “internal emigration.” This has already happened in Russian history during the second half of the 20th century under the Soviet Union, when the environmental movement waited for a “tipping point”—namely, the collapse of the system. Of course, much depends on priorities. If the goal is to protect nature, then such a strategy is effective. If, however, protecting nature is seen as impossible without fighting against the resource-based repressive apparatus, then other actions are necessary in addition to adaptation. For more details on how experts assess the effectiveness of the Russian environmental movement today, read the review of the collection *Russian Civil Society Under Repression*:
International organizations and institutions can play a role in preventing the wartime destruction of the environment and wildlife unleashed by Russia. Unfortunately, international efforts often demonstrate a certain toothlessness, making decisions that are difficult to interpret as a victory. However, experts believe that the 2026 arbitral award on the decade-long maritime dispute between Ukraine and Russia led to a significant, albeit ambiguous, outcome. First and foremost, this concerns the “greening” of international law and maritime security issues. Read more in this article by maritime law expert Margo Moore and UWEC Work Group expert Eugene Simonov.
Today, the UWEC Work Group continues to operate on a volunteer basis. Our mission to independently analyze the environmental consequences of the Russian invasion continues. However, financial constraints prevent us from conducting more in-depth research, recruiting new authors, organizing conferences, and implementing specific projects related to Ukraine’s green recovery. Some of the projects we’ve developed have been “put on hold” until better times. If you’re able, please support us with a one-time or monthly donation. We’d be grateful for any help.
You can read more about the environmental consequences of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our website, Twitter (X), Facebook, Telegram and Bluesky.