Hey there!
War is becoming disturbingly regular in our world today. Instead of focusing on climate change, many governments are pouring money into military defenses. Unfortunately, this shift isn’t just about safety; it’s also about controlling the narrative around environmental issues.
Take the situation in Ukraine, for example. In 2025, Russia accused Ukraine of attacking the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. However, a study by Greenpeace Ukraine and McKenzie Intelligence Services found no proof of these claims. Instead, Russia has been building military posts near the plant, all while trying to paint a picture of Ukraine as a threat to nature. This kind of misinformation spreads easily and can have real consequences. The damage in places like the Kreminski Forest National Park or the effect on Black Sea marine life from the war often goes unnoticed. If you want to understand more about these environmental impacts, check out our detailed review.
This year also marks 40 years since the Chornobyl disaster. On April 26, 1986, a nuclear accident released radiation, affecting areas in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. Today, Chornobyl still poses a danger, especially after the 2022 Russian invasion. Soldiers triggered forest fires and raised radioactive dust during their military activities. In February 2025, a drone struck the protective structure at the former reactor, nearly causing another radiation leak. Thankfully, it was contained, but the damage still requires expensive repairs. Ironically, while war brings renewed hazards, Chornobyl’s surrounding nature serves as a reminder of recovery when left undisturbed. Learn more about these dynamics during the invasion in our article.
Since the war began in 2014, the Black Sea has endured heavy damage. Events like the destruction of the Kakhovka Hydropower Plant have overshadowed smaller yet critical impacts. The war has altered shipping routes, increasing traffic in the safer Danube Delta and further disrupting local ecosystems. The Kerch Bridge construction has also affected fish and marine mammal migrations, weakening the ecosystem and opening doors for invasive species. These issues, already significant in the Black Sea since the late 20th century, have been worsened by ongoing conflict. For more details, read about these environmental changes.
The war has also highlighted energy security issues in Europe. Russia underestimated Europe’s resilience in reducing dependency on its fossil fuels. The shift to liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a crucial part of this change. However, questions remain: Are European nations truly independent in energy? How does this new strategy align with goals for climate neutrality by 2050? Our article dives into these tough questions as part of the Pulse project.
As Ukraine begins to consider post-war rebuilding, the challenge of demining emerges as a significant issue. This task will likely take decades, especially if it incorporates environmental standards. The recent Demine Ukraine forum spotlighted technologies that could make demining not just safe for people but eco-friendly too. Learn more about these modern approaches.
The international community’s role in Ukraine’s recovery is vital but appears to be fading. A recent report from the World Bank on damages and needs highlighted a lack of focus on ecological considerations. This is troubling, as neglecting the environment during reconstruction could have severe long-term impacts. You can read more insights on this in our team’s article, featuring experts Eugene Simonov and Oleksiy Vasyliuk.
The UWEC Work Group team is committed to raising awareness about the environmental effects of this ongoing war. We work mainly on a volunteer basis and are seeking financial support to continue our efforts. Even a small monthly donation can make a big difference.
For more on the environmental impacts of Russia’s invasion, follow us on Twitter, Bluesky, Facebook, and Telegram.
Stay strong, and let’s hope for peaceful days ahead!
— Alexei Ovchinnikov, editor of UWEC Work Group
