The Ukraine War: Russia’s Use of Ecocide and Gaps in Global Accountability

Introduction

Russia’s unjust war in Ukraine has demonstrated the horrors of total war in the twenty-first century. Putin’s special military operation has now evolved into a multi-year conflict, with images of trench warfare reminiscent of WWI dominating public discourse. The war has brought about rapid advances in technology, including the use of modified civilian drones to conduct reconnaissance and bombings. However, one thing remains the same across all conflicts: the ecological impact of war. This policy brief aims to present a description of what ecological warfare or “ecocide” is, how Russia has utilized it in the Russia Ukraine war, as well as a critique of the current policies in action.

The intentional targeting of environmental infrastructure is a form of ecological warfare and has become a devastating feature of modern conflicts. Ecocide, as defined by Stop Ecocide International (SEI), is the “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts” (SEI, 2025). Russia has increasingly leveraged environmental infrastructure to its advantage in an attempt to break Ukraine's will to fight. Several examples are evident of significant environmental hazard: the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023, military activities around the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, and the drone strike on the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in February 2025. 

Current policy and legal framework provide some avenues for addressing ecological damage in wartime. One key example is Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention, which strictly forbids the destruction of dams, dykes, and nuclear power stations, citing civilian casualty concerns (Shamini et al., 2024). However, current international law fails to hold states like Russia accountable for environmental destruction, due to unrealistic damage thresholds. Violations of international law also raise questions about the ability to hold law-breakers accountable, as well as the future longevity of international legal norms.

Ecocide in Ukraine 

 On June 3rd 2023, The Kakhovka Dam in Southern Ukraine was destroyed under Russian occupation, flooding the downstream inhabitants (Shamini et al., 2024). The flooding killed at least 70 people, greatly contaminated the river with heavy metals, and drained a reservoir that provided drinking water and irrigation for over 700,000 people in the region (Shamini et al., 2024). This destruction had a profound environmental impact, with an estimated 5,000 square km of damaged wildlife in the Kherson nature reserve, 20,000 crucian carp casualties, and the contamination of the Black Sea (Shamini et al., 2024). The destruction of this vital infrastructure poses long term consequences for the inhabitants of the region, especially surrounding food security, climate stability, and public health. 

The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam has compromised the cooling systems of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, causing concern about the possibility of a nuclear accident. Additionally, Russian activity in the area has continuously threatened the safe operation of the nuclear power station (UN News, 2025). Independent UN Human rights experts have warned of heightened nuclear disaster risks resulting from Russian military operations (UN News, 2025). These risks could have an unprecedented toll on human and ecological life across Europe.

This is not the first nuclear hazard that Ukraine has experienced. In 1986, under the Soviet Union, a significant accident occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, prompting a 2,634 square km exclusion zone and significant contamination in the environment (UN News, 2025). Cleanup efforts included the construction of the New Safe Containment building, which aimed to contain the radioactive site for 100 years. Russian incursions into the region and brief occupation in 2022 have jeopardized the stability of this site. On February 14th 2025, a Russian drone hit the New Safe Containment building, causing a fire which destroyed a large section of the containment dome. While the accident is under control and radiation levels remain safe, questions about the long term stability of the structure remain unknown (UN News, 2025). 

Beyond these large scale incidents, ongoing military activities release harmful metals into the ecosystem, like cadmium, mercury, and arsenic, which have negative impacts on soil, water, and human health (Shamini et al., 2024). The destruction of vegetation, in turn, destroys biodiversity and poisons the environment for generations to come. Additionally, noise from warfare causes not only psychological trauma for humans, but also animals, disrupting mating and migration patterns (Shamini et al., 2024). War silences nature, leading to lasting environmental consequences, long after the fighting has stopped. 

 International Law and Shortcomings

Current international law, like Protocol I from the Geneva Convention, formally bans long term harm caused to civilian centers and the environment. Additionally, the ICC criminalizes large scale destruction of the environment during war time (Rekrut, 2025). However, there are significant problems, as both require proven intent, as well as environmental damage past a certain threshold not met yet. Nonetheless, while the damages in Ukraine have not met this mark, there remains the potential of further risk. To correct this, a new definition of ecocide must be implemented as well as a framework for increased accountability. I argue international law makers should broaden the legal framework and implement a lower threshold for action on ecocide violations. Three states, Fiji, Samoa, and Vanuatu, have proposed such a change to the ICC, however, there are significant hurdles to clear before this option becomes viable (Rekrut, 2025). 

Another avenue could be to designate critical environmental infrastructure as protected sites. This would allow for international oversight to protect said zones. Environmental infrastructure could be classified in the same category as dams, nuclear power stations, and large freshwater sources. Use of purpose driven United Nations peacekeeping deployments, or other national peacekeeping forces, could set up a neutral zone to protect these sites. This strategy would eliminate the grey area of using environmental infrastructure as defensive sites. However, one shortcoming is obvious. A strategy of this type would rely heavily on international cooperation and recognition of international law. As discussed, the legitimacy and hard enforcement capabilities of these international institutions is often questioned, reducing their influence and long-term effectiveness with implementation strategies.

Domestically, policy makers at all levels should move to redefine and clarify ecocide. A growing public consciousness could prove fruitful and trickle up to the international level. Domestic policy could remedy the international systems, and be used to tackle avenues of revenue for aggressor states, such as ghost fleets, paramilitary organization, and sanction bypassing. As for the case in Ukraine, the international community should move to protect and deter attacks on sensitive sites, like Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, to prevent another Chernobyl disaster. This time, humanity might not be so lucky.

Bibliography

Clark, Janine Natalya. 2025. “Exploring the Environmental Impacts of War through Sound and Listening: A Study of the Russia-Ukraine War.” Environmental Sociology, May, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2025.2510416.

Rekrut, Iryna . 2025. “Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog.” Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog. March 20, 2025. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/.

SEI. 2025. “Stop Ecocide.” Stop Ecocide. March 29, 2025. https://www.stopecocide.earth/.

Shahini, Ermir, Olena Shebanina, Iurii Kormyshkin, Antonina Drobitko, and Natalya Chernyavskaya. 2024. “Environmental Consequences for the World of Russia’s War against Ukraine.” International Journal of Environmental Studies 81 (1): 463–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2024.2302745.

Shimabuku, Morgan. 2024. “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Water and War.” https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2024.2364499.

UN News. 2025. “Strike on Chernobyl: ‘No Room for Complacency’ Says Atomic Energy Watchdog.” UN News. February 14, 2025. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160141.