Anthropological dimension of wartime ecocide: ecofeminist methodological assessments

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

Kharkiv National Medical University

University of Paderborn

University of Dallas

Anthropological dimension of wartime ecocide: ecofeminist methodological assessments

K.I. Karpenko,

R.E. Hagengruber,

C.R. Nielsen

Kharkiv, Ukraine

Paderborn, Germany

Dallas, USA

Annotation

Purpose. The authors aim to disclose the anthropological dimension of ecocide during and after Russia's war against Ukraine, relying on the multidisciplinary practices and intellectual production of ecofeminist women thinkers, including philosophers, sociologists, historians, psychologists, and others.

The theoretical basis methodological approaches in philosophical anthropology, phenomenology, analytical philosophy, communicative philosophy, existentialism, ethics of justice, and ethics of care determine the study's theoretical basis.

Originality. For the first time, a systematic analysis of the anthropological dimension of ecocide has been carried out based on ecofeminist methodology. The specifics of the Ukrainian resistance to ecocide were revealed as part of a single struggle an anti-imperial and ecological struggle for independence and prosperity. It is emphasized that during the war, the opposition to ecocide is a component of the fight for national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, and therefore, the ideas of pacifism in this period are subordinated to this primary goal. After the war, preventing threats of ecocide should become an integral part of the struggle for stable peace and prosperity. Ecofeminist pacifist perspectives should be a priority among the most essential goals for that period.

Conclusions. Ecofeminist methodological assessments offer valuable insights into the anthropological dimension of ecocide in wartime and post-war contexts, highlighting the complex interplay between gender, violence, and environmental destruction. By focusing on the experiences and perspectives of women and marginalized communities, ecofeminist analyses contribute to a more holistic understanding of ecocide and its impacts on both human populations and ecosystems.

Keywords: ecocide; ecofeminism; anthropological dimension; "logic of colonization"; genocide; inclusiveness; exclusiveness; eco-terrorism; pacifism; three-limbed epistemology

Анотація

Introduction

Today, man-induced environmental problems present unprecedented challenges. Understanding how humanity responds to the knowledge of these challenges is vital if humans hope to overcome them. This is what determines the relevance of this paper. We will begin our analysis by characterizing the anthropological dimension of ecocide in the context of anthropological philosophy (Scheler, 2009). Then, we will bring to the fore the issue of ecofeminist methodology and highlight the main ideas regarding the impact of this methodology on ecocide as a theoretical and practical problem (Code, 2014; Hagengruber, 2023; Karpenko, 2023; Pease, 2019; Plumwood, 2002; Warren, 2000). On this basis, modern scientific research on the anthropological vicissitudes of ecocide will be analysed (Nielsen, 2023; Ovchinnikov, 2023; Pezzot & Graf, 2022). We emphasize the urgency of this problem during and after Russia's war against Ukraine (Gardashuk, 2022; Nielsen, 2023; T. Perha & Y. Perha, 2023).

A systematic approach is essential for studying the anthropological dimension of ecocide and determining the advantages and disadvantages of anthropocentrism and ecocentrism (Braidotti, 2016; Minkova, 2023). The question of the relationship between ecocide and genocide is central to systemic analysis (Antonelli & Thiel, 2021; Eichler, 2020; Short & Crook, 2022; Snyder, 2024).

The influence of the ecofeminist methodology on overcoming the anthropological contradictions of ecocide is based on its holistic intentions, which are realized through the recognition and consistent defence of the principle of inclusiveness (Eichler, 2020; Gallo-Cruz, 2022; Snyder, 2024), anti-colonial and anti-imperial ideology (Mies & Shiva, 2014; Plumwood, 2002), and respect to the experience of small communities (Gallo-Cruz, 2022; Mies & Shiva, 2014). Ecofeminist pacifist perspectives are central to holistic ecofeminist analysis of the anthropological dimension of ecocide (Kelly, 2001; Nadic, 2013; Vayrynen, 2023; Yermolenko, 2022).

Purpose. The authors aim to disclose the anthropological dimension of ecocide during and after Russia's war against Ukraine, relying on the multidisciplinary practices and intellectual production of ecofeminist women thinkers, including philosophers, sociologists, historians, psychologists, and others.

Statement of basic materials

Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine has had a significant impact on global concern about the environmental crisis. The exponentially growing stream of scientific research into new environmental threats shows that humanity is trying to find answers to new environmental challenges, among which an important place is understanding the anthropological dimension of ecocide.

Almost a hundred years ago, Max Scheler (2009) wrote that "in no historical era has the human being become so much of a problem to himself as in ours" (p. 5). His proposed solution aims to reconstruct guiding hierarchies of values, prioritize spiritual self-improvement, and promote solidarity through compassion. These perspectives are essential for understanding the anthropological contradictions of ecocide. Scheler's analysis of social and environmental problems is deeply rooted in his personalist philosophy and phenomenology of values. In response to the alienation and commercialization of nature, Scheler calls for deep immersion in the natural world, guided by a belief in the interconnectedness of all living things. In this context, the specificity of the anthropological dimension of ecocide is that it simultaneously denies a particular state of human presence in the world and illuminates its new perspectives.

In wartime and post-war contexts, the anthropological dimension of ecocide takes on heightened significance, as the impacts of war on both human populations and ecosystems are particularly dangerous. On August 26, 2022, Yevheniia Zasiadko, the Head of the Climate Department at the Ecoaction Center for Environmental Initiatives, said that half a year of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine had caused massive damage to the Ukrainian environment, which could be characterized as ecocide. Combat action causes fires. It has taken place in forests and national parks (such as Kinburn Spit and the Chornobyl Forest). Fires of this sort and magnitude always lead to the destruction of ecosystems. "Damage to infrastructure, including attacks on industrial facilities like factories, damage to sewer facilities, the destruction of pipelines, the flooding of coal mines, and other such acts cause air, soil, and water contamination. Now we have 253 documented cases of such damage" (Herasymchuk & Zasiadko, 2022). The data collection is ongoing and legal proceedings have begun in a series of ecocide cases. "A statement by Prosecutor General Andrei Kostin on 29 June 2023, noted 15 cases" (Ovchinnikov, 2023).

These environmental losses and harms will likewise have long-term consequences. "Such consequences not only impact Ukrainians and all life-forms within Ukraine, but, given our global natural and social interconnectedness, they also impact global food chains, greenhouse gas emissions, and marine life in the Black Sea" (Nielsen, 2023). "However, in order to effectively demand compensation for these crimes against nature in Ukraine, ecocide must be recognized at the international level. That is the only possible route to obtain reparations from Russia" (Ovchinnikov, 2023). One of the most horrific instances of ecocide in the war to date is the Russian explosion of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant Dam. Russian military combatants have occupied the Kakhovka Dam since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in other words since February 24, 2022. "Moreover, since mid-October 2022, President Zelenskyi had publicly warned that e Russian troops had mined the dam and were planning to carry out a terrorist attack which they would then blame on Ukraine" (Nielsen, 2023). There is evidence that Russia had the means, motive, and opportunity to destroy the Ukraine dam (Chernov & Hinnant, 2023; Gutman Argemi, Ahn, & Benson, 2023).

Though the legal status of the crime of ecocide is still under discussion at the international level, "the very term 'ecocide' moved far beyond jurisprudence and became widespread in media, public opinion, and the different forms of activism" (Gardashuk, 2022). Currently, environmental crimes can be prosecuted in wartime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Code, which prohibits launching an attack knowing it will cause "widespread, severe and lasting damage to the natural environment". The notion of ecocide is established in Ukrainian legislation as mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning of air or water resources, and any other actions that may cause an environmental disaster (Article 441 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), but its functioning is limited as Ukraine did not sign the Rome Statute.

According to John H. Knox, despite the absence of a consistent international criminal law on ecocide, Environmental human rights law has rapidly developed over the past 25 years along three paths: (a) the widespread adoption of environmental rights in regional treaties and national constitutions; (b) the greening of other human rights, such as the rights to life and health, through their application to environmental issues; and (c) the inclusion in multilateral environmental instruments of rights of access to information, public participation, and access to justice. (Knox, 2020, p. 79)

The definition of ecocide is primarily focused on the protection of the environment and it should be self-evident that any definition of ecocide necessarily has the self-interest of protecting the environment in which we humans live. "The result that humans are protected indirectly does not take away from the ecocentric focus of the definition" (Pezzot & Graf, 2022).

In the context of a systemic approach, ecocide refers to the extensive damage, destruction, or loss of the ecosystems of a particular area, whether by humans or other causes, to such an extent that the peaceful enjoyment of the inhabitants of that area has been significantly reduced or will be reduced considerably. The agenda of the world community is "... not only to reform the UN and increase the organization's capacity, but also to find an international consensus in criminalizing Russia's military ecocide taking in account the weakness of the international law" (T. Perha & Y. Perha, 2023, p. 41). Ecofeminism occupies a special place in the diversity of the search for ways to solve the problems of ecocide.

Ecofeminist methodology provides adequate interpretive tools for analysing the anthropological contradictions of ecocide. It is principal to emphasize that this assessment is determined not by an essentialist understanding of the closeness of women and nature but by the methodological approaches of ecofeminism as a theory and as "a new social movement purposefully oriented not to political power but to life and human survival" (Karpenko, 2008, p. 36).

Ecofeminism links patriarchal oppression of women and nature as one and the same system that exploits and oppresses women and degrades the environment. Prominent ecofeminist philosopher and grass-root activist Karen Warren argues, that "woman" and "nature" should be understood not as fixed, ahistorical concepts (contrary to the early essentialist ecofeminist writings), but rather as socially constructed by an androcentric, anthropocentric culture. One of Warren's central ecofeminist claims is that understanding the domination of nature will help illuminate the oppression of women, just as understanding gender oppression will shed light on how nature has been exploited. "The justification for this reconceptualization is that both sexism (and mail-gender bias) and naturalism (and naturalist bias) are conceptually linked through an oppressive and patriarchal conceptual framework, mediated by a logic of domination" (Warren, 2000, p. 63). Criticizing the capitalist system of division of labour, Maria Mayes emphasizes that "women's household labour is defined as non-productive and hence not remunerated. Women are defined as housewives (sic) and their work is omitted from GNP calculations. Women can therefore be called the internal colony of the system" (Mies & Shiva, 2014, p. 58). Vandana Shiva focused on the impact of globalization and corporate interests on the environment and society. She has written about the violence inherent in the industrial exploitation of natural resources and has advocated for sustainable, community-based alternatives that prioritize environmental protection and social justice (Mies & Shiva, 2014).

The theoretical conclusions submitted above are crucial in assessing ecofeminist methodology's role in articulating prospects for solving ecocide problems in wartime. War is also a patriarchal effort that reinforces the masculine over the feminine. Ecofeminist philosophers and scientists see the war as a patriarchal institution of domination that values the masculine over the feminine. War usually exploits women, other marginalized groups, and nature. Ecofeminist analysis allows citizens to become more aware and informed about the destructive nature of war. Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine intensified discussions about ecocide, including its ecofeminist context.

In her book "Feminism and the Mastery of Nature", Val Plumwood developed critiques of anthropocentrism, capitalism, and the domination of nature. Her exploration of the "logic of colonization" and its implications for how humans perceive and interact with the natural world are essential for understanding the ecocide. Val Plumwood argued that Western philosophy, particularly its dualistic and hierarchical thinking, has normalized and justified the domination and exploitation of both human and non-human beings.

Central to Plumwood's critique was the idea that Western thinking tends to separate humans from nature, placing humans above and apart from the rest of the natural world. This separation, she argued, leads to an instrumental view of nature, where it is seen merely as a resource to be exploited for human benefit. Moreover, she highlighted how this mindset justifies the subjugation of not only the environment but also marginalized human groups, such as women, indigenous peoples, and people of colour. It is also appropriate to transfer these ideas into the plane of the problem of ecocide as a form of ecological terrorism in the conditions of Russia's war against Ukraine.

Ecocide as ecological terrorism is not only a supplement but also an essential tactical element of Russia's war against Ukraine. Unable to break the resistance of the people of Ukraine, the Russian invaders mass-murder the civilian population, destroy Ukrainian nature, and wipe Ukrainian cities off the face of the earth. At the same time, they cynically claim in the spirit of patriarchal chauvinism that they are helping Ukrainians and Ukrainian nature to return home. Only the question arises: To which home? To Putin's "dreamed" neo-colonial state? In this situation, Plumwood's approach to challenge and deconstruct the logic of colonization to foster more sustainable and equitable relationships between humans and the rest of the natural world is very relevant. She called for a re-evaluation of the patriarchal currents of Western philosophical traditions and advocated for alternative perspectives that acknowledge the interconnectedness and interdependence of all beings, including respect for freedom and national independence. V. Plumwood declares:

In a mutual and reciprocal relationship with nature, there may be areas of land and life where humans are sovereign, as far as they may be without denying dependency, and there may also be a whole fruitful domain where they may undertake together with earth others 'the dance of interaction', being both transforming and transformed, sustaining, and sustained. But a respectful and mutual relationship must also leave a space for the other. (Plumwood, 2002, p. 164) ecofeminist anthropological war postwar ecocide

Ecofeminism argues that militarism as an ideological, political, and economic system and war are based on an unequal distribution of vulnerabilities, exploitation of natural resources, domination of nature, and marginalization of non-instrumental knowledge systems. Ecofeminist epistemologist Lorraine Code suggests that knowledge production should be viewed as a dynamic and interconnected process involving multiple perspectives and forms of expertise. Just as ecosystems thrive on diversity and interdependence, so too should our understanding of knowledge and authority encompass a variety of voices and perspectives. In her article "Culpable Ignorance?", she explores issues related to ignorance, responsibility, and epistemic injustice. She argues that ignorance is not always innocent or unavoidable but can be culpable, especially when it is wilful or results from the suppression of alternative viewpoints. Her ecological approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of knowledge and the need to cultivate more equitable and just forms of epistemic authority (Code, 2014). The concept of three-limbed epistemology develops this approach.

Modern epistemology assumes diversity, inclusiveness, and ethical responsibility in forming epistemic practices. It can also challenge traditional notions of epistemic authority and knowledge production, emphasizing, in addition to rationality, the importance of intuition and emotion. "These alternative concepts of knowledge today give clues as to how we can design a world of knowledge that organizes the construction of knowledge in a far more dynamic way" (Hagengruber, 2023, p. 120).

The conscious destruction of nature today does not find an adequate assessment, that is, the understanding that everyone must survive this situation to continue living. Here, anthropological aspects are also evident. People need emotional triggers that encourage decision-making to counter ecocide. We receive it from intuition and negative emotions. Russia's war in Ukraine creates a nuclear threat. Ecofeminists around the world remain deeply troubled by President Putin's threats of nuclear escalation in the initial stages of the Russian invasion. Today, more than two years later, atomic blackmail continues, and the situation around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in Ukraine remains emotionally tense and unstable. In this situation, Scheller's call to reconstruct the guiding hierarchy of values, to give priority to spiritual self-improvement, and to promote solidarity through compassion acquires decisive significance.

The ecofeminist methodology's task is to move away from the paradigm of consciousness as the central pillar of classical humanism and the key to its implicit anthropocentrism. In the ecofeminist theory, it is replaced by process ontology. This ontology supports a new materialism as "a collaborative vision of the evolution of species" (Braidotti, 2016) and "the relational dimensions of human, non-human, and more-than-human experiences" (Braidotti, 2013).

In fact, new materialism represents anti-anthropocentrism and posthumanism. But in the ecofeminist methodology, anti-anthropocentrism and posthumanism do not mean devaluing human life. Instead, they mean developing a new ethic of care that articulates the possibility of mutual understanding and recognition of the importance of ecological aspirations for both women and men. It is important to note that the discourse of male philosophers also tends to support and deepen ecofeminism. This discourse recognizes that the dominant masculinity is based on the desire to control nature. Therefore, men's new environmental practices must challenge not only masculinity but also patriarchy. In John Barry's (1998) research, for example, the focus is concentrated more on justifying ecofeminist methodological advantages. According to Bob Pease, Men can work within feminist environmentalism by developing a more empathic role in relating to nature that will enable them to move beyond the practices of objectifying and subjugating nature. Men thus need to be encouraged to experience emotional and physical vulnerability in response to nature. (Pease, 2019)

Bob Pease sees his task in criticizing gender biases and stereotypes in social work regarding protecting nature and, above all, climate threats. So, ecofeminism is woven into the complex economic, political, technical, technological, and interpersonal system.

In the growing recognition of gender equality, solving environmental problems is a joint task for women and men. But the principle of social exclusion, which was constructed in conditions of exclusion, denial, and humiliation of the female sphere, the natural sphere, and the sphere related to the provision of everyday existence, sounds a particular echo in the modern philosophical discourse. Interest in ecofeminist methodology is growing because of the aggravation of environmental problems during Russia's war against Ukraine. This is because it combines theory and practice of the struggle for inclusiveness. It is both a historical achievement of the ecofeminist movement and a theoretically grounded methodological postulate of the modern theory of ecofeminism. Any contrasts, exclusions, or searches for a country, community, ethnic group, or nationality that suffers more from ecocide are methodologically incorrect and dangerous in practice. The inclusiveness of the analysis of the ecocide phenomenon activates the synergy of efforts of different countries and communities, where women's voices are heard, considered, and involved in making fateful decisions.

A particular methodological disagreement arises regarding the paper "Awaiting Spring and War: Insights from Ecofeminism". Selina Gallo-Cruz wrote this paper in the first months of the war in Ukraine for the journal's issue, which was dedicated to this horrible event. But unexpectedly she claimed:

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, pundits have proclaimed a new era of war, an era they say has ushered in a "colder than Cold War". While the world watches the war in Ukraine, others suffer through lesser recognized conflicts in Ethiopia, Western Sahara, and Yemen, citizens of Sri Lanka face devastating economic crises, and citizens of India and Pakistan endure record-breaking heat waves. At the same time, African nations brace themselves against crippling price hikes and reduced access to essential grain supplies. The relative invisibility of these nations' plights deepens both the violence and marginalization they continue to be confronted with, further disrupting the cadences of life. (Gallo-Cruz, 2022, p. 93)

In general, Gallo-Cruz's article contains well-founded theoretical conclusions. She has consistently and convincingly pushed for visibility and inclusivity in her scholarly publications and community engagement. However, in some comments, the author contradicts herself. The narrative at the beginning of the article mentioned above underestimates the visibility of Ukraine's environmental tragedy.

The war conditions in Ukraine make the practical necessity of inclusive unity particularly obvious. Russian aggression threatens to disrupt supplies of Ukrainian grain to the countries to which this author's narrative is dedicated. Women's fate as the family's primary breadwinners in these countries largely depends on the lack of grain due to deep environmental problems. Vandana Shiva points out that the degree of food sovereignty achieved by Indian women farmers depends on their mutual support and inclusiveness regarding shared interests in this field (Mies & Shiva, 2014). Extrapolating Vandana Shiva's conclusion about the positive influence of the principle of inclusiveness on the distribution of world attention to the situation of women in the war in Ukraine and the situation of women in third-world countries, we can conclude that the synergy of ecofeminist inclusiveness practices between countries is more appropriate than their opposition and exclusion. So, ecofeminist theory and practice contribute to the national and international visibility of ecological problems and the problem of war in the context of ecocide.

A systematic analysis of the anthropological dimension of ecocide provides an answer to the question of the relationship between ecocide and genocide as central. The phenomenological approach, addressing these interrelated problems, "becomes a kind of research strategy that creates a contextually working model of their awareness and identification of prospects for their solution" (Karpenko, 2023, p. 60).

The concept of ecocide as a form of genocide is a relatively recent development in legal and academic discourse. While genocide traditionally refers to the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, or other identifying factors, the notion of ecocide expands this definition to include the destruction of ecosystems and the harm it inflicts on human populations.

In the context of the ecofeminist approach, ecocide can be seen as a form of genocide because environmental destruction can lead to severe harm or even the extinction of human communities that rely on those ecosystems for their livelihoods, sustenance, and cultural identity. For example, widespread pollution of water sources or deforestation can deprive communities of access to clean water, food, and shelter, leading to displacement, malnutrition, and even death (Short & Crook, 2022).

Advocates for recognizing ecocide as a form of genocide argue that it should be addressed as a serious human rights issue and that perpetrators should be held accountable under international law. Lauren J. Eichler (2020) states: "Recognizing that ecocide is a form of genocide challenges the anthropocentrism embedded in the current definition of genocide and expands the concept of genocide without substantially changing its official legal definition". In her opinion, expanding the concept of genocide to include ecocide does not weaken the legal definition of genocide. Moreover, this inclusion deepens the term's interpretation, strengthening its legal legitimacy and social recognition. If justice is to be achieved for Indigenous peoples through the United Nations' ability to prosecute genocide, then the definition of genocide needs to at a minimum include ecocide as a recognized act.

However, there is ongoing debate about whether ecocide should be formally recognized as a separate crime under international law and how it should be defined and prosecuted. Liana Georgieva Minkova critiques the anthropocentric element in the definition of ecocide. She writes: "The incorporation of a cost-benefit analysis in Article 8ter perpetuates the flawed assumption that the welfare of the environment and the welfare of human beings are separate, and thus, negatively affects the expressivist power of international criminal law" (Minkova, 2023). Alexandre Antonelli and Pella Thiel (2021) claim that "Ecocide must be listed alongside genocide as an international crime. Large-scale environmental destruction affects the future of all life on our planet. Criminalizing it would finally hold decision-makers to account".

The concept of ecocide as a form of genocide in wartime raises important legal, ethical, and humanitarian questions. It underscores the interconnectedness of human populations with the natural world and highlights the devastating consequences of environmental destruction on both human and non-human life. Recognizing ecocide as a form of genocide in wartime could lead to increased accountability for individuals and governments responsible for environmental atrocities and promote greater protection of the environment during armed conflicts. Yet, implementing such recognition and holding perpetrators accountable would require significant legal and institutional frameworks at the national and international levels.

Timothy Snyder points out that the deportation of Ukrainian children by the Russian occupiers, gender-based violence in the most brutal forms, and destruction or appropriation of Ukrainian cultural heritage aim to destroy the Ukrainian nation. In his opinion,

Where Ukraine holds territory, which is most of the country, people are saving themselves. Ukrainians have shown that genocide can be stopped with the right help. When we stop this help, as we did, we allow the genocide to continue. This is not only a horror in itself, but also a precedent. (Snyder, 2024)

On November 24, 2016, during a live televised awards ceremony for geography students in Moscow, the Russian president asked a nine-year-old boy: "Where does Russia's border end?" The child answered, "At the Bering Strait with the United States". In response to this, Putin has said Russia's borders "do not end anywhere" ("Russia's border", 2016). It is not difficult to understand that this dialogue was aimed at "education" to "justify" the dictator's conquering ambitions because the event took place two years after the beginning of the first stage of the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Before that, Russia seized separate territories of Georgia, Chechnya, Moldova, and other countries. Patriarchal dominance and colonial logic are apparent there. "The actualization of the idea of no borders brings us back to the primordial opposition between the active male principle, which tries to expand and often destroys the boundaries, and the more conservative female principle, which protects the inner space" (Karpenko, 2005). In this context, ecocide requires rehabilitation, increasing the value of the feminine principle that creates the inner space, takes care of it, and preserves culture from confusion and destruction.

On April 27, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recognized the deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to the territory of the Russian Federation with subsequent "Russification" as genocide ("PACE vyznala", 2023).

The abduction and deportation of children, particularly in the context of forcibly separating them from their families or communities, can also be considered a form of ecocide, albeit indirectly. While ecocide traditionally focuses on the destruction of ecosystems and the harm it inflicts on human populations, forcibly removing children from their natural environments can have severe and lasting ecological impacts.

The abduction and deportation of children could contribute to ecocide in different ways. First, it means the disruption of communities. Removing children from their families and communities disrupts social structures and traditional knowledge systems, leading to destabilization and potential long-term harm to the social fabric of ecosystems. The consequence of this is also the loss of cultural heritage. Indigenous and local communities often have deep cultural connections to their land and ecosystems. Abducting and deporting children can sever these connections, leading to the erosion of cultural practices, languages, and traditional ecological knowledge that are essential for sustainable stewardship of the environment. In addition, it affects future generations. Depriving children of their connection to their natural environment can hinder their ability to develop a sense of responsibility toward the land, potentially perpetuating harmful practices that contribute to ecocide in the future.

An equally threatening consequence is psychological and emotional trauma. Forced separation from their families and communities can have profound psychological and emotional effects on children, affecting their well-being and resilience. The abduction of Ukrainian children is Russia's technique for breaking identity. This trauma can impair their ability to engage positively with their environment and contribute to sustainable practices. In this situation, Roberto Assagioli's teaching on psychosynthesis, which combines various psychotherapeutic practices of overcoming disidentification, has "a new push for development in the conditions of wars, disasters, loneliness, and related psychological disorders" (Popov & Popova, 2023, p. 15).

While abduction and deportation of children may not fit neatly into the traditional definition of ecocide, they are certainly intertwined with broader issues of environmental degradation, cultural erosion, and human rights violations. Addressing these interconnected challenges requires holistic approaches that prioritize the well-being of both children and the ecosystems they inhabit.

So, the abduction and deportation of children, particularly in the context of forcibly separating them from their families or communities, can indeed be considered a form of ecocide, albeit indirectly. Overall, the concept of ecocide as a form of genocide highlights the interconnectedness of environmental destruction and human rights violations, emphasizing the need for holistic approaches to protecting both ecosystems and vulnerable communities.

The complex political, ethical, and environmental aspects of Russia's war against Ukraine provide a context for discussing the appropriateness of pacifism during and after this war.

Ecofeminist pacifism and ecocide. Contextual understanding of the Russian-Ukrainian war includes its political roots, key events, and impact on Ukrainian society and the environment (Gardashuk, 2022; T. Perha & Y. Perha, 2023). Firstly, conquering Russian aggression and military actions escalate tensions and destroy the environment in Ukraine. At the same time, the core principles of ecofeminism emphasize the interconnectedness of social, environmental, and gender justice. Ecofeminists advocate nonviolence, sustainable development, and holistic approaches to solving problems of systemic injustice.

In this contradictory situation, critiques of pacifism presented from ecofeminist positions in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war suggest that radical pacifism may be inappropriate or insufficient in response to insidious aggression and violence by such a powerful adversary as Russia.

However, specific positive trends can be found in the modern ecofeminist pacifist discourse. Pacifism works in everyday practices with both the human and the non-human. "Instead of being an abstract ethical principle, feminist environmental pacifism is an affective and material way of being in and knowing the world characterized by contingent, repetitive, and attentive doings of care" (Vayrynen, 2023).

Pacifism overlooks or downplays the environmental devastation caused by military action, including the destruction of fertile black soil, air pollution, deforestation, and habitat destruction (Simonov, 2023). War disproportionately affects women and marginalized communities, who face particular environmental and socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Pacifist approaches do not always consider these gendered aspects of violence and environmental injustice. Women's experiences and responses to the challenges of war vary according to factors such as historical period, nationality, ethnicity, class, and geographic location. Ecofeminist activism can amplify the voices and perspectives of diverse women affected by war. To understand the ambiguity of ecofeminist pacifist ideas and practices, it is appropriate to turn to the experience of the German ecofeminist and activist of the pacifist movement, Petra Kelly.

In his relevant study on "Ecofeminist Ideology of Petra Kelly: The Challenges of Modern Political Thought", Darko Nadic emphasized, that

She called for the rejection of war as a political instrument; radical disarmament; removal of foreign military bases; replacing military defence in civil defence welfare; the abolition of military alliances; elimination of production, testing, sales, and use of nuclear biological and chemical weapons; the abolition of the global arms trade, and the transformation of industry and military budgets in favour of social and economic needs. (Nadic, 2013, p. 65)

Indeed, all the listed areas of Petra Kelly's activity are relevant and can be discussed today. However, in the context of the obvious imperial, neo-colonialist goals of Russia's war against Ukraine, aimed at seizing the territories of a sovereign state and destroying the Ukrainian nation, it is purposeful to highlight also other nuances of her ecofeminist and pacifist concepts.

Neither ecofeminism nor pacifism were ends in themselves for Kelly. She considered them in interconnection and mutual conditionality. She called for solidarity and participation of people across national borders and through ecological, ecofeminist, and political problem areas. Petra Kelly (2001) insisted: "The means and the ends must be parallel. You cannot reach a peaceful end with violent means, and you cannot reach a just end with unjust means" (p. 26). In her opinion, "A truly free society must also mean that we do not want the peace that oppresses us. We must learn on our terms what peace and freedom mean together" (Kelly, 2001, p. 64).

In this context, the ideas of Petra Kelly correlate with the answer of the director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Anatoly Yermolenko (2022), to the founder of communicative practical philosophy, Jurgen Habermas, regarding his remark: "The dilemma facing the West is obvious, it consists in the need to choose between two risky alternatives, i.e. between the two evils the defeat of Ukraine or the escalation of a limited conflict to the third world war". A. Yermolenko emphasized that he fully supports the ideas of communicative practical philosophy, ideas of intersubjectivity, and ethics of discourse, which Habermas always advocated. The ideas of an unrestricted horizon of communication, the victory of the better argument instead of violence, and a view of communication as the basis of all ethics have given us many new answers to difficult questions. In his opinion, the philosophy of intersubjectivity has done quite a lot for the establishment of democracy in Germany and abroad, including in Ukraine.

But he is convinced that "...there are moments when the infinite horizon of communication has its limits: you cannot talk to a murderer and a rapist, you must resist him. You cannot wait for what actions he will resort to you have these stop the actions and make them impossible in the future". A. Yermolenko disagrees with the opinion of a recognized philosopher that the loss of Ukraine in this war is no worse than the escalation of the Third World War.

Anatoly Yermolenko's conclusion that we all need a joint victory over the evil that is Russia's war against Ukraine, and the world should unite for this, coincides with Petra Kelly's call to unite for the sake of peace, which necessarily involves freedom and independence. In the context of the said controversy, we are inclined to conclude that the strategy and tactics of the struggle for peace are different during wartime and peacetime.

There are moments when "infinite intersubjectivity" has its limits. When it is necessary to become a subject again, to find the courage to reason again, and not only to communicative but also to strategic reason "in order to continue the real (echten) human life on earth" ("Permanenz echten menschlichen Leben auf Erden") (H. Jonas). (Yermolenko, 2022)

Therefore, ecological pacifism as an ideology and a social movement has limited opportunities during the war, but in the post-war period, it, like other pacifist movements, becomes the driving force of the struggle for a stable peace and sufficient conditions for opposing ecocide and the threat of war.

Also, alternative ecofeminist responses to war that go beyond pacifism but still embody principles of nonviolence, justice, and sustainability should not be ignored. These include supporting peace-building efforts, promoting environmental conservation and restoration initiatives, and supporting grassroots movements for social and environmental sustainability.

After summarizing the key arguments, we conclude that environmental pacifism is an ideology and a social movement whose effectiveness is limited during wartime. However, in the aftermath of war, alongside other pacifist endeavours, it emerges as a pivotal force in advocating for enduring peace and establishing favourable conditions to combat ecocide and the looming spectre of warfare. Recognizing the challenges and tensions inherent in ecofeminist responses to war and violence in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, we emphasize the importance of critical dialogue and solidarity among ecofeminists in addressing the multifaceted impact of war on people, the environment, and future generations.

Originality

For the first time, a systematic analysis of the anthropological dimension of ecocide has been carried out based on ecofeminist methodology. The specifics of the Ukrainian resistance to ecocide were revealed as part of a single struggle an anti-imperial and ecological struggle for independence and prosperity. It is emphasized that during the war, the opposition to ecocide is a component of the fight for national independence and territorial integrity of the country, and therefore, the ideas of pacifism in this period are subordinated to this primary goal. After the war, preventing threats of ecocide should become an integral part of the struggle for stable peace and prosperity. Ecofeminist pacifist ideas are more appropriate and valuable for this period.

Conclusions

Ecofeminist methodological assessments offer valuable insights into the anthropological dimension of ecocide in wartime and post-war contexts, highlighting the complex interplay between gender, violence, and environmental destruction. By focusing on the experiences and perspectives of women and marginalized communities, ecofeminist analyses contribute to a more holistic understanding of ecocide and its impacts on both human populations and ecosystems.

References

1. Antonelli, A., & Thiel, P. (2021, June 22). Ecocide must be listed alongside genocide as an international crime. The Guardian.

2. Barry, J. (1998). The emergence of ecofeminist political economy. Environmental Politics, 7(3), 150-155.

3. Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press. (in English)

4. Braidotti, R. (2016). Posthuman Feminist Theory. In L. Disch & M. Hawkesworth (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory (pp. 673-698). Oxford University Press. (in English)

5. Chernov, M., & Hinnant, L. (2023, June 19). Russia had means, motive and opportunity to destroy Ukraine dam, drone photos and information show. The Associated Press.

6. Code, L. (2014). Culpable Ignorance? Hypatia, 29(3), 670-676.

7. Eichler, L.J. (2020). Ecocide Is Genocide: Decolonizing the Definition of Genocide. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 14(2), 104-121.

8. Gallo-Cruz, S. (2022). Awaiting Spring and War: Insights from Ecofeminism. Deportate, esuli, profughe, (49), 93-110.

9. Gardashuk, T. (2022). Is Russian Aggression in Ukraine Ecocide? Envigogika, 17(1).

10. Gutman-Argemi, C., Ahn, A., & Benson, B. (2023, June 9). Ukrainians Are Accusing Russia of Ecocide. What Does That Mean? Foreign Policy.

11. Hagengruber, R. (2023). The Third Knowledge Dimension: From a Binary System to a Three-limbed Epistemology. In R. Hagengruber (Ed.), Women Philosophers on Economics, Technology, Environment, and Gender History: Shaping the Future, Rethinking the Past (pp. 119-128). De Gruyter.

12. Herasymchuk, A., & Zasiadko, Y. (2022, August 26). Ecocide in Ukraine: How Russia is Killing Ukrainian Environment? Ukraine World.

13. Karpenko, K. (2005). Pryroda i zhinka: Perspektyvy ekofeminizmu v Ukraini: Monohrafiia. Kharkiv: Kruk. (in Ukrainian)

14. Karpenko, K. (2008). Dualistychni stratehii novykh sotsialnykh rukhiv. In Hromadianske suspilstvo v Ukraini za doby hlobalizatsii (pp. 36-42). Kyiv: Etna. (in Ukrainian)

15. Karpenko, K. (2023). Gender Justice and Ecological Issues. In R. Hagengruber (Ed.), Women Philosophers on Economics, Technology, Environment, and Gender History: Shaping the Future, Rethinking the Past (pp. 57-68). De Gruyter.

16. Kelly, P.K. (2001). Nonviolence Speaks to Power (G.D. Paige & S. Gilliatt, Eds.). Center for Global Nonviolence.

17. Knox, J.H. (2020). Constructing the Human Right to a Healthy Environment. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16, 79-95.

18. Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (2014). Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books. (in English)

19. Minkova, L.G. (2023). The Fifth International Crime: Reflections on the Definition of "Ecocide". Journal of Genocide Research, 25(1), 62-83.

20. Nadic, D. (2013). Ecofeminist Ideology of Petra Kelly: The Challenges of Modern Political Thought. European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities, 2(2), 63-70.

21. Nielsen, C.R. (2023). Ukraine, Ecocide, and Thinking About Environmental Justice in a Time of War. Academia.edu.

22. Ovchinnikov, A. (2023, September 4). On the path to international recognition of ecocide. Ukraine War Environmental Consequences Work Group.

23. PACE vyznala henotsydom deportatsiiu ta "rusyfkatsiiu" ukrainskykh ditei. (2023, April 28). Mezha.

24. Pease, B. (2019). Recreating Men's Relationship with Nature: Toward a Profeminist Environmentalism. Men and Masculinities, 22(1), 113-123.

25. Perha, T., & Perha, Y. (2023). Compensation for Ecocide: the 1991 Gulf War Experience for Ukraine During and after Russian Invasion in 2022-2023. Military Historical Bulletin, 47(1), 32-45.

26. Pezzot, R., & Graf, J.-P. (2022, February 3). Ecocide Legal Revolution or Symbolism? Volkerrechtsblog.

27. Plumwood, V. (2002). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge. (in English)

28. Popov, V.Y., & Popova, E.V. (2023). Philosophical and Anthropological Foundations of Psychosynthesis by Roberto Assaggioli. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (24), 5-17.

29. Russia's border doesn't end anywhere, Vladimir Putin says. (2016, November 24). BBC.

30. Scheler, M. (2009). The Human Place in the Cosmos. Northwestern University Press. (in English)

31. Short, D., & Crook, M. (Eds.). (2022). The Genocide-Ecocide Nexus. Routledge.

32. Simonov, D. (2023, August 13). Hell on Earth. How Russian aggression is devastating Ukrainian black soil.

33. Ukrainska Pravda. Snyder, T. (2024, March 3). The apocalypse we choose. Thinking about

34. Vayrynen, T. (2023). Feminist Ecological Pacifism and Care in the Anthropocene. Journal of Pacifism and Nonviolence, 1(1), 91-103.

35. Warren, K. (2000). Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It is and Why It Matters. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. (in English)

36. Yermolenko, A. (2022, May 20). Widerstand statt Verhandlung. Frankfurter Allgemeine.

List of reference links

1. Antonelli A., Thiel P. Ecocide must be listed alongside genocide as an international crime. The Guardian. 2021. June 22.

2. Barry J. The emergence of ecofeminist political economy. Environmental Politics. 1998. Vol. 7, Iss. 3. P. 150-155.

3. Braidotti R. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013. 229 p.

4. Braidotti R. Posthuman Feminist Theory. The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory / ed. by L. Disch, M. Hawkesworth. Oxford University Press, 2016. P. 673-698.