CRISIS IN UKRAINE
An Interview with Environmentalist
Vladyslav Balinskyi
February 24, 2026
Vladyslav Balinskyi is an Odesa-based investigative journalist, environmentalist and hydrobiologist at the Tuzlivski Lymany National Nature Park. He heads the NGO Zeleniy List (Green Leaf) and has been a public voice on the environmental impacts of Russia’s war, including Black Sea pollution risks and the consequences of the Kakhovka HPP disaster. In early 2026, the Institute of Mass Information reported that Russia placed him on an international wanted list in connection with his work documenting war crimes and ecocide, underscoring both the stakes of his work and the urgency of the questions Europe can no longer avoid.
In February 2026, art installations appeared across Europe, using the language of contemporary art to draw attention to the large-scale environmental consequences of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The project, Nature on Fire, by UAnimals, supported by ISAR Ednannia, is taking place simultaneously in five countries: Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal and Moldova, hosted at Ukrainian diplomatic premises. Here, Vladyslav Balinskyi reflects on the themes the project raises.
Nature on Fire translates ecological damage into physical, human-scale stories. What is the one scientific reality you most want those installations to convey accurately, even in the language of art?
The most critical scientific reality that art must convey is the irreversibility of the systemic cascade triggered by the Russian Federation's military aggression. This is a multi-complex strike against the very foundation of life. When an aggressor destroys a landscape, they ignite a chain reaction where soil degradation instantly transitions into the contamination of both air and water.
We are dealing with a single, interconnected ecological map, where atmospheric cycles and water basins function as giant conveyor belts. Toxic dust (PM) and combustion byproducts rise into the sky, while pollutants are washed into river arteries; this cascade does not stop at any border. We are losing an entire Universe: one we haven't even had the chance to fully explore.
It is like a complex mechanism with its central gears torn out: it may still resemble a clock, but it is no longer capable of sustaining life. We risk leaving future generations an environment that is physically unfit for breathing or existence, because the biological mechanisms that held this Universe together were shattered by the Russian war hammer.
Flooding in Kherson after the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam
IMAGE: State Emergency Service of Ukraine
After the Kakhovka dam destruction, you warned about large-scale landscape and ecological loss, and about pollution moving into the Black Sea. What are the clearest impacts you have seen, and what remains hardest to verify from the ground?
This is an ecocide of planetary proportions. The greatest challenge in documentation lies in capturing the systemic cascades—changes with a delayed effect that lead to the total transformation of ecosystems. Under the conditions of active warfare, conducting traditional field research is virtually impossible due to landmines, constant shelling, and the lack of safe access.
The strike against landscapes and hydrological regimes has dealt a devastating blow to Ukraine’s Nature Reserve Fund (NRF). The 'Nyzhniodniprovskyi' and 'Biloberezhia Sviatoslava' National Nature Parks have been severely impacted. The 'Velyki i Mali Kuchuhury' reserve has been effectively destroyed as an ornithological site. The catastrophe struck during the peak nesting season for many waterfowl, resulting in the total loss of offspring and the destruction of the populations' reproductive core.
In its acute phase, the situation in the Northwestern Black Sea and the Gulf of Odesa was characterised by total desalination and a mass die-off of hydrobionts. The sudden drop in salinity proved fatal for the mussels in the Gulf of Odesa—the sea’s primary biofilters. We documented a mass mortality of gobies and thousands of freshwater animals swept into the sea by the current; they perished instantly from osmotic shock in the saltwater, creating a massive wave of biological pollution.
A distinct danger is posed by the toxic sediments and sapropel that had accumulated on the reservoir floor for 70 years. These masses were flushed into the sea, and verifying their presence at depth is currently nearly impossible due to the inability to conduct maritime expeditions. Furthermore, using satellite tools, we are observing rapid aridification in the steppe regions of Crimea, Kherson, Mykolaiv, and Zaporizhzhia. This is directly linked to the destruction of engineering systems for irrigation and water supply, leading to shifts in local climatic conditions, dust storms, and profound landscape degradation. We are systematically organising all these data to serve as an evidentiary base for international judicial institutions.
IMAGE: UAnimals
You have faced intimidation and legal pressure linked to your work. What does that climate do to environmental research and reporting in Ukraine, and what practical protections should European institutions be offering to environmental defenders?
The academic environment—and not only in Ukraine—is typically quite 'sterile.' By nature, most scientists attempt to avoid conflict, sharp political edges, and direct accusations. They operate within standards that do not envision the role of a witness in criminal proceedings against an entire state.
However, the situation in Ukraine is unique. The active movement to document war crimes and ecocide exists not because of academic offices, but thanks to true enthusiasts. This movement rests on two pillars:
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs): It is the NGOs that have become the engines of this work, unafraid to call things by their true names. They take on the risk of gathering evidence that official science often overlooks.
National Nature Parks (e.g., 'Tuzlovski Lymany'): These are the rare state institutions where people like Ivan Rusiev, Iryna Vykhrystiuk, and their colleagues work 'on the ground.' Located at the front lines of the catastrophe, they do not have the luxury of remaining 'neutral.'
Impact on Research and Persecution
This rift between 'sterile' science and active documentation creates a situation where the most critical data is collected by people under colossal pressure. Those who dare to step beyond academic silence and directly point to the crimes of the Russian Federation become personal targets for the aggressor. Criminal cases are launched against us, and we are placed on wanted lists. For this reason, I was compelled to formally appeal to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (the Aarhus Committee) to document these instances of persecution and the obstruction of environmental activities on an international level. In such conditions, scientific truth becomes an act of courage.
What Protection is Needed from Europe
European institutions must support not only 'sterile' state programs but specifically these hubs of activity:
Direct Support for Enthusiasts: Funding and security guarantees must go directly to the NGOs and National Parks that are actually documenting crimes on the ground.
Legitimisation of Data: Developing legal frameworks to ensure that the data collection methods used by these organisations are recognised as officially admissible for international reports and courts.
Security Umbrella: The creation of rapid response mechanisms (both legal and physical) for specialists whose work makes them targets for the RF. My appeal to the Aarhus Committee should serve as a signal to the EU regarding the necessity of systemic protection for such researchers.
IMAGES: UAnimals
When you say “ecocide”, what does the term add that “pollution” or “environmental damage” does not, especially for policymakers who prefer softer language?
When we use the word 'ecocide,' we must return to its roots. This term stands in the same row as 'genocide.' The suffix '-cide' comes from the Latin caedere: to kill, to destroy. Ecocide is, quite literally, the killing of the home (oikos). It is not merely 'pollution' or 'damage'; it is the purposeful, total destruction of all life across vast territories.
This realisation is where policymakers must begin:
Totality vs. Partiality: Pollution is when you spoil the water in a river. Ecocide is when you destroy the river itself as an organ of the planetary organism. It is the total extermination of biocenoses, leaving no chance for self-renewal (as seen in the millions of explosion craters along the defensive lines of Ukraine and Europe). In the case of Kakhovka, we see exactly this: a deliberate act of liquidating the environment and the landscape itself.
Nature as a Target: Just as genocide is the purposeful extermination of a people, ecocide is the purposeful murder of an ecosystem. This is the use of nature not as an accidental victim, but as a weapon or a direct target. Russia did not just 'cause damage'; it committed an act of total destruction of the habitat—a crime against the future itself.
Liquidation vs. Contamination: Pollution, even when catastrophic in scale, is an impact on the state of the environment, which often allows for subsequent remediation or cleanup. Ecocide is an act of final liquidation of the environment itself. When the Kakhovka dam was blown up, it wasn't about 'dirty water' or exceeding safety norms; it was about the instantaneous physical murder of the foundation of life: from microorganisms in the soil to entire nesting colonies of birds. It is the destruction of the very biological mechanisms that held this Universe together.
'Ecocide' is a crime against humanity. We insist on this term to block the path to any compromise: for the total destruction of life, there must be total legal accountability.
Politicians choose 'soft' words to avoid radical steps. But when the murder of a home has occurred, calling it an 'inconvenience' or 'pollution' is to become an accomplice. Ecocide is final and purposeful extermination, and that is exactly how it must be enshrined in international law.
.jpg?crc=80657679)
IMAGE: State Emergency Service of Ukraine
If you could brief European decision makers in one minute, what would you ask them to do that is specific, measurable, and directly useful for environmental security, not just for Ukraine, but for Europe?
Your actions today must not be about 'support, but about establishing new standards for ecological security. Here are four specific steps that are required right now:
LEGAL RECLASSIFICATION: You must officially recognise ecocide as an international crime by amending the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This is the only way to stop treating the destruction of nature as 'collateral damage' and begin prosecuting it as a crime against humanity.
INTEGRATION AND MONITORING: Ukraine is already a frontline laboratory for studying ecological catastrophes. I urge you to immediately integrate Ukrainian monitoring systems and data from our National Parks into the European MSFD (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) network. We need a shared European hub for ecological intelligence to track the transboundary consequences of warfare in real-time.
DIRECT FUNDING FOR THE 'FRONT LINE: Reform the architecture of aid. Create financial instruments that flow directly to NGOs and National Nature Parks working 'in the field.' Centralised ministerial bureaucracy must not stand between European resources and the people gathering evidence of ecocide under fire.
PROTECTION FOR RESEARCHERS: Implement a 'rapid protection' mechanism for environmental investigators targeted by the aggressor. These must be concrete legal guarantees at the EU level that prevent transboundary persecution by the RF and ensure the security of data that belongs to all of Europe.
We must act now, while the cascade of destruction can still be documented and localised.
Terms and Conditions | About Sustain Europe | Privacy Policy | GDPR | Advertising | Contact Sustain Europe
© Sustain Europe 2026. All rights reserved. Powered by 100% Green Energy. Our pledge to the Environment.
