Sustainable Hope: Energy, Environment, and the Future of Ukraine

The Nanovic Institute for European Studies

Available on-demand

Marking the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter, this panel explores the shift from an “ideology of destruction” to decentralized green infrastructure. Discover how environmental law and energy innovation are securing Ukraine’s sovereignty and the future of international accountability.

Speakers include:

Carl Bruch (Environmental Law Institute): “Pathways for Accountability for Wartime Environmental Damage in Ukraine”
Olga Degtiareva (Odesa National University of Economics) and Albina Dioba (Copenhagen Business School): “Decentralized Energy System: A Hope for a Sustainable and Resilient Energy Future in Ukraine”
Kristina Hook (Kennesaw State University): “The Environmental Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine War: Impacts, Intent, and Recovery”
Natalia Slobodian (Canterbury Christ Church University): “Towards Sustainable Peace: Hope and Environmental Restoration in Post-War Ukraine”

Revolutions of Hope: Resilience and Recovery in Ukraine is a collaboration between Notre Dame’s Nanovic Institute, part of the Keough School of Global Affairs, and Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU). The conference, hosted at the University of Notre Dame in March 2025, focused on the positive and corrective response to this destruction, exploring reasons for hope, sources of hope, and the politics and ethics of hope in Ukraine. How is hope powerful or even revolutionary? How does it encourage resilience and recovery? And, above all, how can we build and promote the integral development of hope in Ukraine? The conference explored the concept, dynamics, and practices of hope through keynote addresses, panel discussions, the arts, and liturgical observances. For more information visit the event website.

Co-sponsors included:

As the international community observes the 80th anniversary of the UN Charter and the third year of full-scale Russian aggression, the “Sustainable Hope” panel reconceptualizes environmental and energy policy. Moving beyond “soft” secondary concerns, these issues are now framed as the cornerstone of national security, public health, and sovereign integrity within the context of asymmetric warfare.

The Environmental Toll and Intentional Harm Dr. Christina Hook presented a harrowing analysis of the “Arenas of Impact,” detailing the devastation of Ukraine’s forests, soil, and biodiversity, including rare native zebra populations. However, Hook argued this is not mere collateral damage but a deliberate “ideology of destruction.” The intentional breaching of the Kakhovka Dam and the targeting of nuclear sites reveal the environment being used as a mechanism of control.

“So What?” Layer: With 30% of Ukrainian territory now potentially mined—an area the size of Florida—the environmental impact is a long-term public health crisis. Destruction of urban infrastructure has released airborne asbestos, creating subtle, lethal exposure risks that exacerbate pre-existing vulnerabilities. This intentional degradation seeks to undermine the long-term viability of the Ukrainian state.

Pathways to International Accountability Mr. Carl Bruch distinguished between criminal and civil accountability. While “ecocide” remains a high bar for international criminal prosecution, civil liability offers a robust path through the “Pottery Barn Doctrine”—famously invoked by Colin Powell—which asserts that an aggressor in an illegal war is responsible for all ensuing damages.

“So What?” Layer: The strategic importance of the “Register of Damages” lies in its ability to provide “rough justice” for long-term peace. Bruch emphasized the challenge of “Baseline Damage”—the legal necessity of distinguishing pre-existing environmental issues from war-related destruction. By anchoring claims in the illegality of the war itself, the burden of proof shifts, establishing a precedent for transnational legal norms in environmental restoration.

Energy Decentralization as Resilience The vulnerability of centralized architecture was exposed by 308 targeted attacks on energy infrastructure, which, by the summer of 2024, reduced available generation from a 58GW capacity to a mere 2GW. Professors Olga Degtyareva and Alina Dzhyuba advocated for a 5D model of transition, centering on the “Energy Community” concept—using a Greek biomass project as a template for local energy autonomy.

“So What?” Layer: Transitioning from a 58GW centralized system to a decentralized grid is no longer just a climate goal; it is a national security imperative. While significant legislative barriers remain regarding energy trading, these local communities represent the “democratization” of power, making the grid nearly impossible for an aggressor to disable entirely.

The Social Architecture of Peacebuilding Natalia Sladan emphasized that environmental peacebuilding requires a “Leap Frog” strategy—bypassing hazardous Soviet-era structures to build modern green infrastructure. She highlighted the gender factor, noting a 30% increase in women-led NGOs, framing women as “agents of change” rather than victims.

“So What?” Layer: To prevent “brain drain,” Ukraine must engage Gen Z in ecological restoration. Initiatives like “therapeutic gardens” and learning spaces are vital for mental health and social cohesion. By transforming rubble into opportunity, Ukraine serves as a global laboratory for modernizing international law and sustainable reconstruction.

Environmental Intentionality: The panel redefined environmental harm as a deliberate mechanism of control. Russia’s “ideology of destruction” targets the ecological foundation of the state, making environmental defense a prerequisite for political victory.
The Sovereignty of Green Energy: Green energy has been transformed from a luxury climate goal into a tool for national defense. Decentralized grid architecture (solar, wind, biomass) is harder to disable than centralized fossil fuel plants, making “green” synonymous with “resilient.”
The Civil Liability Precedent: By applying the “Pottery Barn Doctrine,” the panel argued that the illegality of the war itself shifts the burden of proof. This “break it, you buy it” approach ensures that the aggressor is held responsible for the totality of destruction, bypassing the complexities of proving specific criminal intent.
Innovation in Rubble: A standout example of resilience is the recycling of military and construction waste into high-grade, safety-certified cement for bridges. Critically, these projects employ wounded veterans, integrating social architecture with physical reconstruction.
Ecological Peacebuilding: Environmental issues have risen to a Top 5 priority for the Ukrainian public. This shift in consciousness ensures that ecological restoration is not an afterthought but a foundational pillar of the national vision for peace.

“Every day of damage to Ukraine we can think of as meeting that ideology of destruction.” — Kristina Hook
“Colin Powell referred to this as the Pottery Barn Doctrine: You break it, you buy it.” — Carl Bruch
“International criminal and civil liability under international law cannot be waived in any peace settlement; otherwise, that invalidates the peace settlement.” — Diane Desierto
“Russia’s attack on energy facilities and infrastructure… is, first of all, about direct impact on the economic situation and the ability of Ukrainians to satisfy basic needs.” — Natalia Slobodian
“Decentralization of energy infrastructure can lead to better resilience in the wartime and more sustainable future after the war.” — Olga Degtiareva