LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

Anthropocentric paradigm of modern warfare

stmm. 2023 (1): 24-41

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2023.01.024

Full Text: http://stmm.in.ua/archive/ukr/2023-1/5.pdf

OLEKSANDR STEGNII, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Leading Research Fellow at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

o.stegniy@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7829-127X

Based on the theoretical provisions of the new ecological paradigm in sociology and the methodological approaches of the warfare ecology, the ecological effects of modern warfare are analyzed. It is noted that anthropogenic pressure on the environment during hostilities is returned to society in the form of «environmental returns». It is claimed that the conduct of modern war creates a threat of exceeding the carrying capacity of the environment, transforming the latter from a neutralizer of harmful substances into their producent. It is proposed to consider the concept of «waging war» in the broad context of military activity. The peculiarity of the impact on the environment of military infrastructure objects in the pre-war period is considered in detail. The environmental consequences of various types of active hostilities, as well as the negative environmental effects of the use of modern types of heavy weapons and equipment, are separately analyzed using the example of the Russian-Ukrainian war. It is emphasized that the post-war environmental effects are directly related to the depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, including cases of ecocide, as well as large-scale pollution of air, soil and water. The negative impact of the war on the ecosystems makes it impossible to restore the previous residential and ecological living conditions in the affected territories in the short term.

Keywords: new ecological paradigm, modern war, environmental carrying capacity, biophysical environment, military activity, warfare, environmental contamination, military infrastructure, environmental effects of fighting, environmental responsibility

References

Catton, W.R. Jr. (1982). Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Certini, G., Scalenghe, R., Woods, W.I. (2013). The impact of warfare on the soil environment. Earth Science Reviews, 127, 1–15.

Closmann, Ch.E. (Ed.) (2009). War and the Environment. Military Destruction in the Modern Age. Texas: Texas A&M University Press.

Engh, S. (2020). Georg Borgstrцm and the population-food dilemma. In: Histories of Knowledge in Postwar Scandinavia (pp. 39 –58). London: Routledge.

Environmental impacts of the war in Ukraine and prospects of a green reconstruction (2022). OECD.

Goldsmith, G.S. (2010). Environmental impacts and military range use. Аn investigation and summary of what we have learned after 12 years at Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) and implications for the continued use of military ranges in the United States. U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute.

Gontier, M. (2007). Scale issues in the assessment of ecological impacts using a GIS-based habitat model - A case study for the Stockholm region. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 440–459. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925507000194.

Hupy, J.P. (2008). The environmental footprint of war. Environmental History, 14(3), 405–421.

Kaldor, M. (1999). New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kopel, D., Malkinson, D., Wittenberg, L. (2015). Characterization of vegetation community dynamics in areas affected by construction waste along the urban fringe. Urban Ecosystems, 18, 133–150.

Lawrence, M.J., Stemberger, H.I.J., Zolderdo, A.J., Struthers, D.P., Cooke, S.J.(2015). The effects of modern war and military activities in biodiversity and the environment. Environmental Review,23, 443–460.

Lindsell, J.A., Klop, E., Siaka, A.M. (2011). The impact of civil war on forest wildlife in West Africa: mammals in Gola Forest, Sierra Leone. Oryx, 45 (01), 69–77.

Long, T.P. (2009). A global prospective on underwater munitions. Marine Technology Society Journal, 43 (4), 5–10.

Machlis, G.E., Hanson, T. (2008).Warfare Ecology. BioScience, 58 (3), 729–736.

Majeed, A. (2004). The impact of militarism on the environment: an overview of direct and indirect effects. A research report written for Physicians for Global Survival (Canada). Ottawa. Retrieved from: https: //bazaarmodel.net/ftp/Project-C/Bazaarmodel/Materiaal/Xtradetail/pdf/militarism_environment_web.pdf.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment (2023). Washington: Island Press.

Prose, D.V., Wilshire, H.G. (2000). The Lasting Effects of Tank Maneuvers on Desert Soils and Intershrub Flora. Washington: US Geological Survey. Open-file Report no. 00-512. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0512/pdf/of00-512.pdf.

Rodda, G.H., Savidge, J.A. (2007). Biology and impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. Boiga irregularis, the Brown Tree Snake (Reptilia: Colubridae). Pacific Science, 61, 307–324.

Smith, R. (2007). The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. New York: Knopf.

Smith, S.L. (2011). Toxic legacy: mustard gas in the sea around us. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39 (1), 34–40.

Stegnii, O. (2012). Sociological reading of nature. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Center for Environmental Education and Information. [= Стегній, О. (2012). Соціологічне прочитання природи. Київ: Центр екологічної освіти та інформації]

Stegnii, O. (2022). Socio-ecological risks of the Russian-Ukrainian war. [In Ukrainian]. In: Ukrainian society in the conditions of war. Year 2022 (pp. 77–87). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NASU. [= Стегній, О. (2022). Соціально-екологічні ризики російсько-української війни. В: Українське суспільство в умовах війни. Рік 2022 (сс.. 77–87). Київ: Інститут соціології НАНУ]

Sztompka, P. (2022). Social capital. Theory of interpersonal space. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Dukh i litera letter.[= Штомпка, П. (2022). Соціальний капітал. Теорія міжособистістого простору. Київ: Дух і літера]

Tortorici, G., Fiorito, F. (2017). Building in post-war environments. Procedia Engineering, 180, 1093–1102.

Vasyliuk, O., Ilminska, L. (2020). Ecosystem services. Review. CO «СF «Biodiversity Protection Fund of Ukraine». [= Василюк, О., Ільмінська, Л. (2020). Екосистемні послуги. Огляд. БО «БФ «Фонд захисту біорізноманіття України»]

White, D.F., Rudy, A.P., Gareau, B.J. (2016). Environments, Natures and Social Theory. Towards a Critical Hybridity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Witnessing the Environmental Impacts of War. Environmental case studies from conflict zones around the world (2020). Retrieved from: https: //paxforpeace.nl/what-we-do/publications/witnessing-the-environmental-impacts-of-war.

Zentelis, R., Lindenmayer, D. (2014). Bombing for biodiversity — enhancing conservation values of military training areas. Conservation Letters, 8 (4), 299–305.

Received 28.02.2023

Anthropocentric paradigm of modern warfare

stmm. 2023 (1): 24-41

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2023.01.024

Full Text: http://stmm.in.ua/archive/ukr/2023-1/5.pdf

OLEKSANDR STEGNII, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Leading Research Fellow at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

o.stegniy@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7829-127X

Based on the theoretical provisions of the new ecological paradigm in sociology and the methodological approaches of the warfare ecology, the ecological effects of modern warfare are analyzed. It is noted that anthropogenic pressure on the environment during hostilities is returned to society in the form of «environmental returns». It is claimed that the conduct of modern war creates a threat of exceeding the carrying capacity of the environment, transforming the latter from a neutralizer of harmful substances into their producent. It is proposed to consider the concept of «waging war» in the broad context of military activity. The peculiarity of the impact on the environment of military infrastructure objects in the pre-war period is considered in detail. The environmental consequences of various types of active hostilities, as well as the negative environmental effects of the use of modern types of heavy weapons and equipment, are separately analyzed using the example of the Russian-Ukrainian war. It is emphasized that the post-war environmental effects are directly related to the depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, including cases of ecocide, as well as large-scale pollution of air, soil and water. The negative impact of the war on the ecosystems makes it impossible to restore the previous residential and ecological living conditions in the affected territories in the short term.

Keywords: new ecological paradigm, modern war, environmental carrying capacity, biophysical environment, military activity, warfare, environmental contamination, military infrastructure, environmental effects of fighting, environmental responsibility

References

Catton, W.R. Jr. (1982). Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Certini, G., Scalenghe, R., Woods, W.I. (2013). The impact of warfare on the soil environment. Earth Science Reviews, 127, 1–15.

Closmann, Ch.E. (Ed.) (2009). War and the Environment. Military Destruction in the Modern Age. Texas: Texas A&M University Press.

Engh, S. (2020). Georg Borgstrцm and the population-food dilemma. In: Histories of Knowledge in Postwar Scandinavia (pp. 39 –58). London: Routledge.

Environmental impacts of the war in Ukraine and prospects of a green reconstruction (2022). OECD.

Goldsmith, G.S. (2010). Environmental impacts and military range use. Аn investigation and summary of what we have learned after 12 years at Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) and implications for the continued use of military ranges in the United States. U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute.

Gontier, M. (2007). Scale issues in the assessment of ecological impacts using a GIS-based habitat model - A case study for the Stockholm region. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 440–459. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925507000194.

Hupy, J.P. (2008). The environmental footprint of war. Environmental History, 14(3), 405–421.

Kaldor, M. (1999). New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kopel, D., Malkinson, D., Wittenberg, L. (2015). Characterization of vegetation community dynamics in areas affected by construction waste along the urban fringe. Urban Ecosystems, 18, 133–150.

Lawrence, M.J., Stemberger, H.I.J., Zolderdo, A.J., Struthers, D.P., Cooke, S.J.(2015). The effects of modern war and military activities in biodiversity and the environment. Environmental Review,23, 443–460.

Lindsell, J.A., Klop, E., Siaka, A.M. (2011). The impact of civil war on forest wildlife in West Africa: mammals in Gola Forest, Sierra Leone. Oryx, 45 (01), 69–77.

Long, T.P. (2009). A global prospective on underwater munitions. Marine Technology Society Journal, 43 (4), 5–10.

Machlis, G.E., Hanson, T. (2008).Warfare Ecology. BioScience, 58 (3), 729–736.

Majeed, A. (2004). The impact of militarism on the environment: an overview of direct and indirect effects. A research report written for Physicians for Global Survival (Canada). Ottawa. Retrieved from: https: //bazaarmodel.net/ftp/Project-C/Bazaarmodel/Materiaal/Xtradetail/pdf/militarism_environment_web.pdf.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment (2023). Washington: Island Press.

Prose, D.V., Wilshire, H.G. (2000). The Lasting Effects of Tank Maneuvers on Desert Soils and Intershrub Flora. Washington: US Geological Survey. Open-file Report no. 00-512. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0512/pdf/of00-512.pdf.

Rodda, G.H., Savidge, J.A. (2007). Biology and impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. Boiga irregularis, the Brown Tree Snake (Reptilia: Colubridae). Pacific Science, 61, 307–324.

Smith, R. (2007). The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. New York: Knopf.

Smith, S.L. (2011). Toxic legacy: mustard gas in the sea around us. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39 (1), 34–40.

Stegnii, O. (2012). Sociological reading of nature. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Center for Environmental Education and Information. [= Стегній, О. (2012). Соціологічне прочитання природи. Київ: Центр екологічної освіти та інформації]

Stegnii, O. (2022). Socio-ecological risks of the Russian-Ukrainian war. [In Ukrainian]. In: Ukrainian society in the conditions of war. Year 2022 (pp. 77–87). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NASU. [= Стегній, О. (2022). Соціально-екологічні ризики російсько-української війни. В: Українське суспільство в умовах війни. Рік 2022 (сс.. 77–87). Київ: Інститут соціології НАНУ]

Sztompka, P. (2022). Social capital. Theory of interpersonal space. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Dukh i litera letter.[= Штомпка, П. (2022). Соціальний капітал. Теорія міжособистістого простору. Київ: Дух і літера]

Tortorici, G., Fiorito, F. (2017). Building in post-war environments. Procedia Engineering, 180, 1093–1102.

Vasyliuk, O., Ilminska, L. (2020). Ecosystem services. Review. CO «СF «Biodiversity Protection Fund of Ukraine». [= Василюк, О., Ільмінська, Л. (2020). Екосистемні послуги. Огляд. БО «БФ «Фонд захисту біорізноманіття України»]

White, D.F., Rudy, A.P., Gareau, B.J. (2016). Environments, Natures and Social Theory. Towards a Critical Hybridity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Witnessing the Environmental Impacts of War. Environmental case studies from conflict zones around the world (2020). Retrieved from: https: //paxforpeace.nl/what-we-do/publications/witnessing-the-environmental-impacts-of-war.

Zentelis, R., Lindenmayer, D. (2014). Bombing for biodiversity — enhancing conservation values of military training areas. Conservation Letters, 8 (4), 299–305.

Received 28.02.2023

LATEST PRINTED ISSUE

LATEST FREELY ACCESSIBLE MATERIALS

} } } } }