1 The Conflict
Causes and impact of the invasion
Russia’s invasion on 24th February 2022 began with a failed attempt to capture Kiev. By April, Russia had withdrawn from the north of the country and appear now to be concentrating their efforts on holding on to the Donbass region and the southern provinces that would provide a strategic land bridge to Crimea. It is likely that over one hundred thousand members of the Ukrainian and Russian armies have been killed or injured in the conflict to date. Due to misinformation and incomplete data, we may not know the actual numbers until the conflict is brought to an end. Over 10,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed and there are now over 8 million Ukrainians who are refugees in Europe, placing enormous stresses on those separated from their homes and loved ones.
Why did Russia invade Ukraine?
While there can be no justification for President Vladimir Putin’s devastating invasion of Ukraine, the roots of the conflict can be traced to various events since the establishment of Ukraine as an independent state in 1991. Inevitably, perspectives on these events are contested and coloured by politics, history and culture. One view is that Russia’s actions fundamentally arise from Putin’s desire to maximise Russia’s influence in the former territories of the Soviet Union and restore a ‘Greater Russia’. An alternative perspective recognises that US and NATO military interventions have, to varying degrees, been designed to extend US influence. In the 1990s the Russian Government was upset that the US encouraged NATO expansion (for example to Ukraine and Georgia) in preference to a more co-operative security structure in Europe. There are suspicions of US influence over the 2014 Maidan protests in the square in the centre of Kiev and evidence of attempts by the US government to influence the political transition following the fall of the Russian-leaning government of Viktor Yanukovich, a government steeped in corruption. Within Russia, Vladimir Putin exerts control over narratives and attempts to frame the war as protection of Russian-speaking Ukrainians from a ‘fascist’ government in Kiev. Whatever provocation may have been caused by NATO’s actions over the years, this cannot serve as justification for this invasion of sovereign territory and the human suffering that has ensued.
What are the likely long-term impacts of the invasion of Ukraine?
There have been very strong cultural and family ties between Russia and Ukraine which the war has torn apart. Relations between Ukraine and Russia will take a very long time to repair. A further legacy of this conflict will be the damage to infrastructure. In September 2022 the World Bank put the cost of rebuilding at $350 billion, a sum that is rising all the time.
What are the environmental impacts of the war?
Armed conflict can have a serious impact on local environments. In Ukraine contamination by chemicals and toxins from armaments are affecting 20% of Ukraine natural conservation areas and 300,000 hectares of forest have also been damaged. There is already a large amount of unexploded ordinance in areas that have seen fierce fighting but extensive use of US cluster munitions would significantly add to this problem. [See: https://jpit.uk/why-the-us-should-change-course-on-sending-cluster-munitions-to-ukraine] There is a huge carbon footprint arising from the emissions of the military activities of both nations. There will also be a longer-term impact arising from the resources that will be required to rebuild shattered towns and cities.
Christian responses to the war
In the face of the horror and suffering of war, a natural first response is lament. Lament is a means by which we acknowledge our grief and sorrow at the wickedness of our world and the poverty of the human condition. It is given expression in the Psalms and other places in the Old Testament. It offers a way of expressing to God in prayer the pain and suffering in our world, and in so doing identifying with the suffering of millions of Ukrainians who are refugees in Europe, members of the Ukrainian and Russian armies who have been killed and injured, and many Ukrainian civilians also killed and injured. Lament recognises that we often don’t have adequate answers, and that the situation in Ukraine is so horrendous that we need God’s wisdom and strength even to be able to process the questions.
Is this a ‘just war’?
While the earliest Christians understood Jesus’ teaching as making the use of violence illegitimate for Christians, later generations of believers came to the understanding that a war fought for the right reason and in the right way could be a way of expressing the Christian responsibility to love their neighbour. Those who hold to such a ‘just war’ position are unlikely to have much difficulty in justifying Ukraine’s defence against invasion. However, importantly in this tradition the aim of any military response to armed aggression must be a restoration of justice (which can entail punishment for the ‘evil-doer’) and a seeking after peace. It is not the role of the ‘competent authority’ alone to determine what justice looks like but, rather, this must encompass a hearing from victims on all sides, and the involvement where possible of international bodies to encourage an objective judicial mind-set.
Resources on Baptist, Methodist and URC thinking around just war can be found in the reports Peacemaking: A Christian Vocation and Drones: Ethical Dilemmas in the Application of Military Force (Section 3)
How have Christians in Ukraine responded to Russia’s invasion and to defence of their country?
In Ukraine there is little dissent within the Churches on the need to take up arms in defence of the country, but the experience of violent conflict has been challenging for many Christians. For example, Dr. Ivan Rusyn, a Ukrainian pastor and president of the Evangelical Protestant seminary in Ukraine, said: “I used to be a pacifist … Now I believe that only the nation that has known the horror of war has the right to speak about pacifism … My theology has been changed. For me, peacemaking is not a passive thing anymore, an ability to absorb and embrace everything. No, it is very active – active in order to stop violence.” [See: https://www.plough.com/en/topics/faith/prayer/war-and-the-church-in-ukraine]
What can active non-violence achieve in this context?
The pacifist witness seeks to keep alive, even in the face of war, the rejection of militarism that is ingrained in our societies. It does not place trust in weapons or in those who wield them, but instead challenges governments to invest more time, energy and resources in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. There are pacifist voices in both Russia and Ukraine that reject violence as a means of resolving this conflict.
While non-violent forms of resistance have been instrumental in some conflicts, this is not a direction that most Ukrainians find acceptable in response to the Russian invasion. Even so, pacifist activism can play a role in declaring that war is evil, leading the call for an end to the violence in Ukraine, finding opportunities for dialogue and highlighting the need for all Governments to be held to account.
Of course this is not an exclusive role of any particular strand of theological thinking as the counter-cultural calling to be peacemakers and reconcilers is universal.
Future scenarios
The future of the conflict is difficult to predict, but with both militaries well embedded in defensive positions there is a likelihood that the conflict could become protracted. Ukraine is hoping that modern weaponry from NATO countries, including advanced tanks and fighter jets, will enable Ukraine to defeat the Russian forces. The UK and other allies could find themselves in the dangerous situation of being drawn ever more deeply into the conflict, needing to provide a growing military contribution to avoid a Ukrainian defeat, while the terms of settlement are not in their hands. The longer the fighting continues the greater the risk of a confrontation between NATO states and Russia, through miscalculation, if not by design.
What would be the consequences of a collapse of the Russian government under a Wagner-style mutiny?
In June 2023, forces loyal to Yevgeny Prigozhin marched on Moscow, firing on Russia military aircraft in the process. This challenge to President Putin’s authority was called off but it served to underline the potential vulnerability of his government. A change at the top seems attractive if it could hasten the end of Russia’s military action in Ukraine. However, any leader coming in after Putin inherits a political system and set of policies that are only likely to evolve incrementally over time. Any hostile challenge to President Putin would require support from within the army. There are a number of senior figures in the Russian elite that are more authoritarian and have used more violent rhetoric than Putin himself.
What could be the elements of a lasting peace?
A Russian military that is defeated today can be re-built tomorrow, so the terms on which the conflict is brought to a conclusion are important. For this reason, Ukraine’s military action to secure its defence should not have as its aim the defeat of a nation but rather the achievement of justice for all. A lasting peace requires negotiation and this usually involves compromises on all sides. At some point a negotiation with Russia will be required to ensure a stable, secure and sovereign Ukraine, but a limited armistice-style agreement would not address underlying tensions. A further and larger prize would be an agreement to resolve the wider security fears of both Russia and other European states. A new security architecture in the region is needed so that a future ‘approximate’ peace does not rely on the inherently uncertain arrangement of armies facing off over international borders. Consequently, a ceasefire does not in itself indicate the advent of peace, but under very specific circumstances a ceasefire could provide the basis on which, in the future, true peace can be built for Ukraine, Russia and for Europe.
So should we be calling for an immediate ceasefire?
Every day that the conflict continues is a day when Russian and Ukrainian soldiers will be killed, civilians will be placed at risk, communities will suffer the mental trauma of war and families will endure separation. Yet our desire to see an immediate end to the fighting faces the political reality of the necessary sequencing to arrive at a just resolution. If Western governments were to call for an immediate ceasefire, Russian aggression is likely to be rewarded with territory, in which case military strength and raw power will have overshadowed human rights. Several church leaders in Europe have spoken out against Russia’s invasion while taking care to avoid superficial incriminations. They have drawn attention to atrocities, deplored attacks on civilians, and urged all parties to negotiate in the cause of peace.
What are the prospects and challenges for dialogue between communities?
While it is always challenging, dialogue across national borders can be pursued amid violent conflict. Unfortunately, since the Russian invasion, the intergovernmental dialogue with Russia has been greatly curtailed and the usual diplomatic channels between governments are severely impaired. There are also constraints on dialogue between groups in the civil space, including churches. At the moment open and honest dialogue is constrained by the various risks to any citizen based in Russia whose views diverge from that of the Government and who might be perceived as collaborating with the ‘enemy’. However, the process of listening to each other is vital. Even after declaring its support for the war (see below), the Russian Orthodox Church remains a member of the World Council of Churches and was able to send a large delegation to the WCC General Assembly gathering in Germany in 2022.
What contributions can faith groups make towards peace and reconciliation in Ukraine?
Christian communities can pray for each other and explore ways to share with each other across the divide of war. Keeping open these civil societal relations will not resolve the political impasse between states but can (a) help to build understanding and avoid future misunderstanding, (b) demonstrate the desire of all for a negotiated end to this tragic war, and (c) amid the polarising narratives of ‘enemies’, ‘fascists’ and ‘criminals’, maintain respect for our common humanity across the divisions created by war and oppose rising nationalisms that conflict can encourage, d) in the midst of conflict speak out on the treatment of prisoners of war, oppose the use of cluster munitions and other in discriminate weaponry, insist that all militaries are held accountable for their conduct and ensure the protection of civilians and as well as internally displaced and refugees.
The Christian responsibility to advocate for peace and to imagine its possibilities becomes that much more pertinent during times of war. Conflict is a painful reminder of the frailty of the human condition and points to the need to look to our reconciling God for wisdom, humility and perseverance. Whether we are instinctively drawn more towards just war or pacifist positions, we share a common agenda for active peace-making as followers of the Prince of Peace.