Tetiana Gardashuk

The article is analyzing the environmental impacts of full-scale Russian aggression in Ukraine within the framework of modern approaches to assessing the war-environment interaction. This includes the concept of ecocide as the widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment. The particularities of the current Russo-Ukrainian war are its hybrid character and scale, vast targeting of industrial and agricultural infrastructure, as well as weaponization of different kinds of resources and civilian nuclear facilities. Special attention is paid to the analysis of new threats of nuclear disaster resulting from the Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and attacks on other civilian objects, which match nuclear terrorism and violate the principle of nuclear taboo (Nina Tannenwald), inducing nuclear fear. Such a fear is considered an expression of solidarity with all life forms threatened by nuclear disasters (Ulrich Beck). Russian nuclear terrorism is a speculation on nuclear fears and an exploitation of this feeling. Hans Jonas’ heuristics of fear could be a clue to transform the fear into effective actions to stop Russian aggression, nuclear blackmail, and terrorism.

This issue of the Philosophical Thought journal is dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of the environmental impact of war on humans and society. It contains materials from the roundtable discussion, 'War and the Environment: Ecological, Ethical and Anthropological Dimensions', which took place on 28 March 2025 at the H. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (moderators: Anatoliy Yermolenko, Corresponding Member of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Director of the H. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy; Tetiana Gardashuk, Doctor Hab. in Philosophy, Head of the Department of Logic and Methodology of Science) and thematic articles. The roundtable, which brought together philosophers, natural scientists, and other humanities experts, provided an opportunity for a broad dialogue to find answers to today's challenges. It also allowed for a deeper understanding of how war transforms the environment, the value system, and the very essence of man. The discussion covered direct and indirect environmental damage (destruction of ecosystems and habitats, natural resources, agricultural lands, pollution, and climate change) and anthropological transformations caused by war, as well as ethical, philosophical, and artistic reflections on these issues. The impact of the war on the geological environment and the country's mineral resources was highlighted. The importance of evaluating these resources for the country's socio-economic potential and post-war rebuilding was emphasized. One of the central issues was the impact of Russian aggression on Ukrainian identity, particularly in terms of destructive environmental changes. Other issues included the moral and ecological dimensions of war, and rethinking ecocide as an ethical and existential catastrophe, as well as ways to confront it. It was also noted that nature is not only a 'silent victim' of war, but also a witness to tragic events, which leaves a unique imprint on the landscape of our memory. Participants also expressed their support for holding regular roundtable discussions on the topic of “War and the Environment”.

_The article discovers the multiple values of water as a key element of the Biosphere and a vital natural resource that sustains the equilibrium of the global ecosystem and human well-being. Different approaches to classifying and justifying values and various interpretations of the concepts of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values in the context of the valuation of water are considered. Values are important for the efficient sustaining, management, and protection of water and water-related ecosystems globally and locally, and just access to water resources. Understanding the role of values and their respect or neglect is crucial in times of crisis, wars, and other conflicts that affect water. By accepting the consensus about three main classes of values (intrinsic, instrumental, and relational), water weaponization, and referring to some facts of the current Russo-Ukrainian war, it is shown that military actions exacerbate most of the challenges to environmental sustainability and human life. War also aggravates the conflict between water values. Water weaponization is considered one of the forms of instrumentalization of water that has multifaceted negative impacts on the environment, human rights to water, and human welfare._ _It is concluded that the way to reduce the negative environmental, economic, social, humanitarian, and cultural consequences of the weaponization of water is to stop the Russian aggression in Ukraine as soon as possible__._ _Keywords_: water and water-related resources, values, Russo-Ukrainian war, water weaponization_._ _ _.

Зменшення кількості відходів та їх негативних впливів на довкілля і якість життя людини належить до глобальних екологічних викликів сучасності, які потребують комплексної відповіді. Aналізуються підходи до розв’язання проблеми поводження з відходами на локальному рівні. Поводження з відходами визначається як науково-політична проблема, оскільки успіх рішення залежить як від наукового обґрунтування, експертизи, рекомендацій, так і від розуміння цих рекомендацій політиками та суспільством загалом. Складність розв’язання науково-політичних проблем характеризується зростанням невизначеності, ціннісним навантаженням, високими ставкою (ціною), ризиками та терміновістю рішень (Ravetz). Показана продуктивність залучення місцевих цінностей (теорія локалізації), менеджменту спільного (Остром) та інтерпретації феномена NIMBY для формування підходів до вироблення управлінських і комунікативних стратегій у сфері поводження з відходами на локальному рівні. Масштабні руйнівні наслідки нинішньої російської агресії в Україні додали нових аспектів до проблеми поводження з відходами і значною мірою ускладнили реалізацію попередніх планів, вимагаючи ефективних нестандартних рішень.

The article is dedicated to the analysis of modern approaches to the definition, conceptualization, and interpretation of happiness to outline the conditions of a happy life for Ukrainians (Ukrainian happiness). This is important for the development of a vision of a post-war future, the definition of the integral goal of post-war development, and the role of the policy of happiness in it. The article considers subjective and objective, internal and external conditions of happiness, including the dependence of happiness on both economic and environmental conditions in their interconnectedness. The relevance of such an analysis is conditioned by the global situation (the global environmental crisis, growth of the environmental threats and challenges, diminishing of the total natural capital, etc.) and the national reality (environmental damage as a result of Russian aggression and the challenges of post-war restoration). Special attention is paid to the non-linear influence of material well-being and its effect on happiness, as well as the dependence of happiness on the quality of the environment. The analysis of this issue is based on the consideration of: 1) Easterlin paradox; 2) Layard’s “The Big Seven factors affecting happiness” (family relationships, financial situation, work, involvement in the community and friendship, physical and mental health, personal freedom and personal values); 3) the methodology of “conversion” of natural capital into a long, comfortable, and happy life for people (Happy Planet Index); 4) hypothesis of biophilia as the evolutionarily determined psycho-emotional connection of man with nature and as a precondition of well-being and happiness (E. Wilson, S. Kellert). It is concluded that for Ukraine it is important not only to estimate the economic and environmental losses caused by Russian aggression but also the economic and environmental cost of post-war reconstruction. A strategy for harmonizing economic, social, and environmental policies as components of an integral policy of happiness should be worked out. Nature should be considered not only as a source of economic growth but also as a basis for satisfying non-material human needs and feelings of biophilia.

The article provides an overview of activity of the department of logic and methodology of science of the H.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Science of Ukraine. This activity includes scientific research, translation of philosophical literature, organization of seminars on urgent problems of modern philosophy. Research projects, on the one hand, are based on scientific traditions formed over the years in the Institute, and on the other hand, they focus on the transformations in scientific cognition and science, and build the projections for the future. It presents methodological backgrounds of the project «Semiotic analysis of cultural phenomena» (2018–2020), and outlines research tasks of the projects «Communicative transformations in modern science» (2020–2021) and «Logical, ontological and axiological dimensions of modern scientific knowledge» (2022–2024). Involvement of young scholars in research in logic, methodology and philosophy of science is the major challenge for the department.

Three definitions of bioart are analyzed in the paper: bioart—as a part of science art, as the creation of some new exciting artworks, and/or as the visualization of certain stages of biomedical and life science research. Bioart is an in vivo practice which produces “living artworks” and creates a new reality. It represents the dialogue between art, science and technology and between academic and amateur science. It promotes the dialogue aimed at rethinking the phenomenon of life. It blurs the boundaries between natural and artificial and the limits of human manipulations with the fundamentals of life.

У статті досліджується екосеміотика (термін запропонований Вілфрідом Нотом) – міждисциплінарна галузь, що має на меті: 1) поглибити розуміння особливостей взаємодії між людиною і довкіллям, культурою і природою на основі застосування семіотичного підходу; 2) розширення пізнавальних можливостей людини у природнознавчій і культурознавчій сферах за допомогою семіотичного інструментарію. Відзначається, що екосеміотика безпосередньо пов’язана з біосеміотикою, семіотикою культури (культурною семіотикою), а також з екологічною (інвайронментальною) філософією. Вона спирається на принцип неперервності (спадкоємності) у розвитку природи та розуму (свідомості) (Ч. Пірс), уявлення про внутрішній зв'язок між живими (природними) та семіотичними процесами (Дж. Хофмейер), голістичний (системний) погляд на семіосферу (Ю. Лотман). Екосеміотика розглядає взаємодію культури і природи як двосторонній процес, в якому природа визначає культуру так само, як і культура у різний спосіб окреслює природу. Зауважується, що для екосеміотики як порівняно нового дослідницького напряму не вироблено єдиного методологічного базису та бачення досліджуваного ним кола проблем, що цілком релевантно ситуації в семіотиці загалом. Автор доходить висновку, що на тлі постійного зростання досліджень, які позиціонують себе як екосеміотичні, цей напрям потребує відповідних методологічних рефлексій і оцінок.