Russia-Ukraine and its Global Impact from the Lens ofFeminist Theory of International Relations
- Ananya Atri
- Nov 21
- 8 min read
Introduction
The 2022 escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine into a full-scale war has destroyed parts of entire cities, dislocated millions of individuals, and has increased insecurity of food and energy for many (Johnson, 2023; Oyeleye & Jiang, 2023; Assisi & Kipo-Sunyehzi, 2024). Khylko & Khylko (2024) therefore contends that this has raised concerns about the shortcomings of the mainstream IR theoretical paradigms (especially realism and liberalism) in reducing this war to mere geopolitics or geoeconomics, silencing the important aspects behind dominant power storylines, where the notion of who control or exercises power goes unchallenged.
This author finds it interesting to point out that when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, feminists from all over the world did not keep quiet (Zherebkina, 2024). They immediately denounced Russian aggression and expressed support with Ukraine. Hundreds of academics and feminist activists signed both individual declarations and group manifestos (Zherebkina, 2024). Khylko & Khylko (2024) notes that given that a full-scale military attack on Ukraine's face was not advantageous to Russia's state objectives, whether geopolitical or geoeconomic, the Russian invasion questioned a ‘rational explanation’, which is where the idea of post-colonialist mindset enters, which has been frequently integrated by feminist school of through in their arguments, though it is not the subject extensively mentioned in this feature. This essay would show how war is gendered and thus highlights the complex gendered experiences of violence, alongside territorial considerations. Hence, these viewpoints show the contrary realities of war along axes of gender, race, and power, contradicting international masculinist and state-centric discourses.
Theoretical background
The way conflict and militarism is viewed has been completely transformed by Cynthia Enloe's work “Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics”, which demands that academics studying violence and war acknowledge that the "personal is international" and the "international is personal” (Enloe, Lacey, & Gregory, 2016). Johnson (2023) contends that many famous feminist writings have focused on how war affects women, and gender ideology. According to feminist theorists, gender is a type of social hierarchy that determines the perspective of international politics and results in an unequal and exclusionary redistribution of power between the sexes (Yeroshkina, 2024).
The essentialist traditionalist notions that men are protectors and women are protected serve as the foundation for gender conceptions during times of war, since women are excluded in the majority of nations with conscripted armies, including Ukraine. When referring to the portrayal of courage, protection, taking decisions, and noble self-sacrifice, women are typically painted as the casualties of the situation, unnoticed "others" who require protection, or wives who instill courage and patriotism in warriors (Humm, 2003). In contrast, men's faces are commonly seen on news channels and in history books. These distinctions show how gender and conflict are conceptually related; it is hard to "carry out war" without "being gendered." The idea of war is complicated in feminist theory since the gender-specific beliefs of the culture that women belong to affect their roles in conflict (Humm, 2003, 296).
Ukraine’s Feminist perspective
Smith (2011) argues that the gender violence makes (neo)colonisation easier: This is a patriarchal system that normalises a social hierarchy established by power, dominance, and violence. The reframed idea of militarised masculinity is the first facet of the conflict in Ukraine that merits consideration. Since only the winners have power and are hence deserving of historical remembrance, patriarchal discourse heroizes and normalises violence and exalts death. On the other hand, Ukraine’s President Zelensky opposes the damaging, neo-patriarchal masculinity that is prevalent in the post-Soviet era, which runs counter to Putin's portrayal of "hegemonic masculinity" (Wojnicka, et al, 2022, 84). Feminist argues that the only option that is offered is “more escalation, never de-escalation, and never dialogue and negotiations”, which is one of the core tenants of Feminist theory of IR (Porobić, 2022, 59). This is due to the militarisation that is piggybacking on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. When Putin ordered Russian forces to invade Ukraine in an effort to re-establish Russia's place in the international imperialist chess game, there was widespread indignation and incredulity at the start of yet another conflict. When studying Russia-Ukraine relations via a postcolonial perspective, one must look at identity markers, hybridity, power projection, representation, and resistance to the imposition of dominant norms (Khylko & Khylko, 2024), which feminist fundamentally rejects. Furthermore, as pointed out by Assisi & Kipo-Sunyehzi (2024), beyond just men and women, other intersections are also affected by the gendered impacts of war. For instance, among the horrors of the conflict that war started, the author ought to be concerned about what transpires in middle-aged trans men, African gay men studying in Ukrainian soil, elderly gay men, Roma lesbians, and young urban lesbians (Assisi & Kipo-Sunyehzi, 2024)
Among feminists, differing opinions emerge, especially that of liberal vs radical feminist. Cernat (2023) talks about a Ukrainian feminist Oksana Dutchak, who has long argued for a re-examination of the connection between feminism and militarism, and she has even expressed a willingness to renounce the pacifist ideals she promoted before to February 2022. Nothing matters more to her than protecting the nation where her own spouse is involved. On the other extreme, Olena Lyubchenko vehemently condemns the hypocrisy of the West, delivering a biting indictment of the way that rhetoric about protecting Ukraine's democracy works against wage earners and women, against whom a war was waged in the first place. She not only opposes militarisation, but she maintains that it started in Ukraine in 2014 and that this led to a significant rise in military spending at the expense of health and education, two fields where women make up the majority of the workforce. Additionally, there has been a noticeable rise in domestic violence as a result of policies that require military personnel who commit domestic abuse to be held accountable under a separate framework than the civilian one (Cernat, 2023).
Feminists are rejoicing on one aspect though: The ratification of the "Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence" (Istanbul Convention), which Ukraine signed in 2011, is an example of how Russia's full-blown conflict with Ukraine irrevocably solidified Ukraine's intentions to join the European Union and create a new, favourable atmosphere for the enforcement of equal rights policies (Strelnyk, 2023). The ratification process was historically the most troublesome part of Ukrainian law. The Convention's ratification petition gathered the required 25,000 signatures for two consecutive years, but it was not ratified because of the Council of Churches' rejection and populist "anti-gender" campaigns (Strelnyk, 2023). Naturally, there are concerns and challenges that this action was done purely to expedite Ukraine's candidature for EU membership, but in all likelihood, it advocates for women's rights and provide more resources to help prevent and combat gender-based harm.
Russia’s Feminist perspective
The Author of this essay rejects Cernat’s (2024) claim that there is absolutely no feminist discourse in favour of the Russian Federation's viewpoint. Before the full-scale invasion, Hanna Hrytsenko, a Ukrainian sociologist, discusses the difference between Russian and Ukrainian feminists in a 2020 article about feminism and Russia's war against Ukraine (Solovey, 2023). She notes that Russian feminists responded with unanimity in 2014 when Ukrainian feminists discussed wartime rape or the plight of female soldiers in captivity. They either argued that feminism had nothing to do with military issues or defended Putin and the Russian army (Solovey, 2023). Hence, it is imperative to note that unlike any other IR theory, feminists are divided as well. However, before 2022 there hasn't been much discussion of an anticolonial agenda in Russian feminist circles (Solovey, 2019). It can be argued that one of the most important factors in comprehending the range of Russian feminists' reactions now to the full-scale conflict is their recent insensitivity to anticolonial arguments. Feminist discourse supporting Russia are adamant to prove that Ukraine is controlled by the United States as a component of the "neocolonial regime" that the USA upholds throughout Europe. They accuse Russians who support Ukraine and Ukrainian feminists who participated in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity (also known as Euromaidan) of being weak and lacking in morals (Solovey, 2023, 98).
However, Kratochvíl & O'Sullivan (2023) argues that both the Russian patriarchy and the war, as well as the degree of brutality in the war's conduct, are clearly linked as war is now viewed as the "normalisation of violence," hence, additional abuse against women is expected to occur in Russia as well, and the conflict threatens to undo the previous victories of Russian feminists. This is clear example of how the war has had a negative impact on women's lives not just in Russia but throughout the globe, which is a valid concern for feminists.
Conclusion
To conclude, Feminist school of thought has exposed the Russian-Ukraine as a racialised and gendered vocabulary that is ingrained in the view of the nation-state and that exalts violent and aggressive policies (Enloe, 2014, 124). Critical lenses reveal how "real politics" normalise invasion as one of the state's acceptable alternatives by pointing out the rhetoric that justifies war (Yeroshkina, 2024). This essay tries to support its arguments from the perspective of both Russia and Ukraine. This essay agrees with Chehab’s (2023) claim that From an Feminist foreign policy (FFP) standpoint, eliminating the war seems to be the only viable option, particularly in light of the significant damage that war imposes on women and girls. A number of structural changes that affect women's social rights could be the subject of future research, including threats to women's lives and safety, the decline in women's economic circumstances, the anticipated widening of the wage disparity between the sexes during the war, a shortage of childcare services, a decrease in social spending on women and vulnerable groups, and neoliberal labour market reforms. Overall, this essay tries to change the narrative of understanding war from the mainstream IR theories. Lastly, as Kratochvíl & O'Sullivan (2023) points out that in its entirety conflict between Russia and Ukraine marks a turning point in the discussion of gender in European security.
References
Assisi, S. E., & Kipo-Sunyehzi, D. D. (2024). Russia-Ukraine War: the gendered effects of the war on men, women, and children. International Journal of Current Research in the Humanities, 28(1), 327-339.
Cernat, M. (2023). Progressivism and War. Feminist Discourses on the Armed Conflict in Ukraine. International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro), 240-252.
Chehab, S. J. (2023). Feminist Foreign Policy and the War in Ukraine: Hollow Framework or Rallying Force?. Journal of International Women's Studies, 25(6), 4.
Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Univ of California Press.
Enloe, C., Lacey, A., & Gregory, T. (2016). Twenty-five years of Bananas, Beaches and Bases: A conversation with Cynthia Enloe. Journal of Sociology, 52(3), 537-550.
Humm, Maggie. 2003. The Dictionary of Feminist Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474469401
Johnson, J. E. (2023). How Russia’s war in Ukraine can change gender studies. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1220438.
Khylko, O., & Khylko, M. (2024). Explanatory Potential of the Postcolonial Approach for understanding the Russia-Ukraine War. Topos, (2), 18-41.
Kratochvíl, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (2023). A war like no other: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a war on gender order. European Security, 32(3), 347-366.
Oyeleye, A., & Jiang, S. (2023). Women in the war: A gendered analysis of media coverage of the Russian-Ukraine war. Journal of International Women's Studies, 25(6), 7.
Porobić, N. (2022). Holding onto nonviolence and feminism in the midst of war. DEP, 49, 59-69.
Strelnyk, O. (2023). Gender, Citizenship and War: How Russia’s War on Ukraine Affects Women’s Political Rights. Femina Politica–Zeitschrift für feministische Politikwissenschaft, 32(1), 87-94.
Wojnicka, K., Mellström, U., & de Boise, S. (2022). On war, hegemony and (political) masculinities. Norma, 17(2), 83-87.
Yeroshkina, L. (2024). Who is the Blame for the Russia-Ukraine war? Feminist and Postcolonial Perspectives on'Real Politics'. Plurality, 1.
Zherebkina, I. (2024). The Antinomies of the Russia-Ukraine War and Its Challenges to Feminist Theory. Studia Philosophica Estonica, 107-119.