Tensions in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region have been rising in recent years. Military presence has increased on both sides of the borders—troop movements, exercises, and the establishment of new bases. As environmentalists, we do not typically engage in geopolitics, yet geopolitics often intrudes on our work. Tank tracks tear through forests, missiles streak across skies, and radar waves interfere with bird migrations.

War: An Assault on the Environment

War is always an attack on the environment. The conflict in Ukraine has illustrated this starkly: burning oil depots, explosions at chemical plants, and tons of spilled fuel polluting rivers from sunken ships. Fires in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, ignited by military actions, released radioactive ash into the air. Thousands of hectares of forests and steppes have been reduced to ashes under relentless shelling. The greenhouse gas emissions from these fires and explosions have been catastrophic. Experts estimate that in the first year of the war, CO₂ emissions from military activities exceeded those of many entire nations.

Thankfully, our region is not currently at war. However, preparations for potential conflict are already causing environmental damage. In Belarus, large-scale military exercises take place regularly, requiring vast training grounds that trample fields, disrupt wildlife, and destroy habitats. Forests are cleared for shooting ranges, and in Polesia, new military facilities encroach on areas that could have been protected nature reserves. A similar trend is evident in the Baltic states, where NATO’s expanded training bases encroach on natural territories. The noise of aircraft and gunfire disrupts both human settlements and wildlife, forcing birds to abandon their nesting sites.

The Hidden Carbon Footprint of War

Beyond localized destruction, militarization has a global impact. The military is one of the largest polluters on the planet. Studies indicate that the world’s armed forces contribute up to 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions—more than many entire nations. Yet, paradoxically, these emissions are largely absent from international climate agreements. During negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, military emissions were classified as “security matters” and excluded from accounting.

While we shut down coal-fired power plants and transition to electric vehicles, fighter jets and tanks burn thousands of tons of fuel, exacerbating the climate crisis. This is not only unfair but also irrational. Climate justice demands transparency from the military—no national security argument should justify concealing the environmental destruction caused by armed forces.

The Toxic Legacy of Past Wars

Beyond immediate emissions, the remnants of past wars continue to poison the environment. The Baltic Sea, one of the most militarized bodies of water in the 20th century, still bears the scars of past conflicts. After World War II, thousands of tons of munitions and chemical weapons were dumped into its depths. Containers of mustard gas and lewisite have been rusting on the seafloor for over 70 years, slowly leaking their toxic contents. Experts estimate that 1.8 million tons of conventional munitions and around 5,500 tons of chemical weapons are decomposing in the waters of the Baltic and North Seas—a staggering environmental threat.

This is not just historical pollution—it is an ongoing crisis. Scientists have recorded elevated levels of toxic substances in affected areas, mass fish die-offs, and genetic mutations in marine life. The Baltic Sea is already suffering from eutrophication, creating oxygen-depleted “dead zones,” and now it faces the additional threat of leaking munitions. Instead of a coordinated effort to clean up this toxic legacy, countries are increasing their military presence in the Baltic, conducting more naval drills and underwater detonations. Each explosion risks disturbing toxic sediments, worsening an already dire situation.

The recent sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines further underscores this point. The attack resulted in one of the largest single methane emissions in history—estimates suggest that between 300,000 and 500,000 tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, were released. This occurred in the Baltic Sea, against the backdrop of growing military tensions. The message is clear: conflict accelerates climate catastrophe. Blown-up pipelines contribute directly to global warming.

Enough Warnings—The Verdict is Clear

The conclusion is undeniable: militarization destroys both peace and the planet. Instead of stockpiling weapons, we should be planting forests and investing in renewable energy. Instead of laying mines in the sea, we should be creating marine sanctuaries. Instead of constructing missile silos, we should be expanding national parks.

What Can We Do?

Influencing military policies is challenging for grassroots activists, as generals do not take orders from environmentalists. However, public pressure can shape government priorities. Here’s how we can act:

1. Demand environmental impact assessments for military activities. No military exercise should occur without an ecological review. The public must ask: What impact will this have on wildlife, water sources, and forests?
2. Push for transparency and regulation of military carbon emissions. Armies must disclose their carbon footprints. The Paris Agreement should be amended to include mandatory reporting and reduction targets for military emissions.
3. Advocate for the Baltic Sea to be a region of cooperation, not confrontation. Initiatives like HELCOM already promote marine conservation across NATO and non-NATO countries. We should strengthen such efforts. Instead of an arms race, let’s start an environmental restoration race. Why not establish an international task force to remove some of the sunken chemical weapons? Yes, it would be costly and difficult—but is it any more expensive or dangerous than building new submarines?

Each of us has a role to play. We can raise these issues with our governments and in our communities. Public opinion shapes political decisions. When leaders see that people care more about clean rivers and seas than military posturing, policies will shift. True security is not about tanks—it is about trees. Not about missiles—but about marine life.

Credits: EPA, IAEA

Related articles:

The Neris River: A Living Artery, Not a Military Canal Radioactive Threats: From Chernobyl to the New Nuclear Gamble Alarming Rise in Children Experiencing State-Imposed Militarization in Belarus Chronicles of Belarusian Militarization: From the School Desk Straight to the Firing Range Children with machine guns Lukashenka allows people with guns to do business legally