The negative impacts on global food security wrought by Russia’s war in Ukraine are obvious. But recent news that Russia currently occupies more than one fifth of Ukrainian farmland, draws attention to another dimension of this politically-induced food and agricultural crisis: land itself. Of course, territory has long been an object of conflict and warfare. But agricultural land—in particular—is also a key, though understated, dimension of the geopolitical ambitions undergirding Russian activity at home and abroad.

The much-needed transition to a zero carbon, green economy offers opportunities to contribute to peace, but only if the conflict risks of transition are understood and managed to produce a just and peaceful transition. That means minimizing “backdraft”—the unintended negative impacts of transition that are a key obstacle to that goal.

When Russia struck a deal with Ukraine on July 15, there was hope that millions of tons of food would once again be able to flow from the embattled country. Under the agreement, brokered by Turkey and the UN, Russia would lift naval blockades and allow large-scale shipments of grain to leave Ukraine’s ports.                                                  

Ever since the CNA’s Military Advisory Board—composed of former U.S. military personnel—named climate change as a “threat multiplier” in a 2007 report, the term has gained widespread currency both in environmental and national security circles. It also has propelled the need to assess and address climate-related security risks higher up overall policy agendas.

Earlier this year, the IPPC published yet another report underscoring the fact that rapid climate action is needed to limit global warming and avoid further irreversible, devasting environmental impacts. Over the next decade, the report calls for urgent, unprecedented social and economic transitions to reduce emissions and enable climate resilient development for vulnerable people.

In February 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plans to shutter its online archive—a key resource on the work of the agency that is relied upon by researchers, legislators, policymakers, and citizens for work on everything “from historical research to democratic oversight.” Pulling the plug would instantly have made public access to a vast array of fact sheets, environmental reports, policy changes, and regulatory actions significantly more difficult.