Two years ago today, on the 24th of February 2022, Russian forces initiated a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, encompassing land, sea, and air operations. As the conflict unfolded, it sparked debates across the globe on various crucial aspects, including international security, economic ramifications, political interests, and, most significantly, the humanitarian toll of the war.
Since the failed Russian attempt to seize Kyiv, combat has primarily occurred in Ukraine’s East and South regions. Despite significant losses and widespread damage, Ukraine has managed to reclaim 54% of the land previously captured by Russia, as reported by The New York Times. In June 2023, Ukraine launched a counteroffensive in the Donetsk province, facing staunch Russian resistance and resulting in heavy casualties on both sides. Last Saturday, the most recent war news report saw the Ukrainian military withdraw from the strategically vital eastern city of Avdiivka, marking a significant development in the ongoing conflict.
The war’s updates have been front and centre in headlines, capturing global attention and igniting discussions about its underlying causes and the role of the international community. Amidst the deluge of information about various humanitarian crises worldwide, the average news consumer might find themselves in need of a brief recap on the costs and global impacts of the Ukrainian conflict.
According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the conflict has resulted in a staggering 24,425 civilian casualties as of June 24th, 2023, with many deaths and missing persons unaccounted for. A World Bank report from 2023 has also highlighted a dramatic increase in poverty rates in Ukraine, soaring from 5.5% to 25.2% since the conflict’s onset. This is, in large part due to Russian missile strikes which have exacerbated the situation by damaging critical infrastructure, leaving millions without access to clean water and sanitation.
The consequences go far beyond mere loss of life, injury, and illness. The devastation of healthcare infrastructure has significantly curtailed access to vital reproductive, maternal, antenatal, and mental health services, amplifying the long-term impact of the humanitarian crisis on the Ukrainian population. Simply put, the conflict has evolved into an enduring humanitarian crisis, with its devastation and trauma anticipated to reverberate across generations of Ukrainians in the years to come.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), data gathered from the start of the conflict until January 2024, shows that more than 6.3 million Ukrainian refugees (mostly women and children) have been recorded globally, while 4 million people are still displaced within the country.
With approximately 14.6 million people requiring humanitarian assistance in Ukraine, the international community has swiftly mobilised financial support and relief aid for Ukraine, totaling approximately $17billion between 20223. It is a rare occurrence indeed to witness such alignment between donors’ political interests and the international community’s moral commitment to the cause of Ukraine.
Yet, with no end in sight for the conflict and despite all the aid efforts, the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine persists. Why?
Interviews with local staff and volunteers paint a grim picture of international aid organisations overlapping their services and wasting resources, while local Ukrainian organisations struggle to provide the support needed to their community. According to an article by The New Humanitarian, “funding conditions and unrealistic deadlines from donors are pushing organisations in Ukraine to prioritise faster and less impactful activities, such as indiscriminately handing out food parcels and hygiene kits”. To add insult to injury, international aid organisations seem to have false and misleading expectations of Ukrainians’ real situation, resulting in aid waste and unmet community needs. On top of that, a strict (and rather arbitrary) distinction between what counts as ‘humanitarian work’ as opposed to ‘development work’, shapes what INGOs are allowed to provide on the ground, limiting their capacity to carry out full repairs for instance.
With this being said, what can such an ongoing humanitarian crisis tell us about the state of humanitarianism?
For one, the humanitarian sector isn’t perfect. Much debate has been and still is happening both in academia and among practitioners to understand better what can be done to improve the sector and how to grapple with its core principles in an ever-changing geopolitical context. The war in Ukraine has shed light on the many difficulties that humanitarian organisations might find in adhering to the core universal principle of neutrality. The challenging impasse of providing medical aid to the Ukrainian military, paired with the moral investment of the West in the Ukraine cause has opened the debate on whether neutrality was ever upheld. One could argue for and against this principle, however, neutrality remains a pillar of many relief INGOs. Questions about the implications of blurred applications of the core humanitarian values should instead be asked and addressed, despite their difficulty.
Although more strategic funding could always be of use in any humanitarian crisis, as aid workers are calling for in Ukraine, more and more debates surrounding the viability of better, more contextualised and locally informed responses are spreading. Cooperation and better communication are also key issues to tackle: if the Ukrainian humanitarian crisis has taught practitioners anything, it is that a more cost-efficient aid targeting vulnerable people following their requests should be at the forefront of any relief operations.Clearly, despite its ongoing institutionalisation and professionalisation, much more self-improvement is needed for the humanitarian sector.
However, amidst the challenges, stories of hope and compassion serve as beacons of light. A recent article by The New Humanitarian showcases Syrian aid workers who have ventured to Ukraine to assist fellow displaced individuals, demonstrating the resilience and solidarity inherent in humanitarian efforts.
As we mark this solemn anniversary, it’s essential to reflect on the broader implications of humanitarian crises. Questions surrounding European support for Ukraine’s victory, the effectiveness of relief efforts on the ground, and the criteria for defining humanitarian crises prompt us to reexamine the very essence of humanitarianism and what it means to extend a helping hand to those in need.
Digital Sources
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html
https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2023/06/ukraine-civilian-casualty-update-5-june-2023
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ukraine/overview
https://www.rescue.org/article/ukraine-war-what-are-impacts-world-today
https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/ukraine/
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2023/02/14/Why-international-aid-is-not-reaching-Ukraine
https://www.diis.dk/en/research/humanitarian-principles-are-fire-in-ukraine
Academic sources
Haque, U., Naeem, A., Wang, S., Espinoza, J., Holovanova, I., Gutor, T., Bazyka, D., Galindo, R., Sharma, S., Kaidashev, I.P. and Chumachenko, D., 2022. The human toll and humanitarian crisis of the Russia-Ukraine war: the first 162 days. BMJ global health, 7(9), p.e009550.
Fong, A. and Johnson, K., 2022. Responding to the war in Ukraine. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 24(5), pp.471-472.
Barnett, Michael (2005) ‘Humanitarianism Transformed’ Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Dec., 2005), pp. 723-740