The Impact of the Russia–Ukraine War on Water Resources and Infrastructure of Ukraine—A Comprehensive Review ^†

Abstract

The Russo–Ukrainian conflict (RUC) escalated on 24 February 2022 with Russia’s large-scale military operation in Ukraine. Our review aims to present the impact of the RUC on Ukrainian water resources and infrastructure. Its primary objective was to analyze 61 relevant papers, selected and screened according to the PRISMA methodology, concerning changes in inland and marine water quality, employing diverse scientific and analytical methods, and technical tools. Key recurring themes included “Ukraine”, “Russian-Ukrainian War”, and “Ecocide”. Beyond assessing the environmental consequences of destroyed treatment plants, supply systems, and sewerage units, as the secondary objective, the review introduces the concept of “aquacide”—the deliberate or incidental destruction and contamination of water infrastructures and resources during military operations. The most severe cases were documented in southern and eastern Ukraine, with the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam standing out as the most widely reported “aquacide”. Finally, the review highlights the critical role of satellite imagery and remote sensing as the most effective tools in monitoring water quality and infrastructures under wartime conditions, when in situ observations and measurements are often impossible.

1. Introduction and Background

Environmental pollution has intensified in recent decades, driven by urbanization, industrial activity, population growth, and unsustainable agriculture, with serious impacts on ecosystems and public health [1,2,3,4]. Among its forms, water pollution is particularly critical, affecting aquatic systems, human health, and economic activities [5,6,7,8]. Waterborne pollutants can generally be classified and assessed into three broad categories: chemical (both organic and inorganic), physical, and biological agents [9,10].

Environmental degradation linked to military conflicts is not new; it dates back to antiquity, with impacts on biodiversity, soil erosion, and pollution of water and soil continuing into the present. A lesser-known dimension is water contamination, as damage to hydrotechnical infrastructure has compromised both quality and availability [11,12,13]. Recent examples include the Yemen Civil War, which caused famine and a humanitarian crisis; the Iraq Wars that degraded water quality; the Gulf War in Kuwait, which generated marine oil spills and aquifer damage; the Syrian Civil War that harmed agriculture through irrational irrigation; and the Gaza conflict, which destroyed wastewater treatment plants [11,14,15,16,17]. Heavy weaponry, chemical arms, and modern military technologies have further degraded ecosystems [18,19]. Hydrological infrastructure has often been damaged, disrupting water supply systems and displacing populations [20,21,22]. The destruction of dams, sewage networks, storage tanks, and treatment plants has reduced access to clean water and undermined sustainable development prospects [23,24,25]. In the Balkans, landmines from past wars continue to affect biodiversity, ecosystem functions, wildlife migration, and habitat rehabilitation [26].

These effects fall under the broader concept of ecocide, defined as actions undertaken with conscious awareness of causing severe, widespread, or long-term environmental harm [26,27,28,29,30]. Although increasingly recognized in environmental debates, including within some countries and the European Union, ecocide is not yet universally acknowledged as a legal instrument. The term dates back to 1970, during the Vietnam War, when it described deliberate ecological destruction intended to devastate entire ecosystems, with lethal consequences for human and biodiversity [31,32,33]. More recently, the Russo–Ukrainian conflict (RUC) has brought the term into prominence across media channels, despite the absence of an international legal framework [34,35,36]. In this context, we propose the concept of “aquacide” as an analytical tool to denote acts during armed conflict that destroy or contaminate water infrastructures and resources, whether directly or as collateral damage. This distinction highlights water as a critical element of environmental security.

The armed conflict in Ukraine escalated on 24 February 2022 with Russia’s large-scale military operation, following the 2014 annexation of Crimea [37,38,39,40]. Ukraine holds a pivotal geopolitical position as a transitional zone between East and West and a strategic area for Western alliances [41,42,43]. Beyond its agricultural sector, the country’s mineral reserves (coal, iron ore, natural gas, etc.) are vital for industrial and economic development [44,45], yet much of this production has been disrupted by the war, with the food sector most severely affected [46,47,48,49,50].

Ukraine also possesses extensive water resources, including over 63,000 rivers and 1137 reservoirs, essential for navigation, agriculture, and public supply [51,52]. However, the country ranks 32nd out of 40 in Europe for potable water access. Vulnerability stems from reliance on surface waters—about 75% of supply comes from rivers—and dependence on external sources from neighboring territories [53,54]. Many of these resources are already polluted, a condition further worsened by the ongoing conflict [55,56,57,58].

As of July 2025, approximately 19% of Ukraine’s territory (≈114,000 km²), including Crimea and parts of Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, and Zaporizhzhia, were under Russian control, mainly in the east and south (Figure 1). The most affected basins are the Dnieper/Dnipro—Ukraine’s largest watershed [59]—and the Don in the east. Smaller rivers draining into the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, such as the Southern Bug, have also been impacted, especially near Kherson and Mykolaiv [60,61]. Armed conflict has further damaged marine environments through the disposal of chemical and biological weapons [62,63]. In both the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, the RUC has triggered severe disruptions, including chemical contamination, oil spills, coastal habitat degradation, and biodiversity loss [64].

Figure 1. The regional setting of the Russo–Ukrainian conflict (RUC), July 2025. Data sources: Natural Earth “https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/ (accessed on 30 September 2025)” and Institute for the Study of War-ISW, hosted on ArcGIS StoryMaps, “https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375 (accessed on 30 September 2025)”.

Given this context, our study aims to examine the impact of the RUC on water resources quality and pollution. The primary objective is to analyze a curated database of relevant scientific publications addressing contamination and quality changes in both inland (freshwater) and marine environments. Secondary goals include assessing the environmental consequences of damaged water infrastructure and introducing the concept of “aquacide” into academic discourse. A third objective is to identify the tools used to evaluate these impacts, including geomatics techniques, field observation, and water monitoring, sampling and analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

To conduct this study, we examined research on the impact of the RUC on water quality and pollution. Literature was retrieved from Web of Science, Nature Journals, ScienceDirect Freedom Collection, Scopus and Elsevier, and Google Scholar, covering publications up to December 2024 (without a start temporal option). Keywords included water pollution, water quality, war, Ukraine, and Russia, without Boolean operators to avoid narrowing or broadening the search. The final search was dated 25 July 2025, with the most significant surveys published in 2022–2024.

The initial search yielded 19,930 results (Google Scholar—18,100; ScienceDirect Freedom Collection—1228; Scopus and Elsevier—568; Nature Journals—29; Web of Science—5). These were reduced to 1039 publications based on relevance to war-related water pollution and quality. A second screening, applying filters for regional data, open access, categories, and document types, narrowed the selection to 89 works containing data on regional water quality and contamination. A final protocol-based review (relevance, thematic fit, and scientific rigor) resulted in 61 studies: 38 on inland water pollution, two on marine water pollution, and 21 covering both domains. The main variables analyzed were the types of infrastructure affected, the instruments used to assess impacts (geomatics, field observation, monitoring, sampling, analysis), and the geographical scope of what we termed “the military water pollution and infrastructure destruction”. The workflow (PRISMA methodology) is shown in Figure 2, and classification by water domain in Table 1. Although interconnected through river systems, inland and marine waters differ markedly in their characteristics, pollution sources, ecological dynamics, and management needs. Inland waters are primarily freshwater systems affected by agricultural runoff, sewage, and industrial discharges, with direct consequences for drinking water, irrigation, and local biodiversity. Marine waters, by contrast, are saltwater systems shaped by currents and tides, receiving both land-based inputs and direct sources such as shipping, offshore activities, and atmospheric deposition, with impacts on fisheries, climate regulation, and transboundary ecosystems. Importantly, under wartime conditions these pollution sources, pathways, and ecological characteristics are altered, intensifying pressures on both inland and marine environments and necessitating distinct yet interconnected management approaches.

Figure 2. Workflow of the analysis (PRISMA methodology).

Table 1. The final bank of reviewed studies classified according to the analyzed water categories.

Water Categories Affected by RUC	Evaluated Information Source	Reference Number
Inland water pollution	1. Alpatova et al., 2022	[65]
	2. Harada et al., 2022	[66]
	3. Pereira et al., 2022	[67]
	4. Rawtani et al., 2022	[68]
	5. Zorina et al., 2022	[69]
	6. Afanasyev, 2023	[70]
	7. Denisov and Yushchuk, 2023	[71]
	8. Didyk and Homanyuk, 2023	[72]
	9. Gleick et al., 2023	[73]
	10. Kitowski et al., 2023	[74]
	11. Mahats, 2023	[75]
	12. Matviichuk et al., 2023	[76]
	13. Padányi and Földi, 2023	[77]
	14. Schevchuk, 2023	[78]
	15. Sheikh, 2023	[79]
	16. Solokha et al., 2023	[80]
	17. Stelmakh et al., 2023	[81]
	18. Strokal et al., 2023	[82]
	19. Vlasova et al., 2023	[83]
	20. Wang, 2023	[84]
	21. Blahopoluchna et al., 2024	[85]
	22. Cherniavska et al., 2024	[86]
	23. Filho et al., 2024/1	[87]
	24. Filho et al., 2024/2	[88]
	25. Hapich et al., 2024/1	[89]
	26. Hapich et al., 2024/2	[90]
	27. Herasymchuk et al., 2024	[91]
	28. Litynska and Pelekhata, 2024	[92]
	29. Matkivskyi and Taras, 2024	[93]
	30. Meaza et al., 2024	[18]
	31. Nezbrytska et al., 2024	[94]
	32. Novitsky et al., 2024	[95]
	33. Olson, 2024	[96]
	34. Sergieieva et al., 2024	[97]
	35. Shkurashivska et al., 2024	[98]
	36. Snizhko et al., 2024/1	[99]
	37. Snizhko et al., 2024/2	[100]
	38. Von Koeckritz, 2024	[101]
Inland and marine water pollution	1. Albakjaji, 2022	[102]
	2. Pereira et al., 2022	[103]
	3. Algan and Aydoğan, 2023	[104]
	4. Kharchenko, 2023	[105]
	5. Khrushch et al., 2023	[106]
	6. Kozak, 2023	[107]
	7. Palmqvist, 2023	[108]
	8. Serbov et al., 2023	[109]
	9. Shumilova et al., 2023	[110]
	10. Tahmid et al., 2023	[111]
	11. Vyshnevskyi et al., 2023	[112]
	12. Gopchak and Zhuk, 2024	[113]
	13. Hryhorczuk et al., 2024	[114]
	14. Kharytonov et al., 2024	[115]
	15. Pavlovska et al., 2024	[116]
	16. Pichura et al., 2024/1	[117]
	17. Pichura et al., 2024/2	[118]
	18. Shevchenko and Horiacheva, 2024	[119]
	19. Stakhova et al., 2024	[120]
	20. Strokal et al., 2024	[121]
	21. Vyshnevskyi and Shevchuk, 2024	[122]
Marine water pollution	1. Hadzhun, 2023	[123]
	2. Kyrii et al., 2024	[124]

As shown in Figure 3, most sources were peer-reviewed journal articles (45), followed by conference proceedings (8). The selection also included four master’s thesis, three book chapters, and one bachelor’s thesis, all providing relevant data. These works were analyzed after assessing their scientific rigor and quality, including methodology, transparency and replicability, coherence, logic, accurate reporting, sound argumentation, and rationale conclusions.

Figure 3. Types of selected scientific papers.

To analyze the 61 works, we applied several methods to ensure objective and rigorous research: (i) general scientific methods: literature review (analysis and synthesis of academic works), descriptive and systematic approaches, and identification of cause-and-effect relationships; (ii) specific scientific methods: cartographic techniques (maps, satellite imagery, original cartographic materials) and bibliometric analysis (keywords, publication types, and author affiliations); (iii) empirical and theoretical generalization, supported by technical tools for data processing and structuring, such as word clouds, maps, and GIS, to integrate extracted information into the study’s analytical framework.

Special emphasis was placed on maps created with ArcGIS Pro, used in the following chapter to identify the number of papers per Ukrainian region affected by the war, along with the cities and contaminated water bodies mentioned in the selected studies.

3. Results and Discussions

Following Russia’s full-scale military operation in Ukraine on 24 February 2022, scientists have expressed growing concern over its environmental consequences.

This review examines the conflict’s impacts on water quality, pollution, and infrastructure in Ukraine. In some cases, effects have been catastrophic, directly damaging aquatic habitats and the biosphere, prompting us to propose the conceptual term “aquacide”, by analogy with “ecocide”.

Figure 4 shows the geographical distribution of first authors’ affiliations of 61 works. Most (35) are based in Ukraine, reflecting strong local concern over the RUC’s environmental effects. Other contributions came from the United States and Germany (four each), Poland (three), Lithuania and Norway (two each), and single papers from Turkey, India, Bangladesh, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, Hungary, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Ethiopia. This spread underscores the issue’s international relevance, demonstrating that the environmental degradation and pollution caused by the RUC have drawn global scholarly attention.

Figure 4. Geographical distribution of the first authors’ countries.

To explore recurring themes, a Word Cloud (Figure 5) was generated via https://www.wordclouds.com/, based on keywords from 59 of the 61 reviewed papers (291 terms total). The most frequent were Ukraine (10 mentions) and Russian Ukrainian War (10), reflecting the study’s context. War and Ecocide appeared six times each, while Environment was cited five times. Terms such as Black Sea, Kakhovka dam, Ecosystem services, Damages, Water resources and Pollution occurred four times. Environmental impacts, Ecology, Water supply, Military operations and Water infrastructures were each referenced three times. Other terms, including Russia, Reservoirs, Water pollution, Rivers and Water security, appeared twice.

Figure 5. Word Cloud of the main keywords in the selected papers.

3.1. Analyses of Inland Waters Affected by RUC

Although 38 relevant articles address continental waters in Ukraine (Table 2), this remains a relatively limited body of literature. The scarcity reflects the difficulty of identifying war-related impacts on aquatic pollution and quality during active conflict. In situ monitoring is extremely challenging, and many consequences are inferred from scientific practice and experience or assessed using alternative tools.

Table 2. Keywords and key findings in the 38 articles analyzing the impact of the Russo–Ukrainian conflict (RUC) on inland waters.

Studies (Inland Waters)	Infrastructure Destroyed	Methods Used to Highlight the RUC Effects on Inland Waters	Locations Mentioned in Connection with “Military Water Pollution and Infrastructure Destruction”
1. Alpatova et al., 2022 [65]	-	Water and sediment sample analyses	Moshchun (Kyiv Region)
Key findings	In July 2022, conflict-driven pollution led to dangerous heavy metal accumulation (Fe2+, Mn2+, Cu2+, and Al3+ exceeding safe limits) in local aquatic ecosystems, threatening both fishing and recreation.
2. Harada et al., 2022 [66]	Water supply, sewerage, and wastewater treatment infrastructures	-	Kherson, Mariupol
Key findings	War-related damage introduced both toxic chemicals (explosives and their by-products, such as TNT and ammonium nitrate, at concentrations ranging from micrograms to milligrams per liter) and pathogens into water supplies (ground- and surface water), creating ecological harm (toxicity to fish, eutrophication) and a humanitarian crisis (methemoglobinemia to children, deprivation of safe drinking water and sanitation).
3. Pereira et al., 2022 [67]	Water supply and sewerage infrastructures	-	Mariupol, Chernihiv
Key findings	Conflict destroyed vital water systems and filled water bodies with debris (from ruined infrastructure and abandoned military equipment), leaving communities without clean water.
4. Rawtani et al., 2022 [68]	Water supply and sewerage infrastructures, industrial infrastructures, coal mines	Water sample analyses	Lviv
Key findings	Conflict-driven destruction of industry (mines, refineries, and fuel depots) and water infrastructure polluted water with chemicals and deprived communities of safe drinking water and sanitation. Missile strikes on fertilizer tanks led to extreme spikes in ammonium and nitrate levels—163 and 50 times higher, respectively, than permissible limits—in local waters.
5. Zorina et al., 2022 [69]	Ecocide	Water sample analyses	Kyiv, Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk Regions
Key findings	War activities (the use of banned white phosphorus munitions, fuel spills, military debris, improper burials, and widespread fires) have poisoned Ukraine’s water with deadly chemicals (cyanides, sarin, mustard gas, and arsenic compounds) and pathogens, leading to severe water scarcity and hygiene crises. Under martial law, Ukraine introduced special water safety standards (DSanPiN) to reduce illness and death from polluted water, adjusting quality indicators to prioritize urgent health risks. Authors of this review proposed the term “aquacide” to highlight crimes specifically against water resources.
Scientific articles published in 2023 have emphasized the destruction or damage of water infrastructure by Russian forces or, in a few cases, by the Ukrainian army itself, aimed at halting the advance of Russian troops.
6. Afanasyev, 2023 [70]	Water infrastructures, coal mines	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	Dnieper, Siverskyi Donets, Irpin, and Teteriv Rivers; Zhytomyr Reservoir; Oskil and Karachuny Dams; Kryvyi Rih; Donbas Region
Key findings	The war’s destruction of dams and reservoirs (several deliberate explosions by both Ukrainian and Russian forces) unleashed floods, toxic pollution, and mass die-offs, leaving Ukraine’s rivers dangerously contaminated with fuel hydrocarbons and mine waters, and wiping out aquatic life in some areas (e.g., Zhytomyr reservoir—the entire benthic fauna was exterminated, Oskil dam—mass mortality of mollusks in reservoir). Monitoring programs later revealed dangerous spikes in heavy metals (mercury, copper, zinc, manganese, lithium) and hydrocarbons, far above legal limits (mercury and hydrocarbon levels up to 8.5 times the permissible extents), even in places where such pollutants had never been recorded before.
7. Denisov and Yushchuk, 2023 [71]	Water supply, wastewater treatment, industrial infrastructures, coal mines	-	Donbas Region
Key findings	Industrial destruction (chemical, metallurgical, and mining facilities) and damaged infrastructure (water supply and treatment systems) in Donbas have created a severe water shortage for its population, leaving millions of residents without safe drinking water.
8. Didyk and Homanyuk, 2023 [72]	Ecocide	-	Kherson Region; Kakhovskaya Reservoir; Kryvorizka and Nikopol Districts; Apostolivska, Zelenodolska, Hrushivska, Vakulivska, Pershotravnevska, Marganetska, Myrivska, and Tokmakivska Communities
Key findings	The war in Ukraine is described as an “ecocide” due to widespread environmental destruction. The authors of this review expand the concept by introducing “aquacide”, to specifically highlight crimes against water bodies and resources.
9. Gleick et al., 2023 [73]	Water infrastructures Aquacide	Satellite imagery	Irpin, Pechenizke, Inhulets, Kremenchuk, Karlivka, and Kakhovka Dams; Irpin, Siverskyi Donets, Inhulets, Dnipro, and Vovcha Rivers; Kryvyi Rih
Key findings	Both Ukrainian and Russian forces deliberately destroyed key dams and reservoirs during the war, causing massive flooding, water insecurity, and ecological damage. The most catastrophic event was the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023, termed an “aquacide” by this review’s authors. This reservoir had supplied drinking water, irrigation, and cooling for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Its collapse devastated towns and villages, polluted major rivers and estuaries, and spread contaminants into the Black Sea.
10. Kitowski et al., 2023 [74]	Water supply and sewerage infrastructures; irrigation infrastructures	-	North Crimean Canal (Kherson); Irpin River (Kyiv); Siverskyi Donets (Kharkiv); Mironovsky Reservoir (south of Popasna); Bakhmut; Karachunovsky Reservoir (Inhulets River near Kryvyi Rih); Donetsk Oblast; Raigorodok; Dnieper River; Mykolaiv; Oskil Reservoir (Donbas); Kherson Region
Key findings	In the early months of the 2022 war, multiple dams and reservoirs across Ukraine were deliberately destroyed or attacked, causing widespread flooding and ecological damage. Russian forces also targeted pipelines, reservoirs, sewage systems, and irrigation infrastructure, crippling water supply and sanitation in many regions and worsening the humanitarian crisis.
11. Mahats, 2023 [75]	Aquacide, water supply and sewerage infrastructures	-	-
Key findings	Before the war, nearly all Ukrainian cities had centralized water supply (98.7%) and sewage systems (95.8%), while rural areas had very limited access (water supply—23.5% and sewage systems—1.48%). Since the Russian invasion, these percentages have dropped sharply, showing how the conflict has severely damaged basic water and sanitation infrastructure.
12. Matviichuk et al., 2023 [76]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv Regions
Key findings	The regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv, where fighting was most intense, suffered the worst damage to freshwater resources and water infrastructure. Testing in Kharkiv during 2022 revealed widespread contamination: a quarter of samples from centralized systems were unsafe, and half of wells failed to meet drinking standards. Excess levels of hardness, turbidity, nitrates, ammonium, sulfates, chlorides, dissolved solids, and iron were common. Nearly one-third 29.9%) of 67 samples exceeded chemical limits, and over one-fifth (21.9%) of 64 samples were bacteriologically unsafe. These conditions led to health impacts, including cases of infant methemoglobinemia from nitrate-polluted water, while most local springs were deemed unfit for consumption. DSanPiN 2.2.4-171-10, changed under the martial law, was the standard used for these analyses.
13. Padányi and Földi, 2023 [77]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery	Donbas Region; Irpin and Oskil Rivers
Key findings	Millions of Ukrainians face severe shortages of safe drinking water, with the Donbas region especially reliant on untreated rivers and lakes due to unreliable supply. In addition, deliberate dam destructions (on the Irpin and Oskil Rivers) by Ukrainian forces to slow Russian advances caused flooding that carried hazardous pollutants into waterways, worsening contamination.
14. Schevchuk, 2023 [78]	Industrial infrastructures and coal mines	-	Donbas Region; Siverskyi Donets River
Key findings	The Donbas region’s 4500 mining, chemical, and metallurgical facilities pose a major environmental risk if damaged in the war. Flooded coal mines are already contaminating groundwater and drinking water, with the danger of pollutants reaching the Siverskyi Donets River and spreading into the Azov and Black Seas, creating transboundary pollution beyond Ukraine.
15. Sheikh, 2023 [79]	Industrial, water supply and sewerage infrastructures	-	Donbas Region
Key findings	In Donbas, the destruction of industrial sites such as refineries, oil depots, pipelines, and coal mines has released toxic chemicals into rivers and lakes, while water supply and sewage systems have been crippled. At the same time, decomposing military munitions and explosives have added dangerous pollutants like PCBs, further contaminating local water bodies.
16. Solokha et al., 2023 [80]	-	Satellite imagery Remote sensing	Kharkiv Region; Luhansk and Donetsk; Zaporizhzhia and Kherson; Dolyna Sloviansk District
Key findings	Remote sensing technologies, using spectral indices such as NDVI, are crucial for monitoring pollution and water quality in eastern Ukraine, particularly in war-torn regions like Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson.
17. Stelmakh et al., 2023 [81]	Water supply, water treatment, sewerage and industrial infrastructures	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	Chernihiv, Mariupol, Mykolaiv, Skadovsk, Sloviansk, Vasylivka; Donbas Region; Ikva River and Siverskyi Donets Basin
Key findings	The destruction of over 500 water and sanitation facilities in 2023, along with damaged industrial sites, flooded mines, petroleum leaks, and decomposing military equipment, severely polluted Ukraine’s rivers and water bodies. Wastewater treatment plants in multiple cities were destroyed, with Donbas particularly affected. Strikes on fertilizer warehouses and other infrastructure caused extreme spikes in pollutants of the Ikva River: ammonium up to 163× legal limits, nitrates 50×, nitrites 7×, iron 7.4×, and mercury 8.4×, substances not previously detected in these waters, according to the State Environmental Inspectorate in Ukraine and State Agency for Water Resources of Ukraine. Even drinking sources near Sloviansk showed dangerous increases in ammonium and nitrites (levels of 2.4 and 2.8× higher, respectively) due to failing treatment stations.
18. Strokal et al., 2023 [82]	Water infrastructures	-	Dnipro Basin
Key findings	The war destroyed 30–90% of water infrastructure in the Dnipro River basin, including bridges (90%), dams (40%), sewage pipelines and wastewater plants (35–40%), and irrigation systems (30%). This devastation caused widespread contamination of rivers with sewage, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, antibacterial agents, and plastics.
19. Vlasova et al., 2023 [83]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery	Kakhovka; Irpin and Dnipro Rivers; Kozak; Kyiv Region
Key findings	The destruction of the Kakhovka Reservoir and Dam on 6 June 2023—a major “aquacide”—can be documented using special “tools”, with further discussion of those methods to follow.
20. Wang, 2023 [84]	-	Satellite imagery	Kherson, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Poltava, Crimea
Key findings	Ukraine’s Ramsar wetlands are severely threatened by the war: 17 are under Russian control and 14 more at risk, facing pollution from heavy metals, uranium, and hydrocarbons. The role of remote sensing in monitoring water pollution is emphasized, though its effectiveness is limited in these sensitive areas.
In 2024, scientific literature continued to emphasize the severe pollution effects of water infrastructure destruction, with a focus on the Kakhovka Dam collapse, a true aquacide, and its devastating consequences.
21. Blahopoluchna et al., 2024 [85]	Water infrastructures	Water sample analyses	Volyn, Ternopil, Mykolaiv, Kyiv; Zakarpattia Oblast; Kirovohrad, Zaporizhzhia, Poltava and Dnipropetrovsk Regions; Dnieper River
Key findings	The war caused a widespread degradation of drinking water quality across Ukraine. Pollutants varied by region: iron, turbidity, and hardness salts in Volyn, Ternopil, and Mykolaiv; high magnesium in Zakarpattia; organic contaminants in Kyiv, Kirovohrad, and Zaporizhzhia; extreme fluoride in Poltava; and elevated organic matter in Dnipropetrovsk. The Transcarpathian region was the only area where turbidity and iron exceeded emergency martial law limits. Overall, cities relying on the Dnipro River basin and Mykolaiv Oblast were most severely affected.
22. Cherniavska et al., 2024 [86]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery	Kakhovka
Key findings	The study re-examined the Kakhovka dam collapse and its impacts.
23. Filho et al., 2024/1 [87]	Water infrastructures, industrial infrastructures	Satellite imagery Remote sensing Water sample analyses	Kyiv and Sumy regions
Key findings	The military actions (weapon use, industrial destruction, and fossil fuel burning) released hazardous pollutants threatening ecosystems and human health.
24. Filho et al., 2024/2 [88]	Water infrastructures, industrial infrastructures	-	-
Key findings	The explosions, military debris, and infrastructure losses (dams, wastewater plants) contaminated water with heavy metals, hydrocarbons, radionuclides, and pathogens, worsening shortages. The analytical tools (sample testing, monitoring, remote sensing, satellite imagery) documented the damage.
25. Hapich et al., 2024/1 [89]	Water infrastructures; Aquacide	Satellite imagery	Irpin River, Kakhovka, Oskil, Pechenizke, Karachu-nivske, and Karlivske Reservoirs, Raigorodskaya Dam, North Crimean Canal, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Chernihiv, Bakhmut, Severodonetsk, Vugledar, Lysychansk, Avdiivka
26. Hapich et al., 2024/2 [90]	Water infrastructures, industrial infrastructures; Aquacide	-	Kakhovka, Oskil, Pechenizke, Karachunivske, and Karlivske Reservoirs; Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Mariupol, Chernihiv, Bakhmut, Severodonetsk, Vuhledar, Lysychansk, Avdiivka; Water supply canals to Kakhovka, North-Rogachytska, Dnipro-Donbas, Dnipro-Kryvyi Rih and North-Crimean Canals; Dnipro River
Key findings	The widespread “aquacide” from the destruction of reservoirs, canals, and water/sewage infrastructure across Ukraine left about five million people without reliable drinking water. The collapse of the Kakhovka Dam alone discharged an estimated 450 tons of fuel into the Dnipro River, while hydrocarbons and chemicals from munitions and industrial sites further polluted regional water bodies.
27. Herasymchuk et al., 2024 [91]	Water infrastructures Ecocide	-	Kryvyi Rih, Karachuniv Basin, Inhulets River
Key findings	The military actions worsened Ukraine’s existing environmental problems, intensifying water quality deterioration through hazardous waste buildup and increased pollutant discharges.
28. Litynska and Pelekhata, 2024 [92]	-	Water sample analyses	Siverskyi Donets and Oskil Rivers; Kharkiv and Donetsk Regions
Key findings	The water quality in five Ukrainian rivers (Desna, Dnipro, Styr, Siversky Donets, and Oskil) was compared before and after the onset of the conflict. The greatest deterioration occurred in the Siversky Donets and Oskil Rivers in conflict-affected Kharkiv and Donetsk, while the Desna and Dnipro near Kyiv showed minimal changes, and the Styr River in Rivne, farther from fighting, retained relatively good quality.
29. Matkivskyi and Taras, 2024 [93]	Water infrastructures	Water sample analyses	Kharkiv
Key findings	The 20 sites monitored in Kharkiv Region (September 2023) showed frequent water quality exceedances, especially for sulfates (17 sites), ammonium (16), BOD5 (14), and low dissolved oxygen (11), as per the Kharkiv Regional Office of Water Resources.
30. Meaza et al., 2024 [18]	Water infrastructures Aquacide	Satellite imagery Remote sensing	Kakhovka
Key findings	The “aquacide” resulting from the 2023 Kakhovka Dam destruction, and the 2022 Irpin flood caused by military actions at the Kyiv Dam have been examined. The satellite imagery and remote sensing detected and documented these water infrastructure disasters.
31. Nezbrytska et al., 2024 [94]	-	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	Kyiv Reservoir, Irpin River
Key findings	The 2022 Kyiv Reservoir flood’s impact on the Irpin River basin showed that military-induced flooding and dam destruction disrupted hydromorphology and water quality. This was evidenced by high chlorophyll-a levels (59–106 µg/L), increased algal biomass (diatoms, cyanobacteria), and altered saprobic conditions.
32. Novitsky et al., 2024 [95]	Water infrastructures Aquacide	-	Kakhovka
Key findings	The Kakhovka Dam collapse caused mass mortality of aquatic fauna, particularly mollusks and fish species that had inhabited the reservoir.
33. Olson, 2024 [96]	Water infrastructures Aquacide	Satellite imagery	Kakhovka
Key findings	The Kakhovka Dam aquacide triggered widespread flooding of settlements, farms, and agricultural lands, disrupted water supply and irrigation, and reduced agricultural output across large regions.
34. Sergieieva et al., 2024 [97]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery	Dnipropetrovsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts; Dnipro, Tomakivka, Solona, Kinska and Kamianka Rivers; Belozersky Liman; Kakhovka Dam
Key findings	The satellite imagery and machine learning have a vital role in revealing the severe impacts of the conflict on Ukraine’s water bodies, including the Kakhovka Reservoir before and after its destruction.
35. Shkurashivska et al., 2024 [98]	Water infrastructures	-	Styr, Ivka, Donets, Dnipro, Bug Rivers
Key findings	The war materials (munitions, petroleum products, and rocket fuels) have polluted Ukraine’s waters with heavy metals and other toxic chemicals, raising concerns about possible radioactive contamination.
36. Snizhko et al., 2024/1 [99]	Water supply infrastructures	-	Mykolaiv City; Dnipro River; Southern Bug River
Key findings	The Mykolaiv’s acute water security crisis has been driven by climate change and war. After the 2022 destruction of the Dnipro-Mykolaiv pipeline, the Southern Bug River became the city’s vital alternative source, underscoring the urgent need for adaptive governance and sustainable management.
37. Snizhko et al., 2024/2 [100]	Water and industrial infrastructures, coal mines	-	Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Melitopol, Mykolaiv; Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipro, and Kherson Regions; Kakhovka Dam
Key findings	During the war, water became both a weapon and a target, with massive destruction of infrastructure across Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk. In Kharkiv alone, wells, sewer pipelines, pumping stations, and treatment plants were devastated. The study warned of severe risks in Donbas—mine flooding, halted pumping, and the Kakhovka aquacide—which disrupted supplies to Zaporizhzhia (including the NPP), Dnipro, Kherson, and Melitopol, and flooded 80 settlements. Overall, six million Ukrainians lost access to clean drinking water, 13 million had limited hygiene water, and 31 irrigation systems collapsed. The radionuclide transfer from Kakhovka sediments to other Dnipro reservoirs represents a real danger.
38. Von Koeckritz, 2024 [101]	Water infrastructures Aquacide	Satellite imagery	Kakhovka
Key findings	The Kakhovka aquacide was also the central focus of this scientific article.

To highlight the catastrophic destruction and contamination of freshwater resources and infrastructure—phenomena we term “aquacides”—authors employed a range of scientific tools. To provide a concise overview of the objectives addressed by the 38 studies, as well as our own analysis, we compiled a summary of crucial keywords and findings (Table 2).

Our review shows that 30 articles examined damage to water supply infrastructure, seven focused on sewerage systems, three on water treatment and wastewater facilities, nine on industrial infrastructure, five on flooded coal mines without pumping systems, and one on irrigation infrastructures, all posing pollution risks to various water bodies. Accessing conflict zones to collect direct data remains extremely difficult, so information is often gathered indirectly.

The destruction of water infrastructure has severe consequences, disabling water supply to the population and forcing displacement or appeals for assistance. The regions most affected include southern oblasts—Donetsk and Luhansk (Donbas), Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv, and Odesa—as well as eastern Kharkiv and central-southern or southeastern oblasts such as Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava. The most severely impacted rivers—both qualitatively and quantitatively, as well as morphologically—are the Dnieper (entire basin) and Siverskyi Donets.

Eleven studies investigated ecocides committed by the RUC in Ukraine, referred to as aquacides when water bodies are the primary targets. Twelve focused on the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam (Kherson oblast), one of the most publicized and scientifically examined catastrophes. Fatal consequences included the collapse of aquatic biocoenoses in inland waters, particularly benthic fauna, mollusks and fish.

Scientific tools used to assess impacts were limited. Standard water quality monitoring—sampling and laboratory analysis—was possible only in specific cases: drinking water bodies, centralized water supply systems in bombed cities (primarily in southern and eastern Ukraine), decentralized sources used by local populations in the same regions, and targeted studies of aquacides such as Kakhovka (Kherson oblast). These analyses were documented in 11 scientific studies.

We argue that satellite imagery represents the most effective tool for evidencing the RUC’s impact on Ukrainian water bodies, including aquacides. It has proven vital for ecological situational awareness, notably in documenting events such as the Kakhovka Dam destruction. Satellite sensors provide data on water quality parameters (e.g., turbidity, chlorophyll concentration, and temperature), enabling pollutant detection and rapid response. Remote sensing also facilitates the tracking of oil spills, chemical discharges, and sediment transport, thereby supporting ongoing monitoring of pollution sources. At the same time, broader limitations must be acknowledged: vulnerability to jamming, coverage gaps in rural areas or under dense cloud cover (in the absence of SAR), and operational security risks associated with public sharing. These constraints underscore the importance of integrated, multi-source approaches to water monitoring.

GIS complements these tools by creating detailed maps of contaminated areas and supporting remediation efforts. Combined with satellite data, GIS allows analysis of temporal changes in water quality and resource distribution, informing decisions for water management.

Integrating remote sensing, GIS, and in situ monitoring facilitates accurate identification of contaminated zones and pollution sources, contributing to efficient remediation strategies in Ukraine. These technologies are essential for monitoring and managing water quality under war conditions, mitigating environmental impacts, and safeguarding public health.

In our review, 16 studies directly used satellite imagery to document water bodies, while three emphasized remote sensing, for a total of 19 articles. Most images highlighted the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam (Kherson oblast; Figure 6 and Figure 7), Irpin Dam (Kyiv oblast; Figure 8), and Oskil Dam (Kharkiv oblast).

Figure 6. Satellite image of the Kakhovka Dam: (a) prior to its destruction (20 October 2020); (b) hours after its destruction (6 June 2023). Source of satellite image: Gleick et al., 2023 [73].

Figure 7. The floodplain of the lower Dnieper River: (a) before the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, on 3 June 2023 (Sentinel-2 satellite image, spatial resolution of 10 m); (b) after the destruction of the dam, on 9 June 2023 (Landsat 9 satellite image, spatial resolution of 30 m). Images reproduced from Gleick et al., 2023 [73].

Figure 8. Flooding in the floodplain of the Irpin River on 11 March 2022 (left image) and 18 March 2022 (right image). Source of Sentinel-2 satellite images (spatial resolution of 10 m): Gleick et al., 2023 [73].

For this discussion, we selected satellite images from Gleick et al. (2023) [73], among the clearest and most illustrative examples in the reviewed literature. We consider satellite imagery indispensable for detecting and monitoring aquacides, assessing impacts, and guiding future restoration efforts.

3.2. Analyses of Inland and Marine Waters Affected by the RUC

In total, 21 scientific studies examined the consequences of the RUC on both continental and marine waters. We reviewed these contributions separately, to present their findings and discuss them accordingly. To provide clarity, a summary of essential keywords and findings was compiled (Table 3).

Table 3. Keywords and key findings in the 21 articles analyzing the impact of the RUC on inland and marine waters.

Studies (Inland and Marine Waters)	Infrastructure Destroyed	Methods Used to Highlight the RUC Effects on Inland and Marine Waters	Locations Mentioned in Connection with “Military Water Pollution and Infrastructure Destruction”
1. Albakjaji, 2022 [102]	Water infrastructures (supply, treatment, and purification)	-	Mykolaiv
Key findings	The Russo–Ukrainian conflict disrupted water supply, treatment, and wastewater facilities across Ukraine, leaving millions without safe drinking or hygiene water. Mykolaiv was among the worst affected, while dam destruction caused catastrophic deterioration of river quality with cascading impacts on marine ecosystems.
2. Pereira et al., 2022 [103]	Water infrastructures, industrial infrastructures	-	Eastern Ukraine, The Black Sea, Odesa, The Sea of Azov
Key findings	The RUC devastated industrial and water infrastructure, releasing toxic elements into water bodies and severely affecting human consumption in eastern Ukraine. Marine waters, especially the Black Sea, were polluted by petroleum products, ship sinking, and unknown numbers of sea mines. Pollutants from rivers like the Dnieper worsened contamination. Over 3000 dolphins died from injuries linked to naval mines and explosives, while protected coastal and marine habitats in the Sea of Azov, near Odesa, and in the Danube Delta—critical habitats for migratory birds—were also damaged.
3. Algan and Aydoğan, 2023 [104]	Water infrastructures, industrial infrastructures	Satellite imagery	Zaporizhzhia, Dnipro River, Irpin River, The Black Sea
Key findings	Severe water contamination followed the destruction of Zaporizhzhia’s wastewater treatment plant, with untreated effluent entering the Dnipro River. Satellite imagery also captured flooding from the Irpin dam bombing, which spread debris, heavy metals, fuels, and pollutants from civilian and military sites. An additional carcinogenic hazard is the asbestos from Ukrainian construction rubble. Marine impacts included dolphin deaths in the Black Sea linked to naval mines and the destruction of three offshore drilling platforms.
4. Kharchenko, 2023 [105]	Water and industrial infrastructures, military facilities	-	The Black Sea
Key findings	The explosions and naval mines released toxic substances, including white phosphorus, into the Black Sea, alongside asbestos, heavy metals, PCBs, pesticides, and fuels from bombardments and rivers. This “military pollution” led to the death of thousands of cetaceans.
5. Khrushch et al., 2023 [106]	Water and industrial infrastructures	-	The Black Sea
Key findings	The destruction of civilian and industrial infrastructure contaminated water with toxic substances including heavy metals, depleted uranium, pesticides, hydrocarbons, and TNT. Marine waters were further polluted by sunken vessels, munition, and military equipment, introducing oils and fuels. Several thousand dolphins in the Black Sea died as a result of this “military pollution”.
6. Kozak, 2023 [107]	Water and industrial infrastructures	-	Sumykhimprom Enterprise, Chayki Village (Kyiv), Vasylkivsk, Avdiyivka (Donetsk Oblast), Luhansk, Kakhovka, Dnipro River, The Black Sea
Key findings	The major environmental crimes of the RUC have been identified and the authors of this review classified them as “aquacides”. These included ammonium leakage from the Sumykhimprom plant, destruction of warehouses and water treatment facilities near Kyiv and Vasylkivsk, obliteration of the Avdiyiv coking plant and Luhansk refinery, and most notably the demolition of the Kakhovka Dam. The dam’s collapse polluted the Dnipro River and Black Sea coast with pesticides, fertilizers, and radionuclides from reservoir sediments.
7. Palmqvist, 2023 [108]	Water and industrial infrastructures	-	Kakhovka Dam, The Black Sea
Key findings	This study detailed the environmental consequences of the Kakhovka Dam aquacide.
8. Serbov et al., 2023 [109]	Water infrastructures	-	The Black Sea, The Sea of Azov
Key findings	The RUC severely damaged the quality of Ukraine’s inland and marine waters and disrupted national water supply systems.
9. Shumilova et al., 2023 [110]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, Kakhovka Dam, Siverskyi Donets River
Key findings	The RUC severely damaged freshwater resources and infrastructure in Donetsk and Luhansk. Wastewater treatment plants were destroyed, causing untreated discharges into reservoirs (documented via satellite imagery). Submerged military objects and decomposing munitions contaminated waters with heavy metals and toxins. In 2022, hydrocarbons, mercury, ammonium, nitrites, and pesticides were detected in potable water from the Siverskyi Donets River. The conflict also caused casualties among water engineers, with at least 35 injured or killed.
10. Tahmid et al., 2023 [111]	Water and industrial infrastructures	-	Odesa, Mykolayiv, Mariupol, The Black Sea, The Sea of Azov
Key findings	The RUC is as an “aquacide” in marine and coastal ecosystems of the Black and Azov Seas. Oil spills, toxic discharges, sunken ships, explosions, and sea mines caused severe pollution and the deaths of thousands of dolphins. Bombing of ports (Mykolaiv, Odesa, and Mariupol), oil depots, and wastewater facilities along the coasts added to the damage. Similar polluting impacts were observed in rivers and groundwater.
11. Vyshnevskyi et al., 2023 [112]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, Kakhovka Dam, Siverskyi Donets River
Key findings	The Kakhovka Dam destruction has been analyzed using satellite imagery. The flood affected four cities (Nova Kakhovka, Oleshky, Hola Prystan, and Kherson) and caused 50 deaths. The collapse polluted the Dnipro River, Dnipro-Bug Estuary, and northwestern Black Sea, with the plume reaching the Dniester and Danube Rivers within days. Water samples consistently showed petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and organochlorine compounds (lindane, PCBs) above permissible limits, posing severe toxicity risks to aquatic organisms.
12. Gopchak and Zhuk, 2024 [113]	Water and industrial infrastructures	Water sample analyses	The Black Sea, The Sea of Azov
Key findings	The RUC destroyed water infrastructure, with disruptions in supply, potable water treatment, and wastewater management. Pollution stemmed from untreated discharges, dam bombings, fuels, heavy metals, toxic munitions, corpses, and accidents at ports. Coastal areas of the Azov and Black Seas were heavily impacted, highlighting the difficulty of monitoring during conflict: only 35% of monitoring stations operated between March-June 2022, rising to 68% after Ukrainian forces regained territory.
13. Hryhorczuk et al., 2024 [114]	Water and industrial Infrastructures, coal mines	-	Odesa, Mykolaiv, Mariupol, Dnipro and Dniester Rivers, The Kakhovka Dam, The Black Sea, The Sea of Azov
Key findings	The RUC polluted inland waters directly (munitions, explosives, residues) and indirectly (industrial destruction). Groundwater, supplying 25% of Ukraine’s potable water, was contaminated by explosive particles. Numerous water infrastructure facilities were destroyed despite international conventions. In July 2023, 49 mines were flooded in occupied eastern Ukraine, with polluted mine waters posing severe “aquacide” risks. Ports of Odesa, Mykolaiv, and Mariupol were repeatedly attacked, polluting coastal areas of the Black and Azov Seas. Rivers (Dnipro, Dniester, Don) carried toxins into the seas, while the Kakhovka Dam collapse released hundreds of tons of pollutants. Heavy metals were identified as persistent contaminants in war zones.
14. Kharytonov et al., 2024 [115]	Water infrastructures	-	The Kakhovka Dam, The Black Sea, The Sea of Azov
Key findings	The dramatic “aquacide” from the Kakhovka Dam destruction plus the sea mines, wrecks, and fuel contaminants in the Azov and Black Seas caused severe contamination and biodiversity loss.
15. Pavlovska et al., 2024 [116]	Water and industrial infrastructures	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	Dnipro River, The Black Sea, The Kakhovka Dam, Ochackiv (Dnipro—Bug estuary)
Key findings	The river pollution from petroleum, explosive residues, and rocket components has been linked to long-term Black Sea ecosystem damage. About 30% of irrigation systems and 35–40% of water treatment/wastewater facilities in the Dnipro Basin were destroyed, increasing (2% to 34%) nutrient loads, pharmaceuticals, and plastics in water bodies. The Kakhovka Dam collapse triggered further impacts: satellite imagery showed a phytoplankton bloom in the western Black Sea (affecting Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey), while water samples (collected on 13–14 June 2023) confirmed pathogenic bacterial contamination, strongest in the Dnipro-Bug Estuary compared to Constanta (Romania).
16. Pichura et al., 2024/1 [117]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	The Kakhovka Dam, Dnipro
17. Pichura et al., 2024/2 [118]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery Water sample analyses	The Black Sea, Dnipro-Bug Estuary, Kakhovka Dam, Inhulets River, Virovchyna River, Prypiat, Teteriv, and Irpin Rivers, Desna River, Kherson, Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Key findings	The Kakhovka “aquacide” has been examined using satellite imagery and water sampling near Odesa. Laboratory analyses of water samples collected on 14 June 2023 revealed extreme heavy metal pollution in the Black Sea waters: copper at 895×, zinc at 44.8×, and arsenic at 3× above legal limits.
18. Shevchenko and Horiacheva, 2024 [119]	Water infrastructures	-	The Black Sea
Key findings	The RUC deteriorated water quality and damaged supply infrastructure, while Black Sea ecosystems were severely impacted by marine mines, explosives, projectiles, and submarines.
19. Stakhova et al., 2024 [120]	Industrial infrastructures	-	The Sea of Azov
Key findings	Explosions, fuel station bombings, and gas pipeline destruction released hazardous substances into water bodies. The Azov Sea coast was littered with marine mines, while vessel sinking and oil spills polluted waters, killing fish, birds, and microorganisms.
20. Strokal et al., 2024 [121]	Water and industrial infrastructures, military objects and elements	Water sample analyses	Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts; Cities of Bakhmut and Shchastia; Dnipro, Siverskyi Donets, and Sukhyi Torets Rivers; Kakhovka Dam; North Crimean Canal; The Black Sea
Key findings	Since Crimea’s annexation and the RUC, military actions have severely damaged Ukraine’s water supply systems. Water treatment facilities, pumping stations, canals, reservoirs, dams, and irrigation systems were destroyed or misused. Mercury, ammonium, and nitrite concentrations rose sharply in rivers, while explosions, mining, and sunken military equipment polluted inland and marine waters with petroleum products and other toxins. Untreated wastewater discharge contaminated the Dnipro River and the Black Sea with organic compounds, pathogens, helminth eggs, chlorides, and sulfates, triggering widespread algal blooms.
21. Vyshnevskyi and Shevchuk, 2024 [122]	Water infrastructures	Satellite imagery	The Kakhovka Dam
Key findings	The Kakhovka “aquacide” has been investigated using satellite imagery.

Of the 21 articles, 20 analyzed damage to water infrastructure (supply, treatment, and wastewater), 12 investigated damage to industrial infrastructure, two explored the effects of military objects deposited in continental or marine waters, and one examined flooded coal mines with contamination risks. Collecting accurate information on damaged infrastructure during active conflict remains extremely difficult. These studies indicate that the highest concentration of damage occurred in southern oblasts of Ukraine—Donetsk and Luhansk (Donbas), Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv, and Odesa—as well as eastern Kharkiv, reflecting the intensity of combat in these regions.

The most severely affected water bodies were the Dnieper River (including its basin and the Dnieper-Bug estuary), the Siverskyi Donets River, and the coastal zones of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.

11 studies investigated water-related ecocide (aquacide), particularly the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam (Kherson region), a widely publicized disaster extensively analyzed by scientists. All 21 articles also addressed marine coastal zones, noting severe repercussions for dolphins, migratory birds and microorganisms.

Regarding dolphin mortality, there is clear evidence of a sharp increase linked to naval noise, mines, pollution, and explosions. However, precise numbers remain difficult to establish due to restricted access to Ukrainian Black Sea and Azov Sea waters. Scientists rely on stranding data, modeling, and indirect reports, which suggest losses in the thousands but fall short of universally agreed-upon totals. The available data strongly indicate increased mortality associated with the war, but exact figures remain uncertain and should therefore be interpreted with caution.

In summary, in the context of the RUC, inland waters have suffered severe damage from infrastructure destruction (e.g., the Kakhovka Dam), industrial spills, and sewage contamination. Marine systems such as the Black Sea and Azov Sea have been exposed to widespread pollution plumes, altered salinity, biodiversity loss, and chemical contamination from petroleum products, sunken vessels, sea mines, munitions, projectiles, explosives, and submarines.

Assessing the instruments used to profile these impacts reveals the difficulty of establishing reliable and continuous water quality monitoring frameworks for both continental and marine environments under wartime conditions.

Seven of the 21 reviewed studies analyzed water samples from the most affected aquatic bodies—the Dnieper, Siverskyi Donets, and Sukhyi Torets Rivers—as well as marine coastal areas, including the heavily polluted port of Odesa on the Black Sea, and the Sea of Azov. All samples exceeded monitored water quality parameters.

Satellite imagery remains the most effective tool for documenting and evidencing the RUC’s impacts on Ukrainian waters and related aquacides. Four studies directly employed satellite data, and seven acknowledged its relevance.

Most satellite images illustrated the Kakhovka Dam disaster (Figure 9) and subsequent pollution of the Dnieper River, its Dnieper-Bug estuary, and the northwestern Black Sea (Figure 10).

Figure 9. Kakhovka Reservoir on (a) 9 June 2023 and (b) 16 June 2023. The desiccation of the reservoir is clearly visible following the destruction of the dam. Sentinel-1 satellite images (spatial resolution of 10 m), retrieved from Vyshnevskyi et al., 2023 [122].

Figure 10. Pollution of the northwestern coastal area of the Black Sea, resulting from the movement of the post-Kakhovka pollution wave through the Dnieper River and the Dnieper–Bug Estuary. Satellite imagery sourced from Vyshnevskyi et al., 2023 [122], based on data from https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov (accessed on 30 September 2025). (a,b) and https://scihub.copernicus.eu (accessed on 30 September 2025) (c,d).

For this subsection, we selected satellite images from Vyshnevskyi et al. (2023) [122], noted for their clarity. Satellite imagery is vital in wartime contexts, where field access is limited or dangerous, and also serves as a guiding tool for future aquatic restoration.

3.3. Analyses of Marine Waters Affected by the RUC

Only two studies specifically addressed war-related pollution in marine environments (Table 4), yet they provide indispensable insights into Black Sea and Sea of Azov biodiversity. Both focused on cetaceans, particularly dolphins, whose populations have sharply declined due to habitat destruction from chemical pollution and ongoing military operations. To mitigate extinction risks, medium- and long-term measures are essential, including habitat conservation, remediation of polluted waters, and strengthened international scientific cooperation to safeguard dolphins and other species in the Black Sea.

Table 4. Keywords and key findings in the two articles analyzing the impact of the RUC on marine waters.

Studies (Marine Waters)	Infrastructure Destroyed	Methods Used to Highlight the RUC Effects on Marine Waters	Locations Mentioned in Connection with “Military Water Pollution and Infrastructure Destruction”
1. Hadzhun, 2023 [123]	Habitat destruction; Military objects/elements	-	The Black Sea
Key findings	Due to the impact of the RUC on marine waters, particularly the Black Sea (20% under Russian control), the cetaceans were severely affected by polluting military vessels and other environmental alterations.
2. Kyrii et al., 2024 [124]	Habitat destruction; Water supply and industrial infrastructures; Military objects/elements	-	The Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, Mariupol and Mykolaiv cities, the Kakhovka Dam
Key findings	The war’s impacts on the Black Sea and Sea of Azov had multiple consequences: chemical and acoustic pollution, habitat destruction, and wastewater infrastructure deterioration (notably in Mariupol and Mykolaiv). Key events—such as the Kakhovka Dam collapse, sinking of military vessels, and damage to offshore drilling platforms—contaminated marine waters with heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and explosives. These processes reduced water salinity and biodiversity.

3.4. Mapping the Scientific Interest on Ukraine’s Regions, Rivers and Cities

To highlight the spatial impact of the war in Ukraine, several cartographic representations were created, depicting the main regions, rivers, and cities in relation to the number of analyzed articles that focused on each location. Accordingly, Figure 11 illustrates the regions of Ukraine in relation to the number of papers evaluated for the review.

Figure 11. Assessed papers for regions of Ukraine.

At the regional scale, most studies concentrated on the eastern oblasts, situated east of the Dniester River and close to the front line. Donetsk (17 studies: 14 on inland waters and three on both inland and marine domains) and Luhansk (13 studies: 10 inland, three both domains) stand out as the most frequently examined. Southern coastal regions also attracted considerable attention: Kherson (eight papers, including two covering both domains), Zaporizhzhia (seven papers, three both domains), and Mykolaiv (six papers, one both domains). Kharkiv was the most studied region solely for inland waters (six papers), followed by Kyiv Oblast (four) and Dnipropetrovsk (three). Additional studies addressing both inland and marine domains were found for Odesa and Crimea (two papers each), while Poltava and Kyiv City were represented only by inland water studies. In contrast, Transcarpathia and Kirovohrad appeared only once, and most western regions—Chernivtsi, Ternopil, Lviv, and Rivne—were scarcely addressed, typically through localized case studies rather than regional analyses. This distribution reflects both the geography of military operations and the visibility of aquatic disasters in the east and south.

At the river scale, shown in Figure 12, the Dnipro River dominates the scientific attention, appearing in 17 papers. Its reservoirs were frequently discussed, especially the Kakhovka Reservoir, which alone was covered in 24 articles. By comparison, the Kremenchuk and Kiev Reservoirs were each mentioned only once. The Irpin River was the second most studied (nine papers), followed by the Siverskyi Donets (eight papers), with its Pechenezhkoye Reservoir cited twice. Other rivers received more modest coverage: the Inhulets (four papers, including its Karachunivske Reservoir), the Oskil (three papers, with its reservoir), and the Teteriv (two papers). Several rivers—Ivka, Styr, Southern Bug, Bug, Pripyat, Dniester, Desna, and Vovcha—appeared only once, most of them located in western Ukraine where fewer military operations occurred. This uneven distribution underscores how conflict intensity shapes scientific focus.

Figure 12. Assessed papers for major rivers and cities of Ukraine.

At the city scale, Mykolaiv emerged as the most frequently addressed, appearing in 10 studies (seven inland, two both domains, one marine). Mariupol followed with seven studies (four inland, two both, one marine). Kherson and Kharkiv were each covered in six papers, while Odesa and Kryvyi Rih appeared in four studies each. Chernihiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk were each mentioned three times, all in inland waters, while Bakhmut was discussed in three papers (two inland, one both). Poltava and Kyiv were cited in two studies, and several other cities—Ternopil, Lysychansk, Melitopol, Lviv, Zaporizhzhia, and Dnipro—were each addressed in a single paper. These figures highlight the prominence of southern and eastern urban centers as focal points of aquatic degradation, while western cities remain marginal in the scientific record.

4. Conclusions

This review has demonstrated the profound consequences of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict (RUC) on Ukraine’s inland and marine water systems. Drawing from 61 peer-reviewed studies, we examined the destruction of water-related infrastructure, the degradation of aquatic ecosystems, and the tools available to assess these impacts, while introducing the concept of aquacide—a targeted environmental catastrophe affecting aquatic life and water resources.

Infrastructure destruction was the most frequently reported impact, with the majority of studies documenting damage to water supply, treatment, and purification systems, alongside industrial facilities and flooded coal mines. These disruptions have severely compromised water quality and access, particularly in southern and eastern oblasts such as Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv. Aquatic pollution and biodiversity loss were equally alarming, with the Dnipro River, Siverskyi Donets, and the coastal zones of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov most affected, and particularly harming species of dolphins, mollusks, fish and migratory birds. The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam—analyzed in nearly forty percent of the reviewed studies—stands as a defining example of aquacide, with cascading effects on water quality, morphology, and species survival.

Monitoring under wartime conditions remains challenging, yet studies conducted in retaken or temporarily calm zones revealed exceedances across all measured indicators. Satellite imagery, though underutilized, proved to be a vital tool for documenting destruction, guiding restoration, modeling pollutant dispersion, and assessing public health risks. Future research should prioritize the validation of satellite-derived information with on-site sampling, the integration of hydrological and water-quality models, and the establishments of standardized monitoring frameworks.

Despite limitations in data access (publicly available reports) and reliance on secondary sources (with their heterogeneity, time gaps, and potential biases), this review fulfills its objectives: it maps the scale of aquatic destruction, identifies key regions and pollutants, and highlights the tools available for assessment. More importantly, it reveals that water has become both a victim and a weapon of war.

Restoring Ukraine’s water systems will require coordinated international efforts, combining technical expertise, scientific innovation, and policy action. Until then, halting aquacides, protecting infrastructure, and preserving water resources must remain urgent priorities, not only for Ukraine, but for the global community committed to environmental justice.