Feminist Foreign Policy for Ukraine – A Case of Hardship?
Introduction
Three months after Germany’s then-governing coalition decided to pursue a feminist foreign policy (FFP), Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February on 2022. With war returning to Europe, some commentators called for the end of feminist foreign policy before it had even really started. At first glance, such a judgment makes sense – many people do not associate feminism with war, but with the non-violent overcoming of social inequalities. Following this thinking, feminism can be understood as a political agenda for peacetime, but not for war.
However, this logic – stereotypical in its thinking – is based on three serious misconceptions. Firstly, it is an analytical fallacy to understand the feminist focus on non-violence as a form of defenselessness in the face of imperialist aggression (like the Russian invasion). Secondly, this stereotypical thinking does not do justice to the complex reality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the multi-layered gender dimensions of the war. In other words, who takes on which roles in the war and who is affected by which consequences is often mitigated along the fault-line of gender. For example, women are significantly more affected by the negative domestic consequences of war, such as displacement, sexualized violence and poverty, while men continue to do most of the fighting. These differences usually only become visible when looking through a feminist lens – and only once these dynamics are visible, can they be addressed in policy.
A third fallacy that follows the incorrect assumption of FFP as only applicable in times of peace, is this: this way of thinking leaves no room for the perspectives of Ukrainian feminists and thus marginalizes the voices of those most affected by the war. However, anyone who listens carefully to these voices quickly realizes that Russia’s war against Ukraine urgently needs feminist analyses and answers – including from foreign supporters of Ukraine. A research project at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi), working closely together with Ukrainian feminists, explored what this international support could concretely look like. The results show that FFP offers a variety of instruments to back Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s patriarchal aggression, as well as ways to support Ukrainian feminist civil society in mitigating the negative social consequences of the war and militarization.
German Debates vs. Ukrainian Realities
The clarion call Ukrainian feminists are sounding to ask the international community to provide simultaneous military and civilian support for Ukraine is hardly echoed in German debates. Quite the opposite: feminism is rarely misrepresented and simplified more than in the debate about the Russian war against Ukraine. The war has sparked heated discussions between opponents and supporters of feminist foreign policy, as well as discord within the feminist community. At the heart of these debates is the question of whether military support for Ukraine can be reconciled with feminist principles. German feminist celebrities such as Alice Schwarzer have famously negated this question in a series of open letters and demonstrations.
When looking at the history of feminist thought, this positioning is not necessarily surprising: decades of feminist research show in detail how militarism promotes violence and simultaneously cements patriarchal social relations. As such, Ukrainian feminists also emphatically caution for the negative consequences of militarization, such as increasing domestic violence. Nevertheless, they are aware of the context in which they find themselves and the dilemma they face: either Ukraine defends and militarizes itself, or it is forcibly militarized by Russian occupying forces. That the vast majority chooses their own militarization when pressed should not be surprising to anyone. Still, the German debate is astonishingly ignorant of this clear positioning. Much of the public debate continues to cling to theoretical debates on military support and whether this is ethical from a feminist perspective – this also means that the debate shies away from exploring FFP’s potential for action in Ukraine.
Feminist Foreign Policy in Theory and Practice
Feminist support for Ukraine is not only provided by states that are committed to a feminist foreign policy. However, what sets feminist foreign policy apart is that it does not see feminism as a sub-division of foreign policy, but rather as its core concern. Ideally, this is backed up with corresponding political capital and resources. In theory, feminist foreign policy is an approach that places gender equality, the rights of marginalized groups and human security at the heart of international politics. It questions existing power structures, emphasizes inclusion and diversity in decision-making processes and expands the conventional understanding of security by prioritizing violence prevention, sustainable peace and social justice. In contrast to conventional foreign policy, which is often more militaristic and nationalistic, a feminist foreign policy strives for cooperation and combats structural inequalities as well as the root causes of violence.
The actual implementation of feminist foreign policy by nation-states usually deviates from and falls short of its theoretical potential. Nevertheless, we can observe real political change when countries – now 13, in the case of Ukraine – sign on to feminist foreign policy. Such a declaration usually includes different strains of action, operating on several levels: (1) promoting equality and diversity within foreign policy ministerial bureaucracies, (2) exerting influence on foreign policy decisions, (3) prioritizing the inclusion of marginalized groups in diplomatic consultations and negotiations, and (4) centering the needs of marginalized groups as well as those of feminist civil society in programmatic work (e.g. in humanitarian aid and peacebuilding).
Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice: Political Decisions and Feminist Diplomacy
When it comes to the implementation of a feminist foreign policy for Ukraine, the last three abovementioned levels are particularly relevant. As explained above, the decision to provide military support to Ukraine is consistent with feminist principles. Given the reality of life under Russian occupation and Russia’s openly anti-feminist political agenda, many Ukrainian feminists are even calling for stronger military support to enable Ukraine to recapture more territory. Regarding daily diplomacy (point 3), there is an opportunity to involve feminist civil society as well as marginalized groups in the activities of embassies and consulates. One way this could be facilitated is by setting up regular and institutionalized exchange between embassies in Kyiv and representatives of marginalized groups in order to understand their needs and, if necessary, address them directly or report them to diplomatic headquarters.
A more contested element of FPP towards Ukraine would likely be promoting a feminist perspective on the process of ceasefire or peace negotiations. It is not yet clear whether and when such negotiations will take place. But should they take place, robust findings from peace and conflict research show that the inclusion of women in peace negotiations increases the likelihood of sustainable peace. Having a diverse range of delegates is therefore crucial – something that should be on everyone’s radar when organizing possible negotiations between Ukraine, Russia and potential third countries.
Furthermore, experience from the Donbas conflict (2014−2022) teaches us that the freezing of the former conflict line had significant gendered consequences. For example, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Amnesty International reported widespread sexualized violence against women in the occupied territories and at border crossings with Ukraine. Should a ceasefire agreement be reached and should a new borderline with defined border crossings be mapped out, it should be stipulated that these border crossings are staffed with international, and gender-mixed personnel – to prevent more sexualized violence. From a feminist perspective, it is imperative to take these arrangements into account in future negotiations.
Feminist Approaches to Humanitarian Aid, Peacebuilding and Reconstruction
Theoretical discourse on possible peace negotiations aside, one thing that is happening in real time and must be addressed as soon as possible, are the gendered consequences of Russia’s aggression. Similarly, other intersections of identity, such as sexuality, gender identity and (dis)ability, affect life under war, access to aid, physical security and the possibility to find refuge.
As part of the project “Feminist Perspectives for Supporting Ukraine”, we at GPPi explored these consequences together with feminists from Ukraine and elsewhere (Maryna Shevtsova, Galyna Kotliuk, Yuliia Siedaia, Hanna Hrytsenko, Kseniya Oksamytna and Felicity Gray) and developed recommendations for action for feminist supporters of Ukraine. The findings illustrate the scope of action foreign ministries have access to by way of their programmatic work in the areas of humanitarian aid, peacebuilding and reconstruction.
One of the project’s central starting points was to take into account the specific needs of marginalized groups. For example, the challenges LGBTQ+ internally displaced people (IDPs) in Ukraine are worth noting and in need of addressing. Queer IDPs are often affected by a double marginalization. For instance, no only have they been forcibly displaced from their homes, many are then also discriminated against on the housing market for being queer when seeking new accommodation. International actors can intervene here by creating safe spaces, offering psycho-social support and ensuring access to legal protection. Another group of marginalized and often forgotten Ukrainians are individuals with disabilities. A thorough look at their daily reality shows that the Russian aggression is adding significant strain on the already fragile support system in Ukraine; the war limits resources while increasing the number of people with disabilities. In addition, the specific needs of people with disabilities are often overlooked by both their own government and international supporters. For example, there are hardly any wheelchair-accessible air-raid shelters or other accommodation for IDPs with a disability. Another oversight is the fact that Ukrainians with hearing impairments cannot currently be warned of rockets, drones and artillery; they can’t hear the sirens that are tasked to alert the population. A simple solution could be the distribution of smartwatches to people with hearing impairments.
Another key issue we found is gender-based violence in Ukraine. Since 2014, but even more so since 2022, we have seen how sexualized violence is used as a weapon of war and how domestic violence increases drastically in times of war. These forms of violence are not merely individual crimes – they are based in gendered power structures and social norms that legitimize violence, and are reinforced by war. In addition, war-related poverty and trauma also contribute to an increase in domestic violence. Regarding sexualized violence perpetrated by Russian troops, there is only one preventive measure that Ukraine and its supporters can take: the liberation of occupied territories. When it comes to domestic violence, however, there is a larger toolbox available to Ukrainian and international actors. These include programs for medical, psychological and legal support for victims, as well as campaigns to destigmatize gender-based violence. These can create a social climate in which those affected are more likely to ask for help and are empowered to leave violent partners.
The role of women in defense and in the civilian security sector is another area that should be analyzed from a feminist perspective. Women in Ukraine are increasingly taking on military jobs, but their needs are not being adequately addressed. The consequences of a lack of sensitivity towards women in the military range greatly: from a lack of physical protective gear that fits female bodies, to inadequate medical and psychological care, to a dearth of social recognition of their achievements. This dynamic reflects a deeper problem: although the achievements of women in the military are increasingly visible, they are not as socially valued as the achievements of their male comrades. Women often experience discrimination and sexist insults during and after their time in the military. Women in the civilian security sector, particularly those in the national police and state emergency services (such as the fire department), face similar difficulties. All these institutions play a central role in the resilience of Ukrainian society and receive significant support from international donors – but the working conditions for women and the mental health of their employees often go unaddressed. This is one area in need of improvement. Additionally, training on human rights, gender equality and inclusion can help to sensitize civil security actors to dealing with marginalized population groups. Confidence-building measures between the population and security agencies in frontline areas are also important to better protect the particularly vulnerable population there.
When looking at how political power is (re-)distributed across the axis of gender, it becomes apparent how much war changes social and political power structures. Although women are increasingly assuming responsibility in formal as well as informal local and regional political structures, their political participation is noticeably hindered in other spheres. Martial law as well as a wartime increase in securitizing civilian decision-making structures throw up structural hurdles for women to enter certain political domains in times of conflict and potentially beyond. What’s more, women are often confronted with “softer” hurdles to power, including a lack of political network or sexist stereotypes of women’s ability to lead. In our research, we suggested a number of initial reforms that could ease women’s access to power – and ensure that this access is safeguarded after the war ends. These suggested reforms include (1) the creation of networking and mentoring programs, (2) educational initiatives and (3) the creation of institutional frameworks (especially within political parties) that aim to enshrine gender equity.
Our macro-analysis also reveals that international aid measures are often fundamentally not designed or rolled out in a gender-sensitive manner. Although many programs aim to provide humanitarian aid quickly, they do not sufficiently take the gender-specific impact of their measures into account. This leads to both an unequal distribution of resources short-term and a reinforcement of existing inequalities long-term. A feminist approach to international aid would require systematic consideration of gender-specific dynamics in the planning, implementation and evaluation of such programs. In order to affect these changes, a number of fundamental adjustments are in order; not only should local actors be more closely involved, but international aid teams should be trained in and sensitized to gender as a factor that impacts their work.
Conclusion
These examples demonstrate that taking on a feminist perspective is important not only in times of peace but especially in times of war. Russia’s war against Ukraine is profoundly gendered and affects marginalized groups differently than the majority of society. This only becomes visible through a feminist analysis, which is, in turn, necessary to address the issue. Feminist foreign policy can be a way to direct political capital and resources to those who are currently underserved and fall through the cracks. The fact that such action is lacking indicates a lack of commitment to feminist foreign policy that should – however – not distract from its potential; Russia’s war against Ukraine should be seen as an opportunity to prove the merits of feminist foreign policy rather than a challenging hardship.
The feminist debate on Russia’s war against Ukraine also illustrates how critical local voices and perspectives are for analytical clarity in controversial debates – with a clear example being the tension between militarization and feminism, addressed above. Most Ukrainian feminists are clear on the fact that the militarization of their country has negative gender-specific consequences, but at the same time there is no alternative. Not defending their country is not an option. This pragmatism shows that it is indeed possible to wage an emancipatory defensive war while at the same time actively combatting the negative social effects of domestic militarization. We should demonstrate the same pragmatism in our support for Ukraine.
This piece was originally published in German by Ukraine-Analysen on February 4, 2025.
