The Russian-Ukrainian war: theory and practice of sociological understanding


The article focuses on the main problematic issues in the formation of sociological discourse regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war. Attempts have been made to provide scientific answers to new challenges related to war, which appear much more slowly compared to media ones. The opinion that the issue of war becomes relevant only when a real war appears, and not its potential threat, is substantiated. It is outlined that war in world history is the norm, peace is rather an exception. It was determined that the fragile nature of peace and the constant military threat from Russia (now and in the future) poses the task of preventive and permanent, on a systematic basis, their research and analysis. A conceptual scheme for distinguishing two branches of sociological knowledge regarding military issues in the form of the sociology of war and the sociology of the army is proposed. Adaptation of N.J. Smelser’s four-level model of sociological analysis to the study of war and the army according to two criteria was carried out. It is argued that these four levels require their specification both theoretically and in selecting appropriate methods of empirical studies of the problems of war in general and the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war. A generalized table of empirical studies implemented by the country’s leading sociological centres since the beginning of the acute phase of Russian aggression is presented, with the conclusion of a significant predominance of the macro level of their implementation and the dominant use of quantitative methods. Subjects of scientific research on the other three levels of sociological analysis are proposed. Examples of international research projects by the YouGov company regarding assessing the level of assistance to Ukrainian refugees are given. The results of research conducted in Ukraine and Russia in parallel are presented, as it makes it possible to analyse the mirroring of the situation both in Ukraine and in the society of the aggressor country. It was found that the majority of studies carried out in Ukraine during a large-scale war reveal only certain aspects of modern war and the army (assessment of the level of trust in the armed forces, support for the president’s actions, citizens’ readiness to defend the Motherland, foreign policy orientations, social adaptation of the population, the level of their stress resistance etc.), which currently does not allow for the formation of a coherent architecture of sociological knowledge in the outlined stream. Based on research carried out during Russia’s large-scale aggression in Ukraine, the main thematic blocks have been identified, and their importance in the foundations of the sociology of war and the sociology of the army has been revealed. It is concluded that war is a complicated phenomenon for its professional understanding in sociology in the situation of its multi-paradigmity, therefore, the existing developments require professional discussion and effective discussions.

  1. Musiiezdov, O. (2016). The main question of sociology. Ukraina Moderna. URL: [in Ukrainian]

  2. Sobolevska, M. (2014). The order of the discourse of order: neofunctionalism and poststructuralism in modern sociological theory. Kyiv: Logos [in Ukrainian]

  3. Makeiev, S. (2019). Intellectuals: Three patterns of the attitude towards war. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing – Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 4, 158-177 [in Ukrainian]

  4. Stouffer, S., Suchman, E., DeVinney, L., Star, S., Williams, R. (1949). Studies in Social Psychology in World War II. The American Soldier. Adjustment During Army Life. Vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  5. Stouffer, S., Suchman, E., DeVinney, L., Star, S., Williams, R. (1949). Studies in Social Psychology in World War II. The American Soldier. Combat and Its Aftermath. Vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  6. Political encyclopedia. (2011). NAS of Ukraine, Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Kyiv: Parlam. edition. URL: [in Ukrainian]

  7. Huntington, S. (1957). The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-military Relations. USA: Harvard University Press.

  8. Janowitz, M. (1960). The professional soldier: A social and political portrait. New York: Free Press.

  9. Moskos, C. (1986). Institutional/occupational trends in armed forces: An update. Armed Forces and Society, 12/3, 377-382.

  10. Moskos, C. (2000). Towards a Postmodern Military: The United States as a Paradigm. In C. Moskos, J.A. Williams, D.R. Segal (Eds.), The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War (pp. 14-31). New York: Oxford University Press.

  11. Hoffman, F.G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

  12. Freier, N. (2009). The Defense Identity Crisis: It’s a Hybrid World. Parameters Autumn, 39 (3),  5-17.

  13. Hoffman, F.G. (2009). Hybrid Warfare and Challenges. Joint Force Quarterly, 52, 34-39.

  14. Heinecken, L. (2015). The Military, War and Society: the Need for Critical Sociological Engagement. Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies, 43, 1, 1-16.

  15. West, B., Matthewman, S. (2016). Towards a strong program in the sociology of war, the military and civil society. Journal of sociology, 52, 3, 482-499.

  16. Rushchenko, I.P. (2015). The Russian-Ukrainian hybrid war: a sociologist’s view. Kharkiv: FOP Pavlenko O.G. [in Ukrainian]

  17. Trebin, M.P. (2014). “Hybrid” war as a new Ukrainian reality. Ukr. socìum – Ukrainian Society, 3 (50), 113-127 [in Ukrainian]

  18. Afonin, E.A. (1994). Formation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine: social and socio-psychological problems. Institute of Sociology NAS of Ukraine. Kyiv: Intergrafik [in Ukrainian]

  19. Kalahin, Yu.A. (2008). Military service under contract: social dimension. Kharkiv: HUPS [in Ukrainian]

  20. Solnyshkina, A.A. (2009). Peculiarities of social problems of the military organization of Ukrainian society. Zaporizhzhia: Classic. private Univ. [in Ukrainian]

  21. Mazuryk, O.V. (2001). Modern trends in the reproduction of the army as a social institution (sociological aspect). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology NAS of Ukraine [in Ukrainian]

  22. Yakovenko, Yu.I., Hrynchuk, A.V. (2015). Sociology of the army as an alternative to military sociology. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia Sotsiolohichna – Visnyk of the Lviv University. Series Sociology, 9, 67-78 [in Ukrainian]

  23. Khobta, S.V. (2016). Sociology of war as a task for Ukrainian Sociology. Visnyk Luhanskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Sotsiolohichni nauky Scientific collection “Bulletin of Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University”. Sociological sciences, 5 (302), 126-150 [in Ukrainian]

  24. Kalahin, Yu.A. (2012). Development of military sociology. Methodology, theory and practice of sociological analysis of modern society, 18, 119-124 [in Ukrainian]

  25. Trebin, M.P. (2015). Sociology of war: the Ukrainian context. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina. Seriia: Sotsiolohichni doslidzhennia suchasnoho suspilstva: metodolohiia, teoriia, metodyVisnyk of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series “Sociological studies of contemporary society: methodology, theory, methods”, 1148, 34, 30-34 [in Ukrainian]

  26. Smelser, N.J. (2003). Problematics of Sociology: The Georg Simmel Lectures. Lviv: Kalvariia [in Ukrainian]

  27. Reznik, V. (2021). Analysis of research programs: a sociological perspective. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketingSociology: theory, methods, marketing, 4, 107 [in Ukrainian]

Full text