By Caroline Thomas – Rise to Peace Fellow

In recent years, researchers, policymakers, and journalists have increasingly had to ask a troubling question: why are young men disproportionately represented in extremist movements, particularly those operating online? While radicalization is never the result of one single factor, there is a recurring pattern that is emerging across different ideologies and platforms. Extremist narratives are especially effective at exploiting crises of masculinity, status anxiety, and unresolved identity formation among young men.

Extremist movements offer emotional stories that frame grievances as social injustice, insecurity as awareness, and anger as strength. In digital spaces, identity, status, and belonging are increasingly sought after and perpetuated by algorithms. Because of this, extremist groups have developed skills in turning personal frustrations into political radicalization.

This post will examine how grievance-based masculinity functions as a tool of recruitment in online extremism, why young men are particularly vulnerable during stages of identity formation, and how extremist groups frame themselves as sources of strength and purpose in an era of perceived masculine decline.

Identity Formation

The process of identity formation during the adolescent period and early adulthood is plagued with uncertainty, experimentation, and social comparison. However, significant factors of identity formation have changed, including where the process occurs and how it unfolds, especially now in an era where social media is a major part of daily life. For many young men across the globe who are experiencing identity formation, digital spaces are becoming the primary arena for construction of identity, social validation, and finding purpose.

Additionally, there are main traditional markers and norms of masculinity, including stable employment, independence, family formation, and social status. These markers have become delayed or inaccessible to young men in recent years, causing crises in ego and masculinity. Research suggests that young men today are more likely than ever to experience unemployment, declining wages, and social isolation. These grievances have resulted in many of society’s young men to feel a lack of purpose or belonging. Additionally, in-person participation in civic organizations, religious groups, and community centers has severely declined, essentially forcing adolescent men to turn to online spaces for belonging and mentorship.

Thus, online platforms can intensify the process of identity formation. Social comparison becomes a quantifiable amount, through likes, followers, and engagement analytics as key indicators for users of “status.” For many young men on the internet who are seeking recognition offline and are struggling to achieve it, these digital numbers become indicators of self-worth and purpose. Many studies on social media and mental health suggest that these feedback loops of likes and followers can actually exacerbate feelings of inadequacy and resentment towards society.

Extremist groups are aware of this toxic digital cycle as well. This is why one of their main goals is to frame themselves as more than ideological groups, but as communities who promise social recognition, hierarchy, and purpose, which are often framed through traditionally masculine principles. Additionally, these groups are aware of these social factors that lead to an individual being vulnerable to terrorist recruitment, and they are skilled in capitalizing on these vulnerabilities. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “‘targeted advertising’ is the tracking of online behaviour of Internet users, in which a group can identify those vulnerable to its propaganda and tailor the narrative to suit its target audience”. Thus, in the stages of identity formation, where young men are already vulnerable, extremist groups are preying on adolescent weakness in order to advance their agenda.

Grievance-Based Masculinity

Modern extremist movements have begun to adopt a narrative of “grievance-based masculinity,” which is the belief that men, but particularly young men, are being systematically disrespected and emasculated by social change. These narratives are taking place in what has become known as the “manosphere,” which is “a loose network of communities that claim to address men’s struggles – dating, fitness or fatherhood, for example – but often promote harmful advice and attitudes”. There are two major prongs of grievance-based masculinity, which are injustice and victimhood.

Injustice: This prong is a “dynamic state of identity threat in which men perceive themselves as falling short of idealized masculine norms”. When this happens, the perspective is shifted from feelings of inadequacy to feelings of injustice from social structures. It is a feeling of being morally entitled to reclaim something that has been lost. In this case, it is status, masculinity, and identity.

Victimhood: The other important piece of grievance-based masculinity is the belief that men as a whole are being treated unfairly and are being misrepresented across society. This perspective of victimhood frames male suffering as a product of a systemically biased society, therefore categorizing them as “victims of the system.” Men who are indoctrinated by this ideology feel that they have been wronged by society, prompting revenge and retaliation.

Grievance-based masculinity is one of the main drivers for young men to join extremist organizations, as they feel they provide outlets and tools for them to combat the perceived ills of society. Additionally, rather than encouraging self-reflection and analysis, extremist narratives redirect frustration to external causes, utilizing scapegoats and creating collective enemies. Their members become victims no longer, but they are framed as misunderstood individuals seeking the real truth that others are too weak and naive to face. The narratives that stem from grievance-based masculinity turn insecurity into superiority, which, in the long run, makes disengaging from these groups extremely difficult.

Promise of Purpose

 Another pillar of extremist groups’ propaganda is the promise of finding purpose within the group. This targets young men in society seeking to find belonging, mentorship, and community, that they may be struggling to find in offline forums. Groups emphasize discipline, sacrifice, and strength, while diminishing “weak” or “feminized” characteristics of society. Jessica Mueller, from Alliant International Symposium, stated that terror groups begin “when individuals are facing personal turmoil or experiencing feelings of discrimination or alienation. Such factors make them more receptive to new ideas”. As such, extremist organizations are well versed in seeking out these individuals who may be susceptible to recruitment.

The Islamic State, or ISIS/ISIL, actually recruits members directly on social media. Through analyzing the content they engage with, the online forums or groups they are members of, and the content of their actual posts, extremist groups are able to identify potential recruits to contact. This demonstrates how well-adapted these groups are in utilizing digital forums and evaluating key profile indicators to advance their cause.

Algorithmic Pipelines

Online platforms are not without blame, either. These forums themselves actually play a major role in amplifying the ideology of grievance-based masculinity. Recommendation algorithms are designed to maximize engagement, and they often favor emotionally charged content. Many say that it is a “slippery slope” for young men to fall into online radicalization. They could be searching for fitness content or discussions about masculinity, and then, they could be exposed to radical material through algorithmic escalation.

This process is gradual, and oftentimes, it does not begin with outward extremism. It begins with content that is depicted as “self-help” or “truth-telling,” which is a method for gaining traction with the viewers and establishing a sense of credibility with them. Then, these narratives begin to incorporate larger and more intense grievance-based themes, like misogyny, racial disparities, or conspiracy theories. This is known as the “radicalization pipeline,” where users are not thrown in the deep end, so to speak, of extremist content, but rather, they are gradually exposed to it.

In addition to this algorithmic pipeline, there is an extra layer of privacy and encryption on certain platforms, such as Discord and Telegram. Once inside these “closed” communities, ideologies are essentially policed. Members are rewarded for conformity with group ideologies, and dissent is portrayed as weakness and betrayal to the group. This is where “echo chambers” develop, which are environments where a person only interacts with opinions or ideas that are the same as their own, and dissent is not common. These types of environments create social incentives to remain not only engaged, but ideologically in line with the group.

Case Study: Christchurch

The 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks in New Zealand is one of the clearest examples of online radicalization translating into real world violence. Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator, was radicalized not through traditional extremist networks, but through transnational online extremist forums, which shows how digital spaces have become pipelines for radicalization. Tarrant belonged to many online white supremacist forums, which included image boards and memes, which blend extremist ideology with humor and irony. These forums frame issues of racism and violence as expressions of strength and masculinity. Environments such as this normalize extremist beliefs and present them as “truths” that mainstream society is too blind to see.

Tarrant’s digital footprint was plagued with grievance-based masculinity. His manifestos were shaped around themes of humiliation and displacement, particularly due to immigration and demographic change. He did not see himself as marginalized, but as a “warrior-defender” which was an identity centered around turning insecurity into purpose. This is a prime example of how extremist organizations reframe personal anxieties into a call to action. Additionally, Christchurch emphasizes how online extremist communities reward ideological escalation. The forums of which Tarrant was a member encouraged performative extremism, including violence, as a way to gain credibility within the group. Following the attack, Tarrant was praised in these online spaces and his persona was turned into memes and other coded language, showing others the social gratification they too would receive if they did something similar. This phenomenon is called “networked lone-actor terrorism” where an individual may carry out an attack alone, but they are deeply embedded in online extremist networks.

Christchurch demonstrates how modern extremist violence can emerge without centralized control, and instead, rely on digital narratives surrounding masculinity and grievance as a call to action. It highlights the shortcomings, including Tarrant’s prolonged online exposure and clear warning signs that did not go challenged on digital forums. Ultimately, it underscores a key shift in contemporary terrorist acts, as radicalization no longer requires physical proximity to a group or formal membership. Today, radicalization can occur through amplification of algorithms and online communities, and these mechanisms are sufficient enough to turn grievance into violence.

How do we counter this?

It is important for us to note that online radicalization is not the moral failure of one individual, but it is a social process that is shaped by networks, narratives, and environments that are cultivated on the digital platforms we use everyday. Young men are often drawn into these extremist spaces because of feelings of uncertainty, isolation, and loss of direction. Extremist groups offer emotional explanations for these experiences, even though many of these explanations are harmful and false. They externalize blame and simplify social dynamics in order to provide a sense of clarity for prospective members. It is critical to understand the process of radicalization in order to know how to disrupt it.

Countering radicalization requires a holistic approach. It is critical that young men are exposed to alternative communities where they can find purpose and belonging that are not harmful, but uplifting. In these communities, positive male mentorship and digital literacy programs can interrupt these pathways towards extremism and shift to positive identity building for young men.

In addition to countering online radicalization, it is also critical that masculinity is addressed. Masculinity must be framed as a piece of one’s identity that can be expressed in healthier ways. However, direct counter-messaging, which is a focus on debunking extremist claims often backfires and causes increased defensiveness and less openness to a change in perspective. A more effective approach is to adopt alternative models of masculinity that place value on responsibility, resilience, and community engagement without relying on exclusion or male domination.

Additionally, it is equally important to advocate to major digital platforms for increased transparency around algorithm systems, stronger moderation systems for hate-based communities, and more support and amplification of positive content. While grassroots work is important in addressing the root causes of radicalization, digital platforms also need to invest in anti-extremism efforts.

The exploitation of young men through online radicalization is not an accident, but a deliberate strategy by extremist organizations to advance their cause. Thus, it is a critical time to shift focus to positive identity development for young men. Addressing the challenge requires a deeper understanding of the constructs of masculinity and how it is contested and exploited in digital forums. By engaging in these underlying dynamics, communities can reduce the appeal of extremist movements and develop healthy pathways for young men to navigate identity formation in a digital age.

By Mildred Miranda – Rise to Peace Fellow

The assassination of Charlie Kirk by Tyler James Robinson on September 10, 2025, serves as a reminder that violent acts often arise from complex personal, social, and emotional dynamics rather than ideology alone. The case of Robinson shows that personal grievances, identity stress, social isolation, and emotional frustration played a far more central role than political or ideological beliefs. The role of ideology is often limited to providing a narrative frame that explains behavior after the fact, rather than being a primary cause of violence.

The patterns observed in lone-actor cases indicate that monitoring the development of grievances, interpersonal conflicts, and emotional strain allows families, schools, and communities, to intervene before violence occurs. The implementation of early intervention can reduce risk before personal frustrations escalate into violent action. The evidence from lone-actor cases demonstrates that addressing relational and emotional stressors, rather than symbolic or ideological narratives, improves the effectiveness of intervention strategies.  The understanding of these processes equips communities to provide support, strengthen resilience, and reduce the likelihood of violent acts.

Lone Actor Violence and Ideology

The trajectory of lone actors often begins with personal frustration, isolation, or perceived injustice with ideology emerging later to legitimize pre-existing emotional motivations. The actions of Robinson appear to have been influenced more by moral anger and personal grievances than by political beliefs.

The patterns observed in other high-profile cases of lone-actor violence show similar dynamics. The case of Dylann Roof, who killed nine people at the Emanuel AME Church, combined social isolation, identity insecurity, and a white supremacist ideology. The attacks carried out by Anders Breivik in 2011 fused personal grievances with anti-immigrant ideology, framing his violent actions as a moral mission.  The 2015 San Bernardino attack reflects a comparable trajectory, in which individual frustrations intersected with extremist narratives to motivate violent behavior.

The evidence from these cases demonstrates that ideology alone rarely explains lone actor violence. The exclusive focus on ideology can obscure emotional, relational, and identity-related pressures that contribute to violent behavior. The understanding of how personal grievance and ideological framing interact is critical for effective prevention. The implementation of programs emphasizing emotional regulation, social connection, and family support is often more effective than efforts that attempt to counter ideology alone.

Family Conflict as a Catalyst

The role of family dynamics is a major factor in shaping vulnerability to violent behavior. The presence of persistent conflict, rejection, or lack of support increases stress and can amplify existing grievances. The disagreements Robinson had with his conservative family regarding politics and personal relationships, including his partnership with a transgender individual, highlight these dynamics. The resulting tensions are likely to increase feelings of isolation and resentment.

The recurrence of family tension is evident in many lone actor cases. The experiences of Roof demonstrate how family conflict and social isolation contributed to feelings of alienation. The reports from Breivik indicate that distant and conflicted relationships with parents and peers, which may have intensified his sense of marginalization. The personal frustration and family estrangement of Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, also played a role in shaping his worldview and willingness to act violently.

The use of family-centered interventions can help reduce these risks. The provision of counseling, mediation, and culturally competent support allows families to address relational stress before grievances escalate.  The involvement of families as active partners in prevention, rather than context for risk, is essential. The guidance on recognizing warning signs, communicating effectively, and engaging in conflict resolution, combined with strong family cohesion, open dialogue, and consistent emotional support, can prevent personal frustration from escalating into violent intent.

Identity Strain and Moral Stress

The experience of identity strain occurs when personal experiences, beliefs, or roles conflict with family or social expectations. The resulting stress can become a key driver of grievance and moral outrage. The conflicts Robinson faced regarding relationships, politics, and gender dynamics likely contributed to his perception of moral threat. The analysis of many hybrids lone-actor cases shows that identity stress often forms the emotional foundation onto which ideology attaches.  

The case of Dylan Roof shows how racial anxieties and social insecurities heightened his sense of threat, later framed by ideology as a moral mission. The experiences of Anders Breivik reflect social marginalization combined with identity stress, which he used to justify his attacks. The San Bernardino attackers similarly fused personal frustration with extremist ideology, creating moral certainty that encouraged violence.

The recognition of identity strain as an early warning sign is critical. The observation by schools, families, and communities of conflicts between personal identity and societal expectations allows for guidance, counseling, and mentoring. The provision of structured support for self-esteem, social skills, and healthy identity expression can prevent emotional pressure from escalating into grievance. The mitigation of identity strain at an early stage can reduce the risk of radicalization.

Community and Peer Networks

The absence of strong family support often leads individuals to seek belonging and validation through peers or online communities. The formation of these chosen families can provide emotional support while also reinforcing grievances and moral certainty. The networks associated with Robinson reportedly strengthened his negative worldviews and moral justification for violent action.

The dual dynamic of emotional support and grievance reinforcement is common across cases of lone-actor violence. The online networks of the Christchurch shooter amplified extremist beliefs and facilitated planning. The Boston Marathon bombers were influenced by peer groups and online content that validated personal and political grievances. The presence of small, insular peer circles in other cases reinforced a sense of moral mission and deepened isolation from moderating social influences.

The prevention of these risks can be achieved by offering non-ideological social networks. The availability of mentoring programs, youth groups, and community counseling allow individuals to experience belonging without reinforcing hostile narratives. The engagement in activities such as sports, arts, volunteering, and peer-led discussion groups provide alternative social connections that reduce grievance escalation. The cultivation of inclusive and connected communities increases resilience against radicalization and lone-actor violence.

Digital Radicalization and Emotional Escalation

The digital environment has become central to the lives of many individuals experiencing isolation or identity strain. The structure of online platforms can intensify anger, amplify grievances, and create echo chambers in which moral certainty grows unchecked. The online activity attributed to Robinson reportedly reinforced his sense of moral certainty and limited exposure to moderating perspectives.

The examination of other cases highlights the power of online reinforcement. The Christchurch attacker used online forums and live streaming to validate and publicize his actions. The San Bernardino perpetrators were influenced by extremist online content that reinforced their motivations. The acceleration of emotional escalation through these platforms can normalize extreme behavior.

The prevention of violence must address both the emotional and informational dimensions of online engagement. The implementation of digital literacy programs, emotional regulation training, and online mentoring can reduce the impact of harmful content. The encouragement of critical thinking, empathy, and exposure to diverse perspectives online allows individuals to manage strong emotions without escalating grievances into violence. The integration of digital awareness into broader prevention frameworks strengthens resilience against radicalization.

From Grievance to Action

The progression toward violent action typically follows a recognizable pattern. The accumulation of personal grievances, combined with social and online feedback, amplifies emotions while moral framing transforms frustration into perceived justification for action. The trajectory of Robinson followed this sequence, as family conflict, identity stress, and online reinforcement converged to produce moral clarity around perceived threats.

The ability to understand these stages is critical for effective intervention. The capacity of families, schools, and practitioners to identify the progression from grievance to action allows for earlier intervention. The emotional and relational pressures can be mitigated before they escalate into violence. The focus on a process-oriented approach prioritizes prevention and helps lower the likelihood of violent escalation.

Recurrent Patterns in High-Profile Lone-Actor

The examination of several high-profile cases of hybrid lone-actor violence reveals a recurring pattern in which perpetrators experience social isolation, family conflict, and identity strain before ideology enters their narrative. The actions of Dylann Roof were shaped by personal alienation and racial insecurity, with white supremacist ideology serving more as moral justification than as the initial catalyst. The case of Anders Breivik similarly reflects the fusion of personal grievance and anti-immigrant beliefs during the planning of violence. The San Bernardino attackers demonstrate how marital, social, and emotional stress intersected with extremist narratives to construct a perceived moral mission. The resentment and estrangement Timothy McVeigh experienced within his family environment contributed to his willingness to commit violence, while ideology provided contextual framing. The Christchurch shooting demonstrates how online networks and echo chambers can strengthen moral certainty and support operational planning for individuals who are already isolated. The consistency across these cases indicates that personal grievance, identity stress, family conflict, and social reinforcement often precede and shape how ideology frames lone-actor violence.

Systemic Gaps in Prevention

The Robinson case highlights systemic gaps in prevention and response. The families involved noticed changes but often lacked clear guidance or referral pathways. The schools, mental health services, and community organizations continue to operate in isolation. The online platforms may detect concerning behavior but frequently face legal and privacy constraints.

The implementation of effective prevention requires coordinated approaches. The use of multi-agency threat assessment models integrate families, schools, healthcare, community groups, and digital platforms. The sharing of information allows early identification of warning signs and proactive intervention. The combination of individual-level support with systemic coordination addresses relational, emotional, and digital dimensions simultaneously.

Prevention and Intervention in Practice

The implementation of practical strategies can reduce lone actor risk. The role of families includes maintaining open communication, monitoring changes in behavior, and seeking counseling when necessary. The training of school staff to recognize identity strain, social withdrawal, and emotional stress is essential. The development of peer mentoring programs, inclusive youth groups, and safe spaces allows communities to support healthy engagement discussion.

The role of digital interventions is crucial in prevention. The focus on online literacy, emotional regulation, and responsible social media use can help curb the amplification of grievances in echo chambers. The guidance of mentors and counselors can support individuals in managing online interactions and regulating emotional responses.

The training of law enforcement and mental health professionals to understand the interplay of family conflict, identity strain, social networks, and online influence ensures more effective threat assessment. The most effective prevention combines family, community, and digital support, rather than relying on ideological monitoring.

Policy Implications

The focus of policies should be on emotional and relational warning signs rather than ideology alone. The key recommendations include funding family and community support such as counseling and mediation, strengthening peer support and mentorship programs, and offering digital literacy and emotional regulation training. The coordination of threat assessment should span families, schools, healthcare, and online platforms, while peacebuilding efforts should aim to increase social cohesion and reduce polarization. The addressing of emotional, relational, and social factors, policies can help lower the risk of hybrid lone‑actor violence and build stronger, more resilient communities.

The explanation offered by forensic psychiatrist Dr. Hans Watson emphasizes that mass violence is rarely the result of sudden mental illness. The acts are typically planned and calculated, and most perpetrators do not meet the criteria for severe mental disorders. The radicalization pathway he describes begins with early confusion around authority, identity, and social roles, followed by limited exposure to adversity that impedes the development of healthy coping skills, accountability, and self-reflection.

The resulting breakdown in self-reflection encourages externalization of blame, leading individuals to construct imagined narratives of victimhood and persecution. The failure to recognize personal limitations, discomfort, or relational challenges leads individuals to reinterpret internal distress as evidence of hostile actions, by external forces. The escalation of this narrative requires increasing detachment from reality, reinforcing a worldview build on perceived attacks rather than lived evidence.

The convergence of these dynamics can culminate in what Dr. Watson identifies as narcissistic rage, in which personalized grievances, sometimes shaped by political or ideological identities, become morally justified and emotionally charged. The presence of intervention at any stage of this process can disrupt the trajectory toward radicalization and reduce the likelihood of violence.

The White House reports that President Trump views radical left-wing organizations as responsible for the attack. The administration has announced plans for a strong response, with Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller overseeing the creation and rollout of the strategy. The administration plans to focus public attention on what it characterizes as an organized campaign culminating in the assassination, according to senior officials.  The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security are expected to utilize all available resources to identify, interrupt, and neutralize these networks. The measures are emphasized by officials intended to protect public safety and uphold the rule of law.

The assessment by a DOJ domestic terrorism expert confirms that the attack meets criteria for domestic terrorism. The absence of a specific federal domestic terrorism statute may limit federal prosecutorial options, with state authorities expected to lead the case and the FBI providing supplementary support. The assessment offered by Robert Pape positions the assassination of Charlie Kirk as part of a broader national pattern of political violence rather than an isolated event. The portrayal of the shooter as motivated in some analyses as driven by liberal ideology advances claims that broad networks of left-leaning groups are encouraging terrorism in ways often compared to ISIS.

The analysis by Robert Pape, a leading authority on political violence with more than 30 years of research on groups like Al-Qaeda, emphasizes that terms like ‘disrupt’ and ‘dismantle’  are typically used to describe actions against organized terrorist networks and their operational hubs. The concern he raises is that labeling domestic political figures in this manner could generate unnecessary public anxiety, particularly among the estimated 75-80 million Americans who identify as Democrats. The year prior saw the United States experience two assassination attempts targeting Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The current political landscape is described by Pape as an era of violent populism defined by increased in political violence across ideological spectrum.

The Charlie Kirk case shows that violence is frequently rooted in personal grievance, relational breakdown, identity strain, and online reinforcement, with ideology playing a secondary, framing role. The capacity to prevent lone-actor violence rests on early warning detection, relational and emotional support, and continued community engagement. The focus on relationships and processes, rather than symbolic or ideological markers, helps individuals regulate emotions, strengthen social bonds, and address grievances before they escalate into harm.

By Alex Fitzgerald – Rise to Peace Fellow


While the massive arctic storm swept across the entire continent over the weekend of the 25^th to the 27^th of January, it was not enough to douse the fire that is burning in Minneapolis. While the protests that increased drastically following an ICE involved killing were occurring, the national attention was elsewhere due to the issues of larger protests against the Iranian regime, Donald Trump’s veiled threats on European countries in his attempt to control Greenland, and the wake of the apprehension of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. But, after two and a half weeks of non-stop protesting across the twin cities area following the death of Renee Good, attention was turned back to the mid-west. Not only due to the ending of the aforementioned events, but also because the winter storm that was incoming forced everyone to stay home during the weekend. Therefore, when another death in an ICE involved shooting occurred in broad daylight in front of onlookers, the whole nation saw. The shooting was recorded by multiple witnesses and was even more central in its location of what became the coldest city in America over the weekend. VA nurse Alex Pretti was shot ten times after being taken down by ICE agents, most of which were fired while he already lay motionless. Per the New York Times:

“At this moment, Mr. Pretti has both hands clearly visible. One is holding his phone, while he holds the other up to protect himself from pepper spray. He moves to help one of the protesters who was sprayed, as other agents approach and pull him from behind. Several agents tussle with Mr. Pretti before bringing him to his knees. He appears to resist as the agents grab his legs, push down on his back and strike him repeatedly. The footage shows an agent approaching with empty hands and grabbing Mr. Pretti as the others hold him down. About eight seconds after he is pinned, agents yell that he has a gun, indicating that they may not have known he was armed until he was on the ground. The same agent who approached with empty hands pulls a gun from among the group that appears to match the profile of a firearm DHS said belonged to Mr. Pretti. The agents appear to have him under their control, with his arms pinned near his head. As the gun emerges from the melee, another agent aims his own firearm at Mr. Pretti’s back and appears to fire one shot at close range. He then appears to continue firing at Mr. Pretti, who collapses. A third agent unholsters a weapon. Both agents appear to fire additional shots into Mr. Pretti as he lies motionless. In total, at least 10 shots appear to have been fired within five seconds.”[1]

 While this video itself was shocking and calls into question the supposed “absolute immunity” that Kristie Noem’s DHS has touted, what followed as a reaction to the shooting was just as alarming but also odd. There were multiple claims by the Trump administration in official capacities and on social media that Alex Pretti was attempting to draw his weapon on the ICE agents, but the video clearly shows different. The gun, a Sig Sauer 9mm handgun with a tactical configuration, nothing out of the ordinary in the open carry state of Minnesota, became the central focus point of every analysis of the shooting; that is, the only gun that did not go off. Therein began a discourse on social media, morning news networks, and even within Capitol Hill that would make the staunchest conservative from the Obama era scratch their heads.

As the argument about the second amendment was unleashed upon the American populace once again, something strange happened: the roles became reversed. Prominent politicians from the right side of the aisle such as U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli claimed, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” Other right-wing influencers on X and other platforms questioned why Pretti was at a protest with a firearm. FBI director Kash Patel stated unprompted in a press conference that “you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to a protest,” and conservative news host Megyn Kelly quipped on her radio show, “I know I’m supposed to feel sorry for Alex Pretti, but I don’t. You know why I wasn’t shot by Border Patrol this weekend? Because I kept my ass inside and out of their operations.” [2]

 There were many technical analyses around the second amendment that went back and forth over the internet. Users online and Minneapolis officials were quick to refute Donald Trump’s statement about how Pretti approached ICE agents while brandishing, but the ones that stayed originally silent were of the most interest. It took several days for prominent influencers, gun-rights groups and other advocates, who had previously gained their following in their pursuit of preserving the right to bear arms, to actually speak out about the narrative coming from Republican officials. Meanwhile, Democrat lawmakers and scholars began to take the pro-gun side, such as legal scholar Mark Neily. Finally, the NRA sent out an X post that criticized Bill Essayli’s previously mentioned post and defended American’s rights to openly carry when legally allowed to do so. Along with the NRA, another prominent name appeared in defense of Pretti and against the administration’s pushback: Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, who was tried and found not guilty for the murder of two men after he crossed state lines with an assault rifle in 2020 to assist paramedics during the Kenosha riots, sent out a simple post on X which read “Carry Everywhere. It is your right. #Shallnotbeinfringed.”[3]

Through all of the chaos in the streets of Minneapolis, the gun argument that was exacerbated by the right seemed to take up all of the conversation around the shooting of Alex Pretti. In the days following the killing of Alex Pretti, the administration’s response to Minneapolis reflected a broader pattern that has characterized its approach to domestic unrest, immigration enforcement, and political dissent. Rather than focusing on de-escalation, transparency, or independent investigation, federal action centered on reinforcing law enforcement authority, controlling the narrative surrounding the protests, and expanding the operational footprint of federal agencies in the city. Minneapolis became less a site of mourning or accountability and more a symbolic battleground in the administration’s broader effort to project strength on issues of immigration, public order, and internal security.[4]

Within days of the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security announced an expansion of federal personnel operating in the Twin Cities under the justification of protecting federal property and personnel. This included increased ICE and Border Patrol presence, as well as coordination with other federal law enforcement units. While framed as a temporary security measure, the deployment had the practical effect of intensifying tensions on the ground. Protests continued, but they increasingly resembled confrontations between demonstrators and heavily armed federal officers rather than public assemblies aimed at political expression. The administration consistently described these deployments as necessary responses to “lawlessness,” avoiding direct engagement with questions surrounding Pretti’s death.[5]

At the same time, the administration resisted calls for an independent investigation into the shooting. Requests from Minnesota officials, civil rights organizations, and members of Congress for a special prosecutor or external review were either deflected or folded into internal DHS review mechanisms. Public statements emphasized that agents had acted “within protocol” pending investigation, reinforcing a presumption of justification before any findings were released. This stance deepened skepticism among protesters and community leaders, who viewed the process as inherently conflicted. Messaging from the White House and allied media outlets further shaped the administration’s approach. Minneapolis was repeatedly referenced as an example of what happens when “weak governance” meets immigration enforcement resistance. The protests were framed not as responses to a specific killing, but as part of a broader pattern of disorder allegedly encouraged by political opponents. This rhetorical strategy allowed the administration to sidestep the specifics of Pretti’s case while situating Minneapolis within a national narrative about security, borders, and authority.[6]

Legislatively, the administration leveraged the unrest to renew calls for expanded protections for federal agents and harsher penalties for interference with immigration operations. Draft proposals emphasized criminal liability for protest related obstruction and expanded definitions of threats against federal officers. While these measures were justified as responses to Minneapolis, they were national in scope and reflected long standing priorities rather than targeted solutions. Perhaps most notably, the administration made little effort to engage directly with Minneapolis residents affected by the prolonged unrest. There were no high-level visits aimed at reconciliation, no federal community forums, and no public outreach beyond statements emphasizing enforcement. The city instead became a warning, cited in speeches and posts as evidence of why forceful federal action was necessary. In this way, Minneapolis was not treated as a community in crisis, but as a proving ground. The administration’s actions following the shooting signaled that its priority was not resolution or trust building, but control, deterrence, and narrative dominance, even as tensions on the ground continued to simmer.[7]

The gun argument that took up the majority of attention by right-wing media, and even conventional news outlets, therefore may have been intentional. The prospect of drawing attention away from a shooting resulting in the death of a protestor in Minneapolis would be ideal for a Trump administration which was failing to get a single city under control. Even if energy were directed away from ICE agents nationally, if not in Minneapolis, for a few days, it would have given the agency time to cover their tracks and make sure all ends were tied up with the shooting. Nevertheless, the administration’s immediate reaction to a federally involved shooting is worrying to say the least. Instead of noting on the tragedy of a life lost, the Trump administration resorted, once again, immediately to character slander and claims of domestic terrorism, which has become a key term in countering national pushback against ICE actions.[8] It is safe to say now that there is a broader issue within the training and doctrine of ICE agents in the US, not just in the way they deal with immigration, but in the way they deal with obstruction. Instead of attempts to remedy these problems by the DHS, however, they have leaned into the issues. In a bizarre play by the Trump administration, it was announced that ICE agents would serve as security for the American athletes in the upcoming Olympic Games. Only time will tell if the situation in Minneapolis will further unravel, or if ICE will unravel first. Unfortunately, the latter may lead to more issues like the shooting on January 24^th.[9]

---

[1] Devon Lum and Haley Willis, “Videos Show Moments in Which Agents Killed a Man in Minneapolis,” New York Times, January 27, 2026.

[2] Megyn Kelly (@MegynKellyShow), X (formerly Twitter), January 26^, 2026.

Zach Schonfeld, “Friction Emerges as Gun Rights Groups Clash with Trump Officials Over Minnesota Shooting,” The Hill, January 26, 2026.

[3] Kyle Rittenhouse (@rittenhouse2a), X (formally Twitter), January 26, 2026.

Abene Clayton, “Why the Minneapolis Killings have Driven a Wedge between Trump and Pro-Gun Groups,” The Guardian, January 29, 2026.

[4] Matthew Choi and Dan Merica, “Minneapolis Shooting Prompts Bipartisan Blowback,” The Washington Post, January 26, 2026.

Michelle L. Price, “Trump, Unbowed by Backlash to Minneapolis Shooting, Blames Democrats for ‘Chaos’,” ABC News, January 25, 2026.

[5] Associated Press, “Homeland Security plans 2,000 Officers in Minnesota for its ‘Largest Immigration Operation Ever,’” Times Union, January 6, 2026.

City of Minneapolis, “MN Attorney General, Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sue to Halt ICE Surge into Minnesota,” January 12, 2026.

[6] Hugo Lowell, “Two Agents who Shot Alex Pretti put on Leave as Trump Tries to Quell Backlash,” The Guardian, January 28, 2026.

Myah Ward and Dasha Burns, “’It’s Starting to Turn Against Us’: White House Reckons with Minnesota Fallout,” Politico, January 26, 2026.

Anthony Zurcher, “Trump Abandons Attack Mode as Minneapolis Shooting Backlash Grows,” BBC, January 26, 2026.

[7] MPR Staff, “Bovino Defends Immigration Surge Tactics, Deflects Questions of Abuse,” MPR, January 20, 2026.

[8] Chad de Guzman, “Trump Labels Man Killed by Federal Agents an ‘Agitator’ and ‘Perhaps, Insurrectionist’,” Time, January 30, 2026.

[9] Shannon Heffernan and Tom Meagher, “How ICE and Border Patrol Keep Injuring and Killing People,” The Marshall Project, January 26, 2026.

Giselda Vagnoni, “Italy’s Winter Olympics Security Plan Keeps ICE in Advisory Role,” Reuters, January 27, 2026.

Alexander Smith, Claudio Lavanga, and Matteo Moschella, “ICE Role at the Winter Olympics Prompts Fury in Italy,” NBC News, January 27^, 2026.

San Noor Haq, Barbie Latza Nadeau, Antonia Mortensen, and Karina Tsui, “Italians Furious Over Deployment of ICE Agents to Bolster US Security at Winter Olympics,” CNN, January 29, 2026.

January 2026

By Etienne Darcas – Rise to Peace

The scenes in Minneapolis this month would have seemed impossible to most Americans a year ago. Federal immigration agents firing into civilian vehicles. A registered nurse shot dead while filming a protest. Thousands flooding the streets in cities from Los Angeles to New York to Boston. A near general strike in Minneapolis; the first of its kind in many decades. The images seen carry an unmistakable resonance, from the armoured vehicles, the militarised postures and the casual violence against civilians, that speaks to something deeper than a dispute over mere immigration policy.

Perhaps this is not an isolated domestic crisis but something more dangerous altogether as a manifestation of a broader pattern now revealing itself across American foreign and domestic policy simultaneously. The Trump administration’s aggressive posture toward European allies over Greenland, its apparent willingness to abandon Ukraine to Russian territorial ambitions, and the deployment of military-style enforcement tactics against American communities all share a common thread. That thread is best understood through what scholars have termed the “imperial boomerang” – the theory that techniques of coercion developed for use abroad eventually return home to be deployed against domestic populations.

The current moment demands we examine these developments not as discrete policy choices but as interconnected elements of a fundamental transformation in American governance which holds profound implications for transatlantic relations, international security architecture, and the character of American democracy itself.

The Greenland Crisis and the End of Allied Assumptions

President Trump’s campaign to acquire Greenland has rattled European capitals in ways that reveal how fundamentally the transatlantic relationship has deteriorated. The threat of 10-25% tariffs against Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland—all NATO allies of course—represented the weaponisation of American economic power against the very nations whose partnership has underpinned Western security for eight decades.

While Trump stepped back from immediate tariff implementation following talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at Davos, announcing what he termed a “framework of a future deal,” the damage has been done. European leaders now understand something that many had hoped to avoid confronting: the United States under Trump views its alliances in purely transactional terms. The strategic partnership, shared values, and collective security that characterised the post-war order have been replaced by a calculus of immediate benefit, of a misguided attempt at Realpolitik, but decidedly without the grace and finesse required for it. In its stead, what emerged is a United States that is diplomatically leaner and meaner, hungry for easy wins.

Trump has tied his Greenland ambitions to national security, arguing that Denmark cannot adequately protect the island’s vast mineral-rich territory from China and Russia, and that only the United States can secure the Arctic against rival militaries. Yet as Matthias Matthijs of the Council on Foreign Relations has observed, this reasoning fundamentally contradicts the logic of alliances themselves. The 1951 treaty between the United States and Denmark already grants Washington extensive basing rights in Greenland, including the critical Thule Air Base. Cooperation on mineral rights and rare earths remains entirely achievable within existing frameworks.

What Trump appears to want is not security, which he already has, but ownership. As Matthijs notes, Trump made clear in his Davos remarks that “you can only really defend something if you own it,” a statement that calls into question the entire foundation of American alliance commitments from Japan to NATO. The real estate developer’s instinct has become foreign policy doctrine.

The European response reveals how profoundly this crisis has shaken allied confidence. Most European analysts now accept that the kind of close, value-based transatlantic partnership that characterised the post-World War II era is unlikely to return, regardless of who occupies the White House next. Even a Democratic successor or a traditional Republican in the mould of Reagan or the Bushes would face domestic pressure to maintain a more transactional approach to alliances. The era of American leadership premised on enlightened self-interest appears to be ending.

Ukraine: Europe as the Emerging Loser

If the Greenland crisis has damaged European confidence in American partnership, the trajectory of Ukraine peace negotiations threatens to leave Europe as the clear loser in the reshaping of European security; increasingly a reshaping that sees Europe itself as denied of much agency in determining a potentially favourable outcome.

The January 2026 Paris summit of the “Coalition of the Willing” produced what officials called “significant progress” on security guarantees for Ukraine, with France and the United Kingdom signing a declaration of intent to deploy “military hubs” across Ukrainian territory following any ceasefire. The summit represented European efforts to fill the vacuum left by American ambivalence as an attempt to demonstrate that Europe can provide the security guarantees Ukraine needs.

Yet the fundamental problem remains. Europe lacks the military capacity to deter Russia without American backing. The Coalition’s framework depends on a US-led ceasefire monitoring mechanism and continued American commitment to Ukrainian security. Both remain uncertain at best. Trump has ruled out deploying American forces to Ukraine, and his envoys have made clear they are not taking sides between Kyiv and Moscow but rather are seeking a deal.

For European allies, this shift is stark. The Americans have made it clear they were present to facilitate negotiations in Paris, not to champion Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia, meanwhile, has shown no willingness to compromise on its fundamental demands, continuing to insist on territorial concessions and the exclusion of NATO troops from Ukrainian soil.

The emerging shape of any settlement looks increasingly unfavourable to European interests. Russia appears likely to retain significant Ukrainian territory, while Europe will bear the primary burden of post-war security guarantees. Such guarantees, which, with its lack of common foreign policy and military policy, it may lack the capacity to enforce without American support. Moscow has achieved its long-standing strategic objective of driving a wedge between Washington and its European partners, and is positioned to emerge from negotiations with both territorial gains and a weakened Western alliance.

Putin’s representatives have watched the Greenland drama with what Matthijs describes as “a fair dose of glee.” The spectacle of the United States threatening its own NATO allies while simultaneously distancing itself from Ukrainian defence has vindicated Moscow’s long-standing analysis of Western division. If the outcome of negotiations reflects this moment of allied discord, Europe will have lost not merely in Ukraine but in its broader ability to shape the continental security environment.

The Domestic Front: Minneapolis and the Imperial Boomerang

While transatlantic relations deteriorate and European security calculus shifts, the American homeland has become the site of a parallel crisis that illuminates the deeper transformations underway in American governance.

Since Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, federal immigration agents have been involved in violent incidents across the country, resulting in a number of fatalities of not just those targeted for arrest and deportation, but innocent bystanders too. The Wall Street Journal has documented at least thirteen instances of immigration officers firing at or into civilian vehicles since July 2025 alone. At least five of those shot have been American citizens.

The Minneapolis killings of Renee Good on January 7th and Alex Pretti on January 24th have catalysed nationwide protests on a scale not seen since the George Floyd demonstrations of 2020. Both victims were American citizens. Good, a mother of three, was shot three times—in the chest and head—by an ICE officer while sitting in her vehicle. Video evidence from bystanders and the agents themselves contradicts official claims that she was using her vehicle as a weapon. Pretti, a VA ICU nurse, was shot while filming agents who had pushed protesters to the ground. Bystander video shows him holding a phone, not the gun the administration later claimed to recover.

The Department of Homeland Security has declared all sixteen shootings since July justified before completing investigations, indicating a pattern or propensity for reflexive institutional defence of its agents tactics. The tactics themselves echo counterinsurgency operations: vehicle pursuits, aggressive crowd control, the deployment of armed agents into civilian communities, the treatment of entire populations as potentially hostile.

This is where the concept of the “imperial boomerang” becomes analytically essential. First articulated by Aimé Césaire in his 1950 Discourse on Colonialism, the boomerang effect describes how techniques of repression developed to control colonial populations inevitably return to the imperial centre. Hannah Arendt elaborated on this framework in The Origins of Totalitarianism, arguing that the methods of racial domination and territorial expansion inherent to imperialism laid the foundations for European fascism.

The contemporary application, however, is both sobering and explanatory. Sociologist Julian Go, in his 2023 study Policing Empires, has documented how the militarised tactics now deployed on American streets, including mobile strike squads, surveillance methods, tear gas and crowd control techniques were “developed and perfected” in American and British colonies before being imported back to the metropole. The personnel transfer is equally direct: many domestic law enforcement agencies have been led by veterans of foreign conflicts who acted as what Go terms “imperial importers,” domesticating colonial tactics for use against racialised populations at home.

The Minneapolis operations bear the hallmarks of this lineage. The deployment of thousands of federal agents from multiple agencies, the disregard for local civilian authority, the aggressive vehicle tactics, the immediate official justification regardless of evidence, all mirror patterns documented in colonial counterinsurgency. That these tactics are being deployed in a city with deep memories of George Floyd’s murder adds a bitter historical resonance.

The Connection: Imperial Logic at Home and Abroad

The analytical power of the imperial boomerang framework lies in its ability to reveal connections that otherwise appear coincidental. The Greenland crisis, the Ukraine negotiations, and the Minneapolis killings are not separate phenomena but are rather expressions of a common logic. This logic is one in which relationships of domination replace relationships of cooperation, and force becomes the primary instrument of policy.

Multiple parallels emerge in this analysis. In Greenland, the administration threatens economic warfare against allies who refuse to cede sovereign territory. In Ukraine, it positions itself as a neutral broker between aggressor and victim, willing to sanction Russian territorial gains in pursuit of “a deal.” In Minneapolis, federal agents treat American communities as occupied territory, firing into civilian vehicles with impunity while the administration defends every use of force before investigation.

The common thread is the collapse of constraints, be they legal, normative,  or institutional, that previously bounded the exercise of American power, great as it is. Abroad, this manifests as willingness to coerce allies and abandon partners. At home, it manifests as the deployment of military-style tactics against civilian populations and the pre-emptive justification of lethal force.

Césaire warned that colonisation degrades the coloniser as surely as the colonised. A nation which colonises is a civilisation which justifies colonisation—and therefore force— and is already a sick civilisation; morally diseased. It can only rule then by the principle that might makes right. The imperial boomerang is not merely a transfer of tactics but a transfer of mentalities then, enforcing the habit of seeing other populations as subjects to be controlled rather than citizens to be served, highlighting the assumption that force is the natural language of governance.

What Minneapolis reveals is that this mentality, having been cultivated abroad for generations, has now fully arrived at home. The same administration that threatens NATO allies over Greenland and treats Ukrainian sovereignty as negotiable also treats American citizens as acceptable casualties in enforcement operations. The same officials who justify territorial ambitions on grounds of national security justify shooting American nurses on grounds of officer safety. The logic is consistent; it is the logic of imperial governance applied without geographical distinction.

Implications for European Security

European policymakers would be wise to study the Minneapolis crisis with care, because it reveals something essential about the partner that they now face. An administration willing to deploy such tactics against its own citizens is unlikely to be constrained by traditional norms of allied behaviour. The Greenland threats were not an aberration but an expression of the same governance philosophy now manifesting domestically.

This has concrete implications for European security planning. The Coalition of the Willing’s security guarantees for Ukraine depend ultimately on American commitment. An administration that treats its own population as potential enemies and its oldest allies as targets for economic coercion cannot be relied upon to honour commitments to a country most Americans cannot locate on a map.

European leaders must now plan for scenarios they had hoped to avoid: a post-NATO security architecture, reduced American engagement in continental defence, and the need to deter Russian aggression largely through limited European resources, amidst a domestic European political climate of festering discontent and economic malaise. The UK and France have begun this work with their commitment to Ukrainian military hubs, but the gap between European capacity and European need remains vast.

The transition will be difficult and dangerous. Russia will probe every weakness in European resolve. China will watch for opportunities to advance its own interests. The international rules-based order that has provided relative stability since 1945 will continue to erode. Europeans hoping for a return to normalcy after Trump should note Matthijs’s assessment: “I don’t think there is a going back.”

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Rise to Peace.

By Kie Jacobson – Rise to Peace Fellow

Since the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian operations have consistently blurred the distinction between military and civilian targets, where the civilian population is frequently under threat. The lack of differentiation between military and civilians has been a recurring feature throughout hostilities. However, closer examination indicates a broader strategy aimed at weakening the resilience of the nation.

The treatment of Ukrainian cultural and historical institutions reveal the additional levels at which the war is being waged, detailing the long-term nature of Russian strategy. Not only have cultural sites with no inherent military function been damaged or destroyed, institutions have been extensively looted by Russian forces. From museums to archaeological sites, Ukrainian cultural property has come under threat, with concerning implications.  

A Pattern, Not an Accident: Russia’s Record in Ukraine

Indicative of a pattern rather than isolated incidents, damage to Ukrainian cultural heritage has occurred across multiple regions and phases of the war. Even away from the front line, sites such as Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv, a UNESCO World Heritage site, have been damaged by Russian strikes. As territorial control has shifted, a more direct approach toward cultural heritage has been displayed during occupation. In major cities, cultural institutions and sites have been systematically looted, with Mariupol, Melitopol, and Kherson as prominent examples. 

In occupied urban areas, the extensive removal of artworks and artifacts by Russian forces displays an intentionality, with concerning implications for Ukrainian cultural sovereignty. The Melitopol Museum of Local History was stripped of historical weapons it held along with gold and silver artifacts, such as Scythian gold items dating from the 4th century BCE. In Mariupol, reports indicate that during the removal of the Kuindzhi Museum’s collection, soldiers specifically sought out works by the artist Arkhip Kuindzhi, whose identity as Ukrainian or Russian has been heavily contested. Instead of being an opportunistic endeavor, the gutting of museum collections seems to have been organized. During Melitopol operations, troops were reportedly accompanied by a man guiding the selection of items to take. At the Kherson Local History Museum, employees from museums in occupied Crimea were alleged to have assisted in the selection, documentation, and packing of items for transport. Compounding the theft of the items themselves, Russian forces have taken museum collection records with them, making it difficult to even identify the full extent of what has been taken.

Beyond their material worth, the artifacts reflect a historical continuity into modern-day Ukraine and affirm a Ukrainian cultural identity as autonomous from Russia. It is the symbolism that makes these items so significant and acts of destruction or looting so harmful. With the exhumation and transport of figures like Prince Potemkin’s remains to Russia, there is a clear message that historical markers and symbols that could be used to legitimize a state are Russian. Yet theft is only one component to the assault on Ukrainian heritage, occupied territory has been subjected to further reforms aimed at the erosion of Ukrainian identity and culture.

Destruction Under Occupation

The measures employed by Russian authorities in occupied Ukrainian territory are not new. These policies draw upon the precedent set by imperial Russian and Soviet authorities, with the suppression of Ukrainian language and Ukrainian cultural organizations. Under first the imperial regime then the Stalinist government, expressions of Ukrainian identity were treated as subversive or criminal. The guiding belief being that Ukrainians were a branch of Russian people and the language merely a Russian dialect. It is this logic that shapes contemporary efforts to erase Ukrainian cultural presence in occupied areas, where such measures are framed as a restoration of historical and cultural unity. 

Children have emerged as one of the primary targets of these efforts, with the implementation of a Russified education curricula as well as deportation to Russia in extreme cases. This has involved the destruction of Ukrainian-language educational materials, where use of the language is not explicitly forbidden but is essentially taboo. In addition, teachers and school administrators in occupied territory have been either coerced into implementing the new curricula or replaced. Alongside this, the deportation of Ukrainian children represents the most severe extension of the strategy of re-education, where children are forcibly transported into Russia and have been adopted out into new families. Framed by Russian authorities as rehabilitation and integration, this is intended to ensure linguistic and historical assimilation via isolation and indoctrination. The reality is that these practices target Ukrainian cultural identity at the root. If children are displaced and assimilated, it undermines the formation of Ukrainian identity both in the current generation and the subsequent generation. 

In its entirety, the approach to education and children in occupied territory displays additional dimensions of Russian efforts to erase Ukrainian identity. It is vital to recognize that cultural destruction extends far beyond physical damage to property or artifacts, and involves efforts to destroy formative aspects like language and community. In the context of Ukraine, this is intended to pave the way for a broader reconfiguration of historical narratives and public space under occupation, aligned with Russia.

Cultural Genocide

Recognizing the deep connection between culture and society has led to greater awareness of how attacks on culture can be linked to more insidious objectives, such as genocide. The idea of cultural genocide originated with Raphael Lemkin, the legal scholar who articulated the concept of genocide following the Second World War. For Lemkin, genocide was not necessarily just physical harm to a community, but included efforts aimed at destroying its distinctiveness, language, and oftentimes religion. 

Taken altogether, Russia’s actions in Ukraine point to a broader strategy that goes beyond battlefield objectives. The destruction of cultural heritage, suppression of Ukrainian language, rewriting of historical narratives, and targeting of children through education policy and deportation do not serve a military purpose. Instead, these practices work as a way to forcibly align the Ukrainian people with Russian wartime narratives. It is difficult to ignore the parallels between characteristics Lemkin identified as associated with cultural genocide and the reality unfolding in Ukraine. The suppression of language, re-education campaigns, destruction of cultural heritage, and looting of artifacts mirror methods Lemkin describes as central in destroying social and cultural foundations. While the term cultural genocide remains debated legally and academically, the concept of the term resonates in the case of Ukraine because it captures  the cumulative and deliberate nature of Russian actions, and provides insight into the intent behind them.

Understanding what has been lost

Even though the most obvious markers in the destruction of cultural heritage are damaged buildings or looted collections, the true consequences of the losses are less visible and harder to solve. The value of cultural heritage lies in its relationship to historic memory, the community, and sense of place. To use a specific example,  the destruction of monuments commemorating victims of the Holodomor undermines the public remembrance of a man-made famine central to Ukrainian collective memory and national identity. In addition, the Holodomor itself has been contested between Ukrainian and Russian historical narratives. While Ukraine recognizes the famine as a deliberate, man-made atrocity and a foundational trauma in its history, Russian narratives have tended to minimize or deny its intentionality. As is the case with example of Holodomor memorials, the damage is not just the physical loss that occurs, but the ability of a community to authentically remember and communicate its history not just in the present day but to future generations.

Beyond the impact on Ukrainian society, the destruction of cultural sites and items have also been a loss to broader humanity. The archaeological and scientific significance of the Mariupol Museum of Local Lore’s collection demonstrates this very clearly. Russian attacks destroyed natural history collections that not only were a unique repository of knowledge, but are impossible to restore because of the impact climate change has had on animals and plants in the last century. In terms of other items lost, artifacts from Neolithic and Bronze Age burials including those from the Mariupol Neolithic Burial Site, internationally valued for their insight into early human societies in the region, are among those missing. The loss of these materials is a blow to the greater archaeological and scientific community. 

These forms of loss also pose serious challenges for postwar justice and restitution. The destruction or removal of artifacts complicates efforts to document crimes and pursue accountability. Even where reconstruction is possible, it cannot necessarily restore what has been lost in substance or meaning. Rebuilt churches, museums, or libraries can replicate the physical, but they cannot replace or restore the original materials, historical continuity, or the trust embedded in intact cultural institutions. In terms of looted objects, there is concern that the items will wind up at auction, leading them to be absorbed into private collections and further complicating restitution efforts. However, other stolen pieces are being placed on display in Russian state institutions or being incorporated into its respective collections, while the destruction or removal of inventory catalogs during looting make it difficult to even fully identify what has been lost. 

Looking Forward

The destruction of Ukrainian cultural heritage is not a casualty of war. It reflects a broader effort intended to forcibly reshape history, identity, and belonging. From the targeting of museums and monuments to the deportation and re-education of children, culture represents a strategic domain in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Looking ahead, the question is not just how Ukraine can recover, but also how to prevent further loss. Museums and other cultural institutions have concentrated on developing emergency responses to protect their collections. In the early stages of the full-scale invasion, this was often done under conditions where there were shortages of supplies, staff, and protective equipment, not to mention the threat of Russian forces. Documentation, emergency preservation, and international support for cultural workers are essential. The challenges facing personnel in the cultural heritage sector are immense, especially given the fragility or size of certain items. However, it is important to consider prevention as much as restitution and accountability, since items become increasingly difficult to track let alone recover once stolen. Beyond immediate protection, it is critical to consider the greater logic at play in Russia’s focus on cultural heritage. The intent is to weaken, if not erase, Ukrainian identity.  However, the damage is not just to Ukraine. The collections destroyed and looted include centuries of artistic and historical contributions that are a part of wider human heritage. The protection of what remains and restitution of stolen objects is not necessary to support the legitimate Ukrainian identity but for the global community as well.