Commendable efforts to include Ukrainian researchers in academic debates on the Russian invasion of Ukraine nevertheless reflect knowledge hierarchies that characterise contemporary academia, which is compounded by the difficulties that scholars face when they study violence in their own communities. On a practical level, Ukrainian researchers were busy performing the physical work of surviving or, if based abroad, the emotional work of worrying about the safety of friends and family. Many volunteered their time and resources for Ukrainian causes. The pastoral care and public engagement elements of their job expanded. Some Ukrainian scholars also engaged in tone (self)policing in order to prevent their arguments from alienating key audiences or being dismissed as too partisan or naive. The peculiarities of Ukrainian contemporary history and politics – (for instance, its self-perceived belonging to ‘the West’ and the fact that ‘Western' countries have contributed the most to Ukraine's self-defence) at times resulted in a lack of common vocabulary with postcolonial and critical scholarship. This article calls for deeper understanding and closer engagement between academics and activists working in and on the ‘Global East’ and the ‘Global South’, as well as for more self-aware and caring ways of researching war.

然而，将乌克兰研究人员纳入有关俄罗斯入侵乌克兰的学术辩论的努力值得赞扬，但这反映了当代学术界特有的知识等级制度，而学者们在研究自己社区的暴力时所面临的困难则使情况变得更加复杂。在实践层面上，乌克兰研究人员忙于生存的体力工作，或者，如果驻扎在国外，则忙于担心朋友和家人的安全的情感工作。许多人自愿为乌克兰事业贡献时间和资源。他们工作中的教牧关怀和公众参与元素得到了扩展。一些乌克兰学者还进行了语气（自我）监管，以防止他们的论点疏远关键受众或被认为过于党派或天真而被驳回。乌克兰当代历史和政治的特殊性（例如，其自我认知属于“西方”以及“西方”国家为乌克兰自卫做出了最大贡献这一事实）有时会导致缺乏共同词汇具有后殖民和批判的学术精神。本文呼吁在“全球东方”和“全球南方”工作的学者和活动家之间进行更深入的了解和更密切的接触，以及以更具自我意识和关怀的方式来研究战争。