Highlights
- The article examines how Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shifted European understandings of peace towards an increasingly security-centred approach focused on militarisation, deterrence and national preparedness.
- Drawing on critical peacebuilding, agonistic pluralism and pluriversality, the article explores how everyday encounters between different actors can create space for diverse understandings of peace, coexistence and constructive engagement with conflict.
- Using the militarisation of Sápmi (the traditional lands of the Sámi Indigenous people) as an illustrative case, the article highlights how local and Indigenous knowledge can challenge dominant security narratives and contribute to alternative practices of peacebuilding and critical hope.
Abstract
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 created a paradigm shift in the European mindset and ontology of peace. The previously dominant methodological liberalism has given away to methodological nationalism cherishing an “armed peace.” Within the evolving security-focused perspective’s emphasis on armament, many argue that deterrence and a culture of preparedness requires unanimity for the sake of national security. This article examines how peacebuilding can counter epistemic exclusionism within “fear-stricken societies” and re-open space for the recognition of plural epistemologies. It develops a theoretical framework that bridges critical peacebuilding, agonistic pluralism, and pluriversality to explore the practices of peace which enable coexistence without consensus and living with conflict. Building on the relational ontology of peace, this article highlights how peace is enacted through situated encounters that suspend, rather than resolve, antagonism. Using the militarization of Sápmi as an illustrative case, it traces how informal engagements and sites of contestation between Sámi actors and state security institutions can enable a liminal pluriverse beyond formal rights frameworks, even as recognition remains fragile and contested. Such agonistic encounters can ground pragmatic peace practices, widen the space for dissent, and sustain critical hope under conditions of insecurity.
___________________________________________________________
SAGE Journals, October 2026
https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754261499984