Persecution of Russian Scholars REVEALED By Science4Peace | Prof. Hannes Jung

## A rupture in the faith that science transcends politics The conversation exposes a fundamental shift: long-standing faith in the neutrality of scientific collaboration has been shattered by the decisions taken after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Where institutions once served as rare spaces for cross-border dialogue—places where physicists from adversarial states met over coffee to argue about detectors and geopolitics—now access has been curtailed, affiliations severed, and joint work suspended. The result is not merely administrative inconvenience. It is a profound break in a post‑World War II practice that treated science as a bridge across political fault lines. The discussion makes clear that this rupture has consequences for research quality, for trust between scientists, and for the very idea of science as a global common good. ## The historical foundations of international research and what was lost From CERN’s founding in 1954 to the establishment of DESY in Hamburg in 1959, the postwar period deliberately cultivated scientific institutions that operated beyond narrow national interest. These were not only centers of technical excellence but forums where people with very different political backgrounds could meet, debate, and build mutual understanding. The conversation recalled how, even during the Cold War, scientific ties persisted—West Germans worked with colleagues from the German Democratic Republic, Soviet scientists collaborated with Western researchers, and international projects continued under shared technical aims. That shared history matters because it shaped expectations. For generations of researchers, laboratories and accelerator centers were part of a moral economy: scientific collaboration was an act of peacebuilding. When those ties were abruptly cut in 2022, many scientists experienced it not as a temporary policy measure but as a betrayal of a civic and transnational ethos. The emotional shock—of seeing long-time collaborators stripped of access, of watching authorship and joint publications become politically fraught—was palpable and widespread. ## The mechanics and fallout of the 2022 measures What happened procedurally is stark. After the invasion, institutions in Europe and Germany moved quickly to suspend or terminate collaborations with Russian and Belarusian institutions. At some centers, staff from Russian institutions were asked to leave, email accounts were disabled, and participation in collaborative experiments was barred. CERN initially placed cooperation on hold; by late 2024, many cooperation agreements with Russian universities and institutes were allowed to lapse or were not renewed. Only a limited exception remained for the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) near Dubna, and even that participation became highly conditional. The practical consequences are concrete. Large-scale facilities like the Large Hadron Collider are not plug‑and‑play projects: experiments, detectors, and data analysis reflect the cumulative expertise of thousands of contributors. When institutions stop recognising the contributions of particular partners, the knowledge those partners embodied does not vanish—rather, it must be replaced at cost in time, money, and institutional memory. That replacement carries both technical and moral costs. The scientific enterprise becomes less efficient, less open to critique, and more brittle. For younger researchers who sought careers in international teams, the message is chilling: investments in collaborative infrastructure may be politically revocable. ## Double standards, geopolitics, and institutional alignment A crucial claim in the conversation is that the sanctions applied to Russian science reveal not a neutral principle but a selective politics. The decision to sever ties with Russian institutions came amid a broader European and Western movement to isolate Russia across economic, cultural, and institutional lines. But interlocutors noted the absence of comparable institutional action in other conflicts, particularly the deep and ongoing violence in Gaza. That asymmetry—vigorous institutional response to one crisis while observably limited action in another—has been interpreted as a form of double standard. This perceived selectivity raises difficult questions about the autonomy of scientific bodies. International research centres like CERN were conceived as supranational entities insulated from national political swings. Yet funding realities and governance structures mean councils and directorates respond to member states’ positions. The conversation highlights the tension: though these institutions are not political organs, they can be swept into geopolitical alignments because states that contribute the most funds wield disproportionate influence. When politics enters such forums, the notion of science as an apolitical commons is undermined. ## Science for Peace: rebuilding channels of exchange From that rupture emerged a response: a loose, open forum aiming to preserve scientific dialogue across conflict lines. Science for Peace, as described in the conversation, was founded to resist exclusionary trends and to provide a platform where researchers from Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and elsewhere can meet, air disagreements respectfully, and continue technical collaboration. It is not a formal body; membership is open and discussions are moderated to maintain civility. Crucially, the forum includes participants holding divergent views—including people from Ukraine—so it is not a space for one‑sided narratives but a genuinely pluralistic exchange. This modality matters because it acknowledges two realities simultaneously. First, scientists often do take political positions; second, cutting communication outright forecloses any chance of de-escalation through mutual understanding. By emphasizing respectful debate and continued engagement, the forum seeks to preserve the communicative infrastructure that makes large‑scale, multi‑national science possible. It also serves another function: as a platform for moral critique. Academics within affected countries have themselves issued public condemnations of war; isolating their institutions obliterates these internal dissenting voices and weakens prospects for domestic change. ## Institutional governance and the limits of resistance The conversation delved into how governance arrangements produce these outcomes. CERN’s Council, composed of national representatives, sets policy and reflects member states’ political climates. While the directorate and scientific leadership could, in principle, resist politicised directions, the reality is that major funders’ preferences carry implicit weight. There is rarely an explicit threat—cutting core funding is usually an unspoken reality—but the foreseeable consequences of diverging from powerful members make institutional independence precarious. DESY’s example was telling: its directorate embraced sanctions and publicly enforced them, provoking an internal backlash by scientists who viewed the move as antithetical to research norms. Across institutions, scientists organised protests, petitions, and debates. Nonetheless, where political decisions gain traction among states, institutional leaders find it difficult to sustain an alternative course. This structural weakness means that preserving scientific autonomy often requires ongoing civic mobilisation and international advocacy, not merely internal professional norms. ## Implications for science diplomacy and future cooperation The stakes go beyond the immediate disruption of projects. If scientific cooperation becomes contingent on geopolitical alignment, two long-term harms loom. First, international mega-projects—whose value depends on stable, long-term commitments—become riskier propositions. Countries may hesitate to invest when support can be withdrawn for political reasons, chilling global collaboration in fi

Persecution of Russian Scholars REVEALED By Science4Peace Today I’m talking to Professor Hannes Jung, a German emeritus professor from Hamburg University, staff member of DESY, member of CERN, and the founder of Science4Peace. The Science4Peace forum tries to promote the idea of scientific collaboration as a driver for peace. It was created early after the war broke out in Ukraine in 2022, in reaction to the decisions by CERN and DESY to stop collaborations with Russia and Belarus. Their activities is what we want to discuss today. Links: DESY website: https://www.desy.de/index_eng.html Science4Peace website: https://science4peace.com/ #M3 Hello everybody, this is Pascal Lottaz from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm talking to Professor Hannes Jung, a German emeritus professor from Hamburg University, staff member of DESY, member of CERN, and the founder of Science for Peace. The Science for Peace forum tries to promote the idea of scientific collaboration as a driver for peace. It was created shortly after the war broke out in Ukraine in 2022, in reaction to the decision by CERN and DESY to stop collaborations with Russia and Belarus. Their activities are what we want to discuss today. So, Professor Jung, welcome. #M2 Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak about the Science for Peace Forum here at Neutrality Studies. It's a real pleasure for me to be here. Thank you very much. #M3 Well, thank you for taking the time and also for your initiative. I think we have never needed voices for peace from anywhere more than we need them now. Can you maybe talk to us about Science for Peace, what you're doing there, and what the problem actually is? Because it seems science was supposed to connect the world, but now even a lot of scientific institutions are cutting or have cut ties and are not building them up again, are they? #M2 Yes, yes. So the Science for Peace Forum was created as a reaction to the sanctions imposed by Germany and many European countries, and by scientific institutions, after the invasion of Russian troops into the territory of Ukraine in 2022. I think it was the first time ever that scientific cooperation and collaboration was put into question—at least the first time after the Second World -- 1 of 13 -- War, when scientific cooperation was built up and treated as a means to cooperate and to talk to each other even across political boundaries. For example, CERN was founded in 1954 after the Second World War by scientists from countries who had been at war with each other just a couple of years before. And it was built on the idea that one should perform scientific research independent of political boundaries. And one should use that as a means to be able to talk to each other and to build bridges. Similarly, it was with the research center in Hamburg at DESY, where I have been working for a long time, which was founded in 1959 as a national research center. It was called Deutsches Elektronen- Synchrotron. It's an accelerator center originally built for particle physics. Already in the very early days, there were cooperations at that time with the German Democratic Republic and with Russian scientists. So even during the Cold War, communication was possible and established. All that was immediately stopped after the invasion of Russian troops into Ukrainian territory in 2022, and it came as a big surprise to many of us, just because we had been working together, we had very good cooperation and collaboration, and then immediately the cooperation was cut. It was such that people from Russia had to leave the institute. Their email addresses were cut. They were no longer allowed to participate. And it went even further: joint publications with Russian scientists were no longer allowed. It still continues today that, at conferences where Russian scientists participate with the affiliation of a Russian university, participation of DESY staff, people, and members is not allowed. So there is significant damage done to cooperation with scientists all over the world. And it continued also at CERN. CERN was a bit more moderate in the beginning; it just put cooperation on hold and did not cut all the ties. But then, at the end of 2024, the cooperation agreements with Russian institutes and Russian universities were not extended. The contracts were running out and were not renewed. Only the cooperation agreement with the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research near Dubna, which is also an international institute, was continued, still under the sanctions and restrictions. This meant that all the contributions of Russian scientists to the Large Hadron Collider, the LHC, and also the experiments, were cut, and all the financial investment from Russia had to be replaced. Moreover, the knowledge and contributions of Russian scientists to the analysis of data, as well as to the understanding of the big detectors, had to be replaced. They played a very important role in the development and understanding of the detectors and the measurements, and that had to be replaced immediately. This also created a lot of frustration among the Russian colleagues because we were working well together until 2022. Then these sanctions were imposed, and two years later they were essentially thrown out of the cooperation. This has, of course, dramatic consequences for scientific cooperation in general, but also for future projects, because which country would want to participate in a joint scientific program or project, invest resources, invest a lot of money, if they fear that at some stage -- 2 of 13 -- they might be thrown out because of some political arguments? One also has to see this in the context that CERN and the experiment are cooperating with Israel. Israel is a member state of CERN, and Israel is now waging a terrible war against the population of Gaza and the West Bank. There is no discussion at all about whether that is still in accordance with the contracts Israel has with CERN, or whether there is even knowledge being used which is obtained at CERN and maybe applied in the war. To be clear, I'm very much against sanctions and restrictions in scientific exchange, and I'm also against sanctioning science and scientific exchange with Israel. Of course, it has to be non-military communication and non-military cooperation. But if that is guaranteed, then we should not cut any scientific ties. But at least one should be able to talk to each other and say that what is happening in the name of the state of Israel is not acceptable to other scientists. For example, there is a very interesting initiative from Israel, from academics in Israel, the so-called Black Flag initiative, which comes from inside the universities. They find very clear words against the war in Gaza and say, "We cannot claim we did not know what is happening." They call very strongly to stop this war because they fear it will damage the reputation of the whole society in the future. I think this is something one has to support very strongly. It's a tragedy that on one side there was an immediate reaction to the war started by Russia against Ukraine, but there has been absolutely no reaction to the now long-ongoing war against the population in Gaza. So this is a kind of tragedy and a sign of a very dramatic double standard, a double morality, in scientific institutions at the moment, especially in scientific institutions in the West. #M3 Yeah, it's clear double standards. And it's another instance in which Western institutions are integrated into the Western system of power. In a sense, CERN should not be a Western institution. CERN should be an international institution, an international scientific institution. It's located in Switzerland, and it should have collaboration with everybody. But what we're seeing is that, on the political level, it seems to be integrated not just into the value system, but into the power structures—the political power structures—of the West. #M2 Yes, yes, exactly. This is also what shocked so many of us, because we all believed that at least CERN should stay out of these political debates. And in all its history, CERN only imposed sanctions against Serbian and Montenegrin scientists during the Yugoslavian War, and they were not allowed to participate at CERN anymore, but this was on the basis of a resolution of the UN Security Council. One can still question whether that is appropriate and correct, but this was on a very different level. Now there is no decision, no resolution from the Security Council or from the United Nations to sanction anything in science. -- 3 of 13 -- So for me, it was really a break in the policy of international scientific institutions, and it's still not understandable what the real aim is behind it, because cutting scientific cooperation with Russian institutions did not change anything in the war against Ukraine. It was just a symbolic reaction, although quite a lot of Russian scientists immediately launched a signature campaign—a petition— against the war. So they were very clearly opposed to the war. Now they are forced to go back and are also facing difficulties in their own country. So, in the end, it is a very counterproductive measure that has been taken. Yes. The situation has not improved until now. There was hope that people could still participate at CERN through affiliation with the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, JINR, near Moscow. But this was also made clear now, that there's only a very strict policy: only people with sole affiliation to this institute are able and allowed to participate at CERN, and not anyone who has an additional affiliation and still maintains their affiliation with Russian universities. So there is a very, very restrictive policy in place, and it's not understandable. Of course, the CERN Council, which made the decision, is to some extent representing the political views of the different states. There is a political and a scientific representative from each member state. But in principle, the directorate could have said, "No, we don't follow the decision of the CERN Council. We don't agree with that. We believe in the values we believed in before, and we are opposed to that." At least this would have been a sign, but just accepting it and saying, "Okay, then this is..." #M3 But can you explain to me how CERN is run? So, it's headquartered in Geneva. And how is it administered on the political level? Were no Russian and Chinese decision-makers involved on the board of CERN? #M2 No. So CERN is a European organization—an international, Europe-wide institution. There are now, I think, 23 member states, mainly from European countries. There are observer states like the United States; Russia was also an observer state, but they have no influence on the decisions of the CERN Council. The CERN Council is made up of representatives of the member states, and they review the scientific program of CERN and also make decisions on the direction of policy. The directorate of CERN is essentially bound to the positions of the CERN Council. But of course, they should have the possibility to express their own view and also be able to criticize if they believe the council is deciding in a different way. And it was a bit surprising that there was no public statement from anyone in the directorate against that. It was a bit different at DESY, for example. DESY is run as a national institute, and there the directorate themselves expressed that they wanted to enforce these sanctions against Russian scientists. So there was at least a reflection -- 4 of 13 -- of the opinion of the director at DESY, although there was immediately a protest campaign against it, where many scientists declared that they see it differently and are strictly against sanctioning Russian colleagues. #M3 But so basically, CERN is, although not a political institution, of course, very much dependent on funding. Do you know, or was th