On the night following missile strikes in Lviv, hundreds of kilometers from the front line, the author reflects on the concept of war escalation and its new reality for rear cities. Massive attacks and four-hour explosions highlight the unprecedented level of danger Ukraine faces today.
The core thesis: this is only the beginning. The reality is that it is impossible to fully protect such a large country in modern war; even the most precise missile flight maps cannot ensure safety. With no effective external restraints (from the US, Europe, or Trump), the conflict moves into a “damage race stage” — each side aims to inflict as much harm as possible on its adversary.
Objectively, the larger enemy enjoys the advantage in this race: the damage inflicted on Ukraine has greater impact. The campaign shifts from emotional narratives to pragmatic calculations — weighing one’s own losses against the damage sustained by the enemy.
The commentator notes that the main social mood remains a desire to simply return to the status quo of 2022. Sociology shows three roughly equal societal segments: those willing to accept a “minus Crimea and Donbas” scenario, those still dreaming of the 1991 borders, and supporters of freezing the war. The unending race of damage, limitless strikes, and lack of deterrents make a logical or advantageous end to the war nearly unattainable.
Ultimately, the author stresses the cost of escalation and the need for a pragmatic approach. Faith in victory remains high, yet it cannot replace rational resource management and comparison of losses. Under constant threat and extreme challenges, protecting lives becomes the highest value. The call is to assess the situation soberly, emphasizing the proportionality of losses and drawing on Western experiences of avoiding escalation.
The material concludes with an analysis of current public opinion and a reminder of the importance of both support and critical, rational assessment of the government’s and society’s actions as a whole.
