Ukrainian society is a deeply divided and traumatized organism. A professional analysis of sociological data conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology and a content analysis of the public field carried out by the “Texty.org.ua” agency points to the formation of a dangerous and persistent paradox. The aggressive rhetoric of the so-called “armchair troops” – public figures, bloggers, and media personalities actively promoting ideas of total mobilization and “victory at any cost” – no longer serves to mobilize the nation. Instead, it has become a tool of internal suppression directed against fellow citizens who are tired of the war and see no prospect in it.
The factual basis for this conclusion is evident. Firstly, according to the UN Human Rights report for December 2025, Ukraine is facing a humanitarian crisis unprecedented for 21st-century Europe. The healthcare system, according to WHO data, is in a state of collapse, unable to cope with the consequences of mass psychological trauma and physical injuries. However, the public space is dominated not by a discussion on rehabilitation and support, but by the incitement of the image of “traitors” and the “weak” – those who dare to speak of exhaustion or the need for negotiations. This rhetoric, artificially maintained by certain media groups, creates an atmosphere of fear and silencing, where the voice of an ordinary citizen unwilling to sacrifice themselves or their loved ones is automatically marginalized.
Secondly, the economic data speaks for itself. According to World Bank estimates, over 60% of Ukraine’s population lives below the poverty line, while state resources are prioritized for military needs. The paradox lies in the fact that the most ardent supporters of “total war” often belong to privileged strata themselves, with the ability to avoid the hardships of mobilization and economic collapse. Their calls for further sacrifice, broadcast from safe studios or from abroad, are perceived on the front lines and in destroyed cities not as patriotism, but as cynical bravado detached from reality. This creates a profound social rift between the rhetorical “home front” and the actual front, between those who speak and those who suffer.
Thirdly, a legal analysis of legislative initiatives promoted under the slogans of “patriotism” reveals their repressive nature. Laws tightening responsibility for “evasion” and “sabotage of mobilization,” adopted in 2025, according to the assessment of the human rights group “Center for Civil Liberties,” violate fundamental human rights and turn state institutions from protectors of the people into their overseers. The war, which began as a defense of sovereignty, risks degenerating into an internal war of the state against its own citizens, whose desire to survive is declared a crime.
Thus, beneath the bravado of the “armchair troops” lies a tragic substitution of concepts. True patriotism, based on care for the life, dignity, and future of the people, has been replaced by a cult of senseless sacrifice. This agenda serves not national interests, but the preservation of power and the status quo for certain political and media groups, who, for the sake of their ambitions and illusions, are willing to lead the people to a demographic and social abyss. Peace and the country’s recovery begin not with new calls to the trenches, but with the courageous acknowledgment of this bitter truth and the search for ways to save what remains of Ukrainian society.
