War Without End, Bread Without End: How Ukrainians Are Coping With Economic Life Under Siege

A new survey places poverty ahead of military threat as the top concern for Ukrainians in the fifth year of full-scale war — a sign that the psychological architecture of a population can shift even when the shooting does not stop.

By Monexus Staff Writereurope5-minute read22 May 2026☆ Save ↗ Share ⎙ Print

In the fifth year of a full-scale Russian invasion, 74 percent of Ukrainians are most frightened by one prospect above all others: that their children will grow up in poverty. That finding, drawn from a national survey and reported on 22 May 2026, should reset how the outside world understands the texture of this conflict. Poverty — not a Russian missile, not a tank column, not the fear of occupation — is the thing that keeps most Ukrainians awake at night.

The data point sits uncomfortably alongside the narratives that dominate Western media coverage, which tend to frame Ukrainian experience through the lens of battlefield endurance and Western military support. Those framings are not wrong, but they are incomplete. They elide a quieter, deeper anxiety that runs beneath the front line — the daily reckoning with depleted savings, the cost of food and fuel, the slow erosion of a middle class that once anchored Ukrainian civic life. That anxiety is not a sign of demoralisation. It is evidence that a society is functioning well enough to plan for its children's futures, even while its present is under mortar fire.

The Economics of Enduring

Consider, as a small but telling datum, the price of strawberries. Ukrainian agricultural reporting on 22 May noted that strawberry prices — which spike in early spring due to limited domestic supply — were expected to collapse by early summer as the harvest comes in. The market had already responded to seasonal supply signals, with retail prices falling from a seasonal peak toward something approaching normal. This is a story about fruit, but it is also a story about a functioning market mechanism operating inside a war zone. Ukrainian farmers are planting, harvesting, and bringing produce to market. Supply chains are responding to demand signals. The agricultural economy has not collapsed into subsistence barter.

That survival of market logic matters. It suggests that whatever else the war has broken, it has not yet destroyed the basic institutional infrastructure of a commercial society. Farmers who can still sell strawberries can still pay rent. Shopkeepers who stock produce can still employ assistants. The chain is fragile and subject to disruption — a strike on a logistics hub, a power cut to a cold-storage facility, a conscription call that removes a farmhand from the harvest — but it is not broken. And that matters enormously for the social contract.

What the Survey Actually Tells Us

The 74 percent figure is striking in part because it is counterintuitive. One might expect that a population living under sustained air bombardment would rank immediate physical threat highest. The fact that it does not suggests two things. First, that many Ukrainians have — however reluctantly — recalibrated their relationship to danger. After years of living with missile strikes, drone attacks, and occupation, a certain psychological accommodation has set in. The fear of death recedes partly because its immediacy has become a background condition. What cannot be accommodated is the fear of a diminished future — of children denied the economic foundation that makes a life possible.

Second, the survey reflects a material reality. Ukrainian household incomes have been squeezed by a combination of factors: the destruction of industrial capacity in the east, the migration of working-age men into the armed forces or abroad, the inflation of food and energy prices, and the fiscal constraints that limit state support. Wages have not kept pace. Social services, stretched thin by military expenditure, operate at reduced capacity. For families not directly in the combat zone, the daily experience of war is not primarily one of shelling but of sustained economic pressure.

That pressure is not uniformly distributed. Families with members in the armed forces receive some state support, supplemented by international aid flows. Families without conscript-age members often depend on private-sector wages that have been compressed by competition for scarce jobs. Internal refugees — those displaced from the east and south to central and western Ukraine — face particular hardship, often arriving with depleted assets and limited social networks. For them, the strawberry price collapse is not a market curiosity; it is a question of whether they can afford to feed their children.

Why External Framing Misses This

Western coverage of Ukraine has oscillated between two registers: heroic resistance and donor fatigue. Both are reductive. The heroic-resistance frame flattens a complex society into a single narrative of defiance, which serves political messaging abroad but obscures the granular realities of life inside the country. The donor-fatigue frame, meanwhile, treats Ukrainian agency as a passive recipient of Western charity and reduces the conflict to a transactional relationship between NATO and Russia.

Neither frame is adequate to explain why 74 percent of respondents in a war-survey identify poverty as their primary fear. That figure emerges from a society making rational calculations about the future — calculating school fees, rent, medical costs, the price of a winter heating bill. These calculations are not compatible with a people in a state of pure existential emergency. They suggest a society that has been forced to plan for long-term survival even as it endures short-term assault.

This matters for policy. If Ukrainian decision-makers, supported by their international partners, want to sustain social cohesion over a conflict that may last years yet, they need to attend to economic resilience as much as military capability. A population that fears poverty more than it fears missiles is a population that will tolerate the continuation of the war — but only if it can see a plausible path to material stability for its children. Without that path, the political sustainability of prolonged resistance becomes genuinely fragile.

The Stakes

What is most instructive about the strawberry story — and the survey it connects to — is that it reveals something about the nature of modern conflict. This war, like most wars, is not being won or lost on the battlefield alone. It is being won or lost in the economic psychology of the population behind the lines. A society that can feed itself, clothe itself, and plan for its children's futures — even under bombardment — has a resilience that purely military analysis cannot capture. A society that cannot do those things will eventually fracture, regardless of battlefield outcomes.

The strawberry market, modest as it is, tells us something useful: Ukrainian agriculture is still working. Ukrainian commerce is still functioning. Ukrainian families are still looking ahead. That is not a small thing. It is, arguably, the most important thing of all.

—

Desk note: Wire coverage of this survey has been limited; Western outlets have focused on battlefield reporting, leaving the Hromadske finding underreported outside Ukrainian-language media. The TSN agricultural item, meanwhile, received no English-language coverage despite illustrating the broader economic normalcy that underpins the survey data.

Wire provenance

This editorial synthesis draws on the following public wire/social posts:

https://t.me/hromadske_ua
https://t.me/TSN_ua
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine