“Our children must prepare for war, it will be a long one”: Iryna Vereshchuk’s statement caused a resonance and sharp criticism

In recent months, in the Ukrainian public space, talks about peace or a cease-fire, but the need to live in conditions of constant threat, have been heard more and more often. The rhetoric of the authorities and the expert environment is shifting from the expectation of a compromise to the concept of a protracted conflict that will not end with the signing of a conditional agreement. It was in this atmosphere that it sounded statement Iryny Vereshchuk is the deputy head of the President’s Office, who outlined a new, radically frank line: Ukraine should prepare children for war. Her words caused a wide resonance in society — from praise for honesty to harsh criticism for excess and dangerous normalization of war as everyday life.

Content of Vereshchuk’s statement

Iryna Vereshchuk outlined her position directly: regardless of whether a truce is concluded or a peace agreement is signed, Russia will remain Ukraine’s enemy for decades, and possibly centuries. In her opinion, even a formal cessation of hostilities will not eliminate the threat, it will only change its form, but will not disappear. Based on this, the official called on Ukrainians to change their consciousness — to create a culture of constant readiness for resistance:

“We have to reconfigure public consciousness. Whether there will be an armistice or not, whether there will be peace agreements or not – Russia will remain our enemy for decades, if not centuries.”

The main emphasis of her statement was the thesis regarding children:

“Our children must prepare and know what war is. Russia will know that our society is ready for resistance. Everyone understands their role and place. Russia will know that we are ready to fight back, and every house will shoot, and the ground will burn under them.”

In this formulation, it is obvious not only the reference to the experience of the resistance movement, but also the transformation of the idea of ​​childhood as a period of carelessness. Vereshchuk made it clear: the generation growing up now must adapt to the new reality and prepare to fight from school years. Normal life, plans for recovery and stability are postponed — instead, a strategy of long-term mobilization is being formed.

Society’s reaction: criticism, anxiety and attempts at understanding

After these words were published, social networks exploded with a wave of reactions. Part of society took the statement as a responsible warning: the state should not deceive citizens with promises of a quick end to the war, but instead should prepare young people for real challenges.

At the same time, a large part of Ukrainians expressed deep concern: such rhetoric, in their opinion, destroys the idea of ​​a normal future for children, deprives them of their right to a peaceful life and legitimizes war as a new norm of life.

Critics accuse Vereshchuk of a dangerous shift in emphasis — from the protection of childhood to the use of children as part of defense doctrine. They question the permissibility of militarization of society in conditions where it is already in a state of emotional exhaustion, traumatization and population outflow. The declared “every house will shoot” caused not only associations with partisan struggle, but also – among some – concern about the possibility of losing the border between the civilian and military spheres.

Vereshchuk’s statement is not an isolated one, it is part of a wider discourse that has been formed by state representatives and some experts since the beginning of 2025: there will be no negotiations with Russia in the near future, the formula for ending the war remains uncertain, the threat remains regardless of the front line. This is repeated by representatives of the National Security Council, analysts, and the military. Thus, a state paradigm is gradually being formed, in which security becomes not a phase, but a permanent regime.

However, it is precisely this logic that raises the most ethical and strategic questions: is it possible to protect the future by preparing it for a continuous past? Should childhood disappear from the Ukrainian experience as a phenomenon? And doesn’t the state run the risk of losing another generation — not because of bombs, but because of the destruction of basic landmarks?