Building Resilience in War-Torn Tourism Destinations Through Hot-War Tourism: The Case of Ukraine

Abstract

Tourism in active conflict zones constitutes a distinct and contentious form of dark tourism, wherein visitors engage with sites marked by death and tragedy that have significantly shaped public consciousness. This study investigates hot-war tourism as an emerging tourism product in places affected by ongoing conflict, highlighting its potential to foster resilience, support local communities, and enhance social awareness. Using Ukraine as a case study, the paper examines the underlying motivations that drive tourists to such destinations and explores how, under specific conditions, local stakeholders can design tourism offerings that represent both meaningful and responsible travel experiences. War-torn and conflict-affected destinations possess the capacity to transform adversity into opportunities for long-term recovery and sustainable development. The findings contribute to the broader discourse on reimagining tourism in the face of disruption, offering insights into how strategic planning and innovation can enable destinations to rebuild and adapt during times of crisis.

1. Introduction

One of the most controversial tourist experiences is so-called dark tourism, which involves visitors engaging with sites associated with death or tragedy that have deeply impacted public consciousness. These places, whether authentic or reconstructed, commemorate events of loss, horror, or atrocity, offering visitors experiences aimed at understanding or reflecting upon such calamities (Biran et al., 2013). While some critics view it as voyeuristic, others argue that it fosters awareness, remembrance, and education (Lisle, 2016), serving as a platform for critical engagement with the past, the construction of historical memory, and the delivery of a deep emotional or moral insight, far beyond a mere gawking experience. Among the most debated branches of dark tourism is war tourism. At first glance, war and tourism may appear to be mutually exclusive phenomena. And yet visiting places where a war or another typology of armed conflict was waged are constantly becoming more popular. This leads to show the need to better understand the motivation why people take these kinds of trips, how they perceive and experience them, what ethical issues may arise while choosing a place like Ukraine as a travel destination, where dark tourism happens during an ongoing war and real human suffering. In a recent study, Williams et al. (2023) define hot-war tourism as travel to unstable environments where personal risks are high and where visitors may deliberately seek firsthand experiences of war, knowingly accepting the associated dangers. However, there is no consensus on the precise boundaries of war tourism, a topic that will be briefly addressed in this article. Today, the phenomenon of war tourism is undergoing a significant transformation, gaining popularity while simultaneously provoking intense ethical debate. This paper focuses on one of the most complex and ethically charged forms of war tourism: hot-war tourism, referring to visits to active or recently active war zones. A widely held view is that visiting places experiencing suffering and destruction is inherently unethical and voyeuristic. However, this study proposes that, when approached with respect and sensitivity, such travel can benefit local communities by fostering awareness, solidarity, and support. Although several studies have addressed war tourism, there remains no universally accepted definition of the hot-war tourism phenomenon. The relevance of this topic is heightened by the ongoing war in Ukraine. As of the time of writing (May–June 2025), any visit to Ukraine since the onset of the full-scale Russian invasion may be considered an act of hot-war tourism, as travel in the region is shaped by the ongoing conflict, including security risks, visible destruction, and wartime restrictions—even when visitors do not intentionally travel or seek out war-torn sites.

This study is particularly significant as it explores how hot-war tourism can contribute to building resilience in conflict-affected destinations. The Ukrainian case offers a unique opportunity to examine how tourism, even under extreme conditions, can support economic recovery, enhance international visibility, and strengthen the psychological resilience of local communities.

2. Methods and Definitions

This research adopts a qualitative case study approach, focusing on the phenomenon of hot-war tourism in Ukraine during the ongoing full-scale Russian invasion. The study integrates both primary insights and secondary sources to investigate the motivations behind such travel, as well as its potential and actual impacts on local recovery and the surrounding ethical debates. Data sources include online platforms—both official and informal—providing information for visitors on entry regulations, safety, and travel conditions; websites of local tour operators offering war-related tourism experiences; journalistic accounts and visitor testimonies; and private conversations with individuals directly or indirectly involved.

The methodological framework is grounded in a review of academic literature on dark tourism and war tourism, which provides the conceptual foundation for interpreting the Ukrainian case within the broader theoretical context (

Table 1. Literature review, in chronological order.

	Author (Year)	Title	Journal	Topic
1	Foley and Lennon (1996)	JFK and dark tourism: A fascination with assassination	International Journal of Heritage Studies	Dark Tourism
2	Seaton (1996)	Guided by the dark: From thanatopsis to thanatourism	International Journal of Heritage Studies	Dark Tourism
3	Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996)	Dissonant Heritage. The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict	N/A	War Tourism
4	V. L. Smith (1998)	War and Tourism: An American Ethnography	Annals of Tourism Research	Dark Tourism
5	Lloyd (1998)	Battlefield Tourism. Pilgrimage and the Commemoration of the Great War	International Journal of Tourism Research	War Tourism, Motivation
6	Henderson (2000)	War as a tourist attraction	Alternatives	Dark Tourism, War Tourism
7	Lisle (2000)	Consuming Danger	Tourism and Hospitality Industry in Central and Eastern Europe	War Tourism
8	Lennon and Foley (2002)	Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster	Cornell University Press	War Tourism
9	Seaton and Lennon (2004)	Thanatourism in the early 21st century.	Taking Tourism to the Limits	Dark Tourism
10	N. Smith and Croy (2005)	Presentation of Dark Tourism: Te Wairoa, The Buried Village	Continuum	Dark Tourism
11	Stone (2006)	A Dark Tourism Spectrum: Towards a typology of death and macabre related tourist sites, attractions and exhibitions	New Horizons in Tourism	Dark Tourism
12	Bissell (2009)	The role of dark tourism in the development of the tourism industry	Current Issues in Tourism	Motivation, Dark Tourism
13	Sharpley and Stone (2009)	The Darker Side of Travel	Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management	Dark Tourism, War Tourism
14	Winter (2011)	Battlefield visitor motivations	Tourism Management	Dark Tourism
15	Simone-Charteris and Boyd (2011)	The Potential for Northern Ireland to Promote Politico-Religious Tourism	Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management	War Tourism
16	Kang et al. (2012)	Benefits of visiting a ‘dark tourism’ site	Occam’s Razor	War Tourism
17	Elvig (2012)	Encounters of a Conflict Tourist	Tourism Review	War Tourism
18	Biran et al. (2013)	Dark tourism scholarship: a critical review	International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research	Dark Tourism
19	Isaac and Çakmak (2014)	Understanding visitor’s motivation at sites of death and disaster	Berg Publishers	War Tourism
20	Lisle (2016)	Holidays in the Danger Zone: Entanglements of War and Tourism	N/A	Hot-War Tourism
21	Mahrouse (2016)	War-Zone Tourism: Thinking Beyond Voyeurism and Danger	ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies	Dark Tourism
22	Light (2017)	Progress in dark tourism and thanatourism research: An uneasy relationship with heritage tourism	Tourism Management Perspectives	Dark Tourism
23	Benedetto (2018)	What is dark tourism?	Annals of Tourism	War Tourism
24	Gordon (2018)	War Tourism	International Journal of Tourism Research	War Tourism
25	Williams et al. (2023)	Social Representations of War Tourism: A Case of Ukraine. Journal of Travel Research	Journal of Travel Research	Hot-war Tourism
26	Fedorova (2023)	Ukraine: Inbound Tourism amid War and Crisis	International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research	Hot-War Tourism
27	Chorna (2023)	The situation and main trends of the development of the tourist industry of Ukraine	Tourism and Hospitality Industry in Central and Eastern Europe	Hot-war Tourism
28	Gonta and Pigulіak (2023)	International tourism in Ukraine	Journal of Travel Research	Dark Tourism, Hot-war Tourism
29	Shchuka et al. (2024)	To the question of the development of war (military) tourism in Ukraine.	Market Infrastructure	War Tourism

). Particular attention is given to perspectives related to tourist motivation, tourism product development, and ethical discourse. This framework enables a critical examination of how hot-war tourism is constructed, perceived, and potentially leveraged as a tool for resilience and recovery in conflict-affected destinations.

In addition to academic literature, this study draws upon a diverse range of sources, including online journals and newspapers, government websites, tour operators’ platforms, and a qualitative interview. These heterogeneous sources are integrated throughout the paper—within sentences, paragraphs, and sections—regardless of their nature or academic weight. This eclectic approach was adopted due to the embryonic stage of the topic and the general scarcity of scholarly literature and empirical data. By incorporating both formal and informal materials, the study aims to construct a more comprehensive and contextually grounded understanding of hot-war tourism in Ukraine.

2.1. Defining Dark Tourism

The concept of dark tourism was first introduced by Foley and Lennon (1996) in their seminal work “JFK and Dark Tourism: A Fascination with Assassination”, where they defined it as the presentation and consumption (by visitors) of real and commodified sites of death and disaster. In the same year, Seaton (1996) coined the term thanatourism, describing it as traveling to a location wholly, or partially, motivated by the desire for actual or symbolic encounters with death. Light (2017) in his overview of the first two decades of research on these phenomena, distinguishes between the two concepts: dark tourism is often used as an umbrella term encompassing any form of tourism related to death, suffering, atrocity, tragedy, or crime, while thanatourism refers more specifically to long-standing practices of travel motivated by a conscious desire to encounter death. In this study, the term dark tourism will be used predominantly, although synonymous expressions such as black tourism, morbid tourism, or grief tourism may appear interchangeably without implying any conceptual difference (Mahrouse, 2016; Stone, 2006). While the term itself is relatively recent, the phenomenon it describes is not. Some scholars argue that dark tourism is among the oldest forms of travel, predating the modern understanding of tourism itself (Bissell, 2009; Seaton & Lennon, 2004). Macabre entertainments were common in the ancient world, where violence and death fascinated audiences. Roman amphitheaters, such as the Colosseum in Rome or the Arena in Verona, can be interpreted as early examples of dark tourism destinations—both in their original function and in their contemporary touristic appeal (Seaton, 1996). Although modern visitors may perceive these sites as cultural, historical, or architectural attractions, their origins are deeply rooted in spectacles of death. Another historical precursor to dark tourism is the religious pilgrimage, as many pilgrimage sites are associated with suffering or the deaths of revered individuals or groups (Benedetto, 2018; Lennon & Foley, 2002). Since its conceptualization in the late 20th century, dark tourism has gained scholarly attention and popularity among travelers (Isaac & Çakmak, 2014). It is now recognized as a significant area of academic inquiry, intersecting disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, ethics, and tourism motivation (Benedetto, 2018). Today, dark tourism has become a popular phenomenon, attracting millions of visitors annually to a wide range of sites, from globally recognized destinations like Auschwitz, Pompeii, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York, to more remote locations such as volcanic disaster zones in Iceland or Kazakhstan’s Polygon nuclear test site. This heterogeneity reflects the fluid boundaries of dark tourism, as visitor motivations and experiences vary widely. Often, visits to dark sites are integrated into broader travel itineraries that include cultural, culinary, or leisure activities. Pure dark visitors prioritize destinations for their historical or tragic significance, but often balance these experiences with other aspects of travel (Isaac & Çakmak, 2014). The interest of these destinations often lies in their capacity to evoke reflection, curiosity, and emotional engagement with historical contexts. Some sites are directly linked to death and disaster, such as mausoleums or concentration camps, while others require a deeper contextual understanding, such as exhibitions on propaganda or ruins of historical tragedies with limited physical evidence. N. Smith and Croy (2005) offer a nuanced conceptualization of dark tourism, emphasizing how sites associated with tragedy are curated and presented for tourism purposes. Their framework highlights the delicate balance between historical accuracy, visitor engagement, and the commodification of tragic events. Dark tourism, in this view, is not merely about visiting places tied to tragedy, but also about creating tourism products that offer meaningful experiences—balancing remembrance, education, and ethical reflection with commercial interests. This perspective provides valuable insights into how dark tourism sites can be responsibly developed to serve both visitors and host communities. Stone (2006) further elaborates on the complexity of dark tourism by identifying several key factors:

• Spontaneous vs. Planned Visits: there is a difference between the immediacy of visiting “sensation” sites linked to contemporary death and suffering and pre-planned trips to structured attractions or exhibitions that focus on both recent or historical events.
• Purpose-Built vs. Accidental Sites: some dark tourism sites are intentionally created to interpret or recreate events tied to death or the macabre. Others, like cemeteries, memorials, or disaster locations, become tourist attractions unintentionally because of their connection to tragic events, a certain sort of pilgrimage.
• Visitor Motivation: the level of influence of “dark” motives on choosing that specific destination. Visitors may choose a destination that among its attractions contains a dark site too, but if this site was not a decision-making factor, it becomes not obvious whether this could be called dark tourism.
• Purpose Behind the Sites: Dark tourism sites are created or maintained for various reasons like political agendas, remembrance, education, entertainment, or even economic profit. Each purpose shapes how these sites are presented and perceived.

These factors underscore the layered and multifaceted nature of dark tourism, both in how it is experienced by visitors and how it is produced by stakeholders. As will be explored in the following section, visitor motivation plays a crucial role in defining the nature of the activity and its ethical implications.

2.2. Dark Tourism Motivations

Understanding tourist motivation remains a complex and, at times, ambiguous challenge—particularly within the field of dark tourism. Prior to the late 1960s and early 1970s, research on tourist motivation primarily focused on how destinations attract visitors, without addressing the deeper origins of the desire to travel. Early studies emphasized the who, when, where, and how of tourism through social, economic, and cultural lenses, while largely neglecting the fundamental why: the root of visitor behavior (Crompton, 1979). While the reasons given for travel and the benefits sought from the travel experience may represent strategies for meeting individual goals and personal needs, it is unlikely that they represent the core motivation behind traveling (Fodness, 1994). In response to this gap, Dann (1977) introduced the influential push and pull theory, which distinguishes between internal psychological drivers (push factors) and external destination attributes (pull factors). When travel is directed toward places associated with death, tragedy, or conflict, motivations become even more complex, often blending emotional, psychological, and socio-political dimensions. This aligns with John Urry’s concept of the tourist gaze, which emphasizes that tourism is shaped not only by the physical characteristics of places but also by the cultural and societal frameworks through which they are interpreted (Urry, 1990, 1992; Urry & Larsen, 2011). In dark tourism, this is particularly evident: the consumption of destinations such as conflict zones or sites of tragedy is mediated through a socially constructed gaze, where visual, emotional, and symbolic elements shape the visitor experience. The theory of staged authenticity further suggests that visitors often seek what they perceive to be authentic experiences, even when these are partially orchestrated or curated for consumption (Scott, 2014). This tension between the pursuit of authenticity and the reality of mediated experiences is especially relevant in dark tourism, where narratives of trauma or ongoing conflict may be selectively framed to align with visitor expectations. These theoretical perspectives help contextualize how visitors engage with dark destinations, not only through personal interest or educational intent, but also through deeper cultural and symbolic processes. In this paper we suggest also that viewing tourist motivation as part of a changing and adaptive system helps to better understand dark visitors’ motivations. The Complex Adaptive System framework proposed by Khalilzadeh et al. (2024) reconceptualizes visitors’ motivation as a dynamic, evolving system shaped by non-linear interactions between tourists, destinations, and external influences. Unlike traditional linear models, the CAS approach emphasizes how visitor behavior emerges from adaptive processes and complex networks, offering a broader understanding of how motivations shift in response to changing experiences and environments. (Khalilzadeh et al., 2024).

Since the emergence of dark tourism as a scholarly subject, much research has focused on what this type of tourism could offer to its consumers and what places attract the most attention. However, motivation has often remained a secondary or speculative topic. Light (2017) attempted to synthesize the wide range of motivations identified in the literature, including remembrance, education or entertainment, curiosity about the unusual; a (sometimes voyeuristic) attraction to horror; and a desire for empathy or identification with the victims of atrocity; secular pilgrimage; a desire for inner purification; schadenfreude; ghoulish titillation; a childlike curiosity about mortality; a search for the otherness of death; an interest in personal genealogy and family history; nostalgia; a search for ‘authentic’ places in a commodified world; a fascination with evil and a desire to encounter the pure/impure sacred. Earlier, at the dawn of these studies, a segmentation in categories of tourist was offered according to their motivation. For instance, the author appeals to Lennon and Foley (2002) who offered two types of motivation: those specialist interest or personal connection to a particular site (or the events that took place there), and those (the majority) without such a connection who visit for other reasons, which is another example of how superficial these studies were. Similarly, Cohen (1979) proposed a typology of tourist experiences ranging from recreational and diversionary to experiential, experimental, and existential modes. This model helps to interpret the wide spectrum of dark tourism motivations outlined by Light (2017)—from casual curiosity and entertainment to deeper quests for meaning and identity. Starting from the mid-2000s, the interest was in growth, but still motivation for each author was very vague, and there was not any consensus on a unique framework. This reinforces the view that demand for dark tourism is highly heterogeneous, with visitors drawn to the same site for vastly different reasons (Stone, 2022). In his review of 30 empirical studies, dedicated in one way or another to dark tourism, Light (2017) identified 20 distinct motivations for visiting dark sites. Among the most common were the desire for education, understanding, and curiosity. Interest in death/morbid curiosity, often considered central to dark tourism, ranked only tenth, suggesting a disconnect between academic definitions and actual visitor motivations. Foley and Lennon (1996) in their work stated that understanding about what really happened at the place of their research (JFK’s assassination site) drove most visitors. These two motives also seem quite logical in terms of common sense. Another important finding of this framework is that the motivation factor formulated as “interest in death/morbid curiosity” is collocated in the very middle of this hierarchy in 10th place, despite being the closest one to the academic description of the phenomenon. A second similar phenomenon could be collocated at any place from 2 to 7 (of 20) as it was mentioned the same number of times as the other five factors. It sounds like a desire for contact and connection with death/dark events/violence. Again, it highlights the complexity and wrong perception of both dark tourists and dark tourism and questions its very definition.

What was noticed during this research and analysis of others’ studies is that the whole discipline lacks attention to motivational factors before the experience occurs. So, asking people before they visit a dark site rather than post-factum. For example, in Will Coldwell’s article from The Guardian (2013) dedicated to dark tourism, a short comment of a 20-year-old student who had just visited the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone was reported: “… I felt a sense of gladness that my family and I haven’t had to experience horrors like those in Chornobyl”. This is a thought that appeared after visiting the place, so this feeling could not drive him there—he never knew he would come up with this thought—in the first place, it must have been something else that so far has not been studied yet. Motivations for engaging in dark tourism are as diverse as the sites themselves. For many, it is an educational journey aimed at understanding historical tragedies and their implications. Others are driven by curiosity or a desire to confront existential questions about mortality, resilience, or societal collapse (Winter, 2011). On a more philosophical and emotional level, some visitors may use dark tourism as a means of grappling with existential fears or seeking meaning in the face of historical trauma.

2.3. Defining Hot War Tourism

War tourism has been a focal point of academic inquiry since the early development of dark tourism studies (Seaton, 1996; V. L. Smith, 1998). Like dark tourism itself, war tourism is characterized by vague boundaries and conceptual ambiguity, making it difficult to establish a globally certain accepted definition. This subchapter draws on scholarly literature, journalistic sources, and policy documents to explore how war tourism has been framed, interpreted, and, in some cases, regulated. War tourism has been examined through multiple academic lenses, including heritage tourism, history tourism, political tourism, and dark tourism, resulting in a heterogeneous phenomenon including diverse experiences, moral contexts, interpretations, and motivations. In Seaton’s foundational work, war tourism is presented as a subset of thanatourism, encompassing travel to battlefields, sites of mass or individual death, murder scenes, graves, prisons, memorials, and exhibitions related to death. This framing positions war tourism within the broader context of death-related travel and remembrance (Seaton, 1996). V. L. Smith (1998), while not explicitly using the term war tourism as a scholarly category, identified the practice of visiting battlefields, war memorials, and military museums as part of heritage tourism. She emphasized that such sites serve commemorative and educational functions, while also attracting casual visitors. Lloyd explored how World War I battlefields evolved from pilgrimage destinations for veterans and their families into structured tourism attractions, highlighting the transformation of personal memory into commodified experience (Lloyd, 1998). Building on the framework of dark tourism (Lennon & Foley, 2002), Lisle (2016) introduced a typology of war tourists based on the timing and nature of their visits to conflict zones:

• Hot-war tourists: these are individuals who arrive during active conflict or immediately after an atrocity, seeking to witness destruction firsthand. They also mention adrenalin disaster tourists, who are driven by the same desires, but visiting not war sites, but places of natural, environment and other destruction. However, the authors Lennon and Foley dismiss this category as voyeuristic and morally questionable.
• Serendipitous tourists: these tourists encounter war-related sites as part of a broader vacation rather than specifically seeking them out. They arrive well after a conflict, once the infrastructure has been repaired and the site has been formally integrated into the tourism industry.
• Battlefield tourists: these visitors seek out historical war sites, such as World War I and II battlefields, where the memory of war has been institutionalized and commemorated in museums, memorials, and guided tours (Lisle, 2016).

Another essential dimension of war tourism is its political function. Through war-related sites, governments can construct and disseminate narratives aimed at both domestic and international audiences. While much of the academic literature situates war tourism within the broader category of history tourism (Gordon, 2018; Kang et al., 2012; Lennon & Foley, 2002; Lloyd, 1998; Seaton, 1996; Sharpley & Stone, 2009; Simone-Charteris & Boyd, 2011; V. L. Smith, 1998; N. Smith & Croy, 2005; Winter, 2011), several scholars have emphasized its political and ideological dimensions. Henderson (2000) for example, analyzed how sites such as the Cu Chi Tunnels and the War Remnants Museum, legacies of the Vietnam War, were transformed into tourist attractions for both domestic and international visitors. His work highlights how war narratives are often politically framed, particularly in post-conflict societies (Henderson, 2000). Similarly, Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) in their concept of dissonant heritage, examined how war-related sites are frequently contested spaces, shaped by government narratives, ideological agendas, and selective historical memory. This perspective has influenced subsequent studies on the curation and commodification of war heritage in various geopolitical contexts. Stone further developed this idea through his Dark Tourism Spectrum, suggesting that the darkest sites, those most ideologically significant to the state, are often less commodified and more tightly controlled in terms of narrative and interpretation. These sites serve as instruments of national identity, remembrance, and political messaging (Biran et al., 2013). Elvig (2012) describes conflict tourism as a form of dark tourism (related to death, disaster, destruction, etc.) where the visitors travel to current conflict areas or areas where conflict has recently occurred. Lisle (2000, 2016) argues that rather than being separate from war, tourism actively participates in the production, representation, and commodification of conflict. According to her, war tourism encompasses visits to sites of past or ongoing conflict and is shaped by global security discourses that influence perceptions of safety and danger. This includes battlefield tourism, post-war commemorative tourism, and the voyeuristic consumption of war zones as exotic, dangerous, or thrilling destinations (Lisle, 2000, 2016). The commodification of war through guided tours, exhibitions, and symbolic sites has become particularly visible in countries like Ukraine, where ongoing conflict draws global attention. In this context, war can be packaged and sold, raising ethical questions about the boundaries between education, remembrance, and exploitation. A particularly illustrative perspective comes from Mr. Hohenhaus, a dark tourism expert and founder of dark-tourism.com. In an email exchange with the authors, he was asked whether visiting Ukraine, without approaching frontline regions, could be considered hot-war tourism. He responded: “strictly speaking I would limit the term ‘war tourism’ to travels to go and see actual battle action, including killings. Going to the front lines of, e.g., Donbas for that purpose would indeed be unethical war tourism. Visiting Kyiv for all its non-war-related splendors I would not call war tourism, even though the country is technically at war, but if that’s not the purpose of the tourism then it’s not really war tourism”. This viewpoint highlights the ongoing debate about how to define and ethically evaluate war tourism in real time. Is it the context that defines war tourism (as being in a war-torn country), or the intent and focus of the visitor? This question becomes especially relevant in Ukraine’s case, where everyday life continues in parallel with the active conflict.

Actually, Shchuka et al. (2024) provided the most updated and complete classification of war tourism: (Figure 1).

The offered classification divides war tourism into two categories: cold and hot and further divides each of these categories into eight sub-categories as follows:

• “Hot war tours”: travel to the areas of active hostilities for educational and/or business purposes;
• “Fighting volunteering”: traveling to other countries to participate in a conflict as a volunteer soldier;
• “Non-fighting volunteering”: traveling to provide free medical, psychological and other types of assistance to victims of military conflict;
• “Virtual military tours”: an online tour for the purpose of learning and/or combat/non-combat digital volunteering;
• “Military-educational (historical) tourism”: tours for getting acquainted with military heritage and honoring the memory of the fallen in wars;
• “Military-adventuring tourism”: active recreation that involves the use of military equipment and gear, participation in military exercises and maneuvers, etc.;
• “Military events”: visiting military and historical reenactments, festivals, military parades, etc.;
• “Military commemorative tourism (pilgrimage tourism, memory routes)”: a trip to visit the places of death and/or burial of loved ones or famous people (Shchuka et al., 2024).

Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) argue that many governments and stakeholders utilize heritage tourism as a tool for economic development. Heritage sites are promoted not only as attractions that generate revenue, employment, and infrastructural investment, but also as platforms for conveying narratives that raise awareness of events deemed socially and historically significant. Examples such as Ground Zero in New York City or Babyn Yar in Ukraine illustrate how such sites can serve dual purposes, economic and educational, while fostering collective memory and international dialog. Building on this perspective, the present study explores how hot-war tourism may similarly function as both an economic driver and a means of global communication. In the context of Ukraine, this communicative dimension is particularly crucial. As we navigate the information age, the Russian–Ukrainian war extends far beyond the physical battlefields, encompassing digital, symbolic, and narrative arenas. Tourism, in this light, becomes a channel through which war-affected societies can engage with the international community, shape perceptions, and assert agency over their own stories.

2.4. Hot War Tourism Motivations

The motivations behind war tourism are diverse and multifaceted, ranging from personal curiosity and political interest to thrill-seeking and a desire for first-hand understanding. Death, suffering, violence, and disaster have long been integral to human history and culture, shaping collective memory, narratives, and even travel behavior. The impulse to witness and comprehend such events is a deeply rooted human instinct, one that transcends mere voyeurism. While some individuals satisfy this curiosity through literature, media, or education, others seek direct engagement by visiting places marked by tragedy and conflict. In the context of war and dark tourism, however, motivations often extend beyond simple curiosity.

Motivation is central to tourism production, as it activates customer/visitor behavior by providing the initial impulse, guiding direction, and shaping the nature of the experience by defining their direction and typology (De Marchi, 2025). According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the main purpose of a tourism trip is defined as the purpose in the absence of which the trip would not have taken place (United Nations, 2008). This definition invites critical reflection in the context of war tourism: what is the primary motivation that compels individuals to visit conflict or post-conflict zones? Defining the war tourist is not straightforward. As a subcategory of dark tourism, war tourism presents its own classification challenges. Scholarly research on individuals who deliberately seek out active war or conflict zones remains limited. As Williams et al. (2023) observe, the motivations of such visitors are underexplored, lacking formalization and a structured analytical framework.

In the case of Ukraine, a pressing question arises: are visitors primarily drawn by the war itself, or by other, non-conflict-related attractions? Would these same individuals choose Ukraine as a destination if the war were not ongoing? Conversely, would they still travel to Ukraine for cultural or historical reasons if the country were not at war? These are philosophical questions for which no empirical studies currently offer definitive answers. Importantly, this study does not refer to visits to frontline areas, evacuation zones, or abandoned towns—places where active hostilities or humanitarian crises are ongoing. Rather, it focuses on areas where daily life continues despite the war, and where the conflict is present but not immediately visible. These are regions not under direct artillery threat, yet still shaped by the broader context of war where life goes on as usual despite the war that is felt, even if the fighting areas are hundreds of kilometers away.

Studying war tourism is inherently difficult due to the unique nature of each conflict. Every war differs in its causes, contexts, and consequences, making it challenging to generalize or isolate visitor motivations. Nevertheless, we argue that any visitor who chooses Ukraine as a destination during the ongoing war is, consciously or subconsciously, influenced by the conflict. This choice introduces operational complexities and ethical considerations, as it involves selecting a destination that is, by definition, unstable and potentially unsafe. Ultimately, choosing to travel to Ukraine during wartime reflects a willingness to engage with a context that is far more complex and emotionally charged than that of conventional tourism, beyond any other tourist destination.

3. Results

3.1. Inbound Tourism in Ukraine by 24 February 2022

Tourism is one of the industries that suffered the most due to the full-scale Russian invasion which started on 24 February 2022—not to mention the COVID-19 pandemic that was raging since 2020 and was still affecting the whole industry at the moment of the invasion (Fedorova, 2023). The airspace was instantly closed for civil aviation, cutting off the most convenient way for reaching the country from abroad. Overall losses caused by the pandemic in 2020 were estimated at 74% (compared with 2019) and at 80% due to the full-scale invasion in 2022 (compared with 2021). Inbound tourism lost 85–90% of arrivals in 2022, leaving the whole tourism sector without foreign currency in conditions of high inflation caused by the war. In such an extreme situation it is crucial for the state to reinvent certain industries in order to be able to mitigate, at least partially, economic losses caused by war (Chorna, 2023).

Inbound tourism in Ukraine has been suffering since 2014, after the seizing and annexing of the Crimea peninsula by the Russian Federation and further war in the Eastern regions in Ukraine, started by Russia-backed militias. Overall losses due to the annexation of Crimea represent approximately 30% of tourist-recreational potential for the whole tourism industry in Ukraine (Gonta & Pigulіak, 2023). The inbound arrivals due to these events dropped by 48.5% in comparison with 2013 (Figure 2) (UNWTO, 2025).

State’s Policy

Regardless of all the difficulties, the government has never closed the state borders for visitors. Moreover, the Ukrainian president Zelensky (2025) in many formal addresses and interviews, encouraged people to come visit Ukraine to witness the atrocities of the war, thereby trying to raise awareness and sensitization for the Ukrainian tragedy in foreign communities.

The state provides all the necessary information for visiting Ukraine in war time. The official Ukrainian state platform Visit Ukraine (2025) serves as a comprehensive digital resource for both inbound and outbound visitors, offering essential information tailored to passport type and destination. Despite the imposition of martial law, the platform actively promotes travel to Ukraine, while clearly outlining the associated security considerations. Under the section “Rules of Entry,” visitors are informed of standard entry requirements and are strongly advised to obtain insurance that covers not only basic medical services, diagnostics, and treatment, but also risks associated with the ongoing full-scale Russian invasion. The platform facilitates the purchase of such insurance directly through its interface. The “Rules of Safe Stay in Ukraine: A Guide for Foreigners” highlights that no city in Ukraine can currently be considered entirely safe. While the most intense fighting is localized in the eastern and southern regions, the entire country remains under threat of rocket attacks. Visitors are provided with a detailed set of guidelines, including adherence to curfews, procedures at checkpoints, responses to air raid alerts, and the importance of knowing one’s blood type.

In response to the exceptional conditions under martial law, the platform includes a dedicated section titled “Useful Resources for Foreigners”, which features the following:

• Real-time border crossing information and traffic tracking tools, necessary due to the unavailability of air travel;
• An online air raid alert map with automatic updates every 15 s;
• A comprehensive handbook on survival during martial law and other emergencies;
• Access to psychological support services;
• Curated English-language media and guidance on how international audiences can assist Ukraine.

Another attempt of adopting war tourism as a strategy for communication by the government was made by the State Agency for Tourism Development of Ukraine (SATD). In February 2025, SATD launched the course for tour guides and municipalities on how to present in a socially sustainable way the war for inbound tourists, how to create a proper and ethical memorialization of tragic events and victims of the war, how to make it inclusive, and other important aspects.

This strategic approach signals that the Ukrainian state does not discourage tourism despite the ongoing conflict. On the contrary, it is actively investing in its promotion by consolidating legal information, safety protocols, and travel services into a centralized, user-friendly platform that even offers personalized guided tours. This stands in stark contrast to the travel advisories issued by numerous Western governments—including Canada, the United States, Ireland, Australia, and Italy—which maintain “Do not travel” or “Avoid all travel” warnings regarding Ukraine.

3.2. Dark Tourism and Hot War Tourism Product in Ukraine

Ukraine had already been a notable destination for dark tourism long before the full-scale Russian invasion on 24 February 2022. The country’s most recognized dark tourism site is the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant and its surroundings, ranked as the world’s top dark site (Dark-tourism.com, 2025). Other historically significant locations include World War II memorials such as Babyn Yar in Kyiv, the Yalta Conference venues, and the Mother Ukraine monument. Additionally, Ukraine’s Soviet-era architecture and Cold War relics, such as the Strategic Missile Base in Pervomaisk, have drawn dark tourism interest.

Following the onset of conflict in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, hot war tourism began to emerge alongside existing dark tourism activities. Tour operators began offering guided visits to active combat zones for approximately UAH 1000 (around EUR 62 in 2014), with some packages including flak jackets and armed security. Locations such as the MH17 crash site briefly became tourist attractions, though these practices largely subsided and are no longer actively documented.

As of June 2025, any tourist visit to Ukraine inherently intersects with war realities, making such travel a form of war tourism—even when the visit’s primary purpose is not to observe conflict zones. Visitors are exposed to martial law constraints including curfews, checkpoints, air raid sirens, and bombed infrastructure, as well as the emotional resonance of public memorials and daily national moments of silence. These conditions shape an unavoidable war-inflected experience of place.

The boundaries of what constitutes war tourism remain contested. Dark tourism expert H. Hohenhaus argues that only visits to active battle zones qualify as hot war tourism. In personal correspondence, he stated that tourism in Kyiv for its cultural sites does not constitute war tourism unless the war is the main purpose. He emphasized the importance of tourists’ motivation—a philosophical and underexplored issue in existing academic literature. Nevertheless, this study considers all travel to Ukraine during wartime as part of the war tourism spectrum, noting that even the logistics of entering the country (e.g., lack of air routes, complex border crossings) reflect wartime reality.

The war has significantly impacted Ukraine’s tourism industry. Many operators have ceased or suspended activity, while others have shifted operations abroad (Rbc, 2022). Simultaneously, a new wave of operators have emerged offering explicitly war-related tourism experiences. Examples of Reoriented and New Tour Operators are the following:

• Capital Tours Kyiv restructured its offer to include emotionally charged tours through Bucha, Irpin, Hostomel, and Borodyanka—areas that endured atrocities during the early weeks of the invasion and were liberated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in spring 2022. These guided tours incorporate both recent war history and the broader context of Ukrainian–Russian relations. Tours begin at USD 120, with at least 50% of proceeds donated to the AFU (Kyiv Independent, 2024).
• Chernobyl X, originally focused on expeditions to the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone, pivoted to organizing humanitarian tours through de-occupied Northern Kyiv Region. Due to restricted access to Chornobyl, the company now offers interactive visits where visitors engage with local residents and help distribute aid. Participants are warned that the experience is not for casual or insensitive tourists. The tours are designed with safety in mind, following routes free from mines or active threats. (Chernobylx.com, 2025; CNN, 2024).
• Visit Ukraine (2025) the official national platform, also offers war-related tourism. Among its four listed options is the “Escort in de-occupied cities” tour, priced at EUR 404 for two persons and including SUV transport and an English-speaking guide. It also promotes “Donation Tours”—exclusive packages aimed at supporting Ukraine’s economy and humanitarian efforts. These include accommodation, meals, interpretation, first aid courses, photography services, and a EUR 500 donation selected by the client. Prices range from EUR 1314 to EUR 1840.
• War Tours, a newly founded operator specializing solely in war tourism, offers three routes: a Kyiv city tour, a visit to Bucha and Irpin, and a trip to Kharkiv—one of Ukraine’s most heavily shelled cities due to its proximity to the Russian border. The company combines educational and philanthropic objectives, contributing part of its revenue to the Ukrainian military (Hromadske, 2024; War Tours, 2025).
• Young Pioneer Tours (2025) is an international agency that was founded back in 2008 by a British individual, Gareth Johnson. It all started with tours to North Korea, but now the company organizes trips all over the world. On their website, there is a category dedicated to tours into “Soviet Europe”. Such a tour operator attracts criticism as they also promote tours that might be seen as politically incorrect and even violating international law. Among such tours there are visits to non-recognized separatist territories like Transnistria (separatist pro-Russian regime established on the territory of the internationally recognized republic of Moldova), Abkhazia and South Ossetia (internationally recognized as Georgian territory, invaded by Russia and managed by separatist pro-Russian regimes). Among tours to “Soviet Europe” there are also tours to Ukraine amid war.
• In Lviv Tours agency was founded by a British individual Pete Gr, who has been living in Lviv since 2013. The agency offered tours in English. Since 2023, the agency has been organizing war tours. The founder decided to do this after losing his friend in the war, to honor his friend and help the AFU. Pete believes that military people are the best for telling foreigners about what is happening in Ukraine. He expects his company to hire former military personnel after the war ends, when tourists start coming to the country again in large numbers. But for now, he personally accompanies visitors who ask him to escort them to Kyiv or Odesa. Half of the income from military tourism goes to the needs of the army (BBC, 2025; Capital Tours, 2025).

War tourism in Ukraine is a niche: the tourism service-products are relatively homogeneous and poorly marketed. Most attention is focused on Bucha, Irpin, and Hostomel, sites symbolically associated with Russian war crimes and Ukrainian resilience. These locations have been frequented by international leaders, contributing to their visibility. However, this symbolic spotlight risks excluding other war-affected communities whose stories remain underrepresented. Without intentional diversification of tourism narratives and support for lesser-known regions, the sector may fail to achieve social sustainability.

This study serves first of all as chronicle of the development of a relatively new phenomenon that is traveling to countries at war for tourism purposes. The work tried to make an academic frame of this phenomenon, even though there is no certain and commonly accepted definition for it. The literature overview tried to answer the question “why” visitors may choose such a destination for their trip. The literature showed that people often choose dark tourism for education purposes and emphatic feelings. Later in this text we will see the testimonies of visitors of Ukraine in war that confirm the theory. As another result we saw how local service providers are adapting to such requests and trying to save the whole inbound travel industry from extinction.

In conclusion, while war tourism in Ukraine has developed into a recognizable niche, it continues to provoke ethical debates both within Ukrainian society and abroad. Consideration of morality and tourist motivation must be central to any effort aimed at shaping a sustainable and responsible war tourism product.

4. Discussion

War tourism, like dark tourism more broadly, remains ethically controversial—particularly in its most intense form: hot war tourism. Unlike traditional dark tourism, where the tragic events are historical, hot war tourism unfolds amidst ongoing violence and trauma, leading to heightened moral scrutiny. Public reaction to this topic is often negative; anecdotal experience reveals widespread criticism upon merely mentioning the concept of war tourism in Ukraine. However, the issue is far more nuanced than it first appears.

Scholars such as Lisle, Mahrouse, and Stone have noted in their works that both dark and war tourism are frequently accused of voyeurism (Lisle, 2016; Mahrouse, 2016; Stone, 2006). Nonetheless, these authors suggest that such travel can also have educational and empathetic functions. Human curiosity about suffering and historical processes, particularly war—one of humanity’s most enduring phenomena—can fuel meaningful reflection and understanding. This duality is evident in contemporary visitor testimonies and journalist accounts regarding Ukraine.

Tour operators such as War Tours report increasing interest in their services. CEO Dmytro Nikiforov explained that many visitors want to see the war’s effects firsthand, beyond the filtered lens of the media. In 2024, War Tours served over 30 foreign clients, many of whom sought to understand the conflict, support Ukraine, and participate in volunteer activities (Hromadske, 2024; War Tours, 2025). According to the authors’ personal phone conversation with Nikiforov, he states that even if some visitors would have come to Ukraine without the war, the ongoing conflict was the decisive factor. Notably, many expressed a desire to return post-war to experience Ukraine’s culture, history, and hospitality.

Pete from In Lviv Tour has his vision on how to reintegrate ex-militaries by employing them in his company. This is another very important dimension of how such tourism can contribute to building resilience and socially sustainable development. “I have another job. I work in tourism in Italy, and I am a programmer. So, I have an income. For me, tourism (in Ukraine) is not really about income. It’s about helping Ukraine. This is my motivation.” Pete said to the BBC (2025).

Individual testimonies further complicate the moral picture. A Scottish tourist, Daniel Hosie, described his experience visiting Irpin as surreal, having previously watched footage of the destroyed bridge blown up to stop Russian advancement (Kyiv Independent, 2024). Another visitor from Malaysia reflected that the tour made the suffering of Ukrainians emotionally tangible, transforming abstract statistics into human stories (Kyiv Independent, 2024). Nick Tan, a visitor from the U.S., expressed that his motivation stemmed from the disconnection of Western comfort and a desire to witness Ukraine’s reality (Hromadske, 2024). Tour operators report that around 80% of their clients are male, mostly from the EU, U.S., Canada, Australia, and Japan, spanning a broad age range from 18 to 70 (Hromadske, 2024).

Tour guides emphasize that their clients are not thrill-seekers. Rather, they are ethical individuals driven by solidarity and the need to understand. “They don’t come for excitement” one guide noted, “but for understanding. They shake hands with Ukrainians and say, ‘We support you’” (Kyiv Independent, 2024). Many visitors interact directly with locals, offer donations, and ask how they can help.

However, the local population’s reaction to tourism in war-affected areas is complex. Initially, many residents saw such visits as exploitative. Mariana Oleskiv, head of Ukraine’s State Agency for Tourism Development, confirmed that early post-liberation tours were met with resistance, as they reopened fresh wounds. Over time, perceptions shifted. Residents began to recognize the importance of raising international awareness of both Ukrainian heroism and Russian atrocities. Yet not all locals agree, questioning visitors on “Why do you come here? Why do you want to see our sadness?” (Chernobylx.com, 2025). Others, like Serhii Ahiyev of Hostomel, moved from skepticism to support, recognizing the potential of tourism to tell the truth about the war (Unian, 2024).

Tour operators argue that their work is more mission-driven than commercial. For example, guides from War Tours and Capital Tours see their roles as deeply social. Dmytro Nikiforov describes his work as activism rather than business. Sviatoslav Moiseev from Capital Tours believes war tourism, while uncomfortable, can attract crucial international attention: “Foreign visitors and their media [should] pay more attention to the war, because it is a factor in our survival”. He views his contribution symbolically, as “a thousandth of a percent… but it’s my contribution, and I’m proud of it” (Kyiv Independent, 2024).

Now war tourism in Ukraine is still in its early stages, albeit expanding steadily. Most tours focus on Northern Kyiv Region, especially the de-occupied cities of Bucha, Irpin, and Borodyanka—places made globally symbolic by political visits and media coverage. These locations also feature murals by Banksy, created during his visit in November 2022 (Banksy Explained, 2022). Regions beyond this northern corridor remain underrepresented. Even though any visit to Ukraine today inevitably intersects with war realities, this experiential dimension has yet to be explored in academic literature.

War tourism in Ukraine thus raises an urgent ethical question: is it educational or exploitative? While some critics question its morality, proponents argue that in times of existential crisis, international awareness and solidarity are vital. Ukraine’s fight for survival against a stronger aggressor demands multifaceted global support—not only political, but also cultural and societal. So far, no reports have surfaced of overtly voyeuristic visitors. Most criticisms stem from visited communities rather than from problematic visitor behaviors. As locals grow to understand the broader significance of these visits, resistance often softens. The emerging field of war tourism in Ukraine appears to be more educational and empathetic than voyeuristic. Criticism often arises from a doctrinal aversion to war itself—understandable yet detached from the realities of people living through conflict. Ignoring such phenomena risks moral complacency. Curiosity, when informed and responsible, can foster connection and understanding. Motivation to witness war firsthand should not be dismissed outright but understood as part of a complex web of emotional, cultural, and human factors. Managed ethically, war tourism has the potential to build solidarity, raise awareness, and help Ukraine in one of the darkest chapters of its history.

5. Conclusions

This research contributes to the academic discourse on dark tourism and hot-war tourism by addressing a significant gap in the current literature: the lack of structured frameworks for understanding visitor motivations in active conflict zones. While dark tourism has been widely studied in post-conflict and memorial contexts, hot-war tourism remains under-theorized and often dismissed due to ethical concerns and definitional ambiguity. By focusing on Ukraine—a country experiencing an ongoing war—this study offers a rare real-time analysis of tourism dynamics in a conflict setting. The study introduces a nuanced perspective on tourist motivation, integrating classical theories (e.g., push–pull, staged authenticity, tourist gaze) with contemporary models such as the Complex Adaptive System framework. This post-disciplinary approach enriches the theoretical landscape by proposing that war tourism motivations are dynamic, context-sensitive, and shaped by socio-political environments. By framing hot-war tourism as a legitimate and ethically manageable phenomenon, this study encourages scholars to reconsider its place within tourism theory and crisis studies. It advocates for the development of new conceptual models that account for tourism in unstable environments, and calls for empirical research that includes pre-visit motivations, rather than post-visit reflections.

Furthermore, this study explores how hot-war tourism can contribute to building resilience in war-torn destinations, using Ukraine as a contemporary and urgent case. The research highlights the potential of war tourism to serve not only economic functions but also symbolic and communicative roles, positioning it as a tool for resilience and international engagement. In wartime economies, sectors like tourism may appear non-essential. However, they can become crucial sources of income and engagement. With over 26.3% of Ukraine’s GDP in 2025 allocated to defense (Suspilne, 2024), even symbolic economic activity gains significance. War tourism, if managed responsibly, contributes both materially and emotionally—especially when proceeds support humanitarian or military efforts (Catalyst Planet, 2024). No formal data exists on war tourism volume, yet anecdotal evidence shows growing demand. Even though it is not still possible to estimate the impact on a macroeconomy level, testimonies show how such activities can contribute to community-level resilience. The value of this income lies in its targeted nature, boosting local economies and avoiding the inefficiencies of top-down resource distribution. In fact, direct aid from volunteers and donors has played a crucial role in sustaining Ukraine’s defense and society (Le Monde, 2025). While we acknowledge that the monetary contribution of hot-war tourism is modest compared to Ukraine’s defense budget and broader economic needs, its value lies in its targeted impact on local communities, its ability to sustain international attention, and its role in fostering solidarity. In wartime conditions, even small-scale, decentralized economic activities can contribute to resilience, especially when they are community-driven and ethically managed. The concept of resilience, as used in this study, goes beyond macroeconomic stabilization, including symbolic resilience, emotional support, and the preservation of cultural identity under siege. Tour operators and visitors alike have demonstrated that war tourism can evolve into a participatory practice. Contrary to common assumptions, most participants in war tourism are not thrill-seekers, but visitors motivated by ethical, educational, or humanitarian concerns. Their engagement—ranging from volunteerism and financial contributions to knowledge-sharing—has created new channels of support for affected communities. In this way, war tourism has become part of Ukraine’s adaptive response to crisis, helping sustain both local identity and international awareness during a prolonged period of instability. However, this form of tourism requires careful ethical management. The balance between remembrance and sensationalism remains delicate. For war tourism to contribute meaningfully to resilience, it must be grounded in respect for local narratives, sensitivity to trauma, and transparency in its objectives. Encouragingly, Ukrainian institutions such as the State Agency for Tourism Development have begun to develop frameworks, such as guide training programs, to ensure that these experiences are socially sustainable and ethically sound.

We also acknowledge the inherent uncertainty surrounding the reliability and long-term sustainability of hot-war tourism in Ukraine, particularly in light of shifting battlefield conditions and diplomatic developments, which pose tangible challenges to the continuity of such visits. The Ukrainian case illustrates that resilience in tourism is not solely a matter of post-war recovery, but also of real-time adaptation. Accordingly, this study conceptualizes hot-war tourism in Ukraine as a transitional and adaptive mechanism—a form of engagement responsive to crisis conditions. While its initial relevance stemmed from short-term adaptability rather than long-term scalability, the protracted nature of the conflict has begun to transform hot-war tourism into a more stable and structured activity. It is gradually transitioning from a reactive engagement mechanism to a stabilizing component of destination resilience and international outreach, with emerging prospects for long-term integration within Ukraine’s broader tourism offering. Tourism activities have emerged that align with both the emotional and material needs of communities, transforming travel from passive observation into participatory solidarity. This suggests that, even amid active conflict, tourism can evolve into a mechanism for empowerment and connection rather than exploitation. A new horizon of opportunities for war-torn destinations can derive from the next step of e-tourism: the virtualization of tourism services, products, and experiences (De Marchi, 2025).

Nonetheless, this study has certain limitations. The lack of clear, established boundaries for the concept of hot-war tourism in academic literature, along with public skepticism, have hindered deeper exploration of its socio-economic benefits. As such, some aspects of this work remain speculative. Moreover, the findings are context-specific and cannot be generalized to other war zones, given the highly heterogeneous nature of political and social conditions in each case. A further gap remains in understanding the experiences of visitors who travel to Ukraine for non-war-related reasons but are nonetheless affected by the conflict during their stay.

A country at war faces profound socio-economic challenges and in such conditions every contribution matters, whether small or big. In Ukraine, the war has disrupted numerous industries, severely impacting the nation’s economic capacity. In this context, any source of foreign currency inflow becomes vital. Hot-war tourism—when guided by ethical standards and community involvement—can play a constructive role in strengthening the resilience of destinations under siege. As conflicts continue to affect regions across the globe, further research is needed to explore how war tourism can be integrated into broader strategies for crisis response, recovery, and possible long-term sustainability. Ukraine’s experience offers a compelling foundation for this emerging discourse.