The Second Strike Can Be More Dangerous Than the First

22 August 2026

Executive Summary

Yesterday’s devastating reported double-strike on a shopping centre in Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine contains an important security lesson for any organisation operating in a conflict or high-threat environment.

At least 16 people were killed and more than 130 wounded in the Russian drone attack, according to Ukrainian authorities.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said a second drone struck the shopping centre around 30 minutes after the first, describing it as an attempt to target emergency responders. Reuters reports that allegation; AP has also described the incident as a reported “double-tap” strike. 

Regardless of the unresolved question of intent, the practical risk lesson is extremely important:

The first explosion does not necessarily mean the attack is over.

UK Impact

This is primarily relevant to UK organisations with:

• Overseas staff.
• Ukraine operations.
• Security contractors.
• Journalists.
• Humanitarian activities.
• Infrastructure projects.
• International construction.
• High-risk travel.

Many corporate emergency plans naturally prioritise getting people quickly to an incident scene.

In a conventional workplace accident that may be appropriate.

In a conflict environment, it may not be.

A secondary strike, unexploded ordnance or continuing attack can make an apparently instinctive rescue response extremely dangerous.

Global Impact

The tactic commonly known as a “double-tap” involves a second attack occurring after rescuers, police, medical personnel or bystanders have arrived at the location of an initial strike.

The Kryvyi Rih incident came amid a broader escalation of long-range attacks. AP reports continued Russian and Ukrainian strikes today following yesterday’s shopping-centre attack. 

This changes conventional corporate crisis management.

Normal emergency assumptions may not apply where the threat itself remains active.

Organisations must distinguish between:

accident response

and

hostile-environment response.

Our View

Companies with personnel in conflict-affected locations should establish secondary-incident protocols.

Businesses should ask:

• Who determines when an incident site is safe to approach?
• Are employees instructed not to self-deploy toward an attack?
• Is there a designated assembly location away from the original site?
• Do staff know where hardened shelter is located?
• Are local security advisers monitoring continuing threats?
• Can employee accountability be performed remotely?
• Are medical teams trained for hostile environments?
• Does the crisis plan assume communications may fail?
• Are employees aware of unexploded-ordnance risks?
• Does evacuation planning distinguish between immediate escape and shelter-in-place?
• Who gives the all-clear?

A natural human instinct following an explosion is to move toward colleagues who may need help.

In a hostile environment that instinct can expose more people to the next attack.

The first responsibility of crisis management may therefore be to establish that the incident has actually finished.

Risk Indicator: HIGH – CONFLICT-AFFECTED LOCATIONS

Disclaimer

The information contained within these Market Alerts is provided for general market awareness and informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, legal, investment, regulatory or insurance advice. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure accuracy at the time of publication using multiple reputable and independently verified sources, geopolitical events, legislation, regulation and market conditions may change rapidly. Readers should obtain appropriate professional advice before acting upon any information contained herein.

Invictus Risk Solutions LLP – Helping organisations stay ahead of emerging risks through informed insight and independent analysis.