G: That's a coherent aphorism, and it shifts what "victory" means.

If victory is defined as a final state where the struggle is over, then in reality it almost never exists. Every achievement creates a new set of constraints, responsibilities, and problems. A military victory becomes an occupation. Winning an election becomes governing. Finishing a project becomes maintaining it. Even surviving simply leads to tomorrow.

In that framework:

There is no victory because victory is the end.

The implication is that as long as you're alive, you're still in the process. What people call victory is really just a temporary plateau before the next decision. The only absolute victory would be one after which nothing else could ever happen—which, for a person, is indistinguishable from the end of their story.

That also explains why your earlier phrase has a different feel:

There is no victory, only tomorrow.

The first is a definition: victory cannot exist because existence continues.

The second is an ethic: don't chase final triumph; prepare for the next day.

Together they form a philosophy of continual stewardship rather than conquest. Success isn't measured by reaching an endpoint; it's measured by whether what you do today leaves you better able to face tomorrow. That makes "winning" less about crossing a finish line and more about preserving your ability to keep playing the game.