Victory or frozen conflict? Assessing the feasibility of Ukraine’s victory-oriented strategy to conflict termination

Overview

This study examines the structural feasibility of Ukraine's military victory-oriented strategy for conflict termination with Russia, with particular attention to whether escalated or accelerated Western military assistance could have altered the trajectory toward a negotiated settlement. The research operationalizes five necessary criteria for resolving frozen conflicts through military means and applies this framework to the Ukraine-Russia context to assess the plausibility of Ukrainian victory.

Methods and approach

The analysis draws on the Klosek et al. dataset of frozen conflicts to establish empirically-grounded criteria for military conflict termination. Two counterfactual scenarios model the effects of increased Western military aid and accelerated aid delivery on Ukraine's capacity to meet these criteria. The approach combines quantitative conflict data with qualitative assessment of structural military and political conditions.

Key Findings

The analysis concludes that even with substantially increased or accelerated Western military assistance, Ukraine lacked sufficient structural conditions to achieve the form of military victory necessary to compel Russian capitulation and resolution of core disputed issues. The infeasibility of Ukraine's victory-oriented strategy derives not from weapon scarcity but from the persistence of entrenched political positions and the absence of asymmetric military advantages capable of overcoming Russian strategic depth and capacity. The research identifies specific structural constraints that Western aid could not overcome within the parameters examined.

Implications

The findings indicate that escalatory military strategies oriented toward decisive victory face inherent feasibility constraints when deployed against opponents with substantial military capacity and strategic resolve. Policy frameworks should prioritize diplomatic engagement and negotiated settlement mechanisms rather than sustained reliance on military victory scenarios as conflict termination pathways. The research raises questions about the institutional and analytical factors that sustain support for militarily implausible strategies and suggests the need for critical examination of how conflict termination scenarios are evaluated in policy contexts.