The Forever Stalemate? How Ukraine, History, and a Shifting Global Order Demand a New Approach to War Termination
The world is bracing for a protracted conflict in Ukraine, a chilling echo of historical patterns where wars devolve into years of grinding stalemate. As of mid-2025, despite renewed peace talks in Turkey – talks where Russia sent a delegation but showed little genuine commitment – the reality is stark: Russia unleashed its largest drone attack on Ukraine just a day after negotiations, signaling, as President Zelenskyy concluded, a lack of desire for a true end to hostilities. But simply acknowledging the grim situation isn’t enough. The question isn’t if this war will end, but how, and whether we’re applying the lessons of history – and modern international relations theory – correctly.
The Logic of Prolonged Conflict: Beyond Simple Aggression
The instinctive response is to blame Russia’s intransigence. And while Russia bears ultimate responsibility for initiating the conflict, a deeper analysis reveals a more complex dynamic. History demonstrates that wars rarely end neatly, especially when both sides believe a path to victory – however improbable – remains open. This isn’t about a thirst for conquest, but a dangerous combination of incomplete information and commitment problems. If both Russia and Ukraine could be certain of the ultimate outcome, a rational settlement would be far more attainable. Instead, each side clings to the possibility of shifting the balance of power, fueling a cycle of escalation.
Incomplete Information and the Illusion of Victory
The “incomplete information” theory of war termination posits that uncertainty about the final outcome is a primary driver of continued fighting. Russia might believe it can wear down Ukraine and its allies, while Ukraine might hope for a collapse of the Putin regime or a surge in Western support that turns the tide. These are, of course, gambles. But as long as these scenarios remain plausible, the incentive to negotiate diminishes. Cutting off aid to Ukraine, as some suggest, doesn’t force negotiation; it increases Russia’s confidence, making a peaceful resolution less likely.
The Credibility Gap: Why Ukraine Can’t Simply Concede
Even if Ukraine were willing to negotiate, a fundamental obstacle remains: the “shadow of the future.” Any peace deal on terms dictated by Russia – particularly those resembling the proposals outlined in the Istanbul Memorandum – would leave Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression. Limiting Ukraine’s military size and prohibiting foreign weaponry essentially disarms it, inviting future exploitation. As Bridget Brink, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, points out, history offers valuable lessons, and one of those lessons is that aggressors rarely self-regulate. Shouldn’t the onus be on Russia to demonstrate its benign intentions through verifiable disarmament, not on Ukraine to unilaterally surrender its defenses?
Europe’s Existential Wake-Up Call and the Need for a ‘Steel Porcupine’
The implications extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders. A Russian victory would shatter the post-World War II norm against territorial conquest, a norm that has demonstrably reduced global conflict. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) reports that 2024 saw the highest number of countries engaged in conflict since WWII, with Ukraine as a primary driver of this alarming trend. This isn’t simply a regional crisis; it’s a systemic threat to international stability. Europe, long reliant on US security guarantees, is particularly vulnerable. The solution, as EU President Ursula von der Leyen has suggested, is to transform Ukraine into a “steel porcupine” – a heavily fortified nation capable of deterring future aggression.
Re-Industrialization and a New European Security Architecture
But turning Ukraine into a fortress requires a radical overhaul of European defense policy. This means significantly increased military spending, a move that will inevitably face political opposition. However, European leaders can leverage this rearmament as an opportunity to address domestic challenges. By focusing procurement on re-industrializing “left behind” regions – areas vulnerable to populism, like the North of England or Eastern Germany – they can create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and bolster public support for defense spending. Furthermore, greater standardization of military equipment across Europe, reducing dependence on the United States, is crucial for long-term strategic autonomy.
The Nuclear Shadow and the Erosion of Non-Proliferation
The war in Ukraine also carries a terrifying second-order consequence: the potential for nuclear proliferation. If the lesson learned is that possessing nuclear weapons guarantees immunity from invasion, more nations will inevitably seek to acquire them. Ukraine itself, once the third-largest nuclear power in the world, relinquished its arsenal in 1994 under the Budapest Memorandum, a guarantee of its security that proved tragically hollow. This experience serves as a stark warning: without credible security assurances, nations will prioritize self-preservation over disarmament.
A Path Forward: Resolve Uncertainty, Provide Security, and Embrace Long-Term Commitment
The path to peace isn’t simple, but it’s clear. World leaders must prioritize two key objectives. First, reduce the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the war by bolstering aid to Ukraine, imposing stricter sanctions on Russia, and demonstrating unwavering unity. Second, provide Ukraine with concrete, long-term security guarantees – whether through NATO membership, a robust security pact, or a credible commitment to defend its territorial integrity. This requires a fundamental shift in European foreign and defense policies, a willingness to invest in collective security, and a recognition that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of intervention.
What are your predictions for the future of European security in light of the Ukraine conflict? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
