All wars, regardless of their duration or nature, eventually end. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began, numerous predictions have emerged, many of which have become less likely as the war has lasted longer than expected. The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States signals a potential shift in American policy toward reduced support for Ukraine. Additionally, Ukraine’s use of U.S. missiles and Russian ballistic missiles in retaliation demonstrates a critical escalation in the war. Recent developments require updated scenarios.
Scholars offer varied perspectives on how wars end. Clausewitz argues that they conclude when policy goals become irrelevant or unattainable over time. Iklé emphasizes the need for leaders to make difficult choices despite the fear of appearing weak for a resolution. Rose emphasizes the importance of clear post-war planning for lasting peace and ending war. Wendt argues that wars truly end when adversaries no longer perceive each other as enemies, and Mearsheimer implies the role of decisive power shifts and mutual recognition of the costly cost of war.
To predict the end of the war in Ukraine, it is essential to understand the goals of each side. From the beginning, Russia’s intentions were somewhat unclear: was it aiming to conquer all or part of Ukraine, to expand its borders, or to gain leverage in negotiations with the West? Initially, Russia seemed more confident, but as Ukrainian resistance intensified and inflicted costs on Russia, its objectives changed and Russia is now more open to negotiations. Currently, she is primarily interested in territorial gains, maintaining Ukraine’s neutrality, and preventing direct NATO involvement.
Ukraine’s goals are simpler: territorial integrity and future NATO membership. Even if the reconquest of occupied lands is one of the objectives, this can prove very difficult. It also seeks to maintain NATO support during the war and aims to become a member afterwards, although it recognizes its limited negotiating power. The final deal will largely depend on Russia, the United States and their allies. For the latter two, the main priorities are to defend Ukrainian territory while preventing the war from spreading or directly involving them.
Under the Trump administration, the United States is expected to offer less support to Ukraine. The continued escalation of attacks from both sides can be seen as a strategic move aimed at gaining negotiating leverage before US support wanes. Unless something unexpected happens, like a regime change or a nuclear exchange, before Trump’s term, here are some of the most likely scenarios, listed in descending order of probability.
First, a scenario in which the Trump administration’s reluctance to continue supporting Ukraine pushes Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. Recently, Putin and Zelensky have expressed interest in this issue. In this scenario, it is very unlikely that Russia will return the occupied territories, as this would cross a red line for its leaders. At the same time, Ukraine should get some form of security guarantee. With both sides feeling pressured to make concessions, Ukraine agreed to become a neutral zone between NATO and Russia. Adopting this solution would end the war, allow Russia to save face by achieving its goal of keeping NATO away from its borders, allow Ukraine to remain an independent state, and finally allow the NATO to maintain its credibility by preventing Russia from fully conquering Ukraine. However, the long-term viability of this possibility is questionable, as Ukrainians may eventually feel forced to choose sides.
Second, the possibility that the conflict will end in a stalemate. A US withdrawal would result in a loss of motivation among its allies to persist in their support and a loss of resources for Ukraine. In this scenario, while Europe remains committed to protecting Ukraine, the ongoing war becomes increasingly unsustainable for European states. On the other hand, Russia achieves some key military objectives and is ready for a possible cessation of hostilities, after securing the occupied territories. If a ceasefire were to be signed, a comprehensive peace agreement would be far from being reached due to conflicting interests. Hypothetically, Ukraine could not join NATO, which corresponds to Russia’s interests. The conflict would remain frozen and unresolved, paving the way for future escalation. However, this scenario would pose significant domestic challenges for Russian leaders, as they would have to justify the loss of thousands of lives for limited territorial gains and their inability to decisively conclude the war they initiated.
In the third scenario, a significant reduction in American and European support could also lead to Ukraine’s defeat. In this scenario, as Ukraine continues to ask for help, European states gradually lose motivation, leading to growing divisions among them. This change would give Russia a significant advantage, potentially allowing it to seize additional territory and exercise indirect political control over Ukraine. Although a complete conquest of Ukraine remains unlikely – and undesirable for Russia, as it would entail the establishment of direct borders with NATO members like Romania and Poland – Ukraine risks becoming a state satellite similar to Belarus. This scenario would significantly weaken NATO over time, which could prompt some member states to reconsider their commitment to the alliance.
Another scenario would be that an American withdrawal does not necessarily lead to a loss of commitment on the part of European states, since the war directly impacts them geographically. However, such escalation may prolong the conflict, possibly leading to direct European involvement to prevent further Russian advances. This scenario could result in a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. Alternatively, both sides could escalate tensions by resorting to brinkmanship, repeatedly signaling their willingness to use nuclear weapons. This volatile situation could inevitably trigger a direct conflict between NATO and Russia, which, although unlikely at present, remains a possibility.
Finally, along the same lines of a US withdrawal from the previous scenario, a Europe stepping up its support for Ukraine might find a Russia capable of sustaining its military efforts for an extended period, supported by like-minded states, such as North Korea, China and Ukraine. Iran. However, Russia could eventually be strained by economic and military limitations and, therefore, exhaust its leverage. This exhaustion would give Ukraine a significant advantage in negotiations, potentially leading to the recovery of occupied territories. Ultimately, this could even lead to Ukraine joining NATO. However, for this result to materialize, the war would have to last for a considerably prolonged period.
Predicting the outcome of a war is inherently complex due to the multitude of factors at play, many of which are beyond the control of either side. This complexity introduces a high degree of uncertainty and, at times, challenges established theories about the war’s end. Nonetheless, based on available information regarding the conflict in Ukraine and building on Donald Trump’s past foreign policy priorities, the scenarios described above represent some of the most plausible paths to resolution. These scenarios depend on evolving dynamics, including geopolitical shifts, internal political pressures and strategies employed by Ukraine and Russia, as well as international actors. Understanding these variables highlights the importance of ongoing analysis and adaptive approaches to assessing the trajectory of this conflict.
Further reading on international electronic relations