In geopolitics, clinging to a righteous cause you cannot win by force often means grinding your own people into poverty for decades. The logical, albeit difficult, response is to make concessions and focus on improving citizens' lives, rather than insisting on being 'right' while they suffer.

The war in Ukraine is best understood as a "hurting stalemate," where neither side can achieve a decisive victory. Instead, each focuses on inflicting maximum pain and cost on the other—militarily, economically, and on civilian populations—hoping to break the adversary's political will to continue fighting.

Contrary to popular hope, a scenario where Ukraine fully expels Russia and regains all territory is a 'total fantasy.' Based on historical precedent, the war has only two realistic outcomes: a Ukrainian collapse under sustained pressure or a compromise peace that grants Russia de facto control of some territory.

Leaders and military planners consistently fall for the "short war fallacy" because planning for protracted conflicts is politically unpalatable and requires immense economic mobilization that societies are unwilling to undertake. The hope for a quick, decisive victory is an institutional bias.

Since Vietnam, the public's unwillingness to watch televised atrocities has made total war impossible. Conflicts now devolve into asymmetric battles where the weaker side bleeds the stronger empire until political will at home evaporates, making decisive "victory" a relic of the past.

Against an enemy employing asymmetric warfare, achieving total victory may be impossible without resorting to indiscriminate killing and infrastructure destruction. Since modern Western societies lack the moral appetite for such tactics, decisive military wins become elusive.

Ukraine's most realistic theory of success is not reclaiming all territory militarily, but leveraging its advantages to stabilize the front and inflict unsustainable casualties and economic costs on Russia. This strategy aims to make the war so futile for Moscow that it forces a favorable negotiated settlement.

Instead of direct military intervention, a modern strategy involves crippling a nation's economy and military so severely that the regime deteriorates from internal pressure. This approach aims to force a collapse without committing ground troops, which is politically unpopular.

A militarily weaker nation can effectively counter a superpower by creating targeted fear and risk in a vital economic channel, like a shipping strait. By making insurance prohibitively expensive and transit dangerous, they can achieve strategic goals without needing to win a conventional military engagement.