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.

Alexander Stubb outlines a threefold failure for Putin: strategically, he pushed Finland into NATO; militarily, he’s achieved minimal gains at catastrophic cost (e.g., 34,000 Russian soldiers killed in Dec.); and economically, Russia is crippled. Putin continues the war not to win, but to avoid the domestic fallout of admitting defeat.

Putin's history shows a reliable pattern: he appears cooperative and makes agreements, only to later act in his own self-interest. To predict his moves in conflicts like the Ukraine war, one must analyze this long-term behavioral pattern rather than his current statements or gestures.

To predict a leader's actions, disregard their words and even individual actions. Instead, focus on their consistent, long-term pattern of behavior. For Putin, the pattern is using negotiations as a stalling tactic to advance a fixed agenda, making him an unreliable partner for peace deals based on stated intentions.

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.

Soviet leaders who lived through WWII understood the unpredictability of direct conflict and preferred proxy wars. Vladimir Putin, in contrast, has consistently used direct "hot wars"—from Chechnya to Georgia to Ukraine—as a primary tool to consolidate power and boost his domestic popularity.

Nations like the US and USSR prolong involvement in failed conflicts like Afghanistan primarily due to "reputational risk." The goal shifts from achieving the original mission to avoiding the perception of failure, creating an endless commitment where objectives continually morph.

Once people invest significant time, money, and social identity into a group or ideology, it becomes psychologically costly to admit it's wrong. This 'sunk cost' fallacy creates cognitive dissonance, causing people to double down on their beliefs rather than face the pain of a misguided investment.

Despite perceived advantages, Russia's military performance in 2025 was poor. It achieved only incremental gains at the cost of soaring casualties, pushing their manpower losses beyond recruitment rates. This trend suggests that time is increasingly working against Moscow's ability to sustain offensive operations.