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.
Modern militaries often define success by tactical objectives like destroying targets, rather than achieving broader political aims. This creates a dangerous gap where battlefield wins can lead to strategic losses, as seen in conflicts where the ultimate political objectives remained muddled and unachieved.
Traditional international relations theories assuming rational state actors are less predictive in an era dominated by individual leaders like Putin, Trump, and Xi. Their decisions are often driven by personal psychology and political survival, making outcomes highly unpredictable and distinct from state-level interests.
Contrary to claims of its failure, nuclear deterrence is working by successfully preventing direct military intervention by major powers (e.g., NATO in Ukraine). Its effectiveness is often misjudged because it isn't designed to deter all forms of conflict or lesser aggression, but to prevent catastrophic, direct confrontations.
Military historian Lawrence Freedman reflects that violence creates an illusion of being a definitive solution that "sorts stuff out," but it rarely does. This growing skepticism from a lifelong expert highlights a critical lesson for policymakers who are often too quick to see force as a simple or effective tool.
An overemphasis on high-tech, "quality" military equipment has created a blind spot regarding the importance of "mass"—the sheer quantity of soldiers, ammunition, and basic equipment. The war in Ukraine demonstrates that numbers still matter immensely and can overwhelm a technologically advanced but smaller force.
Daniel Ellsberg's memoir revealed a stark disconnect between sophisticated nuclear strategy developed by civilian analysts and the actual war plans of military commands. Military leaders often dismissed academic theories as irrelevant, creating a dangerous gap between stated policy and operational reality.
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.