Eudel Cepero

We’re back to our annual “who won the war” narrative-spinning competition, which somehow returns every time feasible negotiations are on the table. War is merely a means to achieve political goals, so the question should always be what those goals were and whether they were achieved. Let’s start with Russia: - Demilitarization: Failed. Considering that Ukraine’s army is now far larger, more experienced, and more capable than before the war, with a much more diversified domestic defense industry, it’s difficult to call it “demilitarized” - Preventing NATO expansion: Mostly failed. While Ukraine isn’t joining NATO at the moment (nor was it about to before the invasion), which Russia can claim as a result of this war, NATO has actually expanded. More importantly, that includes Finland, a country sharing a long border with Russia, not far from its second-largest city. - Regime change and installation of a Russia-aligned government: Failed. Clearly unsuccessful, and doesn’t look like an achievable goal in the foreseeable future. - “Liberation”/occupation of Donbas: Partial success. Russia has made significant gains, occupying most of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. While the full occupation of Donbas wasn’t explicitly proclaimed by Putin as an initial goal of the invasion, it has been implied by him, as well as openly claimed by the Kremlin-controlled media narratives for the past four years. - Securing a land bridge to Crimea: Success. Another goal never officially stated, but from a strategic standpoint, it can be considered a significant military achievement. Now, let’s move to Ukraine: - Preserving independence and statehood: Success. Ukraine retained its independence, control over most of its territory, and functioning state institutions. Not a single oblast center, apart from Donetsk and Luhansk captured in 2014, remains under Russian control. So far, this is Ukraine’s largest strategic success. - Regaining territories lost since 2014 and fully restoring territorial integrity: Failed. - Emerging from the war with a stronger security configuration: Unclear. This includes security guarantees or alliances that would prevent post-war degradation, economic collapse, and the constant threat of another invasion. The outcome remains uncertain, with negotiations still ongoing. Now, what do both countries have in common? Economic decline, massive demographic losses, a significant share of the working-age male population traumatized or disabled, growing poverty, and younger generations leaving the country. For Ukraine, there’s also a significant increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio. For Russia, it’s a serious contraction of its National Wealth fund, an economic safety net accumulated over decades. Ukraine has gained considerable influence on the world stage, built new strategic partnerships, and deepened military cooperation with the West. However, whether it can retain these gains after the war remains an open question. Russia, meanwhile, has lost numerous Western markets, projects, and partnerships, while gaining new partners such as Iran and North Korea, alongside increasingly unbalanced dependencies on countries like China. Was the war worth it for Russia? If you ask whether more than 4 years of grueling war were worth gaining some territory beyond what Russia already controlled before 2022, the answer is a resounding no. The cost-to-reward ratio simply isn’t there, no matter how you spin it. That being said, there’s one important caveat: the war isn’t over, and the final chapter hasn’t been written. But it’s already clear that, no matter how you spin the narrative, there are no winners. And it’s not because of the cheesy “there are no winners in war” cliche, but because neither country has managed to achieve its major strategic goals or secure a positive post-war trajectory as a result of this war. Which brings us to “both countries lost”, or, in more academic terms, something closer to a strategic stalemate.