At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. Vice President is expected to present a framework for resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Speculating on its details is futile—soon enough, it will be unveiled. However, one aspect seems almost inevitable: the plan will be far from comprehensive and will require extensive diplomatic efforts to gain traction. The core issue remains unchanged—none of the fundamental objectives set by the warring parties have been achieved. At the same time, the prolonged attrition has reached a point where a decisive resolution appears increasingly unrealistic.
While Russia may appear less depleted than Ukraine, this does not alter the fundamental equation. It still lacks the capability to deliver a definitive military defeat to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and without that, it cannot unilaterally dictate the terms of peace.
From the Western perspective, the current situation is largely acceptable. Its strategic aim has been achieved: neither Russia nor Ukraine has secured victory or suffered outright defeat. The conflict has settled into a persistent "lose-lose" scenario, where direct participants are trapped in a stalemate, while the real benefits accrue to those not directly engaged. Of course, official narratives may spin the situation differently—after all, even Saddam Hussein once proclaimed the retreat from Kuwait as a victory. But true victory means imposing peace on one's own terms, and anything short of that is mere rhetoric.
This leads to a critical question: what happens next? A lasting peace remains improbable, making a second phase of the conflict almost inevitable. However, what unfolds in the interim—if there is even a significant pause—is of great consequence.
For Russia, the answer seems clear. The ruling regime cannot afford a return to normalcy, making another crisis highly likely. Historically, internal strife has often been the outcome, but there are scenarios where the Kremlin may be compelled into another geopolitical gambit. Notably, tensions in the Baltic region have been escalating at an alarming rate - so rapidly, in fact, that a new conflict could erupt before a truce with Ukraine is even reached. The recent surge in military activity and rhetoric around the Suwałki Gap, a critical corridor between NATO allies Poland and Lithuania, is an ominous signal of potential escalation.
Ukraine’s future is even more uncertain. Regardless of leadership or intent, the country cannot revert to a pre-war state. Any outcome resembling a defeat will necessitate extreme crisis management measures. The presence of a million battle-hardened veterans, disillusioned with the war's outcome and demanding accountability, presents a formidable challenge. Without a clear strategy for reintegrating these individuals into society, internal instability could spiral rapidly. This creates fertile ground for nationalist sentiment to take root, and history has shown how such environments can give rise to radical leaders seeking to channel public discontent into a quest for revanche.
The paradox of this war is that, for all its devastation, its trajectory is at least somewhat predictable. The post-war reality, however, remains a vast unknown, carrying risks for all parties involved. And the greater the uncertainty, the weaker the incentive to negotiate a settlement - let alone one that endures.
