Analysis of Clausewitz’s end-of-war strategies and their application to the war in Ukraine, with particular attention to political and military objectives.

In brief

Clausewitz’s analysis of the end of the war in Ukraine highlights the difficulties inherent in planning for the end of a conflict. Political and military objectives must be clearly defined from the outset, taking into account the necessary sacrifices and possible consequences. The war in Ukraine illustrates the challenges of achieving these objectives, with implications for regional and global stability.

The problem of planning for the end of the war

Clausewitz emphasized the importance of planning the end of a war from the outset. This involves determining the political and military objectives to be achieved, as well as the means needed to achieve them. In the context of the war in Ukraine, planning for the end of the conflict is particularly complex due to the changing dynamics of power and interests at stake.

The war in Ukraine, which began in 2014 and intensified in 2022, is a perfect example of the difficulty of planning for the end of a conflict. Russia’s initial objectives included destabilizing Ukraine and annexing territory. In response, Ukraine had to resist and counter-attack to preserve its territorial integrity. Both sides had successes and setbacks, making planning for the end of the conflict all the more difficult.

Political objectives and object value

According to Clausewitz, wars are fought for political objectives, which determine the nature and extent of the conflict. In Ukraine, Russia’s political objectives are clear: the destruction of Ukrainian independence and the assimilation of its territory. For Ukraine, the main objective is to maintain its independence and recover lost territory.

The value of these objectives is determined by the sacrifices each side is prepared to make. For Russia, the conquest of Ukraine is seen as essential to the restoration of its grandeur and the survival of its regime. For Ukraine, territorial integrity and independence are non-negotiable conditions for its existence as a sovereign nation.

Vladimir Putin’s statements, such as his denunciation of the break-up of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”, illustrate the importance he attaches to these objectives. Similarly, Volodymyr Zelensky’s speeches and actions demonstrate Ukraine’s determination to resist Russian aggression and maintain its independence.

Use of military power

Clausewitz identifies several ways of using military power to achieve war aims: destruction of enemy forces, conquest of one’s territory, temporary occupation, projects with an immediate political purpose, and passive waiting for enemy attacks. Each of these methods may be appropriate according to the circumstances and objectives involved.

1. Destruction of enemy forces:
   The destruction of enemy forces is often necessary to achieve victory. In Ukraine, both sides sought to destroy opposing forces to achieve their objectives. Russia, in particular, sought to annihilate the Ukrainian army during its initial invasion, but failed due to Ukrainian resistance and its own logistical and strategic weaknesses. Ukraine, for its part, has adopted a strategy of attrition to exhaust Russian forces, although this has not yet translated into a decisive victory.
2. Conquest of territory:
   Conquering territory can weaken the enemy by reducing his resources and increasing ours. Russia has captured significant portions of Ukrainian territory, but Ukraine has managed to liberate some of it in its counter-offensives. However, the retention of these territories and their use as levers in peace negotiations remain uncertain, as both sides refuse to cede ground.
3. Temporary occupation:
   A temporary occupation or targeted invasion can force the enemy to negotiate. However, this strategy seems less applicable in the current conflict, where both sides are engaged in a protracted struggle with no immediate prospect of peace through limited means.
4. Projects with an immediate political aim:
   Immediate political actions, such as an internal coup or diplomatic intervention, can change the course of the conflict. Yevgeny Prigozhin’s attempted coup in Russia in 2023 illustrates the internal dynamics that can affect the war. Similarly, the death or replacement of leaders could change the course of the war, but the political structures in place make this scenario uncertain.
5. Passive waiting for enemy attacks:
   Passive waiting for enemy attacks can prolong the conflict without resolving the underlying causes. In Ukraine, this translates into a war of attrition, with each side waiting for the other to weaken sufficiently to negotiate or surrender. This strategy is likely to lead to a prolonged and bloody conflict.

Consequences of war and peacekeeping

The end of a war does not necessarily guarantee a lasting peace. Clausewitz warns against seeing defeat as a temporary evil that can be rectified later. This underlines the need to address the root causes of conflict in any peace agreement to ensure long-term stability.

1. Formal treaty with clear terms:
   A formal treaty with clear terms is essential to resolving conflicts. Peace agreements that are not respected by the signatory parties are often at the root of future conflicts. For example, the 1954 Geneva Accords and the 1961 agreement to neutralize Laos show how temporary agreements can be quickly violated.
2. Enforcement of terms:
   Enforcing the terms of a treaty is often more difficult than negotiating them. The vanquished may not accept the articles of the treaty, as was the case with Germany after the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. Moreover, the victors may lose interest or be perceived as a threat to peace by insisting on strict application of the terms.
3. Geographical and territorial problems :
   The geographical proximity of vanquished and victorious nations can complicate the application of treaty terms. Ukraine, for example, attaches far greater importance to its territorial integrity than the USA or Western Europe. Unresolved territorial disputes can weaken peace agreements and increase the risk of future conflict.
4. Peacekeeping:
   Demilitarized zones, peacekeeping forces and monitoring mechanisms can help guarantee peace. However, mistrust between the parties often makes it difficult to set up such mechanisms. In Ukraine, the prospect of a UN peacekeeping force would probably be rejected by Russia, especially if it included NATO forces.
5. Acknowledging defeat:
   To guarantee peace, it is crucial that the population of the defeated state recognizes its defeat. The humiliation of the vanquished can cause bitterness and make peace more difficult to maintain. The way victorious powers treat the vanquished, as Clausewitz pointed out after the fall of Napoleon, plays a key role in post-conflict stability.

Extrapolation and future prospects

The war in Ukraine presents a complex case study in the difficulty of ending a conflict. The political objectives of each side, the way in which military power is used and the challenges of enforcing the terms of peace are all factors that determine the duration and conclusion of the conflict.

Clausewitzian analysis underlines the importance of defining clear and realistic objectives, understanding the necessary sacrifices and planning for a lasting peace. Lessons learned from the war in Ukraine can be applied to other conflicts to better understand the dynamics of ending war and maintaining peace.

The war in Ukraine illustrates the challenges of planning and ending conflicts. Clausewitz’s teachings on political objectives, the use of military power and the application of peace terms are essential to understanding the complex dynamics of war and peace. A systematic and realistic approach, taking into account the interests and sacrifices of each party, is crucial if we are to hope for a lasting resolution.

Want to fly a fighter jet ? Get in touch.