Why a Russian Defeat Does Not Equal a Ukrainian Victory: Valerii Pekar on How Wars End.

The Concept of War Termination

According to TSN.ua: In an interview, Valerii Pekar explores the concept of how wars conclude, emphasizing that most parties emerge from conflict in a weakened state. Pekar argues that a Russian defeat does not automatically translate into a Ukrainian victory. He supports this perspective by analyzing historical precedents, specifically examining the outcomes of the First and Second World Wars.

Historical Context

Valerii Pekar points out that the Second World War is an exception to the pattern observed in most conflicts. During the First World War, none of the four empires involved—the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and German—achieved victory. Specifically, two empires, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman, collapsed; the German Empire was humiliated and forced to pay reparations; and the Russian Empire descended into civil war. Thus, Pekar highlights that war often results in mutual exhaustion rather than clear-cut victories.

He also observes that Russia has already been in a state of defeat for four years. This assertion reinforces his view that a Russian defeat, in itself, does not guarantee a Ukrainian triumph.

“The majority of wars end in mutual defeat,” notes Pekar.

“A Russian defeat alone does not yet guarantee a Ukrainian victory,”

This viewpoint highlights the necessity for strategic thinking in modern conflicts, where victories and defeats can be ambiguous and interdependent. It is crucial to consider that even if one participant is defeated, the results can have far-reaching consequences for all sides, making the pursuit of peaceful resolution and regional stabilization essential.