A recent Wall Street Journal article by Marcus Walker, outlines two main scenarios for the possible resolution of the ongoing war in Ukraine, as hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough faded after the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska.
The first scenario envisions a partition with protection: Ukraine would lose about 20% of its territory to Russia but remain a secure, though smaller, sovereign state. Western nations, led by the UK and France, may offer security guarantees or even deploy troops to deter future Russian attacks, with the hope of drawing the U.S. into such guarantees. This outcome resembles the post-Korean War arrangement, where part of the country is lost but the remainder is protected by outside powers.
The second scenario is partition with subordination, in which Ukraine not only cedes territory but is also forced to acquiesce to Russian demands to limit its armed forces, change its constitution and leadership, and conform to Moscow’s expectations regarding policy and identity. This would turn Ukraine into a Russian protectorate with limited freedom, leaving it vulnerable to future invasions and undermining its aspirations to join Europe and the West.
While Russia’s superior resources make its war effort appear more sustainable, Ukraine’s persistent resistance and adaptability have so far staved off collapse, though the outcome remains highly uncertain given mounting exhaustion on the battlefield.
This analysis of potential endings to the Ukraine war is focused primarily on territorial outcomes, whether Ukraine faces partition with protection or subordination to Russia.
But this framework overlooks fundamental economic and geopolitical shifts that could dramatically alter the conflict’s trajectory in Ukraine’s favor.
Russia’s Mortgaged Future
Vladimir Putin has essentially placed Russia’s entire economic future as collateral for his Ukrainian gamble. The numbers tell a sobering story: defense spending now consumes over 7% of Russian GDP, brain drain has accelerated dramatically, and Russia has become increasingly dependent on a single patron, China, for economic survival.
This dependency represents a strategic vulnerability that traditional military analysis often misses. Beijing has leveraged Russia’s desperation to secure favorable energy deals, expand its influence in Central Asia, and position itself as the senior partner in what Putin once envisioned as an equal alliance. Russia increasingly resembles a resource extraction colony rather than a great power, undermining the very status Putin seeks to restore.
The sustainability question isn’t just about military production or troop numbers. It’s about whether Russia can maintain a modern economy while funding an indefinite conflict. Early signs suggest the answer is no. Key industries beyond defense are stagnating, infrastructure investment has collapsed, and Russia’s technological isolation is accelerating its economic decline.
Ukraine’s Strategic Integration
Meanwhile, Ukraine has achieved something far more valuable than military aid: irreversible integration with Western institutions and economies. This isn’t simply about weapons deliveries or financial assistance. It represents a fundamental realignment of European security architecture that creates powerful incentives for sustained Western commitment.
The scope of this integration is unprecedented. European nations haven’t just provided aid; they’ve restructured their own defense industries to support Ukrainian production. German, Polish, and Czech companies are building manufacturing facilities in western Ukraine for long-term weapons production. French and British firms are establishing maintenance hubs for advanced systems. This isn’t charity for it’s strategic investment that creates mutual dependencies.
European energy infrastructure has been rewired around Ukrainian needs and capabilities. The integration of Ukrainian grain exports into European food security calculations means Ukrainian agricultural capacity is now seen as a strategic European asset.
The institutional relationships run even deeper. Ukrainian military doctrine is being rewritten to NATO standards. Officer training programs integrate Ukrainian personnel into Western military education systems. Intelligence sharing has reached levels typically reserved for full alliance members. These aren’t temporary wartime measures but fundamental restructuring that would be extraordinarily costly to reverse.
European nations have invested heavily in Ukrainian defense infrastructure, created new supply chains, and developed institutional relationships that represent sunk costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Ukraine’s role as a democratic frontier state has elevated its strategic importance beyond its territorial boundaries. For Europe, Ukrainian success has become synonymous with European security which is a far stronger foundation than humanitarian concerns alone.
The cultural and informational integration may prove most significant. Millions of Ukrainians now live and work in EU countries, creating human networks that transcend government policies. Ukrainian media operates in European languages, Ukrainian businesses integrate into European supply chains, and Ukrainian civil society organizations work directly with European counterparts. This creates a constituency for Ukrainian support that extends far beyond traditional diplomatic channels.
This institutional deepening means Western support is likely to prove more durable than critics suggest. Political transitions in Western capitals certainly create uncertainty, but the structural relationships and economic interests created by Ukrainian integration provide stability beyond electoral cycles. The sunk costs in Ukrainian integration, combined with the strategic imperative of preventing Russian success, create powerful incentives for sustained commitment that transcend partisan politics.
The Chinese Factor
Perhaps most critically, conventional analysis underestimates how Chinese opportunism undermines Russian strategy. Beijing’s approach to the partnership reveals its true nature: China extracting maximum benefit from Russian weakness rather than providing the strategic support Putin expected.
Chinese purchases of Russian energy occur at substantial discounts, estimates suggest 20-30% below market rates for oil and gas. Chinese manufacturers have captured Russian market share previously held by Western companies, but often with inferior products sold at premium prices due to lack of competition. Chinese financial institutions provide services to Russia but on terms that heavily favor Chinese interests.
Most damaging to Russian sovereignty, China has effectively colonized sectors of the Russian economy. Chinese companies control significant portions of Russian logistics, telecommunications, and even defense production. Russian dependence on Chinese components for military equipment creates vulnerabilities that Beijing could exploit at any moment. This isn’t the strategic partnership Putin envisioned but economic subordination disguised as cooperation.
The geopolitical implications are profound. Russia’s growing dependence on China limits Putin’s strategic autonomy precisely when he needs maximum flexibility. Chinese interests don’t always align with Russian objectives, particularly regarding nuclear escalation or direct confrontation with NATO. Beijing’s preference for stability and continued economic integration with the West creates a structural constraint on Russian options.
Three Alternative Scenarios
These economic and political realities suggest the war’s potential endings may be far more favorable to Ukraine. Rather than accepting territorial partition as inevitable, three alternative scenarios emerge from consideration of underlying economic trends:
Scenario 1: Accelerated Ukrainian Progress Through Economic Warfare
Enhanced Western support. including advanced weapons systems, real-time intelligence sharing, and comprehensive economic integration, could shift the military balance decisively within the next 12-18 months. But the key factor may not be weapons alone but coordinated economic pressure that exploits Russia’s vulnerabilities.
Systematic targeting of Russian energy revenues through price caps, secondary sanctions on Chinese entities supporting Russia, and alternative energy arrangements could rapidly destabilize Russian war financing. The EU’s ability to completely eliminate Russian gas imports ahead of schedule demonstrates Western capacity for rapid economic adjustment when political will exists.
Simultaneously, accelerated Ukrainian integration into Western defense production creates a sustainable military advantage. Unlike Russian production, which depends on increasingly difficult-to-obtain components, Ukrainian defense capabilities embedded within NATO supply chains become more resilient over time.
Russia’s economic constraints, exacerbated by Chinese resource extraction, would limit Putin’s ability to respond effectively to intensified pressure. The combination of reduced revenues and increased costs could create a strategic crisis that forces major territorial concessions within months rather than years.
This scenario could see Ukrainian forces not just holding current lines but potentially triggering internal Russian political instability as the costs of Putin’s gamble become undeniable to Russian elites who have so far remained loyal.
Scenario 2: Economic Collapse Forces Russian Withdrawal
Russia’s unsustainable war economy may collapse faster than its military position deteriorates. The combination of massive defense spending, international isolation, and Chinese economic exploitation could create a financial crisis that forces Putin to seek an exit regardless of battlefield conditions.
Historical precedents suggest economic constraints often determine war outcomes more than military factors. The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, for instance, resulted more from economic crisis than battlefield defeats. Russia’s current trajectory, massive deficit spending, technological isolation, demographic decline, mirrors conditions that have historically forced great powers to abandon overseas commitments.
The trigger could be inflation reaching levels that threaten social stability, currency collapse that makes imports prohibitively expensive, or infrastructure failures that undermine basic state functions. Russian regions already show signs of fiscal stress, with local governments struggling to maintain basic services while funding military recruitment and family compensation.
Western economic pressure, if sustained and systematically enhanced through coordination with allies in Asia, might prove more decisive than military outcomes. This could result in a negotiated settlement heavily favoring Ukraine, with Russia desperate to preserve what remains of its economy and international standing.
Scenario 3: Strategic Attrition Favoring Ukraine
The war could evolve into a prolonged conflict where time increasingly favors Ukraine despite conventional assumptions about Russian advantages. This scenario assumes continued but not dramatically increased Western support, combined with steady degradation of Russian capabilities.
Enhanced Western commitment, combined with Russia’s accelerating economic decline and demographic challenges, would make Russian territorial gains increasingly pyrrhic. Each mile of Ukrainian territory Russia captures would cost resources it cannot afford to lose, while Ukraine’s defensive capabilities improve through Western integration and technological advancement.
Ukraine’s growing integration with Western defense systems and economies would provide sustainable support that adapts to changing needs. Unlike Russian capabilities, which face technological stagnation and component shortages, Ukrainian military effectiveness could improve continuously through alliance integration.
The demographic mathematics alone favor this scenario. Ukraine, despite significant population loss, retains access to global talent markets and European labor mobility. Russia faces accelerating brain drain, military casualties, and birth rate decline. Over time, Ukraine’s human capital advantages would become decisive.
This grinding attrition could ultimately force Russia into a position weaker than any negotiated settlement Putin might accept today, creating opportunities for Ukrainian territorial restoration that seem impossible under current conditions.
The Leverage Imbalance
The crucial insight missing from much current analysis is that Ukraine and the West possess significant unexploited leverage that could fundamentally alter the conflict’s trajectory. Russia’s economic vulnerabilities, Chinese opportunism, and the unsustainable nature of Putin’s war economy create pressure points that strategic Western policy could exploit far more effectively.
Current Western sanctions, while substantial, remain incomplete. Financial restrictions could be tightened significantly, particularly regarding energy revenues and technology transfers. Secondary sanctions on entities supporting Russian war efforts remain limited despite their potential effectiveness. Most importantly, positive incentives for countries reducing Russian economic relationships remain underutilized.
The technological dimension offers particular opportunities. Russia’s growing dependence on inferior Chinese alternatives creates vulnerabilities that strategic export controls could exploit. Denying Russia access to specific industrial components could cripple military production more effectively than destroying factories.
Energy markets provide another leverage point often overlooked in military analysis. Western capacity to replace Russian energy supplies has proven greater than anticipated, while alternative arrangements have created new geopolitical relationships that isolate Russia. Accelerating this process could eliminate Russia’s primary source of war financing within years rather than decades.
Rather than accepting territorial partition as inevitable, Western leaders might consider how economic warfare, enhanced military support, and accelerated Ukrainian integration could fundamentally alter the conflict’s dynamics. The question isn’t whether Ukraine can survive Russian pressure, but whether Russia can survive the costs of applying it.
Putin’s Ukraine war was always a desperate gamble to restore Russian greatness through force. The mounting evidence suggests he may have achieved the opposite by accelerating Russia’s decline into Chinese dependency while strengthening the very Western alliance he sought to fragment. The economic mathematics of this conflict increasingly suggest not Russian persistence but Ukrainian patience, supported by the world’s most powerful economic bloc, could ultimately determine the outcome.
The war’s endgame may ultimately be determined not by battlefield victories but by economic mathematics. And in that calculation, time appears increasingly to favor not Russia’s persistence but Ukraine’s patient integration with a West finally awakening to the strategic stakes involved.
