The intensification of peace negotiations, even though they are rather far from completion, has highlighted the importance of knowing the scenarios for ending the war in Ukraine, as well as the format of a post-war peace. The current discussion on this is clearly insufficient not only within Ukraine, but besides in the global arena. The terms “victory” and “defeat” are absent from both home and global discourse. At the same time, it is apparent that ending the war does not affect a simple decision (victory or defeat), but a wide scope of options. Between the 2 utmost improbabilities lies a number of intermediate scenarios, among which there are rather probable outcomes. As a result, we must realize their advantages, disadvantages and their limits of acceptability. Similarly, a temporary cessation of the war, a truce, could happen in different options. We have approached this problem with a key futures investigation tool called “foresight”, which involves expert discussions, trend studies, script mapping, mathematical modelling, and a number of another approaches. This paper contains a brief summary of the foresight conducted this summer.
Where we are and how we got here
Ukraine is presently experiencing its twelfth year of war (the aggression began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea), including the 4th year of full-scale war. The basic reason for the war is the imperial nature of Russian statehood: the collapse of the USSR led to the freedom and independency of 14 erstwhile colonies, among which Ukraine is the largest and most crucial in terms of the antiquity of statehood and culture. Due to this, without Ukraine the empire cannot regain its erstwhile position and claims to historical heritage. Having accumulated fresh resources, Russia is trying to return the erstwhile colony to the empire, declaring its people non-existent and its land just another part of Russia. Thus, the strategical goal of Russia is the elimination of Ukrainian statehood and identity. Accordingly, the strategical goal of Ukraine is to preserve its statehood and identity. This war is not about territories and resources, as Russia has its own vast territories that are neglected and underdeveloped. At the same time, the object of aggression is the identity of the Ukrainian population, which is being destroyed through the demolition of cultural objects and even the mass abduction of children, which involves a forced change of their identity. It is worth noting that this final point qualifies as genocide.
The failure of Russia’s strategy of a fast offensive operation in 2022 led to the aggressor’s transition to a war of attrition. This was based on an thought that sooner or later the western allies will abandon Ukraine, with Kyiv forced to capitulate due to a deficiency of resources. Neither side has a strategical advantage: the front line on the ground moves slowly, and over the past year and a half, Russia has been able to capture little than 1 per cent of Ukrainian territory, all while suffering gigantic losses. In fact, Moscow has not been able to accomplish any of its strategical goals in more than 3 years of full-scale war: it has not captured a single regional centre (except for Kherson, which was liberated by Ukraine in the same year); has not ensured sustainable logistics for annexed Crimea; has not destroyed the Ukrainian energy sector; has not collapsed the Ukrainian economy; has not secured (but actually lost) dominance in the air or at sea; and has not divided Ukrainian society and forced it to surrender. At the same time, NATO expanded and moved closer to Russia’s borders. In fact, present the Kremlin is further from its strategical goals than 3 years ago. At the same time, Ukraine has effectively displaced the Russian fleet from the Black Sea and is inflicting deep strikes on Russian military infrastructure, logistics, oil refineries, and military production utilizing late designed weapons.
The civilian population is under regular attack by Russia, as its strategy is to make utmost force on society to force it to surrender. Around 4.5 million people are internally displaced, while 5.5 million are abroad.
At the same time, we see that there is no magic solution. The peace agreement proposed by the United States has been repeatedly rejected by Russia, which has emphasized the request to “eliminate the root origin of the war”. In the eyes of Moscow, this is namely the existence of an independent Ukrainian state. We besides see the US’s reluctance to support global law, but besides the unprecedented consolidation of Europe.
It should be noted that fast innovations have radically changed the battlefield, making armoured vehicles; high-precision weapons; manned aircraft domination in the air; large warships; and the covert preparation of operations obsolete strategical concepts. In 3 years, almost all the military experience of the 20th century became irrelevant. Ukraine as a horizontal democratic society can accomplish a higher pace of innovations and enjoy partnership with western countries, while Russia as a vertical autocracy can guarantee ease of scaling. It is not clear who will win this race.
Scenario space
The foresight tool assumes that to form a script space, trends from different segments should be subject to scrutiny. From these then 2 or 3 of the most crucial variable factors are then selected — the alleged “key stretches” that outline the script space. 2 key stretches identified through foresight are described below. 1 of them has 2 options, while the another has three. This forms a space yet made up of six scenarios erstwhile laid out in a chart. It is crucial that 1 of the key stretches concerns the global environment, while the second reflects the most crucial options for national development. Thus, scenarios are formed at the intersection of global and local circumstances or “forks”. These reflect, on the 1 hand, the interior locus of control, and on the another hand, extremist changes in the global environment.
The key stretches of the script space are:
- The regulation of law or the regulation of force in global politics — This involves the question of whether global politics is based on alliances, principles and rules, with the democratic planet acting together and supporting global institutions and law. In the absence of this force, global politics may be dominated by the right of large powers to make claims to “zones of exclusive interests” and limit the sovereignty of smaller states. This fundamentally amounts to their right to conduct independent home and abroad policies while global institutions are weak, with large players acting pragmatically and concluding situational alliances. In reality, both options are present in global affairs but it is crucial to work out which of them dominates.
A number of another crucial global trends are consequences of this key stretch, specified as the escalation or de-escalation of conflicts on a global scale; the presence or absence of safety alliances and fresh global institutions for deterring threats; liberalization or re-imperialization; global trade wars; and the beginning of fresh theatres of war.
- Sovereignty of Ukraine: unrestricted / forcibly limited / lost — This issue relates to the presence, or partial or complete absence, of the ability to conduct independent home and abroad policies aimed at implementing national interests and the rights of citizens. In reality, there is no specified thing as unlimited sovereignty, so unrestricted sovereignty here means the absence of external coercive restrictions.
A number of another crucial local trends in Ukraine depend on this, specified as the emigration of Ukrainians and immigration to the country; the polarization or consolidation of society; the democratic or authoritarian vector of political development, etc.
Thus, the script space yet looks like this table below. The table includes indicators of the level of desirability, the level of probability, and the level of sustainability (long-term, medium-term, unstable, i.e. how long can the circumstantial script last). It besides makes clear how the scenarios can transition from 1 to another.
“Victory and sustainable peace” scenario
Global regulation of law, unrestricted sovereignty of Ukraine
Most desirable, unlikely, long-term scenario
This script describes the future desired by Ukrainians, with the aggressor punished, average life in Ukraine restored, and the continuation of the processes of European integration and economical recovery. This is possible in the case of consolidated political leadership by the West, with the level of support presently shown by China for the Russian Federation not increasing. In this case, the main Russian strategical goal fails and its imperial behaviour is condemned. Western sanctions against Moscow make it impossible to proceed the war, and deep political transformations begin in Russia. safety guarantees and the power of the Ukrainian armed forces guarantee that the war cannot be resumed. Kyiv would besides play an crucial function in European security.
In this scenario, Ukrainian territories would be de-occupied and begin to gradually recover under a transitional legal regime. Their native populations would begin to come back in these circumstances. Crimea would be de-occupied and the Crimean Tatars given national-territorial autonomy. There will besides be unhindered shipping in the Black Sea. Real GDP would grow at a rate of 5 to 7 per cent per year, with more than 10 billion US dollars annually in abroad direct investment. The main drivers of improvement would be technology; the defence industry; renewable energy; IT and the digitalization of conventional industries; agro- and food exports; and the hospitality industry. European integration would open access to EU markets, reduce non-tariff barriers, and assist tiny and medium-sized businesses.
Between 1.5 and 2 million Ukrainians will return from abroad, with population growth driven by an increased birth rate and a affirmative migration balance. Optimism, drive and self-motivation would become a prerequisite for economical growth. Social cohesion is besides high, with veterans returning home and integrating into a new, peaceful life.
“Rotten deal” scenario
Global regulation of law, forcibly limited sovereignty of Ukraine
Most likely, medium-term scenario
This script describes a future in which partial concessions to the aggressor increase the likelihood of the planet sliding into a global war. However, Ukraine would hold its agency and ability to prevent further aggression overall. Finland after the Winter War of 1939-1940 can service as a very approximate analogue for this possible outcome.
The “Rotten Deal” here denotes a strategical agreement that allows for the maintenance of the formal statehood of Ukraine yet with limits on its sovereignty from the outside. The “deal” could come in respective different versions, each with different consequences.
- “Hard” Rotten Deal: Imposed Capitulation. A formal peace treaty induced by the US acknowledges the conflict line as a fresh state border and accepts Russian demands for the withdrawal of NATO, as well as the return of Russian political, cultural, and spiritual organizations and media to Ukraine.
This result would be considered a betrayal by civilian society, the military, veterans and patriotic forces. It could possibly trigger anti-government protests, as well as calls for impeachment or snap elections. The possible emergence of an opposition fuelled by national-populist or militarist sentiment, against the wishes of pro-western moderates, is besides probable. EU accession would become frozen in the long word and erosion of public trust in the West and global institutions would be observed. global impact is possible in the form of the collapse of EU/NATO credibility in east Europe, while Russia would become emboldened regarding future aggression in the region.
- “Soft” Rotten Deal: Frozen Conflict. A ceasefire could frost hostilities, with the de facto line of control kept without formal recognition. Ukraine would promise not to effort to militarily retake its territories but would not surrender sovereignty (no restrictions on the state’s armed forces, and no Russian organizations coming back to Ukraine) while western actors turn their focus elsewhere.
There would be a tense form of political stableness under slogans like “strategic patience” or “break for re-arming”. Still, there would be deep resentment, peculiarly among refugees, veterans and those who live on the front line. improvement fatigue and Euroscepticism would grow slow in these circumstances. However, external backing to resume rebuilding in the unoccupied areas remains an opportunity.
- Managed Rotten Deal: Decentralized Peace. This would affect a phased integration plan for the temporally occupied territories of east and confederate Ukraine (except Crimea) along with safety assurances and global monitoring. Crimea would be left “temporarily unresolved”. There would be no clear way to NATO, but stronger bilateral ties.
A fragile but functional continuity would dominate this outcome. Most of society would accept a deal if it includes credible economical recovery, reconstruction, and social reintegration plans. Veterans and IDPs would be partially content if transitional justice mechanisms are constituted in this scenario. There is simply a danger of right-wing retribution but this could be constrained by social solidarity and truth-telling mechanisms. European integration and investment processes would inactive be in progress.
The following description applies primarily to the average “soft” variant, but with certain reservations yet describes all variants of this scenario.
Pressure from global partners (primarily the US) could force Ukraine to partially admit Russia’s demands as far as their own deficiency of capabilities leaves the country no area for resistance. Moscow would accomplish limited gains, forcing a partial designation of business and bringing about certain limitations for Ukraine’s right to specify its interior and abroad policy. Kyiv’s technological momentum would decline amid stagnating improvement and reduced funding. The fresh global order could well marginalize the provisions of global law on non-interference in interior affairs and waging aggressive wars. Thus, it actually recognizes the right of the strong to aggression. The European integration of Ukraine would slow down, while Euroscepticism spreads in society. As a result, Ukraine remains a weak over-centralized democracy under external influence. The demarcation line would be defined by compromise and business continues. Therefore, the population in the occupied territories loses hope. Crimea would stay under occupation, while people are completely integrated into the Russian state. Shipping in the Black Sea would inactive take place but be under threat.
Real GDP would grow by 1 to 3 per cent per year due to primarily natural material export and low-tech industries, while investments are mostly short-term and cautious. Disproportionally advanced spending on defence (due to the threat of resuming the war) and social protection (due to political populism) effectively eat into GDP growth. Financial stableness would be fragile, while the shadow economy would grow significantly. Innovation capacity would fall in these circumstances.
Depopulation would proceed (minus 0.5 million annually). The birth rate would subsequently decrease as uncertainty is growing, and young people postpone or refuse to have children. religion in a good future is partially preserved, but public anxiety and depression would stay at a advanced level. Veterans are disoriented, returning to a poorly adapted system, and yet go to live with their families abroad. Resentment is converted into full anti-Americanism and the spread of anti-western sentiments, which can be utilized (provoked and financed) by Russia and China. There would most likely be a spread of linguistic, religious, cultural and social divisions instrumentalized by Russia.
“Repeat of 1917-1921” scenario
Global regulation of law, lost sovereignty of Ukraine
Unlikely, long-term scenario
This script describes the undesirable script for most Ukrainians, in which the country is sacrificed to reconstruct the planet order just as it was in 1917-1921. In reality, however, this becomes another step towards the outbreak of a planet war as the empire grows stronger and gains a sense of impunity. force from global partners and a deficiency of global assistance would lead to the designation of Russia’s demands. The military and political defeat of Ukraine would be recognized by global partners as an acceptable way to end the war. A puppet government controlled from Moscow would be established, with Ukrainian activists repressed. A full Russification of the country would now be in progress. Ukrainians would be forcibly mobilized into the Russian army for further conquests. There would besides be a government in exile, as well as guerilla and underground movements. Ukrainian protests would destabilize European countries, while the threat of Ukrainian terrorism as a retaliation for betrayal is possible. Crimea would yet become part of the Russian Empire, with shipping in the Black Sea under Russian control.
GDP would fall by 40 to 50 per cent during the first 2 years. There would be a crucial devaluation of the hryvnia, alongside hyperinflation and the collapse of the financial and banking system. Factories would be dismantled, with resources exported and infrastructure in decline. Russian elites would subsequently absorb attractive assets. Shadow trade and barter would become the norm in the country.
Up to 5 to 7 million Ukrainians would emigrate over 3 years. Abandoned lands would be depopulated and re-populated by mass resettlement from Russia. The birth rate would fall catastrophically due to the failure of prospects and fear for the future.
“Bees defeat the bear” scenario
Global regulation of force, unrestricted sovereignty of Ukraine
Second desirable, medium-probable, unstable scenario
This script describes the improvement of events in which global threats grow, but Ukraine manages to capitalize on its own capabilities (including the innovative possible of a democratic society) and European partnerships (“coalition of the willing”), along with Russia’s weaknesses (primarily in economics and the imperial nature of the state). Israel can service as a very approximate analogue in this regard.
In a planet without rules, the direct threat from Russia would force Europe to consolidate. Kyiv would become a critically crucial actor within the European safety framework. The gap between the US and the EU would grow as a consequence of these developments. The occupied territories would become a temporary “grey zone”, with any parts de-occupied by military means or due to Russia’s retreat. A transitional legal government would consequently be imposed in these circumstances. Black Sea shipping would be restored but would inactive face threats.
GDP would grow unstably at an average of 5 per cent, but in a wide scope with peaks of up to 10 per cent. Investments of 3 to 5 billion US dollars per year would inflow mainly to infrastructure, the defence manufacture and venture industries where any high-tech niches are the basis of growth. Up to 10 per cent of GDP would come from defence and technology exports.
Both democratic and autocratic developments in Ukraine are possible. Military populism would grow, while social tension and polarization are possible. Young people are mobile: any work in the EU, and any return. The birth rate stabilizes and would partially be compensated by immigration. Migration mobility would reduce the birth rates in cities. People would return to an older lifestyle where respective generations live together and aid each other: children support their parents due to a deficiency of pensions, while grandparents look after their grandchildren during working hours.
“Unstable equilibrium” scenario
Global regulation of force, forcibly limited sovereignty of Ukraine
Medium-probable, unstable scenario
This script describes an unstable situation that could change in 1 direction or another, depending on the improvement of planet events. An approximate analogue could be the early modern Ukrainian Cossack state. This is possible in the case of Ukraine being forced to admit Russia’s demands, including abandoning the occupied territories, NATO membership, etc. There would besides be limits on the military and abroad aid, with Russian organizations returning to the political, cultural, spiritual and media space. At the same time, Ukraine would manage to keep limited sovereignty. There would be probable authoritarian regulation in the form of a Ukrainian junta, which fuels national resentment. global partners would change their focus from helping Ukraine to another problems (in fact, only humanitarian aid remains). In general, the spread of authoritarianism in the planet and increasing threats to democracies would be observed alongside the widespread disregard for individual freedoms. The demarcation line would be determined as the de facto conflict line. While the occupied territories stay destroyed, a totally militarized Crimea serves as Russia’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier”. Black Sea shipping is de facto under the control of the Russian Federation.
The economy would start to disintegrate and stagnate the further from the political centre in Kyiv. Corruption would be deep, as there is no investment. Infrastructure would not be repaired so it loses its capacity.
The most active citizens, including entrepreneurs, veterans, intellectuals and civic activists would start to leave in this scenario. Depopulation would besides continue. Young people do not decide to make families, postponing births due to fear and uncertainty. The nation would age rapidly: by 2030, the share of people 65+ would exceed 35 per cent.
“Expanding land of terror” scenario
Global regulation of force, lost sovereignty of Ukraine
The worst, unlikely, long-term scenario
This script describes a future in which Ukraine would have been defeated. However, there is inactive hope for revival. A very approximate analogue could be the Baltic countries after the Second planet War. Ukraine would be full absorbed into the Russian Empire, but this is not recognized by the global community. The complete business of Ukraine would mean the arrival of Russian totalitarian policy, colonization, absorption, Russification, militarization, repression, and surveillance. The Ukrainian government would work in exile, while guerrilla movements proceed the fight and national culture is preserved in diaspora. Ukrainians en masse would service in private military companies around the world.
Ukraine becomes an “economic black hole”: the economy would effectively cease to be as a national system. Between 80 to 90 per cent of GDP would now be located in the shadow economy or military-criminal circles.
Complete depopulation would mean a demographic catastrophe: minus 10 to 15 million people over a decade. The birth rate would decrease dramatically as giving birth would be dangerous, as well as morally and materially unjustified. Social processes could be described utilizing the words criminalization, atomization, interior emigration, denunciations, distrust, and conflicts.
What Ukraine’s allies should do to guarantee affirmative scenarios
- Provide long-term safety guarantees: legally binding commitments to Ukraine’s defence and deterrence, regardless of political cycles in partner countries.
- Ensure sustainable defence and reconstruction funding: decision from ad hoc assistance to multi-year support programmes.
- Strengthen technological cooperation: joint programmes in the defence industry, cyber defence, the usage of artificial intelligence, air defence, etc.
- Increase sanctions force on the Russian Federation until the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the accomplishment of a sustainable and acceptable peace.
- Counter Russian and Chinese propaganda in global institutions and media. advance the spread of the Ukrainian anti-colonial communicative in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Valerii Pekar is simply a co-founder of the Kyiv Foresight Foundation, the author of 4 books, an adjunct prof. at the Kyiv-Mohyla Business School and Business School of the Ukrainian Catholic University, and a erstwhile associate of the National improvement Council.
Andrii Dligach is simply a co-founder of the Kyiv Foresight Foundation, Doctor of Economics, strategist, futurologist and visionary. He is besides the founder of the Board business community, the CEO of Advanter Group, and a prof. at Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University.
New east Europe is simply a reader supported publication. delight support us and aid us scope our goal of $10,000! We are nearly there. Donate by clicking on the button below.
