“No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.” — Gen. James Mattis
Throughout history, military conflicts have been waged with the objective of achieving decisive and conclusive victories. However, in contemporary warfare, outright military triumphs have become increasingly elusive due to a combination of strategic, political, economic, and technological factors.
One of the most significant factors preventing wars from being decisively won is the presence of nuclear deterrence and strategic containment policies. While nuclear weapons haven’t been used since August 1945, their broader strategic implications shape military decision-making and escalation thresholds. Israel’s alleged nuclear capability serves as a powerful deterrent against full-scale regional war, ensuring that conflicts remain within the realm of conventional military engagements. Russia hinted that it could use its nuclear arsenal in the war with Ukraine. Additionally, major global powers impose constraints to prevent escalation beyond tolerable limits, thereby restricting the capacity of warring factions to achieve total military dominance.
The development of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and various United Nations resolutions, has significantly altered the nature of modern warfare, adding another crucial constraint toward warfare. As Edward Luttwak wrote:
Wars used to begin and end. Since the UN arrived, with the fiction of collective responsibility (nobody sent troops to Rwanda; nobody arrived to defend the Jews on May 15, 1948), this changed. The fiction results in imposed cease-fires that preclude peace. Wars used to force a reversion to peace via the victory of one side or the other. But now wars are interrupted by cease fires that no longer lead to negotiated armistices, let alone peace. Wars interrupted ensure unending conflicts.
Historically, wars were often won by utterly crushing an enemy, sometimes through massacres, forced displacements, or widespread destruction. Today, international humanitarian norms, along with human rights organizations, have made such tactics unacceptable. In the Israel–Hamas conflict, for example, Israel faces intense scrutiny over its military actions in Gaza, while Hamas is also condemned for targeting civilians. The moral constraints imposed by the global community prevent either side from resorting to the kind of overwhelming force that characterized past wars of total victory, such as the destruction of Carthage by Rome. As a result, military campaigns are often limited to strategic operations rather than complete annihilation of the adversary.
Modern warfare imposes immense financial burdens, making prolonged conflicts unsustainable. The high cost of advanced weaponry, missile defense systems, intelligence infrastructure, and medical support for military personnel places significant economic pressure on warring entities. For example, Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, while highly effective, comes at a steep operational cost, with each interception costing tens of thousands of dollars. The exorbitant costs of maintaining prolonged hostilities often lead to strategic deadlocks rather than conclusive military victories.
The omnipresence of digital media and real-time news coverage has fundamentally altered the conduct of war. Unlike historical conflicts where military leaders could execute strategies with relative opacity, modern warfare unfolds under intense global scrutiny. Graphic depictions of civilian casualties, infrastructure destruction, and humanitarian crises generate powerful public reactions, shaping diplomatic responses and influencing domestic and international policies.
In the Israel–Hamas conflict as well as the Russian offensive in Ukraine, media narratives play a critical role in mobilizing global opinion, leading to pressure for ceasefires and negotiations rather than allowing one side to secure an overwhelming victory. Furthermore, the rise of cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns adds a new layer of complexity, as both sides leverage digital platforms to influence perceptions and strategic outcomes.
A key challenge in achieving definitive military victories is the evolution of asymmetric warfare, where state actors engage non-state groups operating within civilian populations. Traditional military doctrines, designed for conventional state-on-state conflicts, often struggle to effectively counter guerrilla tactics, decentralized command structures, and urban warfare environments. Hamas, for example, employs tunnel networks, human shields, and improvised rocket systems to offset Israel’s technological superiority. This asymmetry prevents clear-cut military victories, as conventional forces must navigate complex operational environments while adhering to humanitarian constraints.
As warfare continues to evolve, military strategists and policymakers must navigate these multifaceted challenges, recognizing that absolute victories are often unattainable in the modern geopolitical landscape.
