In A European Theory of Victory: Compelling Russia to End the War in Ukraine, HCSS analysts Markus Iven and Tim Sweijs argue that the absence of a coherent European strategy has become a decisive vulnerability four years into the war.
Because the war cannot be decided decisively without risking nuclear escalation, the central question is not how to defeat Russia militarily, but under what conditions the Kremlin would conclude that continuing the war no longer improves its position and that renewed aggression would not pay. From Moscow’s perspective, the war remains rational as long as it expects European support for Ukraine to erode over time.
The report analyses the war as a sequence of failed theories of victory pursued by Russia, Ukraine, and their supporters, resulting in a prolonged stalemate. It shows that Russia’s strategy is embedded in a broader grand strategy aimed at revising the European balance of power and exploiting declining U.S. prioritisation of Europe. Ukraine is decisive in this context: its collapse would remove the principal military constraint preventing Russia from reconstituting forces and expanding westward.
Against this backdrop, the authors develop a European theory of victory – one that European NATO allies and the EU can execute largely independently of the United States. Victory is defined not as Russia’s defeat or regime change, but as a shift in Russia’s cost–benefit calculation.
“Victory is achieved when Russia concludes that continuing the war cannot possibly result in a more favourable position than ending it now,” says Markus Iven. “And victory endures only when renewed aggression is assessed as either failing outright or costing more than it is worth.”
The report identifies five conclusions Russia must be compelled to reach simultaneously:
- the Ukrainian state will not collapse;
- major Ukrainian cities cannot be controlled;
- the war of attrition cannot be won;
- settling the war offers more than continuing it; and
- future aggression costs more than it gains.
To make these conclusions unavoidable, Europe must take sequenced and mutually reinforcing actions. Key recommendations include fixing European macro-financial support for Ukraine into the 2030s, preventing Ukraine’s depopulation, denying Russia fossil-fuel revenues, prioritising support to Ukraine over European rearmament, preparing a conditional bargaining package – including sanctions relief and frozen assets – and establishing automatic deterrence mechanisms to prevent renewed aggression.
“Partial implementation preserves Russia’s theory of victory,” warns Tim Sweijs. “If Europe wants this war to end – and to stay ended – it must commit to a strategy that is credible, sequenced, and difficult to reverse.”
The report’s central message is clear: Ukraine is decisive for European security, and Europe is in a stronger strategic position than it often assumes. Turning that position into durable outcomes requires commitments that are credible, sequenced and difficult to reverse.
Cover image: UK Prime Minister
Authors: Markus Iven and Tim Sweijs
Contributions by Jan Feldhusen, Pieter-Jan Vandoren, Alexander Krabbendam and Lennart Cramer; Figures made by Nicole Eichstaedt
The research for and production of this report has been conducted within the PROGRESS research framework agreement. Responsibility for the contents and for the opinions expressed, rests solely with the authors and does not constitute, not should be construed as, an endorsement by the Netherlands Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defe
Related Content
