Lee Jong-eun
The progress of human history has sometimes been depicted by distinguishing the winners from the losers. Rome won; Carthage lost. England won; Napoleon’s France lost. The Allies won; the Axis powers lost. The United States won; the Soviet Union lost. The winners of geopolitical conflicts then shaped the regional or international order according to their preferences.
Today, the world is again encountering multiple geopolitical conflicts: Ukraine vs. Russia, Israel vs. Iran, North Korea vs. South Korea, and the United States vs. China. We frequently encounter predictions about which country is winning or losing and what the postconflict consequences will be. At present, however, no major conflict actor seems to be decisively winning or losing. Instead, there appears to be a prolonged geopolitical stalemate.
In Europe, the Ukraine war has lasted for over four years. Despite enduring steep war costs, neither country has achieved a strategic breakthrough. Russia has failed in its objective of keeping Ukraine under its sphere of influence, while Ukraine has failed to deter Russia as a military threat. A ceasefire may eventually be established, but the bilateral conflict will likely continue due to the two countries’ incompatible strategic objectives.
In the Middle East, the conflict among Iran, the United States and Israel also appears unlikely to reach a conclusive outcome. The United States and Israel have failed to overthrow Iran’s regime or neutralize Iran’s capacity to threaten the regional and global economy. Iran, however, has also exposed its vulnerability to U.S. and Israeli military strikes. Absent a clear victory, regional tensions and geopolitical gridlock will likely continue in the region.
In East Asia, who is winning? Has China been successful in asserting its regional hegemony? Has the United States been successful in containing China? Both superpowers are constrained by their own weaknesses and are unlikely to engage in a decisive hegemonic war. Instead, a series of geostrategic skirmishes has continued over issues such as trade, technology and Taiwan’s sovereignty. Consequently, it is unlikely that a single policy setback would spell a fatal blow to either China or the U.S.
A key characteristic of contemporary geopolitical conflicts is the resilience of conflict actors. When motivated by strategic objectives, countries may sustain losses in order to continue or renew their conflicts. U.S. defeats in the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars did not lead to the abandonment of its overall global interventionist strategy. Similarly, unsatisfactory strategic outcomes from current military conflicts are unlikely to dissuade countries such as Russia and Iran from pursuing their strategic objectives.
The memories of two modern historical events, World War II and the end of the Cold War, may have contributed to the misperception that major geopolitical conflicts are fought over a short timeframe and end in conclusive victories and losses. Instead, many historical conflicts have involved long periods of attrition. Even the Cold War lasted 45 years. Even when a historical conflict is concluded, it may not be the result of a decisive event, such as the dropping of an atomic bomb, but rather the result of “a thousand cuts” — losses inflicted over an extended period of time.
The Donald Trump administration’s recent military interventions targeting Venezuela and Iran may have been efforts to overcome current geostrategic stalemates. Yet, Trump’s use of force has appeared at best to only advance marginal strategic gains in Latin America and the Middle East. Trump’s actions have also constrained the U.S. due to domestic economic impact and disputes with its allies.
How should geopolitical stalemates be then addressed? One approach is to intensify pressure on adversarial actors to concede to a settlement. For example, some have advocated for the United States and its allies to escalate confrontation with adversarial regimes. Such an approach, however, may also increase conflict costs for the United States and its allies. Another risk is that a settlement achieved through coercive pressure may not be permanent; rather, it may become a catalyst for future conflict.
Another approach is to seek peaceful coexistence among conflict actors. Rather than prolonging attrition, conflict actors may negotiate a compromise settlement. Some have advocated for the United States and its allies to negotiate a “grand bargain” with regimes such as Russia, China and North Korea. Others have advocated combining confrontational and conciliatory approaches to resolve contemporary conflicts.
Negotiating and enforcing a “win-win” settlement among countries with incompatible strategic objectives, however, poses stark challenges. As South Korea has experienced in negotiations with North Korea, neither “sticks” nor “carrots” may be sufficient to bridge the differences in objectives between conflict actors.
The final approach is perseverance during a geopolitical stalemate. Efforts can be made to mitigate and contain the conflict, but with the grim acceptance that the current conflict between countries will continue for an indefinite period. Future opportunities may arise that could enable a breakthrough, but this approach cautions against premature expectations that diplomacy or force could end the present gridlock quickly.
Geopolitical stalemates are frustrating and impose costly tolls on the citizens of conflict-affected countries. South Koreans, for example, have endured 80 years of unresolved conflict with North Korea. The unpleasant reality, however, is that when neither winning nor peaceful coexistence is an easily achievable outcome, maintaining a stable stalemate may become the “least bad” approach for countries.
Near the end of World War I, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proposed a world in which there would be “peace without victory.” Today, the world is instead experiencing a period of “conflicts without victory.” It calls for patient statesmanship: adapting to the constraints of the present while probing for opportunities in the future. As in past historical conflicts, the countries that demonstrate such statesmanship may come to shape the eventual outcomes of contemporary geopolitical conflicts, whether in victory or peace.
Lee Jong-eun (Jong.Lee@ngu.edu) is an assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University. Prior to this, he served as a South Korean Air Force intelligence officer.
