After more than two years of intense combat, strategic analysts have begun focusing on how the war in Ukraine might conclude, marking a notable shift in assessment. As of March 2025, forecasters have outlined four distinct possible endgames, each carrying severe trade-offs for the parties involved.
The emergence of these scenarios signals a change in how experts are thinking about the conflict’s trajectory, even as fighting continues on the ground. Understanding these possible outcomes requires context about the region and the roots of the war. Ukraine, an Eastern European country, was once the center of East Slavic culture under Kievan Rus’. Over centuries, external powers including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Russian Empire contested the territory.
Ukraine became a republic within the Soviet Union in 1922 and gained independence in 1991 after the Soviet Union dissolved, subsequently transitioning toward a liberal democracy and a free market economy. Conflict began in February 2014, when following the Revolution of Dignity, Russia occupied and annexed Crimea and supported separatist groups in the eastern Donbas region.
That period also involved cyberwarfare and naval incidents. In February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion, starting the current phase of the war. The outcome of this conflict affects the stability of the European continent, involves questions of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and will determine future security arrangements for the region.
The Four Scenarios and Their Implications
The first scenario identified by strategic forecasters is a negotiated settlement. Such an outcome would demand painful compromises from both sides on territorial control and security guarantees. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has claimed that there are peace supporters within Russian President Vladimir Putin’s circle, a statement that could signal a potential shift toward this path. However, no concrete steps have been taken–no ceasefire, no withdrawal of forces, and no talks have been initiated–leaving this option theoretical for now.
The second scenario is a frozen conflict. Under this outcome, active fighting would stop, but no formal peace agreement would be reached.
This would mirror the situation in Transnistria or the Korean Peninsula, characterized by simmering tensions, fortified borders, and no resolution in sight. Such an arrangement would provide neither victory nor closure for either side, leaving a lingering source of instability in Eastern Europe. The third scenario–a Ukrainian military victory that pushes Russian forces back to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders–is considered unlikely given the current military stalemates.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) assesses that Russia currently holds about 18% of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. Achieving a full Ukrainian victory would require reversing these gains, a prospect analysts view as highly challenging under present conditions.
The fourth scenario is a Russian victory, which would involve the capture of more Ukrainian territory. This outcome depends on three critical factors: Western military aid to Ukraine, Ukrainian mobilization efforts, and Russian political will to sustain the offensive. The interplay of these elements will determine whether Moscow can expand its territorial holdings.
Territorial Stakes and Decisive Factors
The Institute for the Study of War has been tracking the territorial picture closely. Russia’s hold on roughly 18% of Ukrainian land represents a significant strategic asset. Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, is a non-negotiable red line for Ukraine but remains a fait accompli for Moscow.
The four partially occupied oblasts–Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson–constitute the active front lines where the war grinds on. These territories are central to any potential settlement or continued conflict.
Analysts emphasize that the outcome of the war depends on the same three factors: the level and consistency of Western military aid, the effectiveness of Ukrainian mobilization to replenish and sustain its forces, and the political will in Russia to continue the campaign. If Putin’s circle does include genuine peace supporters, as Zelenskyy has suggested, the negotiated settlement scenario becomes more plausible. But without concrete steps on the ground–including a ceasefire, troop withdrawals, or actual negotiations–that path remains a theoretical option. For now, the war continues.
But the delineation of these four scenarios–negotiated settlement, frozen conflict, Ukrainian victory, and Russian victory–represents a notable shift in how strategists are thinking about the conflict’s long-term trajectory. The coming months will test which path, if any, moves from possibility toward reality, as the fighting and the diplomatic backdrop continue to evolve.
{“@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “NewsArticle”, “headline”: “Analysts Map Four Possible Endgames for Ukraine War”, “description”: “KYIV, July 11 — After more than two years of intense combat, strategic analysts have begun focusing on how the war in Ukraine might conclude,…”, “datePublished”: “2026-07-11T09:30:00+00:00”, “author”: {“@type”: “Person”, “name”: “Li Wei”}, “publisher”: {“@type”: “Organization”, “name”: “InfoPulse Today”, “url”: “https://newsfeed.2bme.xyz/”}}
