The Emerging Logic Of Prolonged And Indeterminate War

Abstract

An increasing number of contemporary conflicts appear to resist decisive resolution under specific structural conditions. This argument does not suggest that all wars follow the same trajectory. Rather, it identifies specific structural configurations under which decisive outcomes become less likely. For the purposes of this article, “strategic closure” refers to the production of a durable political outcome through military action, whether by decisive battlefield victory, negotiated settlement, regime collapse, or the consolidation of a new strategic equilibrium. The argument advanced here is not that all wars become stalemated, but that under certain structural conditions, the probability of achieving such strategic closure declines significantly. Nuclear deterrence, technological transparency, alliance commitments, and economic interdependence constrain pathways toward decisive military resolution without ending conflict. Conflicts such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and escalating confrontations in the Middle East are used here as illustrative cases of a broader phenomenon in which multiple escalation-constraining mechanisms operate simultaneously. They do not, by themselves, establish a universal trend, but they help illuminate the conditions under which prolonged strategic inconclusiveness may emerge. Nuclear deterrence, technological transparency, alliance commitments, and economic interdependence may, under particular geopolitical conditions, constrain pathways toward decisive military resolution without necessarily ending conflict. As a result, such conditions may prolong the conflict while reducing the likelihood of strategic closure.