Defence & security, explained.

Statue of Winston Churchill making the "V for Victory" sign, Washington, DC (Flickr/Adam Fagen)

Victory in 21st century conflict

Western powers need to re-acquaint themselves with a concept that is out of fashion.

Mick Ryan

4 November 20244 min read

Over the past few weeks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has travelled through Europe and America to brief political leaders on his Victory Plan, designed to end the war on acceptable terms for Ukraine. Zelenskyy has also given speeches to the European Council and, on 16 October, his own parliament.

Zelenskyy made the following critical point about his plan: “we must implement the Victory Plan to force Russia to attend the Peace Summit and be willing to end the war.” The Victory Plan is thus a means to an end. Zelenskyy and his advisors understand that even if a military victory is achieved, it is politics that will determine the outcome of this war. For Ukraine, the desired outcome of the Victory Plan is forcing Russia to the table for negotiations to achieve Zelenskyy’s Peace Formula.

President Zelenskyy recently noted that “for some, ‘victory’ has become an uncomfortable word.”

Thus, victory in war is about more than military success. In The Evolution of Strategy, Beatrice Heuser proposes that military victory may not result in the lasting achievement of war aims, and that “the most important aim in any war must be to make a just and durable peace. Victory is nothing if it does not lead to such a peace.”

Victory in modern war is about winning the peace as well as winning the war. The initial American military successes in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and in Afghanistan in 2001, followed by subsequent long-term instability, testify that military successes do not always ensure a favourable and enduring political solution. Russian interventions in Afghanistan and its first war in Chechnya are further examples.

The concept of victory, or the word itself, is one Western politicians and academics like to avoid. In 2009, US President Barack Obama said he was “always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.” As Heuser has written: “for most Western liberals in the early 21st century, victory seems of little value as a thing in itself, as the price at which it might come seems disproportionate to the gains.”

While perhaps a loaded term for contemporary Western politicians and academics, the leaders of authoritarian powers are familiar with it.

Military successes do not always ensure a favourable and enduring political solution.

In his 2021 speech on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party, President Xi Jinping noted that “the victory of the new-democratic revolution put an end to China's history as a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society.” The concept of victory is also referred to in the Chinese Communist Party’s White Paper on Taiwan published in 2022, as well as in the speeches by Xi at the 19th and 20th National Congresses of the Chinese Communist Party. Russian President Vladimir Putin has highlighted Russia’s historical victories to inspire national unity and pride. Putin used the term to describe the annexation of Crimea in 2014, as well as in the most recent war against Ukraine.

Victory is also a relevant concept for Australian national security practitioners. While Australia may not be in the middle of major war, it is in the early stages of what is likely to be a significant and long-term confrontation with authoritarian powers. As the 2024 National Defence Strategy notes, “the optimism at the end of the Cold War has been replaced by the uncertainty and tensions of entrenched and increasing strategic competition between the US and China. This competition is being framed by an intense contest of narratives and values. The competition is playing out in military and non-military ways, including economic and diplomatic.”

The National Defence Strategy lays out elements of Australia’s military approach to this deteriorating security environment, but neither it, nor any other government strategy, contains the nation’s unified theory of what success looks like over the coming decades. To do so, the Australian government should describe a holistic “theory of victory” in its strategy for how Australia will sustain – and build – its prosperity and security in the face of growing aggression from authoritarians. And to do that, policy makers and leaders will need to reacquaint themselves with the concept of victory.

Zelenskyy recently noted that “for some, ‘victory’ has become an uncomfortable word. And in reality – we understand – victory is not easy to achieve.” But it is also a fundamental intellectual construct for Western nations if they are to successfully confront the powerful forces of new, wealthy, techno-authoritarian powers which seek to usurp the post-Second World War order.

About the author

Mick Ryan

Mick Ryan is a Senior Fellow for Military Studies in the Lowy Institute’s International Security Program.

Topics

Defence & security