General Valerii Zaluzhnyi: Ukraine’s path to victory
Dear colleagues!
Thank you for the invitation. It is important for me to be here today and to speak about the political aim of the war.
I have already said a lot about the nature of war, how it changes, and how it develops. But military actions alone can’t be seen as the main tool of war. Or maybe they can, but only in certain cases. And we will talk about it. This idea came to me more and more often at the end of 2023, when my team and I were trying to sum up the military actions.
At that time, we became sure that military actions depend not only on Western support, but also on many other factors – such as the ability and readiness of people for war, which is shown by the level of mobilisation, and the ability of the economy to meet the needs of the military. Only a full understanding of these elements made it possible to plan military operations for some period.
Academic lessons immediately came to mind. When Clausewitz speaks about war as the continuation of politics by other methods he means that strategy can’t have a rational basis until the goals are clear. These goals must be part of the political aim. The political aim of the war gives answers to all questions. According to Clausewitz, war is a “trinity”: the people, the armed forces, and the government. And the people are the most sensitive part when it comes to supporting the war. Without public support, it is impossible to fight successfully.
Returning again to Clausewitz, the base of his theory is that wars are usually fought for political, not military, goals. And they are driven not so much by physical power, but mostly by ideology. Another classic line of military thought said: “Any fight for an interest can be real and systematic only if its goals are clear.”
Treat yourself or a friend this Christmas to a New Statesman subscription from £1 per month
This is the first step to understanding Russia’s actions. For example, its political aim is about Ukraine with its statehood and independence, and all its potential, which could become a gateway to Europe. Using the weakness of the collective West and international institutions, the Russian leadership formed a clear goal. A goal that has never been about solving territorial disputes or protecting Russian-speaking people of Ukraine. Russia is not interested in Donetsk or Luhansk regions, except for their mobilisation potential.
A natural question comes up. What is the political aim? And why is a military strategy not enough, even if it affects the economy? It all goes back to the basics of the study of war. And it says: “The task of the High Military Command is to destroy the enemy forces. The aim of the war is to secure a peace that suits the political goals of the state.” It means that the military command is responsible only for physically destroying the enemy. But the way to a stable and secure peace depends only on politicians.
So, war itself is not the goal and is not fought only by the military. It is fought to reach peace on certain good terms. When setting the political aim of the war, a politician must think about the situation on the military, social, and economic fronts. Getting advantage in these areas creates better conditions for peace talks. So, it is clear that not only defence of all these fronts is important, but also targeted attacks on each part of the enemy system. This is very important in a war of attrition. We must remember this.
So, when explaining the political aim of the war, it is necessary to set the tasks and unite the leadership on the political, economic, and military fronts. In military theory, there are only two types of strategy for getting to the political aim of a war: a strategy of destruction and a strategy of attrition. Humanity hasn’t invented anything else.
It is about these two strategies that we can look at what our war is. And, very important, find the correct strategy for our actions, based on a clear political aim. Here is how the situation looked at the end of 2021. We were far behind the enemy in the number of weapons and military equipment, in ammunition, and in people. Unlike the Russians, we didn’t have much modern weaponry. Russia chose a strategy of destruction, focusing only on military tasks and having only limited potential for it. This plan involved taking Kyiv and striking in other directions. All of this was supposed to happen in a short, limited period of time.
Ukraine, attacked by an enemy several times larger in economic size, population, military budget, and army, survived. It happened thanks to the heroism of Ukrainians, to innovation, and to the parity we got with the help of our allies. Of course, this reaction should have been part of our political aim. The heroism of Ukrainians was our way to Victory and should have been the result of a strong position on the political front.
So, we need to look at military science. It reminds us again that to achieve the same political goal, when the strategy of destruction does not work, the strategy changes to attrition.
This does not in any way cancel the final goals. Today, the whole world, and not just us, is already confident of this. In 2023, Russia put its economy on a war track, launched propaganda and changed laws, formed strategic reserves, and took us into the war. The war of attrition. By the end of 2023, this strategy was absolutely polished and perfected. The events of 2024, and especially 2025, despite small gains on the front, show how effective this strategy is for Russia to achieve its political goals.
The military classics say that a weak enemy can be crushed by taking out their armed forces. But a strong and powerful country will not be destroyed by methods of destruction without attrition. They also add that “a war of destruction is led mostly by reserves saved up during peace. A big country can only organise a war of attrition based on the work of its industry during the war. The military industry can develop only on military contracts.”
“Preparation for a war of attrition should focus mostly on the general, proportional development and improvement of the economy, because a weak economy, of course, cannot stand the hard tests of attrition.” It is important to remember that the strategy of attrition is not just a step-by-step plan to achieve the final military goal, but also a plan to build a material advantage that will finally make it impossible for the enemy to fight with success. But the war of attrition also takes place on the political front. As I said, the main thing is the people and their ability to resist by mobilisation. So, the path to political crush is very fast if there is no interest in mobilisation.
About military actions in the strategy of attrition. Military actions play an important role to achieve political goals, but they are not the main or final step. In other words, the enemy’s military actions today should create social pressure, losses in manpower and financial resources. And one final thing to add about the strategy of attrition. The strategy of attrition has a final strike. When a country becomes ruined economically and socially, the enemy must do the final attack.
So, it is future threats and risks that show us that the definition of a clear political goal is not only a task for the armed forces, but also a guide for political preparation for war – a preparation that includes many things like the economy, home and foreign policy. The analysis of the future of war should form a single goal that unites the military, political, and economic fronts.
When we form the political goal of war, it’s important to remember that war doesn’t always end with one side victory and the other loss. That’s how it was in World War II, but that’s a rare exception, as it almost never happened in human history. Most wars end in loss for both sides, or with each side sure that it won, or there are other options.
So when we speak about victory, it is honest to say that it is the destruction of the Russian Empire, and loss is the complete occupation of Ukraine with its collapse. All the rest is just a prolongation of the war.
We Ukrainians, of course, want full victory, that is the collapse of the Russian empire. However, we must not forget that the war may continue in the political and economic sectors. The other important element in the formation of political goals today is security guarantees. Of course, security guarantees can include Nato membership for Ukraine, nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, or a big military force that can confront Russia. However, today we are not talking about this. And because of the technological and doctrinal unreadiness of any Nato member or any other country except Russia, Ukraine, and China, this question cannot be discussed at all.
So, to formulate the political aim of a war is the most difficult test for a politician’s thinking. This is where the greatest mistakes are possible.
However, the main political aim for Ukraine may be to stop Russian ability to attack Ukraine for a long and visible period of time. The tools and forms of such aggression change and will continue to change, but they will all serve the same political aim.
This is a speech General Valerii gave at the New Statesman‘s Politics Live conference.
[Further reading: Pussy Riot’s Masha Alyokhina: “Putin will fuck you up”]
Content from our partners
Related
