No war is over until the enemy says its over. We may think it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote. Gen. James Mattis

Throughout history, military conflicts have been waged with the objective of achieving decisive and conclusive victories. However, in the landscape of contemporary warfare, outright military triumphs have become increasingly elusive. This shift is primarily due to a complex interplay of strategic, political, economic, and technological factors that redefine what victory means in a military context.

One of the most significant elements complicating the pursuit of decisive wins is the role of nuclear deterrence and strategic containment policies. Since the last use of nuclear weapons in August 1945, their implications have been monumental, affecting military decision-making and the thresholds for escalation. For instance, Israel's nuclear capabilities serve as a formidable deterrent against full-scale regional wars, compelling conflicts to remain within conventional military engagements rather than escalating to nuclear confrontation. Similarly, Russia has indicated the potential use of its nuclear arsenal in the ongoing war with Ukraine, showcasing how nuclear deterrence can shape battlefield dynamics.

Moreover, major global powers have established constraints designed to prevent conflicts from spiraling beyond manageable limits, thus limiting the capacity of warring factions to achieve total dominance over their adversaries. These international measures are further bolstered by the development of international humanitarian law, which includes the Geneva Conventions and various United Nations resolutions. As noted by the political analyst Edward Luttwak, the advent of the UN has fundamentally altered warfare's trajectory.

Wars used to begin and end, Luttwak wrote. Since the UN arrived, with the fiction of collective responsibility (nobody sent troops to Rwanda; nobody arrived to defend the Jews on May 15, 1948), this changed. The fiction results in imposed cease-fires that preclude peace. Historically, wars often ended decisively with the thorough defeat of one side or the other. Now, however, conflicts are frequently punctuated by cease-fires that do not culminate in negotiated armistices, leading to protracted and often unresolved disputes.

In the past, military victories were often achieved through overwhelming force, which could include massacres, forced displacements, or extensive destruction. Today, however, international humanitarian norms and the influence of human rights organizations render such strategies unacceptable. In the ongoing IsraelHamas conflict, for instance, Israel faces intense scrutiny for its military actions in Gaza, while Hamas receives condemnation for its attacks on civilians. The moral imperatives imposed by the global community inhibit either side from resorting to the brutal tactics associated with historical wars of total victory, such as the Roman annihilation of Carthage. Consequently, military campaigns are frequently restricted to specific strategic operations rather than aiming for the complete destruction of the adversary.

Another major factor complicating military engagements is the immense financial burden they impose. The costs associated with modern warfare are staggering, driven by the need for advanced weaponry, missile defense systems, intelligence capabilities, and comprehensive medical support for military personnel. For instance, Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, though highly effective in intercepting incoming threats, incurs substantial operational costs, with each interception costing tens of thousands of dollars. The exorbitant expenses associated with sustaining prolonged conflicts can often lead to strategic deadlocks rather than clear military victories.

The role of digital media and real-time news coverage has also radically transformed how wars are fought and perceived. Unlike past conflicts, where military leaders could execute strategies with relative opacity, modern warfare unfolds under the intense scrutiny of global audiences. Graphic images and reports detailing civilian casualties, infrastructure devastation, and humanitarian crises evoke powerful public reactions, which in turn influence diplomatic efforts and reshape both domestic and international policies.

In the ongoing IsraelHamas conflict and Russia's military campaign in Ukraine, media narratives are instrumental in mobilizing global sentiment, often resulting in calls for ceasefires and negotiations rather than allowing one side to gain overwhelming victory. Furthermore, the rise of cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns introduces new complexities, as both state and non-state actors leverage digital platforms to shape public perceptions and outcomes on the battlefield.

Lastly, a critical challenge in achieving decisive military victories stems from the evolution of asymmetric warfare, where state actors confront non-state groups that operate within civilian populations. Traditional military doctrines, designed primarily for conventional state-on-state conflicts, often falter in effectively countering guerrilla strategies, decentralized command structures, and urban warfare landscapes. For instance, Hamas employs extensive tunnel networks, uses human shields, and deploys improvised rocket systems to counter Israels technological advantages. This asymmetry makes it difficult to secure clear-cut military victories, as conventional forces must navigate complex operational environments while adhering to humanitarian constraints.

As warfare continues to evolve in the 21st century, military strategists and policymakers are tasked with recognizing these multifaceted challenges. They must acknowledge that absolute victories are often unattainable in today's intricate geopolitical landscape.