Russia And Ukraine’s New Theories Of Victory? – Analysis

October 3, 2026

By Patial RC


Key Takeaways:

The essay says the war’s “victory” test is endurance, not the next village: Russia hits Ukrainian energy, transport, and industry to break daily life; Ukraine hits Russian refineries, logistics, and defence plants to raise the cost of fighting.

It notes Russia held parliamentary elections in September 2026 while Ukraine’s October 2023 parliamentary and May 2024 presidential votes remain postponed, a gap Moscow uses on legitimacy, and that each side hopes the other’s public will tire first.

Neither is said to have a classical win; the cycle is strike, repair, adapt, and regenerate, so the outcome depends on which economy, industry, and political system wears out sooner.

The Russia-Ukraine war may be entering a new and more consequential phase—not because either side has found a way to win the war on the battlefield, but because the definition of victory itself is changing. The central question is no longer simply who can capture more territory, destroy more tanks or hold the next line of defence. Increasingly, it is becoming a contest over something more fundamental:Which side can destroy the other’s capacity to sustain a prolonged war before its own capacity is exhausted? This is pushing the conflict far beyond the trenches of close combat at the front lines.

Russia is increasingly targeting the foundations that allow Ukraine to function as a state to fight this war: energy, infrastructure, transport, industry, communications, economic activity and, ultimately, public resilience. Ukraine, unable to match Russia’s manpower and missile resources symmetrically, is increasingly targeting the foundations that allow Russia to wage war: refineries, energy infrastructure, logistics, military facilities and defence-industrial capacity. The emerging strategic equation is therefore stark:

Russia wants to make Ukraine unable to continue; Ukraine wants to make Russia unable to continue. Neither strategy requires the complete destruction of the opponent.Each requires only sufficient degradation to make continued war increasingly costly, politically difficult and strategically unsustainable. That is why the next decisive battles may take place hundreds of kilometres behind the front—at refineries, power stations, logistics hubs, defence factories, data centres and economic centres rather than in the trenches. The war is evolving from a contest of territorial attrition into a contest of national endurance.

Ukraine’s Theory: Make War Unaffordable to Russia

Unable to match Russia’s enormous missile and manpower resources symmetrically, Ukraine was the first to increasingly exploit its comparative advantages in drones, with precision strikes in depth, intelligence, electronic warfare and technological innovation. Its objective is to attack the war waging machinery in Russia’s depth areas.

Ukrainian strikes have increasingly targeted oil refineries, energy infrastructure, logistics, military facilities and defence-industrial assets deep inside Russia. Recent reporting indicates that attacks on Russian refineries have reduced fuel-processing capacity and contributed to shortages in some regions. Kyiv’s broader objective is to raise the economic cost of sustaining the war.


The logic is straight forward. If Ukraine cannot match the Russian army on the battlefield which is near impossible, it can attempt to make the Russian war effort more expensive. It requires Ukraine to degrade enough of the Russian system that maintaining the war becomes increasingly difficult and costly.This amounts to a form of strategic neutralization by the gradual erosion of the economic and industrial foundations supporting its military objectives. The underlying message is simple:

“Make the war unaffordable to Russia.”
Russia’s Counter-Theory

For much of the war, Russia’s strategy appeared centred on territorial conquest and attrition. Moscow expected sustained pressure along the front eventually to exhaust Ukrainian manpower and weaken Western support. But the campaign has acquired another dimension.

Russian missile and drone attacks reach deep into Ukraine, including Kyiv and other major urban and economic centres. Their consequences increasingly extend beyond immediate military targets to energy, transport, industry and economic activity.

The objective, therefore, is not simply to destroy Ukraine’s armed forces but to disrupt the wider system that enables Ukrainian society to function and the state to sustain a prolonged war. Moscow may not need to capture every important Ukrainian city if it can make those cities increasingly difficult to live and work in. A city repeatedly deprived of electricity, transport and communications becomes less productive. Businesses hesitate to invest. Workers leave. Infrastructure requires constant repair. Government expenditure rises while revenues decline.

Economic exhaustion. Population displacement. Infrastructure degradation. Declining morale. Political pressure. Russia may therefore be seeking to erode not merely Ukraine’s military strength but its capacity to function as a modern state under wartime conditions.


“Break Ukraine’s ability to function and fight.”


Russia is attacking Ukraine’s ability to live and function normally. Ukraine is attacking Russia’s ability to wage war economically.

Both are betting that the people will eventually ask: How long can this continue and how much longer can we afford to continue?

The war is increasingly becoming a contest of National Resilience.
The Psychological Battlefield

There is another dimension: Morale. Repeated Russian attacks appear intended not only to destroy infrastructure but also to demonstrate to Ukrainians that nowhere is completely safe.

That psychological effect becomes particularly significant when electricity, heating, transport and communications are repeatedly threatened. If Ukrainians begin to expect another cycle of blackouts, attacks and economic disruption every winter, Moscow may hope that the cumulative burden eventually produces pressure for a settlement.


The same dynamic is increasingly visible inside Russia. Ukrainian long-range drone attacks have brought the war closer to Russian cities and disrupted parts of everyday economic life. The psychological barrier separating the Russian population from the war has consequently become thinner.

The more each side attempts to make the other population feel the cost of war, the greater the possibility that the target population adapts rather than capitulates. The psychological battlefield is therefore becoming reciprocal. Each side is attempting to convince the other that the costs of continuing the war are becoming greater than the benefits.
The Political Battlefield: Elections and Legitimacy

Russia has demonstrated that it can conduct elections while the war continues. Its parliamentary elections were held in September 2026 despite the continuing conflict and Ukrainian drone attacks.For Moscow, holding elections provides an opportunity to demonstrate institutional continuity and project the image of a state capable of maintaining its political machinery despite the war.

Ukraine’s parliamentary election, due in October 2023, and presidential election, due in May 2024, have not been held. This creates an important political asymmetry: Russia is conducting elections while the war is going on and Ukraine is postponing elections. For Ukraine, the continued postponement creates an issue that Moscow can exploit politically and diplomatically.


Russia has incorporated Ukraine’s deferred elections into its narrative concerning the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leadership.
The Race Against Time

For both sides, time has become a weapon. Russia needs its military, economic and psychological pressure to accumulate faster than Ukraine and its Western partners can adapt.

Ukraine needs its long-range strike capabilities and domestic defence production to grow faster than Russia can regenerate its military capabilities. The financial dimension is critical.

Russia is devoting enormous resources to sustaining its war effort, while Ukraine remains heavily dependent on external financial and military assistance. Both sides therefore face the same fundamental calculation: how long can their economic systems continue absorbing wartime expenditure?

The answer will depend not only on the size of their economies but also on their ability to regenerate military equipment, maintain industrial production, repair damaged infrastructure and preserve political support.
From Victory to Coercion

This explains why the meaning of “Victory” has become increasingly complicated. Neither side has an easy path to a classical military victory. Russia has not achieved all of its maximal objectives. Ukraine has not restored all its territory through military force.

The central question is therefore ;Which side can create enough pressure on the other to make a negotiated settlement preferable to continued war?

Russian strikes provoke Ukrainian retaliation. Ukrainian deep strikes provoke Russian escalation. Each side presents the other’s attacks as justification for its own both imposing pain without becoming capable of imposing a decisive settlement.
The Emergence of a Prolonged War

This may be the most important evolution in the character of the conflict. The war is increasingly becoming a prolonged war of targeting infrastructure. The objective is no longer necessarily to destroy the enemy’s armed forces in one decisive campaign. It is to progressively weaken the economic, industrial, infrastructural and psychological foundations that allow those armed forces to continue fighting.


The central question now is: Not how much territory has been captured? But, how much national capacity remains available to sustain the conflict? This changes the meaning of strategic success.

A country can suffer extensive infrastructure damage yet continue fighting if it possesses sufficient external support, domestic resilience and the ability to regenerate its military capacity. The war is therefore increasingly becoming a contest between destruction and regeneration.
The Risk of Strategic Exhaustion

This creates a dangerous possibility: Strategic Exhaustionwithout political resolution. Neither side may need to defeat the other’s armed forces completely. It may be enough to make the cumulative cost of war increasingly difficult to sustain.

The cycle becomes: strike → retaliation → escalation → adaptation → regeneration → another strike.

New air defences appear. New drones are developed. Production is dispersed. Infrastructure is repaired. Alternative supply routes are established.
The Real Endgame

The coming phase may therefore be less about who captures the next village and more about whether either theory can alter the opponent’s strategic calculation.

If Russia succeeds in turning Ukrainian winters into prolonged crises of energy, mobility, employment and displacement, Moscow may conclude that time is working in its favour.

If Ukraine can expand its ability to strike Russia’s energy and defence-industrial infrastructure while maintaining external financial and military support, Kyiv may conclude that time is becoming a burden for Moscow.

The war has consequently entered a race of Strategic Exhaustion:

Russia seeks to exhaust Ukraine’s capacity to function. Ukraine seeks to exhaust Russia’s capacity to sustain the war. Both sides are becoming increasingly capable of imposing costs while remaining unable to impose a decisive settlement.

The decisive battle is therefore no longer taking place on the battlefield alone but is dangerously becoming a prolonged war of infrastructure targeting. It is being fought across energy networks, refineries, defence factories, logistics systems, financial resources, cities, political institutions and public resilience.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is thus evolving into something broader than a conventional war of territorial attrition. It is becoming a struggle to degrade the opponent’s capacity to function, fight and endure.


The new theories of victory are not simply theories of capturing territory but are theories of making the opponent’s war unsustainable.

And the battle that determines the eventual outcome may be fought not at the front, but in the economic, industrial, infrastructural and political depth of both nations.


About Patial RC
is a retired Infantry officer of the Indian Army and possesses unique experience of serving in active CI Ops across the country and in Sri Lanka. Patial RC is a regular writer on military and travel matters in military professional journals. The veteran is a keen mountaineer and a trekker.
View all posts by Patial RC →