Does The End -State Win Wars? MVI Debate

Editor's Note 

In this era wars are fought not only on the battlefield but in cognitive and information domains too ! There is presently an imperative need  for India for a well coordinated and institutionalized framework to shape its narratives ,counter disinformation and project a well integrated  national image .

In view of its rise as a regional and global power there is a requirement to foster  debates and dialogues that can bring together the military, government agencies, media ,academia and technology partners . 

The above few lines were the focus of a recently held Seminar titled  " ASCEND"-  Aligning Strategic Communication for Enduring Narrative Dominance conducted by HQ Southern Command at Pune on 10 & 11 October 2025 .

Publishing this MVI Debate is a small effort to project a few well-considered views of our   veterans  on this topic that were triggered by an article by Lt Gen HJS Sachdev  published by Force magazine in its October, 2025 issue .

PDF of article

Lt Gen. HJS Sachdev (retd) (1).pdf

Download PDF • 101KB

This subject  is   currently  being  widely debated  in context of current wars / conflicts  and should  continue  in the times ahead.  We hope that this debate enhances  readers awareness on the subject and linked issues .

Editor ,MVI 

Responses 

 COL RAJINDER KUSHWAHA: 

Despite using all the jargon, the  author has not   defined the two principal characteristics of war in the 21st century, which are :

 How do we define victory in the stalemated conflicts? 

What would be the objectives of a modern war — is it to grab territory or total annihilation of your adversary ? Can either be achieved ? Without either of the two , it would be AIMLESS BULL FIGHTING. 

Let us take the UKRAINE - RUSSIA war . It has been ongoing for over THREE AND A HALF YEARS . What has Russia achieved ? What was its objective when it invaded  Ukraine ? Has it  been achieved  , even after capturing 1/3rd Ukraine territory? If the purpose was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO , when would it accomplish it ? Neither being achieved, it is a “stalemated war”— an AIMLESS HEAD- BASHING, by both

GAZA - ISRAEL CONFLICT 

Did Hamas achieve its purpose of highlighting the cause of one State of Palestine— by striking on 07 October 2023 ? The principle of TWO NATION STATE is the repeated solution. Hamas was only able to draw Global attention. But , at what Price -77000 Gazans dead !  And still, despite the  much talked about TRUMP’s GAZA deal consented  by Eight prominent Muslim nations of Middle East , including Pakistan and Indonesia, the deal seems to be in the limbo. 

OP RISING LION by Israel — where Iran was the target . What was the objective ? Was it to ensure REGIME CHANGE or  to DERAIL  Iran GOING NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY  . It was not aimed at “preventing” but “derailing” it . Was it achieved — yes, it was done to an extent . Therefore it was a partial victory.

What about OPERATION SINDOOR ? 

Are we going to say that it was a failure because Pakistan was able to spread the narrative that it has won because it had downed 5 or 6 Jets ?  How do you define victory here ? Is it on the basis of what damage has been done to the enemy or what was your primary objective — immaterial of Pakistan’s smoke screen of promoting its Army Chief —remember , 

NARRATIVES GET PUNCTURED WITH PASSAGE OF TIME WHEN FACTS TUMBLE OUT OF THE WOMB OF TIME,  BUT THE PHYSICAL DAMAGE CAUSED LEAVES ITS SCARS BOTH ON THE PSYCHE AND  THE PHYSIQUE .

GP CAPT JOHNSON CHACKO:

The most important principle  of war is "Selection and Maintenance of Aim" as drilled into us since NDA days. If we achieve the "Aim" we have won the military engagement for the nation.

Victory cannot be defined in a stalemated conflict by either side unless they have achieved the "Aim".

The objectives of war could be to inflict heavy damage to the enemy's Military, Infrastructure which is dual use, Energy resources etc so that it sets back the enemy nation in terms of its economy. These are dual use assets. Territorial conquest in modern war will not be acceptable without sanctions being imposed on the country leading to international isolation.

Russia - Ukraine - Started as a special military operation to stop atrocities on Russian population in Donetsk region by Ukrainian nationalists. Probably the "Aim" has changed to ensure Ukraine does not become a part of NATO.

Gaza - Israel - The "Aim" of Hamas appears to be to achieve more autonomy or sovereignty for recognition of Palestine in the two state solution model. With so many countries recognising Palestine, some success can be claimed from the status quo that was in vogue. For a nation we need to have a culturally homogenous population with a clear geographical focus which Palestine had. To be a Nation-State it needs to have political boundaries with an administrative set up. Palestine had this too, but majority of the nations did not recognise Palestine as a Nation-State. Now many have recognised even though Palestine does not have a political boundary that they can defend. Even the administrative set up in Gaza has become defunct. The "Aim" of Israel was to defeat Hamas which they are about to achieve, but they have shifted the goal post by not allowing a Palestinian state to exist. So an uneasy truce prevails.

Op Sindoor - The "Aim" as could be gleaned out from various leaders was to punish Pakistan for what they perpetrated in Pahalgam by destroying terror infrastructure within Pakistan. Escalation ladder was pre-planned. Pakistan retaliated with attempted strikes on our assets to which we responded with precision strikes. The damage ensured that Pakistan did not have the aerial assets to continue and they pleaded for a STOP FIRE. We paused Op Sindoor, to re-start it if Pakistan carries out another misadventure. We achieved our "Aim" and so was victorious. Pakistan will live with the scars created for a long time to come. Narratives are created by suppressed information. Facts revealed over time will negate such narratives. 

Selection of Aim is very important. Maintenance of Aim is also very important. Once the Aim is achieved we should disengage. 

In the future, we should be able to achieve the selected "Aim" in a short time and withdraw for effective punitive action. With consecutive punitive actions, the enemy economy should be so badly affected that the country becomes of no consequence to us. A total war will be long drawn and inconclusive, with the whole world opposing the initiator. Land grab is not the only means to bring your opponent to his knees. 

The undeclared "Aim" of India is Comprehensive National Development (CND) as can be culled out from our Constitution. National security is essential for it and Military is one means. Once in a while we need to give a rap on the knuckles to whoever attempts to push us off the track. Spending too much money for that will delay achieving our national "Aim".

BRIG RAJIV WILLIAMS:

“End - State Wins Wars”

The article by Lt. Gen. Sachdev has been well articulated, though truncated in thought, with a few references from thinkers like Clauswitz, Sun Tzu, and Liddle Hart. His discussions have been based on the changing scenario of warfare in the 21st Century with a brief analysis on recent wars and skirmishes.

Summation of points delved into his article include the following:

(a) Victory being relatively straightforward where Armies clashed, territories seized and treaties formalized

(b) Advent of multi-domain warfare in the 21st Century.

(c) Building narratives, which essentially are tools or determinants of outcomes

(d) Discussion and lessons learnt around recent wars and skirmishes.

While I agree with him in as much to suggest that the art of warfare has changed dramatically over the millennia with technology and tactical innovation, which prove decisive outcomes yet what he has not emphasized upon and which to me is critical are the reasons to go to war. The reasons to go to war are constants and have not changed over centuries. Hence, the title itself could have been re-worded with emphasis on ‘Warfare rather than War,’ which has a larger context and greater relevance toward lasting peace. 

Wars fought over the years have brought new weaponry based tactics from the humble bow and arrow to warhorses and chariots; from gunpowder to tanks and heavy artillery; through modern world of submarines, fighter jets, drones and devastating weapons of mass destruction, culminating in the ultimate deterrence – the nuclear bomb.

Managing perceptions and opinions in the realm of conflict management, with the new tools available to include social media should be affectively used to build narratives but such tools should be well understood by the architects of war and appropriately applied. While there has been a mention on how the ‘Information war’ was played by the two sides during the recent Indo-Pak skirmish yet I did not find the result being favorable toward India and the story goes on and I will further add - with ill measured outcomes.

In conclusion, I will say that wars are still waged in competition over territory and resources: out of hatred, intolerance or the desire for vengeance; or because of simple greed for glory of individual rulers and rally to fight for their cause – however just or unjust. The political structure of the world today has been shaped by battles fought long ago. Understanding wars of the past gives insight into the wars being waged today and those likely to be fought in the future. It is in such understanding that the debate must go on to expand the scope of a ’Just war’ toward the aim - ‘End state Wins Wars’

GP CAPT PRADEEP MULAY:

The questions being discussed appear to be: How do we define success in war? What are the criteria for determining success? When should military operations end? 

Two terms are used interchangeably in this context: victory and success. Victory usually refers to military objectives, such as defeating enemy forces and capturing territory. In contrast, success is about achieving political goals.

War is fundamentally a political endeavour; politics defines the purpose of the war, while the military serves as the means to accomplish that purpose. The political context shapes the broad contours of military operations. Is there an existential threat that requires the mobilization of a nation’s entire resources for total war? Or will the war be limited to its geographical scope, the level of force employed, and its objectives? These factors emerge from the political context. As the saying goes, “politics is the master.”

If war is fundamentally a political event, then success is only linked to the achievement of the defined strategic and political goals (that enhance a nation’s position vis-à-vis the adversary). 

When political goals are achieved, military operations must end. Op Sindoor was an example of military operations ceasing after political goals were achieved.

The tendency to continue with military operations after achieving political goals is referred to as “Mission Creep” or “Victory Disease”. Continuation of hostilities after initial objectives have been met is often driven by overconfidence and results in unexpected and unpleasant consequences. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Libyan civil war, and the Korean War are just a few examples of mission creep leading to unwanted consequences.

(For a detailed explanation, please refer to: https://capssindia.org/war-and-the-politico-military-dynamic/)

Author's   Response   

 LT GEN HJS SACHDEV: 

My take on responses to my article :

1. The theme of my article is only being reinforced. I have argued that most of the modern wars being fought are ending in stalemate without any change in the end state. How can there be a victorious side when there is a stalemate? In chess, when there is endless maneuvering of pieces, both sides agree to a DRAW!

2. Objectives of modern wars has to be to seek favourable end state and not focus on winning the battle of narratives alone! If at the end of the war, the two warring nations are in the same state as at the time of the start of the war then all that they have achieved is death and destruction, where there is, sadly, NO winner.

3. Op Sindoor resulted in killing of a few hundred terrorists, perhaps, and destruction of hard military assets on each side with Pakistan suffering more. Nothing else! Yes we sent a strong message but has that been acknowledged by the enemy? Maybe not! Pakistan’s cross border terrorism(CBT) on a larger scale may see a longer gap just as it happened post Uri and Pulwama. If however Pakistan does decide to give up its unstated policy of CBT, then ‘India could claim having changed the end state’ and Victory!

4. Selection and Maintenance of Aim is a topic for another write up coming soon. But claiming Victory on the basis of achieving aim, which is more symbolic in nature and which has been tried out in earlier strikes too but without any lasting tangible outcome is debatable.

5. In Gaza and Ukraine the aims are in political and ideological domain which can only be achieved thru diplomacy and long term behavioral change, NOT by kinetic means alone. Victory will belong to the side that secures favourable end state on the negotiating table!