Beyond Just and Unjust Peace: Moral Criteria for Evaluating War Outcomes in Ukraine

Abstract

Russia’s invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 constitute one of the most significant ruptures in the post–Cold War international order. This article develops a normative framework to evaluate possible war outcomes, addressing a central problem in contemporary conflict analysis: how to assess war outcomes when ideals of justice collide with severe material constraints. Drawing on recent developments in Just War Theory—particularly the concepts of jus ex bello (justice in war termination) and jus post bellum (justice after war)—we argue that plausible outcomes are structured by complex trade-offs between four dimensions: peace, justice, stability, and feasibility. To analyze these trade-offs, we construct a typology of nine possible outcomes and evaluate them through a structured normative-comparative approach. Each scenario is assessed along these four dimensions, informed by historical analogies from interstate wars. We show that the binary distinction between “just” and “unjust” outcomes is insufficient to capture the moral complexity of contemporary wars. Instead, we propose a relational conception of justice for non-ideal conditions, distinguishing between “just,” “fully unjust,” and “unjust but justifiable” outcomes. In contexts of strategic stalemate, intermediate outcomes become central, and their value must be assessed relationally—namely, in comparison to fully unjust alternatives such as an aggressor decisive victory. Our findings suggest that conflict freezing through armistice and negotiated settlements involving reciprocal concessions emerge as relatively feasible and morally justifiable—albeit imperfect and still unjust—alternatives. More broadly, the article contributes to debates on war termination by offering an analytical framework to evaluate peace under non-ideal conditions.