Zwycięstwo jako kryterium zakończenia konfliktu

Mirosław Banasik

doi:10.18290/rns2026.0012

Published : 2026-03-31

Vol. 55 No. 1 (2026)

Victory as a Criteria for Ending a Conflict

Mirosław Banasik

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9358-1240

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18290/rns2026.0012

Abstract

The aim of the research was to explain selected aspects of the theory and practice of winning considered in the context of ending a conflict. A systemic approach was used to solve the research problems, along with methods of analysis and criticism of literature and case studies. It was established that in theory and practice, there are difficulties in defining victory due to the changing nature of contemporary conflicts, which rarely end in lasting success or defeat. Victory is a highly universal and generalizing concept. It should be considered in terms of ensuring lasting peace after the end of a conflict, i.e., going beyond military success. In contemporary conflicts below the threshold of war, victory can be achieved through asymmetric political, economic, informational, and environmental campaigns in the form of indirect actions, mainly using non-military means. However, this does not mean that achieving victory without eliminating the root causes of the conflict will automatically lead to its end.

Keywords:

conflict, war, victory, criteria, theory and practice

Details

References

Statistics

Authors

Download files

pdf (Język Polski)

Citation rules

Banasik, M. (2026). Victory as a Criteria for Ending a Conflict. Roczniki Nauk Społecznych, 55(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.18290/rns2026.0012

Altmetric indicators

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Bartosh A.A. (2018), “Treniye” i “iznos” gibridnoy voyny, Voyennaya mysl’ [Бартош А.А. (2018), “Трение” и “износ” гибридной войны, Военная мысль], nr 1, s. 5-13.

Bristol J. (2021), Hybrid War and What to Do About It, The Strategy Bridge, 21.04, https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2021/4/21/hybrid-war-and-what-to-do-about-it [dostęp: 2.03.2026].

Carignan J. (2017), Victory as a Strategic Objective: An Ambiguous and Counter-Productive Concept for the High Command, Canadian Military Journal, nr 2, s. 5-14.

Chekinov S.G. i Bogdanov S.A. (2013), Priroda i soderzhaniye voyny novogo pokoleniya, Voyennaya mysl’ [Чекинов С.Г. i Богданов С.А. (2013), Природа и содержание войны нового поколения, Военная мысль], nr 4, s. 12-23.

Clausewitz C. (1976), On War, tłum. na j. angielski M. Howard, P. Paret, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Delbrück H. (1990), History of the Art of War, t. 4: The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Handel M.I. (1992), Masters of War. Sun Tzu, Clausewitz and Jomini, London: Frank Cass.

Liddell Hart B.H. (1991), Strategy, wyd. 2, New York: Meridian.

Kagan F.W., Bugayova N. i Cafarella J. (2019), Confronting The Russian Challenge: A New Approach for the U.S., Washington: Institute for the Study of War.

Kofman M. (2019), Drivers of Russian Grand Strategy, Friväld, nr 6, s. 1-5.

Kollenscher E., Ronen B. i Coman A. (2014), Achilles’ Heel Strategy: Identifying and Leveraging a Competitor’s Weakest Point, International Journal of Production Research, nr 3, s. 651-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.825746

Kreighbaum J.M. (1997), An Indirect Approach to Warfare Attacking an Enemy’s Moral Forces, b.m.: Maxwell.

Kumaniecki K. (red.) (1997), Słownik łacińsko-polski, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Szkolne PWN.

Martel W.C. (2011a), Victory in War. Foundations of Modern Strategy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martel W.C. (2011b), Victory in Scholarship on Strategy and War, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, nr 3, s. 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2011.617356

Mason G. (2019), A New Model for Strategic Competition, https://theforge.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/competition_prism_by_grant_mason.pdf [dostęp: 2.03.2026].

Mazarr M.J., Blake J.S., Casey A., McDonald T., Pezard S. i Spirtas M. (2018), Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Project.

McCoy K. (2018), Competition, Conflict, and Mental Models of War: What You Need to Know about Multi-Domain Battle, Modern War Institute, 26.01, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/competition-conflict-mental-models-war-need-know-multi-domain-battle/ [dostęp: 2.03.2026].

Mumford A. (2016), The Role of Counter Terrorism in Hybrid Warfare, University of Nottingham, https://www.tmmm.tsk.tr/publication/researches/04-TheRoleofCounterTerrorisminHybridWarfare.pdf [dostęp: 2.03.2026].

Osinga F. (2005), Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd, Delft: Eburon.

Perkins D.G. (2017), Multi-Domain Battle the Advent of Twenty-First Century War, Military Review, November-December, s. 8-13.

Roberts B. (2020), On Theories of Victory. Red and Blue, Livermore Papers on Global Security, nr 7.

Stuart N. (2005), Finding the Hinge: The Western Way of War and the Elusive. Search for Victory, Australian Army Journal, nr 2, s. 217-227.

Sullivan P.L. (2007), War Aims and War Outcomes: Why Powerful States Lose Limited Wars, Journal of Conflict Resolution, nr 3, s. 496-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002707300187

Sun Tzu (1963), The Art of War, tłum. na j. angielski S.B. Griffith, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomas T.L. (2019), Russian Military Thought: Concepts and Elements, MITRE Corporation, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot-Spots/docs/Russia/Mitre-Thomas.pdf [dostęp: 2.03.2026].

Tol J., Gunzinger M., Krepinevich A.F. i Thomas J. (2010), AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 18.05, https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/airsea-battle-concept [dostęp: 2.03.2026].

Wallach J.L. (1986), The Dogma of the Battle of Annihilation: The Theories of Clausewitz and Schlieffen and Their Impact on the German Conduct of Two World Wars, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.