In February, the war in Ukraine will enter its fourth year. It is too early to tell how the conflict will unfold in 2025, both on the battlefield and at the negotiation table. However, it is not too early to consider what might occur and prepare for the implications for arms smuggling in Europe and beyond. Scenario planning can enhance strategic anticipation and help to reduce risks.  

The most plausible scenarios are a prolonged stalemate, a negotiated settlement or a decisive victory by one side or the other. Each of these outcomes would have very different consequences for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the future of European security. And each would raise the challenge of how to manage the aftermath of the conflict. One of the most pressing concerns will be the risk of firearms being trafficked to the surrounding regions of the conflict zone. The main outcomes of a recent simulation of the possible endgames to the conflict are presented here.  

Prolonged stalemate 

A protracted semi-frozen conflict would be characterized by a situation of neither peace nor war. The intensity of the conflict would diminish, but some military engagement would continue, with perhaps some retaliatory attacks along the so-called contact line, guerilla warfare in the Donbas, drone attacks and long-range missile strikes. In such a scenario, both sides would replenish their arsenals, creating new opportunities for illicit actors to divert weapons in a systematic and large-scale way, taking advantage of the less intense fighting and potential oversight fatigue. In addition, new political priorities in Europe and North America would divert attention and resources from arms trafficking in Ukraine. 

This could lead to accumulating stockpiles in criminal hands and the development of a more active retail, and possibly export, illegal arms market. Increasing economic strain on both sides of the conflict could also lead to more illicit activity as civilians seek to sell trophy weapons.  

Negotiated settlement 

It is often said that the only way to achieve lasting peace in Ukraine is through a negotiated deal. This will depend in large part on security guarantees for Ukraine from the West. Without such assurances, Ukrainians are likely to hold on to their weapons for fear of renewed aggression. Their lack of trust towards Russia will also mean that Ukraine will probably retain a heavily armed military, which in the short to medium term could mean an increase in the flow of arms into Ukraine in the post-war period.  

If security guarantees are provided and the conflict comes to a decisive end, then both sides may embark on disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes. Hundreds of thousands of combatants on both sides will return home – or go elsewhere – and seek new opportunities, and many may take trophy weapons with them. The lifting of martial law will reduce state powers and oversight, especially around Ukraine’s borders, potentially handing smugglers an opportunity. 

Decisive victory 

Although an outright victory by one side or the other appears to be the least likely scenario now, it still must be considered. In a total victory scenario, the risks associated with the transition to a post-martial-law demobilized society will apply, but with the added factor of potentially far greater numbers of trophy weapons captured by the defeated side. If Russia is victorious, Ukrainian military stockpiles will be particularly vulnerable to looting and diversion in a chaotic environment with little rule of law. Should Ukraine win, EU accession could (eventually) become a reality, enabling arms traffickers to move weapons more freely into Europe. With the war over, a massive stockpile of leftover weapons could leak or even flood onto the black market (particularly via Black Sea ports), increasing the risks that they could end up in the hands of criminal, terrorist or armed groups.  

In this context, experts will meet in late January to discuss the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict, focusing on the risks of arms trafficking. It is essential for policymakers and law enforcement to prepare for the implications of these and other scenarios in order to contain the risk of weapons flowing out of the war zone in the post-war period. Preventing tomorrow’s fires must start today.