Is it not obvious, at this point, that "winning" the wars are not the goal? That the wars are used as pretense for endless military presence to serve geopolitical goals?
In the WW2-era, the stakes were literal annihilation: a number of minority groups were specifically targeted for extermination by the belligerent powers, and many others were occupied under threat of extermination. Today, the stakes are that you face random drone strikes and your weddings get blown up. But there's nothing you can do about this: instead of "if you accept our rule, we'll let you live", it's "we're not interested in ruling you, die anyway". When wars are fought to make a point rather than to win, and that point has nothing to do with you, they're not going to change your behavior. So great powers and separatist/extremist groups exist in symbiosis, with each constructing and reinforcing the other in the absence of an external reason for their existence.
This theory reminds me of slatestarcodex’s “The Toxoplasma of Rage,” specifically section V. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
I recall in a debate with Allard Lowenstein back in those days, he said “Jerry, you want to win this and get out. I just want to get out. But your friends there “—indicating the Secretary of Defense —“want to lose it and stay in.” I admit to being silenced. I didn’t have the minutes to give a lecture on how to win a war of attrition when it is part of a strategy of containment, and I am not sure I understood the situation that well in 1968 anyway.