The conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh and eastern Ukraine have spurred a great deal of interest regarding the implications for modern warfare. Both schoolers and militaries alike have been trying  to decern what kind of implications these conflicts, complete with new weapons and capabilities have upon tomorrow’s battlefield. Theories that try to provide an explanatory outcome of conflicts has often been centered down to the age-old question whether it is the scientific material side or the artistic maneuver that takes the precedence for explaining victory on the battlefield. The purpose of this paper is to try and combine those views by using Randall Collins theory regarding the outcome of conflicts, to explain the battles of Ilovaisk 2014 and the Azerbaijani advance in Sothern Nagorno-Karabakh 2020. That way both sides are taken into account and help mitigate the debate. Furthermore, the making of a structural analytical framework tests the theory and is beneficial for further research. The framework developed from the theory, have two different main casual ways to explain victory on the battlefield. One stem from the material side called attrition and one from the artistic side called maneuverer. The framework was then applied upon a number of different reports, books, and other open sources from the conflicts. Conclusions from the results are that attritional warfare has been a viable way to achieve victory and that the long-range precision firepower that drone warfare offer has the advantage over the defensive counters.