Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has delivered much needed zeal to the U.S.-led international order and reinvigorated America’s adherence to a maximalist foreign policy. Prior to the war, America’s tilt towards isolationism under the Trump administration generated concern among European allies and other beneficiaries of American security guarantees. Despite President Biden’s assurances that the United States was prepared to take the reins and lead once more, damage from the Trump administration had already been wrought, convincing many that cracks were widening in the foundations of organizations like NATO which threatened their existence. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of last year has forever altered Europe’s geopolitical landscape and has, in many ways, proven to be a triumph for the West. For the first time since NATO’s interventions in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, the world is bearing witness to how America and its allies can rally to counter military aggression on the European continent. The West was largely in lockstop in the use of sanctions and other economic measures to isolate Russia. Sweden and Finland, historically neutral European nations, have applied for NATO membership to deter Russia. NATO member states have coordinated the delivery of billions of dollars worth of humanitarian aid and military supplies to Ukraine. In the past few months, formerly reluctant nations, such as Germany, have begun providing Ukraine with offensive weaponry, such as advanced Leopard battle tanks to help in further counter offensives. Regardless of the outcome of the war, it appears that the West is more unified than it has been in decades, cementing American leadership and offering a warning to other countries whose territorial ambitions may tempt them to take illegal military action.

But it is time for the United States and its allies to bring this war to an end. 

The West must be realistic about the war’s possible outcomes, as well as the drain that supplying the war in Ukraine is having on their respective economies and military stockpiles. Multilateral negotiations must be conducted to bring about a pragmatic conclusion to the war. Otherwise, the only possible end to the conflict will be for a total victory of one side over the other. Russia will  either totally subjugate Ukraine, or the underdog nation will defy all odds and repel the massive invasion force that occupies its lands. Neither outcome seems particularly plausible. In either scenario, deadly escalation would be necessary to secure victory, and escalation by either side could spiral out of control and broaden the scope of the war beyond what the West or Russia currently desires.

Some might question the necessity of negotiations when Ukraine has made impressive progress in retaking lost territory, such as the reconquest of Kherson late last year and their success in the region of Kharkiv. Many stories have emerged focusing on the seeming incompetence of the Russian high command along with reports of discontent among Russian nationals who are fleeing the country to avoid being drafted for the war effort. To observers in the West, it may appear that a Ukrainian victory is within reach and that it is merely a question of time and whether Ukraine is provided adequate military support. This is a notion that must be dispelled to understand why a negotiated settlement is the only way to conclude this war.

Despite the initial setbacks to the Russian economy, there are signs that sanctions and trade boycotts from the West will not prove to be as devastating as many had initially thought. Russia’s currency, the ruble, has largely stabilized itself after initially crashing following the immediate aftermath of the invasion. Imports of foreign goods have returned to prewar levels as Russia finds ways to increase their economic relations with nations beyond the United States’ sphere of influence. Nations such as China, India, Brazil, and Iran are stepping up their trade dealings with Russia to exploit the void created by the withdrawal of many Western nations and investors. While the Russian economy has certainly reorientated itself and faced difficulties, it does not show signs of collapsing any time soon. 

On the political front, the war has been crucial for the Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Despite his vilification in the West for his illegal invasion of Ukraine, Putin has used the war to his great political advantage. He has effectively silenced dissent and used Western opposition to the war to paint a larger conflict in the minds of the Russian people. According to Putin’s worldview, the war in Ukraine is the inevitable culmination of decades of tensions between Russia and the West over issues like NATO expansion and globalization. In his eyes, the threat of NATO expansion into Ukraine meant that there was no other option other than to invade in order to prevent Western influence right at Russia’s doorstep. He has taken an ideological approach to justifying the war which attacks Western ideals and values, such as the acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights. He claims that if the war in Ukraine is lost, then the very concept of Russia as a nation will be lost as well. 

To a population of Russians who have been historically critical of Western influence, this rhetoric is convincing. Western media sources have repeatedly echoed claims of great domestic unrest in Russia over the war. Indeed, thousands of Russians have left the nation to escape the draft and intellectual circles, particularly in urban areas, are largely opposed to the war. However, the main source of opposition that Putin faces does not come from anti-war pacifists in Russian politics, they instead come from more chauvinist elements of the Russian government who are demanding that the war be escalated in order to win. 

Continued escalation of the war in Ukraine should be the greatest concern among Western political and military leaders. Putin has used the war to such great rhetorical effect that the legitimacy of his regime hangs in the balance. A defeat in Ukraine would be an irreparable loss for Putin. His government would be unable to justify such an embarrassing debacle to the broader Russian population after feeding them apocalyptic images of what the West would do should Russia face defeat in their invasion. Putin and his advisors understand the stakes and will go to any lengths necessary to avoid such a loss. A Ukrainian victory in the war would require that NATO provide them with more tanks, more munitions, and, potentially, more advanced technology such as 5th generation fighter jets. Such a threat would force Putin's hand, potentially, towards the use of tactical nuclear arms. 

For months, Putin has used dangerous rhetoric in regards to the potential utilization of nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Smaller, “tactical” nuclear weapons could be used to take out important military targets such as entire cities or units of the Ukrainian army with the goal of aiding Russian ground-based forces in their invasion effort. The use of such weapons would be well within Russia’s existing nuclear doctrine, which incorporates the concept of “escalate to de-escalate”. Such a concept assumes that the use of tactical Russian nuclear weapons would not be met in kind with retaliatory nuclear strikes from NATO, as such a retaliation would result in the unthinkable. Instead, NATO would use conventional arms or economic measures to respond in order to avoid total nuclear war. In the grand scheme of the conflict, Russia would have been able to successfully deescalate the threat of a Ukrainian victory, albeit through the use of nuclear escalation. 

Beyond concerns of strategy and tactics, the world must also contend with the immense scale of human suffering in Ukraine. Estimates of the death toll vary, but conservative estimates place the number of civilian casualties at over 8,000 with thousands more being injured. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced and forced abroad to keep themselves and their families safe. The Russian military is guilty of deliberate war crimes in their mass executions of Ukrainians in occupied territories. Putin himself is now the subject of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for depopulating Ukraine through the abduction and relocation of Ukrainian children. Recovery from the devastation of this war will be a matter of years, not months, but a peace deal now can bring an end to the suffering and enable Western aid to help rebuild what has been destroyed by this brutal invasion.

It does not appear that the war in Ukraine will end soon. The longer the war continues, it will drain Western stockpiles of arms and munitions, create greater tensions within NATO, and bring more death and suffering to the people of Ukraine. The United States is already experiencing this: lagging on equipment shipments to Taiwan and running low on other arms. In a time rife with rising tensions over issues like computer chip manufacturing and the ever-present threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, the United States and its allies must realize that the war in Ukraine must soon be brought to a conclusion. Neither side will be entirely satisfied with the negotiations, but this is a hallmark of proper compromise. Ukraine will most likely have to relinquish territory such as Crimea, and Russia will most likely have to accept Ukrainian membership in NATO and the EU following the end of hostilities. However, while the price of peace may be high, the price of war is always immeasurably higher.