It is tempting to conclude that the war presently being waged on the territory of Ukraine actually benefits the United States and Europe—their major adversary is being weakened while the West only expends treasure (and not too much of it at that); Ukraine is doing all the fighting while Western militaries learn valuable lessons from the battlefield; the NATO alliance has received the wake-up call it desperately needed; and the war has effectively taken one great power out of competition.

But no matter how appealing this cold-blooded rationality may be to some, it ignores the reality of a long war in Europe and the moral aspect of pretending to wage a war against Russia at arm’s length, with only Ukrainian lives at stake. It ignores the risk of escalation, even if not nuclear, and the possibility of NATO joining the fight directly. The idea that the West can just give Kyiv the tools to “finish the job,” despite its Churchillian ring, is not grounded either in history or in reality: Great Britain could not finish the job alone when Churchill, in February of 1941, pleaded for the United States to send arms. The job was finished only after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union and the United States entered the war later that year, and it took four more years. And the same is true now, given Russia’s major advantages over Ukraine in a long war of attrition. Worse yet, Russia’s military stature has been diminished, but its reputation as a dangerous and unpredictable neighbor brandishing nuclear weapons has been reinforced. Neither the United States nor its NATO allies are prepared to be drawn directly into this war.

​​​That leaves the United States and its allies without any good options as the war enters its second year, except to ramp up military support and hope for the best. It is not morally right to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, but it is not right either to dictate to Ukrainians what they should settle for in their just war. A land-for-peace compromise is not an option for them, especially since it is unlikely to bring them the kind of stable, durable peace they need and deserve. They would live under a constant threat of renewed Russian aggression.
Russia does not appear ready for a compromise either. Ukraine’s terms for negotiations with Russia—restoration of 1991 borders, reparations, and war crimes tribunals—are nothing short of demands for an unconditional surrender. Russia accepting these terms is not even a remote prospectThe war can continue along three possible scenarios: a stalemate; Ukraine wins; or Russia wins. The first scenario in effect becomes a forever war, perhaps something similar to the permanent standoff on the Korean Peninsula. The second scenario carries with it the risk of a dramatic escalation by Russia, which in turn could prompt NATO to become directly involved in combat. The third scenario too carries with it the danger of a direct NATO-Russia confrontation as the prospect of Russia prevailing on the battlefield will lead to calls for NATO to become involved in order to save Ukraine.

Of the three, the first scenario—forever war—is the path of least resistance associated with the least immediate risks

“China is trying to have it both ways,” Blinken told NBC News’s Chuck Todd in an interview set to air on Sunday. “Publicly, they present themselves as a country striving for peace in Ukraine. But privately, as I said, we’ve seen already over these past months the provision of non-lethal assistance that does go directly to aiding and abetting Russia’s war effort.”

He added that further information indicates that Beijing is considering providing “materiel support to Russia’s war effort that would have a lethal effect.”

However, Blinken noted that China has not yet provided lethal assistance to Russia.

“We see China considering this. We have not seen them cross that line,” he said. “So, I think it’s important that we make clear, as I did this evening in my meeting with Wang Yi, that this is something that is of deep concern to us.”

“I made clear the importance of not crossing that line and the fact that it would have serious consequences on our own relationship, something that we do not need on top of the balloon incident that China is engaged in,” Blinken added

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Sunday warned of “consequences” if China moves to provide lethal aid to Russia after Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned Beijing was “strongly considering” the assistance.

Asked what specifically those consequences would entail, Thomas-Greenfield said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the U.S. isn’t going to announce its plans, but has communicated the ramifications to Beijing.“We’re not going to advance and announce what we’re planning to do but we made clear to the Chinese that there will be consequences should they make that unfortunate decision,” Thomas-Greenfield said

Blinken in an interview with NBC News airing on Sunday warned that China is “strongly considering” providing Russia with “lethal assistance” as Moscow’s war on Ukraine reaches its one-year mark on Friday.

“Our message to China is China should not do anything that will provide lethal support to the Russians to assist them in their brutal attacks on the Ukrainian people,” Thomas-Greenfield said on CNN, adding that both Blinken and President Biden “made that message clear” in talks with Chinese officials.