Former President Joe Biden deserves credit for getting right the core issue of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. He understood that Russia’s invasion was unequivocally wrong and Ukraine deserved support as it sacrificed to remain free. Unlike the post-9/11 Afghans and Iraqis, whose will to fight never rose to the level necessary for victory, the Ukrainians leveraged U.S. support effectively. Under the most challenging conditions, Ukraine’s armed forces performed admirably. As the new administration debates the future of U.S. support for Ukraine, the country’s heroic resistance may be enough to inspire the continued generosity of the American people. If it’s not, it’s critical that Americans understand how their own national security interests have been served by Ukraine’s resistance.

Russia’s long and costly fight to subjugate Ukraine has absorbed most of its military and diplomatic focus. It has limited Russia’s ability to act elsewhere in the world and to make the type of domestic economic investments that are necessary to maintain its long-term strength. Russia is slowly winning in Ukraine, but the victory is not making the country stronger. A generation of Russians is scarred by combat, many of its best and brightest have fled to avoid military service, inflation is high and the country is dependent on China for trade. This reliance undermines Russia’s status as a great power by forcing it to consider and consult with Beijing. Three years into the conflict, Russia is getting weaker by winning.

Biden’s approach was not perfect. Restrictions he placed on the use of U.S. weapons, and his reluctance to provide advanced capabilities, undermined Ukraine’s chances of expelling Russian forces during the first year of the war. But the support he did provide succeeded in facilitating a meaningful if limited Ukrainian victory. In 2022 Russia intended to remove the government in Kyiv and replace it with a friendly proxy, turning the country away from the West and incorporating it into a Russian sphere of influence. In this grand design Russia failed. Even if Russia ends up occupying eastern Ukraine, the cost of this limited victory will have a deterrent effect on Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin has spent the last two decades lamenting the loss of Russia’s empire and methodically working toward its reconstruction. By doing so he has worked to undue the efforts of two generations of Americans who prosecuted the Cold War and helped bring about the Soviet Union’s demise. It’s likely that Putin’s revisionist plans would have included operations in Moldova, Central Asia and elsewhere had he not exhausted his country in Ukraine.

Putin’s willingness to sacrifice other people’s lives in his pursuit of empire doesn’t mean that all Russians are “bad.” But this gracious view has been taken to the extreme by some Americans who view Russia as a benign actor that is either incapable, uninterested or unwilling to harm the American people. Were this true, the world would be a better place. But long before its behavior was excused by some Americans as a response to Western support for Ukraine, Russia was undermining American interests around the world. Its intelligence services were engaged in large-scale efforts to steal our technologies, negating the hard work and investments of Americans. These same intelligence services studied ways to undermine our domestic political stability and turn Americans against one another. The fact that Russian intelligence hasn’t yet succeeded in decisively impacting an American election, or dividing America against itself, in no way negates its intent to harm our democratic system and sow division among the American people.

Russia needs a weaker and more apathetic America to achieve its global objectives. It pursues this goal relentlessly and views the United States as the chief obstacle to its ambitions. It seeks the removal of this obstacle, which means it seeks to weaken and undermine our country.

Americans who are sympathetic to Russia argue that its anti-U.S. activities are a legitimate reaction to U.S. policies. In doing so they miss a key point. Russia in its current configuration will act against us no matter what we do, unless we make its hostile actions unnecessary by acquiescing to its demands. Other Americans understand Russia’s malign intent but fear the consequences of American opposition, often citing the risk of nuclear war. While nuclear war is terrifying, these Americans overestimate Russia’s willingness to use nuclear weapons. They either fall for Putin’s bluff or underestimate his rationality. Smartly opposing Putin’s aggression is possible without increasing the risk of nuclear conflict. Believing otherwise cedes to Russia all the advantages of having nuclear weapons. It traps the United States in a never-ending cycle of appeasement.

Ukraine has paid dearly to hold the line against Russia. It chose to fight rather than surrender and deserves our admiration and support. Still, President Donald Trump is right that a negotiated settlement is necessary given battlefield realities. Ukraine is not strong enough to eject Russia from its territory and a continuation of the conflict toward this impossible end is wasteful and wrong. Though an occupation of eastern Ukraine is inevitable, the United States need not formally recognize the new borders, and we can hope for a changed Russia that one day returns Ukraine’s territory to the Ukrainian people. We can also continue to arm and support Ukraine so it can guarantee its own security. This has the added benefit to the United States of continuing to draw Russia’s attention, consume Russia’s resources and deter Russian aggression. This requires American political consensus on a simple fact: Left to its own devices, Russia will harm us if it can.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Military Intelligence officer. He spent most of his 20-year military career filling strategic intelligence assignments, served as an Army Counterintelligence special agent and is a former member of the Veterans for Hogan Coalition. He lives in Annapolis.