No one should find solace in the unjust peace that Ukraine may be compelled to accept. Rewarding the aggressor with territorial gains and concessions from a victimized nation is troubling. Equally concerning is the response in Washington to recent peace proposals.

The Trump administration’s recent 28-point plan, widely criticized as a “capitulation” to Moscow, surprisingly presents Kyiv with a significant strategic advantage. This proposal allows Ukraine to maintain its military strength without meaningful restrictions, contradicting Russian attempts to impose severe limits since 2022. Even the suggested personnel cap of 600,000 is likely more than the active-duty forces Ukraine would need. Furthermore, Ukraine stands to receive an unprecedented security guarantee from the United States and Europe—arguably the strongest in history, albeit falling short of a NATO-style commitment.

Vladimir Putin’s invasion aimed to sever Ukraine’s ties with the West. Yet when the fighting ceases, Ukraine could emerge militarily stronger and more resistant to Russian influence. However, recent reactions indicate that this potential outcome will be labeled unacceptable and immoral by influential voices in Washington, across party lines. The prospect of prolonging the war indefinitely may ultimately leave Ukraine in a worse position—smaller, weaker, and devastated—yet some senators remain resolute in their opposition to any compromise, showcasing how easy it is to demand ideal solutions from afar without facing consequences.

The United States has a troubling history of failing to recognize the realities of its military engagements. Past conflicts illustrate a pattern where the U.S. often avoids accepting a defeat or a mixed victory. Instead of drawing actionable conclusions, it becomes preoccupied with achieving total success, leading to destructive outcomes. The current situation in Ukraine risks repeating these historical mistakes.

Throughout history, the U.S. has prolonged military campaigns not because of a belief in potential victory, but out of reluctance to accept defeat. During the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon pursued “peace with honor” by continuing military operations for four years after taking office, resulting in enormous costs for both the U.S. and Vietnam before a reluctant withdrawal in 1973. Similarly, in Afghanistan, Barack Obama recognized the inability to achieve a military defeat of the Taliban yet failed to actively negotiate a power-sharing agreement, prolonging conflict and losses for another decade.

Equally concerning is the U.S.’s failure to embrace its victories. In 1991, after decisively expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait, America could have withdrawn, knowing it could return if necessary. Instead, the pursuit of a larger goal led to more military entanglements and ultimately disastrous consequences in Iraq. These precedents are essential in understanding the current geopolitical landscape of Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine does not present a clear defeat or victory, but rather a complex situation that demands acknowledgment of both achievements and losses. While Ukraine has made significant strides, it won’t achieve total battlefield dominance. It is unrealistic to expect a complete liberation without compromise. Even the Biden administration, despite high-stakes rhetoric, understands that only a negotiated settlement can offer Ukraine a viable path toward peace and security, recognizing that some territorial concessions to Russia may be necessary.

However, Ukraine must also recognize its remarkable endurance. Nearly four years after Russia expected a swift victory, Ukraine remains resilient, with its population and infrastructure largely intact. Russia has suffered immense casualties for minimal territorial gains, demonstrating Ukraine’s capacity to impose substantial costs on its adversary. With continued support, Ukraine has the potential to deter future aggression.

This is a victory worth acknowledging. While this outcome may not satisfy those seeking absolute security through NATO membership, it’s paramount to accept that total security is unattainable for any nation. Even within NATO, assurances often fall short when put to the test, as illustrated by the past few years.

Ultimately, Ukraine must rely on its own strength and the realistic support it can garner from allies. The United States need not absolutely intervene for Ukraine to endure. Risking the significant progress achieved thus far under misdirected moral imperatives would be unwise. The path forward requires pragmatism over idealism to ensure a stable future for Ukraine and, by extension, democracy in America.