Editorial / June 5, 2024

The Perils of Wider War in Eastern Europe

We face a choice between a negotiated settlement in Ukraine and the possibility of a catastrophic war.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, James Carden for The Nation
A Ukrainian soldier waits for orders next to the artillery at his fighting position as the Russia-Ukraine war continues in the direction of Liman, Ukraine, on May 25, 2024.
A Ukrainian soldier waits for orders next to the artillery at his fighting position as the Russia-Ukraine war continues in the direction of Liman, Ukraine, on May 25, 2024. (Diego Herrera Carcedo / Getty)

Violence continues to haunt Eastern Europe. the attempted assassination of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico on May 15 inevitably conjures up the memory of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo 110 years earlier, which led to the First World War. It is, tragically, not an exaggeration to say that Europe (and crucially, this time, the United States) again faces a fateful choice: between a negotiated settlement in Ukraine and the possibility of a third, and perhaps final, world war.

If recent statements by US and European officials are to be believed, there is a growing consensus in favor of war. On May 16, The New York Times reported that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, with regard to the possibility of NATO sending military trainers to Ukraine, “We’ll get there eventually.” The same report also noted that a US official floated the “possibility” of NATO advisers “training Ukrainian troops in Lviv.”

Given the Biden administration’s practice of telling us one thing and doing another—as when it was discovered that the administration had secretly sent long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine—there may already be US advisers on the ground. Indeed, in April 2022, a Pentagon official who requested anonymity told Asia Times that it is “likely we have a limited footprint on the ground in Ukraine, but under Title 50, not Title 10”—meaning US intelligence operatives and paramilitaries, as opposed to reserves.

Meanwhile, key officials—including French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron, and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock—are calling for the delivery of even-longer-range weapons. The New York Times also notes: “Britain, Germany, and France are working to base defense contractors in Ukraine to help build and repair weapons systems closer to the combat zone.” Russia has responded to these developments with a series of threats.

Russia and the West have started down the perilous path of tit-for-tat belligerence. The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement claiming that Russian forces would “practice the issues of preparation and use of non-strategic nuclear weapons…in response to provocative statements and threats by certain Western officials against the Russian Federation.”

The question remains: Are these the signs of an approaching and tragic “inflection point”—and if so, can it still be avoided?

To do so, the Biden administration should, at long last, adopt a cold-eyed realism in Ukraine and understand that while the plight of the Ukrainian people is heartrending, the more humane option is not to widen the war. Even Ukraine’s original backers are coming to see a widening of the war for what it is: a danger to the future of Ukraine. Former Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass notes that Ukraine should “propose an interim ceasefire along existing lines,” explaining: “Ukraine would be better off with a military and diplomatic strategy that protects the country’s core, preserves its independence, and maintains external support.”

The unpleasant truth is that Russia today has a larger, more capable army than it did at the beginning of the war. As NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe stated in testimony submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, Russia will soon “command the largest military on the continent.”

Every day, Ukraine inches further into the abyss. The United Nations International Organization for Migration reports that “more than 14.6 million people—a staggering 40 per cent of Ukraine’s total population—remain in need of some form of humanitarian assistance in 2024.” It is no surprise, then, that polls conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology show that millions of Ukrainians reject the official line that the war can be ended only by military means.

President Barack Obama recognized years ago that Russia possesses “escalatory dominance”—the ability to continually up the stakes—in Ukraine. “The fact is that Ukraine…is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.

President Obama was right. Picking a fight over NATO expansion in Russia’s backyard was a tragic, costly mistake—and for the sake of the Ukrainian people, the Biden administration needs to find an off-ramp, and soon.

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation, America’s leading source of progressive politics and culture. An expert on international affairs and US politics, she is an award-winning columnist and frequent contributor to The Guardian. Vanden Heuvel is the author of several books, including The Change I Believe In: Fighting for Progress in The Age of Obama, and co-author (with Stephen F. Cohen) of Voices of Glasnost: Interviews with Gorbachev’s Reformers.

James Carden

James W. Carden is a contributing writer for foreign affairs at The Nation. He served as a policy adviser to the Special Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Office of Russia Affairs at the US State Department.

The Nation

Founded by abolitionists in 1865, The Nation has chronicled the breadth and depth of political and cultural life, from the debut of the telegraph to the rise of Twitter, serving as a critical, independent, and progressive voice in American journalism.

More from The Nation

Young learners listen to an educator during the start of classes at Latin Patriarchate School inside the Holy Family Catholic Church compound sheltering displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, on December 3, 2025.

I’m a Teacher in Gaza. My Students Are Barely Hanging On. I’m a Teacher in Gaza. My Students Are Barely Hanging On.

Between grief, trauma, and years spent away from school, the children I teach are facing enormous challenges.

Ghada Eyad

Pinochet pointing upward

Operation Condor: A Network of Transnational Repression 50 Years Later Operation Condor: A Network of Transnational Repression 50 Years Later

How Condor launched a wave of cross-border assassinations and disappearances in Latin America.

Peter Kornbluh

Khan Younis, Gaza, November 30, 2025.

The Gaza Genocide Has Not Ended. It Has Only Changed Its Form. The Gaza Genocide Has Not Ended. It Has Only Changed Its Form.

A real ceasefire would mean opening borders, rebuilding what was destroyed, and allowing life to return. But this is not happening.

Hassan Abo Qamar

President Donald Trump speaks during the United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations headquarters on September 23, 2025, in New York City.

How Trump Is Using Claims of Antisemitism to End Free Speech How Trump Is Using Claims of Antisemitism to End Free Speech

Trump’s urge to suppress free speech may be about Israel today, but count on one thing: It will be about something else tomorrow.

Mattea Kramer

A nuclear test on May 25, 1953, at the Nevada Proving Grounds.

Will Technology Save Us From a Nuclear Attack? Will Technology Save Us From a Nuclear Attack?

So far, the Golden Dome seems more like a marketing concept designed to enrich arms contractors and burnish Trump’s image rather than a carefully thought-out defense program.

Ashley Gate and William D. Hartung

US Army personnel, IDF personnel, and other international officials monitor screens displaying maps and imagery of the Gaza Strip inside the Civil-Military Coordination Center in Kiryat Gat, Israel.

The Security Council’s Resolution on Gaza Makes Trump Its New Overlord The Security Council’s Resolution on Gaza Makes Trump Its New Overlord

The resolution is not only a possible violation of UN rules, it also makes the administration directly responsible for Palestinian oppression.

Phyllis Bennis