President Joe Biden threatened Russia with consequences and economic sanctions on behalf of the United States and other Western states if they were to attack and invade Ukraine but is leaving open the path for diplomacy by suggesting potential dialogue. Each power wants to avoid war and blames each other for pushing tensions to the brink; the United States is accusing Russia of endangering peace and Russia is citing the United States with instilling hysterical fearmongering within the country and abroad. The current crisis surrounding Ukraine has been festering since Russia seized the former Soviet Republic’s Crimean Peninsula nearly eight years ago after a Russia-friendly government in Ukraine was overthrown. Russia has built up military troops at the Ukrainian border and prepared equipment for invasion: Russia’s position to launch war is unpredictable and Ukraine is determined to resist. Currently, Putin is demanding NATO never admits Ukraine as a member, as means to protect and enlarge Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, as well as a reduction of NATO troops in Eastern Europe, no military assistance to Ukraine, and a ban on intermediate range missile in Europe for the troops to be withdrawn and no military action to occur.

U.S.-Russia relations are at the lowest point since the Cold War, and this crisis runs the risk of further deteriorating these relations and risks greater escalation if Russia expands their presence in Ukraine or other NATO countries. These tensions can also affect relationships with Europe and complicate the prospects for cooperation elsewhere, including issues of terrorism, arms control, and political solutions such as the conflict in Syria.

The White House said specific sanctions packages are being developed if Putin orders an invasion of Ukraine, aimed at Russian elites, those believed to be holding Putin’s assets, those who play a role in government decision-making, or those complicit in destabilizing behavior. Many of these individuals are vulnerable targets because of their deep financial ties and would be hurt by sanctions that are tying them to Western financial systems. Previous sanctions were limited to Russian banks, financial transactions, and American-made consumer goods: this new comprehensive plan includes bans of the children of some elite Russian figures from attending prestigious universities in the United States and Europe. U.S. senators are also discussing including a package in the bill that is similar to the Lend-Lease Act, famously used in World War II, to loan and lease more military equipment to Kyiv until Russia draws down troops. This would be the most expansive legislation to date and provides Ukraine with additional military equipment.

The significance of the Soviet Union’s collapse on Ukraine caused this conflict to arise. The center of contemporary Ukraine, Kyiv, was an ancient Russian city, and with the fall of the USSR, freedom was granted to the Crimea region and Ukraine, who differentiated itself from Russia. Communist governments of former eastern European satellite countries were overthrown and granted independence, including east Germany, which was reunited with west Germany at the fall of the Berlin Wall. Countries between Germany and Russia recognized the need to join NATO, to remove vulnerability if Russia regained power, but Russia was insistent about Ukraine not joining NATO and would “consider it a provocation if the union were to take place.” Historically, NATO allies encouraged Ukraine and Georgia to join, but Russia responded with an invasion of Georgia. Since then, no invitation to join NATO has been extended. A stalemate in 2014 was broken in an escalation of violence in the spring of 2021, leading to October 2021, when Russian troops and military equipment were moved near the border with no explanation. As of December, over 100,000 troops were placed at the border, and more are being added near Belarus and the northern border of Ukraine.

There is a lesson to be learned here about diplomacy. Russia’s demands are an opening bid, not an ultimatum. Putin has the upper hand: it would be very difficult for the United States and other NATO countries to defend Ukraine due to its non-NATO status under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, despite condemning Russia’s moves and rejecting their demands. Some countries even limited their threats of retaliation on sanctions. Ratification of any treaty in the United States is near impossible due to polarization and gridlock, and all tensions could cease if an executive agreement could be reached to stop the expansion of NATO for the future, or even a separate accord between Russia and NATO that would restrict military force and activity between the Baltic and Black Sea where their territories meet. Putin faces no domestic opposition to his foreign policy and is being cautious and calculating with the use of force to ensure the benefits outweigh the costs.

Despite our media’s predilection for the dramatics, an invasion or war is not necessarily imminent. Bomb threats in Ukraine are increasing and have caused mass evacuations or closures of targeted areas. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine expressed his concern that the internal destabilization poses a greater threat than an invasion and calls for Western nations to limit talks about probable war. Even the Russian ambassador, Vasily Nebenzya, regarded Americans as provocateurs and attempting to whip up tensions and escalating problems, almost as if they want the war to happen because they had taken a pro-Moscow leadership from power and had installed “nationalists, radicals, Russophobes and pure Nazis.”

Russia cannot afford to be seen as bluffing in this matter, as the geopolitical implication of these developments could reverberate beyond Europe and alter relationships in the region for years to come. There needs to appear to be a balance of interests for all parties: Western powers cannot simply deny Russia’s demands and threaten with economic harm without offering up additional solutions and pathways to communication and compromise. I think Biden made an admirable choice to favor engagement with Russia rather than rejecting their demands out of hand. In his White House statement, he says, “If Russia is sincere about addressing our respective security concerns through dialogue, the United States and our Allies and partners will continue to engage in good faith. If instead Russia chooses to walk away from diplomacy and attack Ukraine, Russia will bear the responsibility, and it will face swift and severe consequences.”

The issue lies in a desire for superiority. This appears to be an opportunity for Russia to intimidate the United States and NATO, extract concessions for economic and social gain, threaten Ukraine, and demonstrate a power over the Russian people. The need for countries between Germany and Russia to join NATO is not lost: governments were fearful and wanted to retract vulnerability if Russia became the major superpower again post-Cold War. But what happened to civility, especially in international relations? Countries are more connected than ever before, and mutually insured destruction is the only result of any military conflict or economic sanctions. In our globalized world where economies of other countries rely on the stability of Western nations, economic sanctions are risky and pose the potential to lead the world into a global depression. Further, uniformity in decision and action needs to be applied. Nearby nations of Poland and Hungary are taking a backseat to the Ukraine-Russia crisis and focusing on domestic issues. Their most pressing issues are immigration, demographic decline, and the European Union.

Countries are not fully independent and rely on relationships to function optimally. In an ideal world, Russia will remove their troops and engage in productive dialogue with the United States, Ukraine, and Germany to establish a trustful peace accord that can continue for decades to come. Such as between Putin and French President Macron, who talk frequently to discuss security guarantees and positive progress, particularly in terms of NATO expansion. World leaders should not be enemies, instead team members, correspondents. War can be avoided, mutual protection ensured, a safer social network, a stronger global economy, simply if the first step was not a move of force, rather a move of strength in caring for the collective over one’s own nation.