What to do about the war in Ukraine? With Joe Biden soon to leave office and Kamala Harris facing, at best, a toss-up election against Donald Trump, the Ukraine conundrum continues apace.

The Biden/Harris administration fears what Trump would do — or, rather, not do, in that he might not support a policy that effectively sees a Ukraine victory as the only acceptable outcome. Trump has promised that he would end the war immediately upon taking office, but he has not given any details about how he might accomplish this feat, other than that he’d speak to both sides.

But it’s not as if the Biden/Harris administration has laid out any real plan or goals for the war or the extent of America’s support for Ukraine. This lack of a clear delineation of goals, specifically financial and military aid, has increasingly frustrated a growing number of Americans. Given that many Americans are struggling in this Biden/Harris economy, it’s no wonder that folks are griping over the billions of dollars the U.S. keeps spending on this war that appears to have no end in sight.

Biden campaigned on ending America’s forever wars, and yet the U.S. finds itself caught up in another one — and seemingly fueling a conflict that could erupt into a world war. The only record the Biden/Harris administration has in ending wars was the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was an unmitigated disaster. Indeed, thanks to the disgraceful Afghanistan exit, Vladimir Putin was emboldened to launch his invasion of Ukraine.

Biden displayed weakness, and Putin took advantage.

Now, fearing a second term of Trump, the Biden/Harris administration is being tempted to allow the war to escalate. Following Ukraine’s sudden and unexpected crossing into Russia and taking of the Kursk region a month ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been pressing the U.S. and NATO countries for permission to use longer-range U.S. missiles to attack targets inside Russia.

The weapons in question are the Army Tactical Missile System, which has a range of 190 miles. The Pentagon has rejected Kyiv’s requests for two reasons. First, the Pentagon does not believe that the missiles will significantly affect Ukraine’s war effort, and second, the U.S. is concerned about using up too much of its missile stockpile.

However, the biggest concern would be the repercussions of allowing Ukraine to use U.S. weapons in Russia. Recently, Putin warned, “This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia.” Putin is effectively saying that he would see Ukraine’s use of these missiles as an act of war by NATO. That raises the specter of Putin expanding the war into NATO countries — which, even more troubling, raises the possibility of nuclear warfare.

While it is true that Putin is solely responsible for launching this war against Ukraine, the reality may be that preventing this war from spiraling into a larger conflict requires a diplomatic solution.

Still, NATO and the Biden/Harris administration appear hamstrung by the fact that Putin is at fault for this war. As Britain’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated, “Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia can end this conflict straight away.”

According to reports, the Biden/Harris administration was making progress on the diplomatic front to bring about some peace deal up until Russia acquired missiles from Iran. “The dial shifted in Washington because of the Iranian missiles,” stated a European official. “The wrangle now is over what targets Ukraine will be permitted to strike inside Russia, and how far inside — and there are worries still in Washington that filtering what can and can’t be targeted drags the U.S. into war-planning, something they are keen to avoid being seen as involved in.”

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy pushed back, “The escalator here is Putin. Putin has escalated with the shipment of missiles from Iran.”

So, who will be the de-escalator? From what it looks like now, a Harris administration would simply continue the current untenable situation. A Trump administration, on the other hand, would provide a strong possibility of the war ending sooner rather than later.