The conflict in Ukraine has gone on long enough. As it currently stands, the U.S. has the means to help the Ukrainian government put an end to the fighting that began in early 2014. The Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which authorized setting aside funds to supply Ukraine with military equipment, was passed in mid-December, but little has been done so far with regard to following through with it and actually providing weapons or training.

Providing military support is a relatively small matter for the U.S. compared to most European countries in terms of supply capability, and for the time being, keeping the conflict at a stalemate is all that is necessary; fighting does not and should not need to be ended by military force alone, but giving the Ukrainians a way to take action allows for more time for diplomacy or further political action.

Granted, throwing more firepower into eastern Europe has a considerable chance of backfiring and making the fighting more violent for some period of time, and Russia is already currently suffering from the U.S. and Europe’s trade sanctions in any case. What if waiting and letting Russia get weaker is the best course of action?

Except trade sanctions are not one sided; every country that imposes one also suffers to an extent. By freezing Russian assets in banks and imposing travel bans, the U.S. is damaging its own economy. It is in the interest of ending the conflict as soon as possible and to supply the Ukrainians with enough to ensure that they can stand their own ground. Casualties are unavoidable, but risking increasing them in the immediate future is necessary to minimize them in the long term.