Henry Kissinger reckons it’s time to wind down the war in Ukraine and cut a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It may not feel moral, but this is politics. And it might be in the American interest.

So far, the United States has had what the armchair generals call a “good war.” It mobilized its allies and drew a line in the mud against Russian aggression. It sent a mountain of military hardware to Ukraine, humiliated Putin on the battlefield and hit him in the pocketbook too. It revitalized and expanded NATO, pulled the Europeans into order and peeled Germany’s politicians away from their corrupt dependency on Russian energy. It contained the war within Ukraine’s borders. After the fiasco of the Afghanistan withdrawal, it did much to restore America’s international credibility too. And all this without losing a single American life.

The Putin-friendly elements of the right gave Americans a false choice when this war began: give all of Ukraine to Putin or face a nuclear war. To its credit, the Biden administration has struck a balance. If war is a continuation of politics, then the current situation is what an American victory in Ukraine looks like.

We now face, as Kissinger said this week, a “turning point.” Either the Biden administration can push for negotiations, define the terms of a peace deal and secure the foundations of a 21st-century security system in Europe. Or it can fight Russia to the last Ukrainian and pursue an open-ended and uncontrollable conflict with Russia that will cost thousands of Ukrainian lives, reverse America’s gains and consume America’s global strategy.

“What is the secret of politics?” someone asked Otto von Bismarck. “Make a good Russia treaty,” he replied. The closer America gets to defeating Russia in Ukraine, the closer America gets to losing in Ukraine. And while it is imperative for the stability of Europe that Putin does not win outright in Ukraine, it is vital that he does not lose too badly. If he wins, he will be emboldened, but if he loses, he will be enraged — and regain the initiative.

Putin is not mad but wicked. He is not stupid, either. His alternative to defeat is escalation, and he has plenty of choices. He can broaden the conflict by pushing into Ukraine’s western neighbor Moldova, which is not a NATO state. He can test NATO’s resolve in the Baltic states, on the Polish frontier and along Russia’s long border with NATO’s new recruit Finland. Or he could use a low-yield battlefield nuke in Ukraine.

Any of these situations would panic the Western alliance and quickly undo America’s strategic gains. The European Union is already divided on how to respond to Russia and already backing away from its promise to stop its members from paying for Russian gas in rubles. Germany and France have wanted to cut a deal with Putin since 2014. There is no guarantee that they would permit the EU to defend Moldova or that they would they mobilize under NATO’s Article 5 if Putin pushed into Finland. The European public is terrified of the United States and Russia reviving the nuclear stand-off of the Cold War. The American public is not interested in fighting Russia on its own doorstep. And it will take years for Germany’s promises of rearmament to turn into a military capable of stabilizing central Europe.

For centuries, Kissinger pointed out, Russia has been “an essential part of Europe.” This fact of history, geography and politics applies now, and it will apply when Putin has gone. America needs to look to that future because Russia will always be there. America cannot secure its strategic needs in Europe without the support of its European allies, but it cannot secure the long-term stability of Europe without Russia. That means restoring Ukraine to its historic position as, in Kissinger’s words, “a bridge between Russia and Europe.”

The price, inevitably, will be recognizing Russian control over the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine. But Putin has already taken Crimea and is likely to take the Donbas soon. These facts on the ground cannot be reversed — if they are, the war will metastasize beyond control — so it is wiser to extract a strategic reward from recognizing them. Compromising on Ukraine’s current borders is unpalatable, given the bravery of the Ukrainians and the cruelty of Putin’s assault, but it would also secure the independence of the rest of Ukraine. We must be realistic about the alternative: more war and the loss of America’s current advantages.

We must not forget the big picture. The real challenge to America’s global standing comes from China. Europe is a secondary theater. It would be folly to turn the “pivot to Asia” into a pivot to Finland. China, meanwhile, looms over Russia’s vast and thinly populated east. As Kissinger says, it is essential that “Russia is not driven into a permanent alliance with China.”

President Joe Biden needs to change the habits of a lifetime and talk clearly and honestly to the American people. Not just about the purpose of the war in Ukraine but also about why and how it should end and how that outcome will secure American interests in Europe and beyond.

Dominic Green is a historian, a columnist for the Washington Examiner and a contributor to The Wall Street Journal.