The crisis in Ukraine grows worse as fighting rages on in what is sure to be one of this decade’s defining episodes. Whatever the outcome is, the result will drastically shift the landscape of the international community.

Talks between Russia and Ukraine regarding a cease-fire are a first step. However, to resolve the deep-rooted differences and bring about long-term peace and stability in Europe and Russia, talks between Russia and NATO countries must follow.

The Russia-Ukraine war was not warranted. Ukrainians despair for peace. Russia needs security. China offers development. But the U.S., NATO and the far-right Ukrainian paramilitaries seek something very different.

As the world watches the conflict in Ukraine unfold, observers have quickly drawn up comparisons to China in relation to security and expansionist ideals. A careful examination of the decades leading up to the current fiasco is needed to show the truth of how we arrived where we are today.

The United States has rejected some Russian proposals, but the door is not closed on dialogue. The U.S. says Russian military accommodation along the Ukrainian border will help foster strategic compromise.

During their recent virtual summit, the presidents of China and Russia China had plenty of reason to discuss what to do about their respective external threats. China’s Foreign Ministry said it would rev up coordination between the two in search of a strategic counterbalance.

A just cause enjoys abundant support while an unjust one does not. At a time when most countries in the Asia-Pacific region are striving to maintain peace and stability, the U.S. has deliberately waded in to create antagonism and the potential for cutthroat competition.

Both the EU and ASEAN have largely criticized the newly announced AUKUS deal, leaving many European nations and China’s neighboring states scrambling to respond to the addition of nuclear submarines to Australia’s arsenal.

What is the role of the SCO in stabilization and reconstruction? The capacity of its members may be limited, but the U.S. withdrawal presents an opportunity to build credibility. Failure to act may invite skepticism in the international community about the group’s ability to participate in international affairs.

The new three-way alliance reflects a new U.S. orientation toward its partners as it seeks to raise barriers to China. Giving a $50 billion cold shoulder to France over nuclear submarine technology is just one example.