Seventeen dead, forty-four wounded. Another night, another barrage of Russian missiles and drones raining down on Kyiv. It's a tragedy, to be sure, and one that, by now, feels depressingly familiar. The numbers scroll across our screens, just another grim statistic in a conflict that seems to have no end in sight. And as the bodies are counted and the rubble cleared, one can’t help but wonder: what exactly are we doing here?

For months, we’ve been told by the chattering class in Washington that we must “stand with Ukraine,” that “democracy is on the line.” Lofty rhetoric, indeed. But when the rubber meets the road, what does that actually mean? It means billions of American taxpayer dollars — a sum that continues to grow with each passing month — poured into a conflict halfway across the globe, with little to show for it beyond more dead civilians and a growing list of demands from Kyiv.

The folks I talk to in diners and town halls across the heartland, they're not against helping people in need. Not by a long shot. But they’re also shrewd enough to know when they’re being played. They see the rising cost of groceries, the struggling small businesses, the ever-increasing national debt, and then they hear about another massive aid package for Ukraine. And they start asking questions that the high-minded strategists in their D.C. think tanks don't seem keen to answer. Questions like: What’s the plan? What’s the exit strategy? And when does this end?

Because let’s be honest, the current approach looks less like a strategy and more like an open-ended commitment to a quagmire. We arm Ukraine, they fight, Russia retaliates, innocent people die, and then we send more money and more weapons. It's a vicious cycle, and the only certainty seems to be that American taxpayers are on the hook for an ever-increasing bill. Meanwhile, Russia continues its grim work, seemingly undeterred by our pronouncements or our materiel.

Burke, that wise old Irishman, knew a thing or two about the dangers of abstract ideals divorced from practical reality. He understood that a nation’s foreign policy, if it is to be effective and just, must be grounded in its own interests and capacities, not in some grand, ill-defined crusade for global democracy. Our current leadership, it seems, has forgotten this fundamental truth. They speak of fighting for a “rules-based international order” while the actual order on the ground in Ukraine is one of brutal, unrelenting war.

This isn’t to say we should abandon Ukraine to its fate entirely. Compassion dictates otherwise. But there’s a world of difference between humanitarian aid and bankrolling a protracted conflict that has no clear path to victory, no defined objectives, and no end in sight. It’s time for a frank assessment of what we can realistically achieve, what we can afford, and what truly serves the long-term interests of the American people.

Because every missile that hits Kyiv isn't just a tragedy for Ukraine; it's also a stark reminder that our current approach isn't working. It's a reminder that good intentions, however loudly proclaimed, are no substitute for a sober, realistic strategy. And until Washington figures that out, we're likely to see many more grim dawns, and many more checks written, with little to show but more human suffering and a deeper hole in our own national pocket.