As Ukraine enters the third year of war after the Russian invasion, the conflict’s effect on U.S. military resources continues to have no clear resolution in sight. It’s no secret that the war is draining American military might, posing strategic and logistical challenges for the United States.

The White House, realizing a shift in messaging to reflect this reality could drum up congressional support for its $95 billion supplemental, began to magnify the alarm earlier this month. The president summoned congressional leaders to continue negotiations.

From a logistical standpoint, there is a direct effect on resources. Providing equipment, training, and advisory support requires a significant commitment, diverting from other priorities and placing a strain on an already-pressured supply chain.

Without another national security supplemental, additional funding authorized by Congress, there is no money in the Treasury to replenish what has already been sent to Ukraine.

From a strategic standpoint, the conflict complicates American efforts to address other global security challenges. Our ability to respond to other potential threats, like the Iranian proxy attacks in the Middle East, may be diminished and could eventually undermine our ability to maintain a credible force deterrent, such as with China and Taiwan.

With no real end game, the continual need for additional taxpayer-backed funding by Congress locks the United States in a cycle of providing never-ending support unless a strategy for victory is defined.

The administration has acknowledged that nearly two-thirds of the supplemental, $40 billion, would go to American factories to replenish and upgrade depleted stockpiles, missile caches, munitions and other military gear sent to the Ukrainian front.

Policymakers must carefully consider the costs and benefits of continued support. While the United States has a strategic interest in supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, this must be balanced against the broader demands on continued funding.

Finding ways to mitigate the drain on resources, such as through increased burden-sharing with allies or diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict, will ensure the United States can effectively address its primary national security responsibilities without being unduly hampered by the conflict.

This fight is not America’s or Ukraine’s alone, and NATO allies and other European governments need to continue to step up to provide additional assistance for the war and recognize the importance of doing so for its own long-term defense. Increased military spending by Europe strengthens NATO’s collective defense posture, promotes burden-sharing among member states, and reduces reliance on non-European allies, like the United States, for security.

Recognizing these implications nearly a decade ago, NATO members agreed in 2014 to contribute at least 2 percent of their GDPs to the alliance by this year.

Estonia is leading the charge, with an aid commitment of 3.5 percent of its GDP directly to Ukraine. Poland has increased its efforts and met the NATO goal, last year spending about 3.9 percent of its GDP on defense. In total, 11 alliance members now commit 2 percent of their GDP to military spending.

These positive changes reflect the realities of the costly two-year war and a growing understanding in Europe that the United States will no longer continue to write blank checks. And, let’s be honest, the looming presidential election has also caused allies and NATO partners to place a renewed emphasis and urgent priority on burden sharing. In other words, everybody now understands they must contribute to the best of their abilities.

Ukraine is not alone, but it is also not America’s responsibility alone either.