Editor's note: William Jones is the former White House correspondent for Executive Intelligence Review and a non-resident Fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily those of CGTN. 

As peace talks between Ukraine and Russia grind to a halt and the Ukrainian president continues to insist on ever more powerful arms from the Western countries, many may have expressed surprise at the attitude of the United States, which seems to have no interest in peace in Ukraine.

What seems to be shaping up is a U.S. attempt to have a surrogate "face-off" with Russia in Ukraine. The Ukrainian president would no doubt have gone further in promoting peace talks with Russia had he not had encouragement from the U.S. that they would "have his back" in pushing for a stronger military effort aimed at actually expelling Russian troops from Ukraine.

The U.S. and the UK specialists training Ukrainian troops was a concrete indication that the West did "have his back." And the recent attacks by Ukrainian missiles into oil storage facilities based in Bryansk, Russia, was not only given "a wink and a nod" of approval from the West but UK Armed Forces Minister James Heappey publicly stated that it was "completely legitimate" for Ukraine to attack Russia directly.

The high-level visit of U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Kyiv on April 25, accompanied by Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, was a clear expression of U.S. support for Ukrainian intransigence in continuing the war. Most telling was Austin's statement reported by Wall Street Journal: "We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine."

What exactly does this mean? Is the intention to "degrade" Russian forces to the point where they do not have the ability to launch any conventional strike through a "war of attrition" in Ukraine? We hope this is not the case, but the evidence is piling up to give it some support. The upcoming U.S. National Security Strategy, while focusing on China, also keeps Russia as "an acute threat." Would they not perhaps want to "whittle down" that threat through operations in Ukraine?

Initially, no doubt, the U.S. thought that through their "killer sanctions," they would cause so much political turmoil for Vladimir Putin that he would be forced to pull back from Ukraine. The reality is, however, that he has gained support from the population, as they have followed eight years of attacks on the Russian-speaking population in Luhansk and Donbas and the rise of the neo-fascist Azov Battalion.

The recent meeting on April 26 in Ramstein, chaired by Austin himself, with the Europeans and with many countries from North Africa and the Middle East also in attendance – no doubt under U.S. pressure – aims at giving the Ukrainians the means for inflicting a major defeat on Russia, showing a will to fight, so to speak, "until the last Ukrainian."

Such a policy is based on a very dangerous illusion that was burst by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on April 26 in his press conference with United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, where he warned of the danger of World War III. If the fighting in Ukraine escalates, there is a clear danger that it will not end in defeat for Russia, but will be taken to a higher level, endangering all of Europe and the world.

Nobody wants this, but world wars have begun through policies based on illusions. There is an alternative to a greater conflagration: Set a halt to the fighting – and the rearming – immediately, and return to the peace talks under an armistice. Under those conditions, and with the support of all parties, a road to peace can be established in the short term.

In the long term, the world must learn the lessons of Ukraine and begin to develop a global security architecture in which all countries are rendered secure. Chinese President Xi Jinping, in his proposal of a Global Security Initiative, has laid out the points of such a policy: involving respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, adherence to the UN Charter, addressing the security concerns of all countries, and maintaining dialogue and negotiation as the sole means for resolving crises.

If the world would move in the direction indicated by this proposal, not only the Ukraine crisis, but many other "hot spots" could be resolved in the interest of all parties and of the world as a whole.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)