On the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine with no negotiated end or victory in sight, it is appropriate to remind ourselves of the stakes. They are different for different groups, but the war is about rules and principles versus power, humane values, and freedom to choose one’s future.

For the Ukrainians, who have suffered so horribly and fought so bravely, they have understood it from the onset to be a war of independence. Ukraine, which existed only episodically in history as an independent political entity despite Ukrainians being one of Europe’s major ethnic and culture groups, the war will be remembered as forging a firm sense of identity and establishing a narrative of heroic resistance to aggression. The war is also about whether Ukraine has an opportunity to evolve as a democratic, market- oriented European Union member or will be beholden to the corrupt kleptocracy in Russia. Because the stakes are existential, Ukraine will fight on despite the enormous toll.

For America and much of the world, the war is a supreme test of the post-World War II collective security system, the “rule of law.” The notion of collective security — that the rest of the world unites to resist an aggressor — failed miserably in its first experiment, the League of Nations. The U.N. Charter guarantees the territorial integrity of members, a huge asset for smaller states. For this reason, 141 UN members condemned Russia’s Feb. 24, 2002 invasion and called for immediate withdrawal, and 143 condemned its later annexations. But India, China and 30 some other countries abstained. Those willing to place sanctions on Russia or send supplies to Ukraine are much smaller. The U.N. improved on the League, rolling back unprovoked aggression in Korea and Kuwait, but this is the first test of collective security against a large power aggressor.

The conflict also has enormous stakes for future of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, established in 1968 and now with 191 member- countries. Smaller countries agreed to forego or give up nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees by the nuclear weapons countries.

When it gave up weapons inherited from the USSR (for which it didn’t have the codes), Ukraine received solemn assurances of its territorial integrity from Russia, the U.S. and the United Kingdom. Russia has not just reneged, but it explicitly used nuclear threats against Ukraine and its supporters.

Arguments arise in countries worried about nuclear neighbors that they also need them for survival, as in South Korea today, but remarkably there are still only nine nuclear weapons countries. If Ukraine falls, the argument for smaller countries to have such weapons will carry far more weight.

A world lacking credible guarantees to smaller states and where 30 or even 50 of them develop nuclear capabilities is an exponentially more dangerous world. The chances of accidents or terrorists getting their hands on enough fissile material to build a dirty bomb and destroy a whole city become much greater.

Vladimir Putin’s stakes are now his political survival. His enormous strategic and tactical blunders, beginning with the decision to launch the invasion, would have sunk any leader in a system having a higher degree of accountability.

Caught between nationalists who believe he hasn’t done enough and the large portion of the population that may be skeptical of the aims of the war and unwilling to sacrifice their lives, he is under enormous pressure.

Putin has doubled down on the war effort in the expectation that Ukraine or its supporters will tire, but by cutting the exit ramps, he has become truly entrapped. Don’t expect any compromises from him.

Finally, the Russian people also have huge stakes. If Russia wins, however defined, the highly inequitable economy and political repression under Putin continues. Russia will remain under severe sanctions and essentially cut off from Europe and North America. It will be engaged in a costly, continuing struggle against Ukrainian nationalism.

If Russia loses and the Putin regime falls, Russia will at least have a chance for a new beginning, a determination of secure borders, and a reconnection of its economy with its western neighbors. That certainly doesn’t guarantee a future world of peace, but at least it gives hope and would end the horrible suffering in Ukraine.

Charles E. Morrison is a part-time senior fellow with the East-West Center and its former president.