The Pentagon has announced that it has again undervalued ammunition, missiles and other military equipment provided to Ukraine, opening the door to supplying $2 billion in new military support for Kyiv.

This brings total aid tied to such re-valuations of systems provided from U.S. stocks to $8.2 billion, a considerable sum in light of the current political bottleneck in Congress over providing new assistance to Ukraine.

The latest revision in the estimated value of U.S. equipment comes at a critical time for the Ukrainian government, as the continuation of large-scale deliveries of U.S. weaponry is in doubt not only due to divisions in Congress but due to the possibility of an aid cutoff should Donald Trump win this fall’s presidential election.

In the meantime, the Government Accountability Office has argued that there needs to be a clarification of how weapons provided from U.S. stocks should be valued, a move that would preclude the kind of accounting shuffle that has once again opened the way to additional billions in aid to Ukraine.

It’s hard to begrudge Ukraine additional assistance in its effort to defend against further Russian territorial gains, but arms alone, on whatever scale, will not be enough to resolve the conflict in a way that allows that nation to rebuild itself from the devastation caused by the Russian invasion. Nor will it enable Ukraine to construct an economically viable democracy. The best hope for salvaging such an outcome is a diplomatic initiative, as challenging as that may be.

Ultimately, the Pentagon’s statistical maneuvering to free up funding for Ukraine is likely to have a limited impact on the outcome of the war. It is important that Kyiv get the support it needs to defend itself. But the notion that Ukraine can win a decisive military victory, if only there were a steadier flow of weapons aid, is dangerously misguided.

It will take more than a little budgetary sleight-of-hand to set the stage for a settlement of the conflict on terms acceptable to Ukraine. It’s long past time to abandon the approach of providing weapons to Ukraine and hoping for the best, as a number of key U.S. officials are coming to recognize.

They now believe that the purpose of military aid should be to strengthen Ukraine’s hand in negotiations to end the war, not to subsidize “total victory” on the battlefield. In this context, a one-time tranche of $2 billion in military aid, while useful in the short-term, will ultimately have a modest impact on the outcome of the conflict. The Pentagon and the administration need to focus on the big picture — how to end the conflict in Ukraine — rather than cooking the books to provide a one-time infusion of military support.