Machiavelli, Bismarck, and Richelieu knew how the game was played. They made the moves that either maintained the balance of power or tilted it in their favor. Napoleon and Hitler played the game to win it all, but overextended their resources, losing it all in the end. Europe today is facing a new power broker who wants to reengage the contest for territory a/o hegemony. Will he pull Europe and the United States into another war? Will the western allies follow the path of World War I where mutual defense treaties drew nations into the fray like falling dominoes? Or will the allies begrudgingly give ground like the various diplomatic appeasements that further emboldened Hitler on his chosen course? So far Western Europe, following our President’s leadership, has taken a middle course in dealing with President Putin: gradually escalating his country’s isolation from the international diplomatic and global economic system while acceding to his historical claims to Crimea. But will this strategy compel Putin to change his game plan? Do we understand his goals, or even him, well enough to counter his moves?

Not too long ago our Vice President claimed he looked into Putin’s eyes and told him that he did not see a soul there. Putin allegedly replied that the same could be said of our VP. This interchange between the two men I find revelatory on at least two levels. First, Biden clearly states what is missing from Putin’s perspective: he is unable to see the human consequences of his actions—he is coldly detached. The people of the Ukraine—like the people of Georgia earlier—are merely pawns on his chess board. Currently, the citizens of Donetsk are dying as the Ukrainian army drops artillery shells on the separatists there who are armed and led by Russian agents. Putin, like other leaders consumed with their place in history, has no other persona than his mission which in his case is the reestablishment of the Soviet Union. To his people, Putin has become a hero, a national archetype like the Fuhrer in pre-war Germany. Russia’s prominence in the world depends upon his leadership. His setback is a setback for Russia itself; his success is Russia’s as well. Though he earned his status as a surrogate for his country, Putin loses his identity in the process. Not only does he have no connection with the soul of humanity or anything transcendent of material gain and domination, he also has little personality or ego identity other than his self-perceived role as Russia’s savior. He is a tabloid caricature, an empty façade. Although he has amassed a huge fortune, he doesn’t appear to live extravagantly. In fact, he is divorced, lives alone, and, like Hitler, apparently does not drink or carouse. He would hardly be called an ascetic, but his dedication to his mission is no less paramount in his life than that of a jihadist. Putin is his mission.

Secondly, Putin clearly sees his adversaries as projections of himself: the leaders who oppose him must be playing the same game without regard for its human toll. This inability to relate to people as anything other than objects for use or power is not unusual. We have seen it before in history, in our time, and even in our own country. Beyond our borders, we call such folks fanatics; within our borders, we call them radicals (left or right wing). But labels fail to reveal the underlying problem or how to deal with that problem. These people are disconnected to a specific reality: the unique though shared identity of the human experience. When you can look into the eyes of another and see the numinous aspect of a shared self, you find not only yourself but your presence in that experience. We can call this experience humanism for lack of a better name. But it is not an ideology like nationalism or theocracy; it is an experience of relation that must be lived, else it is inauthentic. People like Putin are perversely inauthentic. But when they gain a platform on the world stage, they can be destructive on a level that the 20th century has already exemplified. So how do the western allies deal with the danger this failed human being presents?

Within our own country, we need to weigh carefully the arguments of warmongers, military adventurists, and political opportunists (those who invent any rationale that will provide them with a political advantage rather than political effectiveness in governing). These people want to play Putin’s game and are playing by his rules: pander to the electorate (propaganda) while discrediting the political opposition (suppression)—in this case, by endless criticism of those trying to deflate an international crisis. At one point, they raised up Putin as a more effective leader than our own President, bringing to mind the 1938 Times cover announcing Hitler as the “Man of the Year.” Shortly afterwards, Hitler invaded Poland. These voices are not raised in support of peace or justice, but out of a hidden agenda for power. They are the counterpoint for Putinism and are equally inauthentic and manipulative. Cloaking their position in American “exceptionalism” and invulnerability as the lone super power, they attempt to dupe the public into believing we can exercise our power without incurring any deleterious consequences. But the wisdom we gleam from history clearly tells us great power must be wielded with restraint. Otherwise we risk a humanitarian crisis at our hands—witness the Vietnam or Iraq wars.

I’m no foreign affairs expert, and I certainly am not privy to the effectiveness of current economic and diplomatic policy aimed at isolating Russia. However, if World War II had not ended the regime of the Third Reich, I suspect Hitler would have been overthrown by the German people once the consequences of his actions were made known and his true character exposed. Putin needs to be exposed now for who he is, before his Ukrainian venture inadvertently leads to a broader conflict or further Russian excursions into Eastern Europe. He maintains his power today because he has successfully controlled the narrative in Russia through state-sponsored propaganda and the effective suppression of opposing voices. But we live in the digital era of the internet and wireless/satellite communication. The western allies need to use every media outlet available to expose Putin to his people.

You may conclude from what I have written here that I’m a foggy idealist. But, in fact, I believe it is likely that America will be pulled into future wars. We have been on a war footing for almost all of the last 100 years. I’m a realist who recognizes that throughout human history there has never been a lasting international order. Nations do not—and probably will never—subscribe to a uniform moral code. No Pax Americana is likely to endure. Nevertheless, I believe we must strive to build a better world. The first step in doing so is to pledge allegiance to our common humanity which can only be lived as individuals in relation to other individuals. It is only in that relationship that we will learn to build bridges between people of differing ethnic, cultural, and religious heritages. The inauthentic among us are simply incapable of building these bridges, for they view others as pawns to be played in a zero sum game. The human suffering they may cause is characterized by them as the collateral damage necessarily incurred in pursuit of larger goals. We must unmask their tactical maneuvering for its lack of compassion and of any actual relevance to the human condition. If we don’t begin to do so, there will never be peace among the sentient primates of this planet.

Men like Putin (for women seem to exclude themselves from these excesses) will bring violence into the world. But eventually they will encounter a Waterloo or a gun pointed at their temple. Their violence will reverberate upon themselves, even while they will have succeeded in making history, perhaps their only self-justification for their actions. But I’m not advocating for a military response to Putin’s interventions, though I recognize events could spiral into that option as a last resort. Personally, I put aside arms while still a foot soldier. My only response is in words. I advocate for the bonds of relationships between individuals, groups, and even nations.

In conclusion, may I suggest a more personal message? Embrace a loved one and be caught up in the mystery of the other; be drawn into the timeless awareness that is recreated in each relation. Look into the eyes of a newborn and witness that unnamed reality yet to be formed and potentially transforming—a new human life and perhaps the incubation of a new world order. The game of life is not a calculated, detached contest for power, but a lively, joyous dance between and within beings of incalculable substance. The change we hope for will not come in one lifetime. But it will never come unless it begins in each one of us now.