There is something about the Western liberal worldview that insists that every problem is solvable through dialogue. Just yesterday, as Russian bombs fell on Ukraine, President Macron spoke with Vladimir Putin. “It didn’t produce any effect so far as you can see, because the Russian president has chosen war,” Monsieur Macron mumbled. Indeed.

The temptation to talk has always been perilous. Over the past few months, President Putin has used Europe’s disposition for dialogue in the classical fashion, leveraging it to gain his objectives at the lowest possible cost while at the same time carefully preparing for an invasion. Conceivably, Europeans — and the broader West — could have learned their lesson.

Then again, too, the sun could rise in the east. More likely is that, should Kiev fall and Moscow quickly succeed in toppling Ukraine’s government and installing a proxy — which now appears to be its stated aim — the temptation to talk may arise again. Some European leaders could yet be inclined to once again treat with Mr. Putin to stabilize the new reality.

While America might not need Russia’s natural gas,  Europe feels it does. Yet  talking would be a mistake. Mr. Putin’s worldview, we’ve previously argued, is incommensurate with the West’s. He is stuck in the era of Peter the Great, and his values are questionable, to say the least. Mr. Putin is not interested in entertaining the “international order” as understood by the West, but in forging his own.

President Biden is then not wrong when he says that Mr. Putin should be left a “pariah” on the world stage. In the wake of this war, normalizing ties with the Kremlin should not be entertained. With Moscow, as with Beijing and Tehran, the lessons of attempting to appease and entertain authoritarian regimes have become all too painfully clear. Then, however, what? 

It will be a project to make  Mr. Putin a “pariah.” For there is now a club. Moscow and Communist China have been edging closer since at least 2012. The joint statement issued by Presidents Putin and Xi this month was but a formalization of the fact. Iran’s regime has also unsurprisingly sided with the Kremlin. It blames the current conflict on “the destabilizing actions of the United States and NATO.” Sound familiar? 

Hours after Mr. Putin waged war, and as if on cue, Imran Khan arrived in Moscow. The Pakistani prime minister’s visit was arranged with the help of interlocutors in Beijing. “What a time I have come, so much excitement,” Mr. Khan was overheard telling a Russian official. One can only conjecture as to the “excitement” to which he was referring. 

War in Ukraine will then almost certainly herald a bifurcated world order — even if at a minimum,  given that the West is itself divided. Even as Ukraine remains under assault, European leaders bicker over imposing all-out sanctions on Russia. Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Cyprus have been blocking efforts to disconnect Moscow from the SWIFT payments system.

In Europe’s sanctions package, Italy has requested a carve-out so that it can continue to export fashion and other luxury products to Russia. The present, in any event, is perilous for many reasons. The immediate danger is no doubt to Ukraine and its people.

Yet there is a sense, however tepid, that many of the paradigms and institutions that have existed until February 24 could soon be up for grabs. The first dialog that Europe and the West should be having is among themselves, however long and difficult a conversation it might be.