Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is acting more like a madman than a strongman. The Western world, in unusual fashion, is largely united in opposition to his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Mr. Putin is being marginalized, and though his energy revenue remains largely untouched, the damage from the Ukraine war, whether he ultimately takes over the whole country or not, will be longstanding. All this means communist China’s President Xi Jinping just solidified his position atop the new bipolar global construct with the West on one side and the New Axis authoritarians on the other. Presumably, the invasion of Ukraine didn’t come as a surprise to Mr. Xi, given the growing strength of the Russia-China alliance. That, however, doesn’t mean that from a military or diplomatic standpoint, the Chinese thought it was a good idea for Moscow. To triumph over Western world, China knows that the New Axis must have one undisputed leader. This is not to say that Russia won’t add weight to the bloc, but like any mob operation, there can only be one boss. Mr. Putin’s potential miscalculation on Ukraine is turning Mr. Xi from the genocidal heir to the legacy of Mao Zedong to looking more like a statesman on the world stage. It’s pretty simple, really. Let the other guy look worse, so you don’t come off as bad. China’s nuclear deal with Ukraine also opens the door for them to possibly broker what they could frame as a peace deal. In one felled swoop, the communist Chinese would solidify their position as the more reliable international partner and assure their supremacy over Russia in the authoritarian alliance.

They were even more encouraged by America’s chaotic and humiliating capitulation to the Taliban - and, by implication, to its ally, al Qaeda - in Afghanistan last year. They’re now expecting American diplomats in Vienna to surrender to the much shrewder negotiators from Tehran. If Mr. Putin succeeds in swallowing Ukraine, he will become more powerful, which will make him more valuable to Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose goal is to conquer Taiwan and become hegemon of Asia - a steppingstone toward displacing America as global leader. Similarly, Mr. Putin will want to move on to become the dominant European power. He is apt to think: “Since the U.S. is prioritizing the threat from Beijing, wouldn’t this be a convenient time to strike a blow against a NATO member?” Long-term, the West needs to learn hard lessons and change failed policies. Short-term, we need to do whatever we can to support Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. As rapidly as possible, we should provide Ukrainians with Stingers, Javelins, TOW missiles - whatever they need to defend themselves. And we should do everything we can to bring Russia’s economy to a grinding halt until such time as Mr. Putin’s troops go home. Final point: There is inspiration to be found in the streets of Kyiv and the frozen fields of Donbas where a brave nation fights against all odds for independence, sovereignty and the right to choose its leaders. We can stand up to totalitarianism and defend freedom as we did in World War II and the Cold War. Or we can leave to our children a world in which evil empires expand.

I am at a loss to understand how anyone wearing a Make-America-Great-Again cap can be indifferent when it comes to Mr. Putin whose goal is to make America irrelevant ― an impotent, hapless, has-been superpower. Take J.D. Vance, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio. Last week, he argued. “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine. I’m sick of Joe Biden focusing on the border of a country I don’t care about while he lets the border of his own country become a total war zone.” A more thoughtful faction on the right argues that we should let Mr. Putin have his way in Ukraine ― and in Europe more broadly, and in the Middle East and Latin America, too ― so we can “pivot to Asia” and concentrate on the threat China’s rulers pose. Among the problems with that: The rulers of Russia and China ― along with the rulers of Iran and North Korea, as well as the rulers of Venezuela and Cuba ― have been forming what you might call an Axis of Authoritarians. Their common goal: weakening and diminishing America. You can be sure they chuckled when former President Barack Obama, in 2015, warned Mr. Putin that if he intervened militarily in Syria, he would end up “stuck in a quagmire.” Instead, Mr. Putin propped up Syria’s dynastic dictator, expanded his Mediterranean naval facility in Tartus, and restored Russia as a major force in the Middle East. They were reassured when America and its allies gazed with bovine passivity as Chinese Communists, violating their clear commitments, stripped the people of Hong Kong of their freedoms, all the while building militarized islands in the South China Sea.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is waging a war of imperial conquest. That’s despicable but, from a historical perspective, hardly novel. Genghis Khan, and Attila the Hun are among those who did not think: “Maybe I should give peace a chance!” Mr. Putin sees the world similarly. Why do elites in America and Europe find this reality elusive? Because they cling to the grand delusion that there is an “international community,” and that it believes “No one wins wars!” and that everyone seeks “diplomatic solutions” to “address legitimate grievances” while rejecting armed conflicts in pursuit of territory, resources, and power. A memorable example: In 2014, Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine for the first time. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry exclaimed: “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext!” I imagine Mr. Putin was amused, though perhaps not as much as when he heard Mr. Kerry last week express concerns about the “massive emissions consequences” that might result from the current Russian war on Ukrainians. As White House climate envoy, Mr. Kerry reached out to the neo-czar: “I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate.” What Mr. Putin believes he needs to do is rather different, and an odd coalition is attempting to ensure his success. On the left, Rep. Ilhan Omar opposes sanctions that could “devastate the Russian economy.” The Democratic Socialists of America has called for the U.S. “to withdraw from NATO and to end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict.” More than a few voices on the right echo these views.

Remaining to be seen following Russia’s attack on Ukraine is where and when it will end. As the world beholds the flash of destruction, the haunting realization reemerges: The consequence of weakness is war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent his military to rampage through a sovereign nation, fulfilling his long-held vow to undertake the reconstitution of the former Soviet Union. Other former satellites like Poland, Slovakia and the Baltic States wonder whether he intends to devour them as well while they huddle under the protective shield of NATO. That purely defensive organization has never before faced the Russian threat for which it was created. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has deployed the full weight of Twitter against the aggressor: “President Putin, in the name of humanity, bring your troops back to Russia. This conflict must stop now.” A strongly worded order with little to enforce it but moral authority is no match for hardened steel. For three-quarters of a century, the U.N. has implored the planet’s authoritarians to forgo the clash of arms. The U.N.’s primary concern of late, however, has been related to saving the planet from climate change. Amid the global alarm over Ukraine, responsibility for shattering the world’s prevailing peace must be charged to Mr. Putin. It cannot be denied, though, that Russia behaves itself when U.S. muscles are flexed. Moscow’s despot annexed Crimea during Barack Obama’s “leading from behind” presidency, but he sat with folded hands when square-jawed Donald Trump ran Washington. The Russian bear is once again on the loose. Weakness has ripened conditions for war.

As with a serious disease, early detection is the best path to treatment and a possible cure. Though there is no immediate “cure” for evil, free nations can control its spread. It’s worth revisiting Reagan’s evil empire speech to the British House of Commons on June 8, 1982. Reagan’s observations about evil were profound. While his references were to the Soviet Union and repressive regimes everywhere, his words equally apply to that regime’s ideological heir, Vladimir Putin and other dictators. Reagan said, “If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.” This was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s folly when he declared “peace in our time” after meeting with Hitler in Munich and believing Hitler’s promise not to seize more territory. While Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength” worked, he told the Commons that military power was only part of the mix: “Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used.” World War II came about in part, said Reagan, because the West allowed “dictators to underestimate us.” Now we see the reverse. The Biden administration is underestimating our enemies and projecting weakness. They think they can negotiate with the likes of Mr. Putin, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Iran’s ayatollahs when the only thing these and other dictators understand is power, resolve and resistance. Learn that lesson, and the world becomes a safer place. Failure to learn it produces what we are witnessing in Ukraine and may soon see in Taiwan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine under several pretexts reminds me of Adolf Hitler’s rationale for invading and annexing Sudetenland in 1938 and his invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland a year later. Then, as now, the excuse was that German-speaking people (then) and Russian-speaking people (now) wanted to be part of Germany (then) and Mother Russia (now). In both cases, the excuses for invasion, occupation and murder were just that ― excuses. Some commentators say there has been nothing like Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine since World War II. There are dwindling numbers of people alive who lived through that period and witnessed the evil of Nazi brutality and genocide. President Ronald Reagan lived through that era. This is why he coined the phrase “evil empire” to describe the Soviet Union. It’s one thing to read about evil in history books, but it is quite another to have witnessed it. One need only listen to Holocaust survivors for a powerful lesson in how deep human depravity can sink if it is not opposed. One of the definitions of evil is “The force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.” In our age of moral relativity where nearly everything is tolerated and justified ― except people who oppose the new societal norms ― who speaks of wickedness and sin? It’s getting harder to find preachers known for sermons on the subject. Albert Einstein, who was German and Jewish, and who lived through that dark period of mass slaughter, was right when he observed: “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

Regardless, the Obama-Biden crew, just like every single U.S. president since the breakup of the Soviet Union, were vigorously pushing a wishful-thinking “reset” policy with Russia. Paranoid that America was working to bring about Russia’s collapse through a “color revolution” and realizing that Washington will not permit him to implement his grand vision of Russian domination of its “sphere of influence,” Mr. Putin concluded that war with America is inevitable. On July 23, 2013, Putin approved a top-secret war plan, developed on his orders. Bearing an unassuming name, “Plan for Strategic Containment and Conflict Prevention,” this was Russian strongman’s “insurance” to repel U.S. and NATO forces in the event they intervened on behalf of Ukraine. As Mr. Putin was implementing an unprecedented military modernization worth $650 billion, which included hypersonic missiles, lasers and other satellite-killer type weapons, and other stealthy “non-lethal” technologies, the Washington experts continued to ignore the looming threat. The skeptics in the national security establishment continued to crow in unison, minimizing the danger: Mr. Putin is delusional, the Russian economy is the size of Italy’s, and Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. But Russia has never been economically strong and yet always fielded military and weaponry second only to the United States. Having refused to see what has been staring them in the face, the Washington “experts” failed to architect a viable and timely deterrent against a key opponent. They bear full responsibility for their strategic incompetence, which brought us to this perilous moment.

While the U.S. deprioritized Russia as a security threat and slashed intelligence resources dedicated to the target, Moscow’s spies have continued to steal U.S. secrets at the same vigorous pace they always have. In the late 1990s, Moscow launched a multiyear cyber espionage operation nicknamed “Moonlight Maze” by U.S. investigators. Vast amounts of critical, secret data were stolen from our military, government and civilian networks. Since then, Russia has developed a formidable and stealthy cyber arsenal that rivals America’s. Russian cyber intelligence operatives wage relentless attacks on U.S. businesses, banks, think tanks and critical infrastructure facilities, penetrating every major government agency, including the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House. We have yet to secure our networks and develop an effective deterrence and response strategy. The Washington security establishment continued to sleep at the wheel even after Mr. Putin openly declared a state of conflict with the United States during the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Mr. Putin vociferously denounced the United States and NATO in an inflammatory keynote speech. Russia formalized the state of hostility in 2010 by designating, in the release of its second post-Soviet military doctrine, the United States and NATO as its primary security threat. Moscow further codified this “threat” in every single foreign policy and military planning document that requires approval by the Russian president himself. Mr. Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, took over Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014, and destabilized Europe with cyber strikes and covert influence operations.

Washington’s national security establishment had some 20 years to develop a counterstrategy to Russia that would project strength and deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from doing things like invading Ukraine. Instead, we tried to make Russia our friend. That was not smart, and it now appears Russia will attack its neighbor and perhaps draw us into war too. Most of Washington’s cognoscenti are stunned at the ferocity with which Mr. Putin is fighting to resubjugate former Soviet Ukraine, risking an “all-out” war with the U.S. to resolve once and for all who, Moscow or Washington, will call the shots in what Russia views as its backyard. Secretary of State Antony Blinken best expressed the confusion among U.S. national security honchos. “It’s not clear what Russia’s central demand is”. It is deeply troubling that those charged with safeguarding our security and deterring war, especially with key nuclear-armed opponents like Russia and China, haven’t done their homework. Humiliated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is now ready for revenge. Make no mistake: Russia believes it is already, in a sense, at war with America. Mr. Putin exploited is the naivete of Washington leaders. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Americans envisioned a future of friendship and cooperation with Russia. Russia would embrace democracy and even join NATO. That was the conventional wisdom. But the “wise” were not paying attention. The Kremlin’s perception of America as its main adversary never changed.