The very first time I met Henry Kissinger, he attempted to hijack my vehicle – sort of. As we waited at the entrance of the Bayerischer Hof Hotel just after a dinner at the Munich Safety Conference in his native Germany, he gingerly descended the stairs and settled into the back seat of a single of the sleek black Mercedes sedans forming a caravan to chauffeur us away. But the alphabetically strict concierge insisted that Dr. Khanna be escorted just before Dr. Kissinger, and ushered him into the vehicle behind mine. I discovered myself apologizing to him, for I would absolutely have preferred to share the ride.

There was under no circumstances a dull conversation with the original Dr. K. A couple of years ago in my native India, we chatted just just before going on stage in New Delhi. It occurred to be November 9, so I asked him if he recalled exactly where he was and what he was carrying out thirty years earlier – precisely the day the Berlin Wall fell. Even nearing 95 years of age, he didn’t miss a beat.

I very first visited Berlin just weeks just after the Wall came down, sparking my adore affair with the homeland he fled as a teen. At the very same age he was when he arrived in New York as a Jewish refugee, I left New York to attend a German gymnasium higher college close to Hamburg. My parents mailed me care packages complete of Doritos and letters from mates, but the cardboard box I most eagerly awaited came in April 1995, containing a hot-off-the-press copy of Kissinger’s immediate classic Diplomacy. The 800-web page tome instantly became my Berlin Wall of geopolitical literature, my very first textbook in classical realism, my continuous companion as I Euro-railed for weeks on finish. (With each other with Paul Kennedy’s even girthier Rise and Fall of the Excellent Powers, it also left small space in my backpack for something other than a toothbrush.)

Kissinger’s personal former colleagues such as historian Ernest Might of Harvard criticized the book as a haphazard collection of maxims, as if to ignore Kissinger’s constant concentrate given that his days as a doctoral student writing about Metternich and Castlereagh: not historical events in themselves but the statesmen who produced history and why, with chapters bearing the names of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Napoleon III and Bismarck, Adenauer and Eisenhower. But Kissinger’s perform was substantially far more than an avatar of Thomas Carlyle’s infamous dictum that “the history of the planet is but the biography of terrific guys.” As an alternative, it taught me the appropriate answer to the higher college debate I had just completed – “does the man make the moment or the moment make the man?” Both.

His personal life reflected the continuous interplay of contingency and agency. As towering a figure as he remains at his centenary, it is vital to recall that even into his 40s, Kissinger nonetheless had pretty much no firsthand expertise of the planet beyond America’s east coast establishment (from which he nonetheless felt somewhat ostracized) and wartime Germany. Even though he was respected as a policy theorist who boldly articulated the “flexible response” nuclear doctrine vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, he had backed the incorrect presidential contenders, most lately Nelson Rockefeller. The very first volume of Niall Ferguson’s magisterial biography recounts the afternoon when Kissinger was pretty much aimlessly crossing Harvard Square and bumped into his buddy Arthur Schlesinger, the liberal historian and counselor to President Kennedy, who presented him a coveted chance to advise the Johnson administration. From that point forward, he entered the stream of history, each getting produced by moments but also creating them.

Any mortal would have been in way more than his head for the astounding flurry of almost simultaneous hotspots Kissinger came to juggle more than the subsequent decade either as National Safety Advisor or Secretary or State (or each at the very same time): Vietnam, Chile, Rhodesia, Egypt and Bangladesh, to name just a handful of. His popular quip was nicely justified: “There can not be a crisis subsequent week my diary is currently complete.”

His prestige rose even when America’s credibility suffered – at times as a outcome of his personal actions such as prolonging the Vietnam War and incinerating Cambodia only to dishonorably evacuate Indochina. He and Nixon also underestimated Arab bargaining energy through the Yom Kippur War: Kissinger was lionized for his tireless Mideast “shuttle diplomacy,” but the administration could also have plausibly prevented Egypt’s tilt towards the Soviet Union and the Saudi-led OPEC oil embargo, which unleashed devastating stagflation on Western economies. When a single man juggles also a lot of eggs, some will inevitably fall and crack. He absolutely didn’t shape each and every historical moment for the far better. Extra charitably, a single could say that the moment produced the man substantially far more intriguing than he may possibly otherwise have been.

But Kissinger under no circumstances saw his personal statesmanship as a transcendental pursuit. To the contrary, a single of the most riveting passages of his seminal 1957 academic study A Globe Restored clearly differentiates among the statesman and the prophet: the former navigates turbulence and constraints in pursuit of tangible objectives, whereas the prophet is messianic in his universalism. Kissinger, who in his youth aspired to turn into an accountant, worked tirelessly in the moment as a tiny “s” statesman in pursuit of geopolitical equilibrium, a steady order regardless of continuous volatility in the shadow of the nuclear arms race. Even though it was Mao who sought an opening to the US in light of the late-1960s Sino-Soviet split as substantially as Nixon who sought to open China, Kissinger’s simultaneous detente with the Soviet Union and delicate rapprochement with China was certainly animated by a mission to handle a dynamic but favorable equilibrium amongst the main powers. Precisely as he described the partnership among rivals Metternich and Castlereagh in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, the objective was stability, not perfection.

Such pragmatic vision is necessary far more than ever in today’s definitely multipolar planet, a single in which America regularly underestimates adversaries significant and tiny. That is why, even though Kissinger’s intellectual and political obituary has been written a thousand occasions, he is nonetheless sought just after for the international expertise and cultural sensitivity he has amassed. Such virtues are timeless and exceptional – and utterly absent amongst America’s existing foreign policy class who invest far more time Tweeting than traveling, and writing speeches rather than mastering languages. They fail to see that negotiation and even settlement – whether or not with Russia or China – is not tantamount to appeasement. Rather, the legitimacy of order itself derives from its inclusion of powers and adjustment to their interests.

Today’s establishment – particularly these tripping more than themselves to formulate a “Biden doctrine” – would do nicely to heed Kissinger’s insight from Diplomacy, “A leader who confines his part to his people’s expertise dooms himself to stagnation.” These are the words of a man who discovered to consider about order beyond Realpolitik, maybe even to embrace the pursuit of a sustainable international division of labor. Kissinger was nakedly ambitious and notoriously manipulative, but even at the age of one hundred embodies a genuine intellectual curiosity that Washington’s petty careerists lack.

I can not separate reading Kissinger as a teen from my choice to main in “Diplomacy &amp International Security” at Georgetown’s College of Foreign Service, exactly where Kissinger himself briefly taught in the 1970s, and to minor in philosophy. As I dove into geopolitical theory and loaded up on Kant and Hegel, I spent a further year back in Germany at the Cost-free University of Berlin, exactly where I toiled in the library writing a 40-web page seminar thesis on the terrific debate among Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee’s approaches to history. Only years later in Walter Isaacson’s biography did I discover that this was also the topic of Kissinger’s senior thesis at Harvard.

These days we uncover ourselves at the precarious intersection of Spengler’s decline and Toynbee’s adaptation. Extra than ever, a deeper understanding of the mechanics of a bewilderingly complicated planet need to be a prerequisite for getting handed the keys to handle it. But that is a process for a new generation.

Today’s gerontocracy of politicians and pundits invokes Kissinger’s name either to buttress the credibility they themselves lack or to make out-of-context ad hominem attacks. He’s remained aloof, pretty much immune, to each. His concentrate on the private and political situations of leaders and the options offered to them in their time applies to himself as nicely. Final August, when asked by Laura Secor of the Wall Street Journal if he had any expert regrets, he replied, “I ought to discover a terrific answer to that question… I do not torture myself with points we may possibly have accomplished differently.”

Today’s youth do not have that luxury. They recognize today’s revolutionary moment, and in carrying out so seem to have subconsciously absorbed a single of Kissinger’s most moving passages written when he was their age: “Each generation is permitted only a single work of abstraction it can try only a single interpretation and a single experiment, for it is its personal topic. This is the challenge of history and its tragedy it is the shape ‘destiny’ assumes on earth. And its option, even its recognition, is maybe the most tricky process of statesmanship.”

Scholars and diplomats may well debate Kissinger’s legacy for decades to come, but it is beyond dispute that we need to have far more statesmen who can anticipate and respond to a altering planet order in pursuit of a new and far more steady equilibrium.

Extra Ought to-Reads From TIME

Get in touch with us at letters@time.com.