There are few Russia analysts more experienced or more respected than Julia Ioffe. She’s been warning about Vladimir Putin and his intentions for years, and was one of the few regularly-aired pundits who did not instantly try to dismiss President Joe Biden when he began explaining that U.S. intelligence was predicting an invasion of Ukraine. So it wasn’t surprising that at the outset of the war, Stephen Colbert asked Ioffe to appear on The Late Show to explain the situation and speculate on where things go. When asked to describe the worst case scenario, Ioffe understandably went to a situation where NATO was dragged into the conflict, the scale of the war escalated, and nuclear weapons were exchanged.
But when asked to describe the best case outcome, Ioffe said this (3:38 in the video below):
“I think the best case scenario is … this sounds horrible … that [Russia] accomplishes what they want in Ukraine. That they decapitate the government, install a puppet regime, withdraw without occupying it, and scare Ukrainians enough to not have another revolution to bring in a new democratic government for another few years and keep things calm that way.”
That’s the best case outcome for Ioffe on day 2 of the invasion.
On the surface, that idea is frustrating. But it’s also understandable. Ioffee, looking at the situation, believed what almost everyone believed — Ukraine could not possibly win. And with that in mind, the best thing for everyone, especially Ukrainians, was that they lose quickly.
Her assessment was certainly in line with the intelligence that was arriving on Putin’s desk. That intelligence said that Ukraine’s military was in “a pathetic state” and that “one crushing Russian strike will to be sufficient to finish such the war.” There’s a reason that the first Russian forces coming down from Belarus toward Kyiv brought their dress uniforms. They expected to wear them.
I’m certainly in no position to cast stones at Ioffe. On the same day she appeared on Colbert, I was busy writing that, “Ukraine has survived two days of intense fighting with Russian forces, including a series of battles with outcomes that show the situation is definitely not following Vladimir Putin’s plans. … However, as of Friday morning, a large number of Russian forces are on the outskirts of Kyiv. Government officials have reported that the city has been entered by “sabotage squads” meant to start fires, plant explosives, and generate fear—a step outlined in what has been put forward as the Russian plan for Kyiv.”
Those first few days were full of incidents in which Ukrainian forces took out some, or all, of approaching Russian convoys, but I continued to operate on the theory that assumed Russia would eventually occupy Ukrainian cities and the war would transition to years of guerilla conflict. It wasn’t until March 5, a week into the invasion, that I got my mind off that track and said this, “The outcome on the ground seems somehow less inevitable by the day. … the prospect that Ukraine might just win this thing—not in an ‘after 10, or 15, or 20 years of guerilla fighting’ sense, but 10, or 15, or 20 days from now—seems entirely… thinkable.”
That was the first time I suggested that Ukraine might defeat Russia. On the battlefield. Soon.
Markos has done a very good review of why neither Russia or Ukraine can actually win this thing in a traditional sense. Russia lacks the resources on any level to actually conquer and occupy Ukraine. But Ukraine also lacks the resources to drive Russia out of their country, especially when it comes to the previously occupied territories in Donbas and Crimea. But the idea that Russia would inevitably crush Ukrainian forces on the ground and turn the whole map of Ukraine red now seems among the least likely scenarios.
Russia can’t win. Ukraine can’t sweep Russia away with their current resources. So what we have now is Ukraine trying to push Russia away from cities while Russia does everything it can to cause the most damage, kill the most people, and generate the most misery that it can. As a strategy.
That’s very close to what Ioffe described back on Feb. 25 as among her worst possible outcomes.
So what now? Well, there’s this suggestion from former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, which was published in The Washington Post on March 16.
Ukrainians will ultimately defeat Vladimir Putin’s army. Ukraine will be sovereign and free once again. Only two questions are unanswered: How long will it take? And how many Ukrainians will have to die before Putin’s soldiers finally leave?
The goal for the West in general, and the United States in particular, must be to hasten the defeat of Putin’s army. Three scenarios for liberating Ukraine from Russian attack and occupation should shape the appropriate Western strategies for helping end this horrible war as fast as possible.
What’s funny is how much McFaul’s worst case scenario resembles both Ioffee’s best cast scenario, and the scenario that was accepted wisdom at the stat of the war.
The worst outcome would be a Russian occupation of major Ukrainian cities followed by a prolonged guerrilla war. With snipers, suicide and car bombs, and acts of nonviolent civic resistance, Ukrainians would continue to resist Putin’s occupation until Russian soldiers go home.
And the answer that McFaul lands on is simple enough: Give Ukraine what it needs to win. Not win, as in hold Russia to a stalemate, but win. As in win. And if that involves giving Ukraine not just defensive weapons, but aircraft and other systems needed to launch counterattacks against Russian positions, he’s okay with that.
Of course, President Biden and his team cannot escalate U.S. involvement in ways that might trigger nuclear war. Mutually assured destruction remains in place. Biden, Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and the leaders of other nuclear powers must engage directly with Putin to receive assurances that he does not intend to blow up the planet.
But that worst-case, very low-probability scenario cannot be invoked as an excuse against new military supplies from NATO countries.
For McFaul, Putin’s reactions to transfer of S-300 anti-missile systems (which is happening) or MiG-29 fighters (which is currently not) amounts to “cheap talk” because it doesn’t approach anything that would meet the threshold of triggering nuclear war. The same can be said about every threat Russia has made to invade the Baltics or other neighboring countries. Russia’s miserable performance on the battlefield makes all such threats essentially moot. In fact, the only thing that would lend Putin strength would be sitting back and failing to give Ukraine the support it needs.
Putin may be angry and unhinged, but he’s not suicidal. Threats to NATO front-line states become serious only if Putin wins in Ukraine.
What’s amazing about McFaul’s scenarios is that he’s now playing in the same territory as most pundits. One where “In all three scenarios, Ukrainians eventually win. Our task in the West — those of us standing on the sidelines, watching Ukrainians bravely fight invading Russian armed forces alone — is to do all that we can to hasten the end of the war, and thus save Ukrainian (and Russian) lives. More weapons and more sanctions do just that.”
That’s an amazing shift in the last month. The incredible shrinking Russia. It’s our job to figure out not just how to keep Ukraine from losing, but to help them win. Quickly.
Listen to Mark and Markos discuss Ukraine on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast.
Thursday, Mar 24, 2022 · 7:09:44 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
While the small factor of the Russians losing a ship of the Black Sea Fleet, and Ukrainian forces fighting on the outskirts of Kherson has diverted attention toward the south, the counterattack continues around Kyiv. This location is about 30 miles east of Kyiv in an area where Russian forces had approached from the northeast.
Thursday, Mar 24, 2022 · 7:25:36 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
It’s not just pundits in the U.S. who’ve been forced to change their tunes.
Russian TV host on February 22 says Ukraine will hand over Kyiv if Russia just “raises an eyebrow.”
Same host one month later called Ukraine the largest army in Europe after Russia and says there will be no quick outcome.
Thursday, Mar 24, 2022 · 7:57:51 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Whenever some critical world even happens, voices emerge that really speak to that moment. In the case of Putin’s war on Ukraine, there have been a number of terrific reporters on the ground and military analysts diligently putting together each day’s events, but there is one person who has emerged as a daily Must Read.
Kamil Galeev is a historian at The Wilson Center. Each of his lengthy threads is like a chapter in a textbook explaining the backgrounds, politics, and attitudes that drive what can sometimes seem to be incomprehensible actions. Read his works to understand what Russia is, who Putin is, and how both of them came to be that way.
Daily Kos readers have now raised over $1.9 million to assist Ukrainian refugees.
Help keep that support going