The folly of reading Putin’s mind.

March 16, 2022

[Audio version here]

          As Ukrainian President Zelenskyy prepares to address a joint session of Congress, he is rightly being hailed as a world leader in the effort to defend democracy. On Tuesday, leaders of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Poland traveled to Kyiv to meet with Zelenskyy—an extraordinary demonstration of solidarity. Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is isolated and diminished, sitting 10 meters away from his closest advisers, whom he despises and fears in equal measure. That stark contrast illustrates that Putin has lost his war on the Ukrainian people, regardless of the military outcome. Putin will remain a pariah for as long as he clings to power, and his legacy will forever be compared to that of Hitler. Zelensky will always be remembered as a hero, regardless of the military outcome.

          As Zelenskyy prepares to speak to Congress, pressure is building for Biden to “do more” to help Ukraine—a consequence of the GOP’s belated effort to be tough on Putin after four years of treating him as an honorary member of the Republican Party. Before discussing what “more” Biden can do for the Ukrainian people, it is appropriate to acknowledge that Biden has imposed unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia that will be subsidized by higher prices in the US and Europe. (In making that observation, I do not mean to trivialize the suffering of the Ukrainian people, but we should acknowledge that Biden imposed those sanctions without regard to their effect on his domestic political support. Lesser men might have acted differently.) Moreover, on Tuesday, Biden signed a bill that grants an additional $13.6 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine. To understand the scale of that aid, I note that Ukraine’s 2019 total military budget was $5.2 billion.

          Biden’s challenge is that Zelenskyy’s expected emotional appeal to Congress will cause many US politicians to ignore the threat of nuclear escalation and underestimate Putin’s willingness to retaliate if NATO intervenes. Those are dangerous omissions, and Biden must remain steadfast to avoid making a catastrophic mistake. Two bookend articles in The Atlantic highlight this dilemma.

          The first article is written by Veronika Melkozerova, the Executive Editor of the New Voice of Ukraine. Her article is titled, The Western World Is in Denial About Putin. Melkozerova writes movingly about the suffering in Ukraine before leveling her charge that NATO is not doing enough to stop Putin. Her thesis is as follows:

          What I see from NATO is a version of this message: The war in Ukraine is not our war. We will come forward only if Russia attacks an alliance member or bombs our convoy to Ukraine.

          While that characterization ignores the debilitating sanctions on Russia and the enormous military aid to Ukraine, we need not quibble. Melkozerova makes a compelling and emotional case for NATO to intervene. There is only one flaw in her argument: She never mentions Putin’s threat of nuclear deterrence if NATO directly intervenes.

          If NATO does intervene, there is a risk that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy every major Ukrainian city and military base. He said as much three weeks ago. No matter what percentage we assign to that risk, the outcome of such a scenario is the literal and permanent destruction of Ukraine. The failure of Melkozerova to even acknowledge that possibility renders her arguments irrelevant. To engage in a rational discussion about intervention, we cannot ignore possible catastrophic outcomes.

          The usual rejoinder to the “catastrophic outcome” argument is that “Putin is bluffing—he won’t resort to nuclear deterrence.” This second argument is addressed in a companion article in this week’s Atlantic by Uri Friedman, Putin’s Nuclear Threats Are a Wake-Up Call for the World. Friedman notes that Zelenskyy and Ukraine reject the notion that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil. Per Friedman, the argument of those favoring intervention goes like this:

At this point of the conflict over Ukraine, the odds are that the Russian president’s threats amount to a bluff intended to intimidate and coerce his opponents in the West.

          As recently as seven weeks ago, Zelenskyy was claiming that the US was misinterpreting Putin’s intentions, that Putin was bluffing about invading Ukraine, and that the US should “calm down the warnings about invasion” to prevent unnecessary panic among Ukrainian citizens.

          Seven weeks later, Zelenskyy is telling NATO that we are misjudging Putin’s willingness to use nuclear weapons and that we should “call Putin’s bluff” by intervening directly. Zelenskyy is a hero, but he has no credibility when predicting Putin’s plans.

          As the president of a nation that borders Russia, Zelenskyy had a front-row seat to evaluate Putin’s intentions. The fact that Zelenskyy misjudged Putin so badly shows that basing military strategy on subjective judgments about “calling Putin’s bluff” is risky and dangerous. We have no reason to trust Ukraine’s assessment of whether Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons—just as we have no reason to trust the subjective judgments of “armchair generals” in Congress or on cable news.

          In evaluating the endless prognosticating and chest-thumping by pundits and politicians that will follow Zelenskyy’s address to Congress, I suggest the following rule of thumb: If someone claims they know what Putin will do, they have no idea what they are talking about. If someone acknowledges they have no idea what Putin will do, they understand the situation perfectly.

          Now for some (qualified) good news: As of Tuesday evening, it appears that Zelenskyy is laying the groundwork for some type of negotiated settlement with Russia. Zelenskyy pre-emptively announced that Ukraine will not be joining NATO “anytime soon” and said that Russia was being “more realistic” in the peace talks. See Business Insider, Ukraine Says It Sees ‘Room for Compromise’ After Negotiations.

          If Russia and Ukraine can deescalate the current conflict, it will be because of the tenacity and bravery of the Ukrainian people who fought a much larger force to a draw. And if that happens, the NATO alliance will forever be in Ukraine’s debt for showing that Russia can be defeated in a ground war. But we should not entertain false hope—especially where Putin is concerned. Stay tuned and remain hopeful.

Reminder regarding Adam Schiff fundraiser on Wednesday.

          Thanks to the many readers of this newsletter who signed up to support Adam Schiff’s efforts to raise funds for the 2022 Democratic effort to maintain its majority in the House. The even will take place on Wednesday, March 16th at 2:00 pm PT/ 5:00 pm ET. If you registered, you should have received a link today. If the link is not in your inbox, check your junk/spam folder or email Elizabeth Tauro at etauro@capstratca.com.

          I look forward to seeing many of you on the Zoom call on Wednesday!

Supporting the 2022 Senate races.

          With the 2022 midterms hard upon us, there is much to do. Thankfully, millions of committed activists are working to maintain the Democratic majorities in Congress. If you are still looking for a place to join forces with like-minded people, I suggest you check out Senate Circle. The members of Senate Circle invest time, money, influence, and “collective lifetimes of experience” into holding the Senate. Senate Circle is not a PAC, has no overhead, and joining is free. Senate Circle is supporting Raphael Warnock (Georgia), Cheri Beasley (NC), and Mandela Barnes (Wisconsin).

          The above races may determine control of the Senate. I want to comment on Raphael Warnock’s bid for re-election. Senator Warnock is an inspirational leader who represents the future of the Democratic Party. In a just world, he would stand head-and-shoulders above his competition. But Trump has endorsed former football player Herschel Walker, who holds a slight lead over Warnock in early polling.

          As the campaign heats up, Herschel Walker’s unfitness to serve in the Senate should become manifest and Warnock’s stellar qualities will shine brightly. But we can leave nothing to chance. Consider supporting Raphael Warnock. Or better yet, consider joining Senate Circle.

Concluding thoughts.

          Watching Ukrainians defend their homeland has been humbling. So too, with the brave protests by Russians calling for the end of the war in Ukraine—like Marina Ovsyannikova, who crashed a live television broadcast in Moscow holding a “No War” sign. Ovsyannikova has been imprisoned, denied sleep for two days, and interrogated for fourteen hours straight.

          How many of us would hunker down in bombed-out buildings to defend our country against a vastly superior army? How many of us would risk fifteen years in prison for using the word “war” to describe a full-scale invasion of a neighboring country? Fortunately, we don’t have to answer those questions—but only if we are willing to take actions today that do not require us to risk life and liberty. We only need to work hard, remain optimistic, and refuse to give up in the face of temporary setbacks. If we can do that, we will surely win. The brave Ukrainians and Russians who are standing up to Putin should inspire and humble us. Yes, politics is tough in the U.S., but it is only politics. For that, we should be eternally thankful.

      Talk to you tomorrow!