Ever since the opening salvos of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I’ve been getting deluged with messages with a single request: Help me figure out what’s going on. It’s the exact same request I’ve been volleying at sources and at subject matter experts. I’ve been working day and night to peer through the fog of war and discern the true contours of the conflict and the next steps of the combatants.
This newsletter is about what I’ve learned, in frequently asked question format. But first, some caveats. As I said on CNN on Sunday morning, there is a tremendous amount of battlefield confusion. War correspondents are doing heroic work, but they’re operating at a tremendous handicap compared to the coverage you’re used to seeing of American wars.
While no one should claim our process is perfect, the American military makes an effort to provide detailed briefings, and we embed media in American combat formations. In this conflict, by contrast, there’s reason to be skeptical of narratives on both sides: You can’t trust a word that comes out of the Russian military. It’s fighting a war on false pretenses and is actively spreading misinformation. And Ukraine has its own strong incentives to magnify Russian losses and minimize Ukrainian setbacks.
In fact, both Ukraine and Russia have an interest (for now) in downplaying Ukrainian casualties. Ukraine wants to maintain a sense of hope and battlefield success. Russia is still trying to pretend that it’s not truly “invading” Ukraine, but rather “denazifying” the country. (No, really, that’s Russian messaging.) Images of large-scale Ukrainian casualties would demonstrate the extent of Ukrainian resistance.
As a general matter, treat specific, detailed news reports with suspicion (including specific tales of heroism, like the alleged Ukrainian ace called the “Ghost of Kyiv”). Instead, look more for high-level trends. We won’t learn many of the details for weeks, months, and even years.
With the throat-clearing and caveats out of the way, let’s launch our FAQ.
I keep hearing people say Putin miscalculated? How did he miscalculate?
The simplest way of stating Putin’s mistake was that he underestimated Ukrainian resistance, and he overestimated Ukrainian support for Russia. Our best evidence for this proposition lies in Russian military tactics themselves.
As I wrote today in The Atlantic, Putin did not begin the war with the kind of bombardment or attack that you’d initiate when you expect serious resistance from an intact, capable military. Yes, Russia launched hundreds of missile strikes, but the initial bombardment was nothing like the weeks of pain we inflicted on the Iraqi Army before the ground phase of Desert Storm in 1991.
The Russians didn’t establish air dominance. They didn’t reduce the ability of the Ukrainian army to fight. Instead, it appears they flung their army into Ukraine when the Ukrainian army was almost entirely intact.
Moreover, Putin divided his force and sent airborne elements deep behind Ukrainian lines, with no real ability to punch through and consolidate their gains. This is what you do when you expect to be simply carving up a country, not fighting through determined resistance.
In hindsight Putin’s mistakes seem so obvious. Why was he so wrong?
I raise this question because it’s one I’ve asked multiple deeply informed individuals, and the answer echoes with our world’s long experience with overreaching autocrats. It’s too simple to say that Putin is likely surrounded—after so many years in power—with people who tell him what he wants to hear. The more profound reason is that his instincts have been proven right time and time again.
Another way to put it is that Putin’s escalations have always seemed to work. After the first Chechen War ended in Russian disgrace in 1996, he engineered a second war in 1999 that ended less than a year later in a brutal Russian victory. He defeated Georgia handily in 2008. His invasion of Crimea in 2014 was an almost bloodless success. In Syria, Russian intervention not only helped the government retain power, Trump’s abrupt pullout enabled his mercenaries to occupy American bases—and film themselves doing it.
We’ve seen this pattern time and again. Success breeds confidence, confidence breeds overconfidence, and overconfidence leads to overreach.
Wait. Are you saying Ukraine can win this fight?
It’s possible, but unlikely. Here’s the sad reality: It may be true that Russia overreached, but it is also true that Ukraine is still outmatched on the battlefield. Ukraine lacks the raw military force to expel Russia from its territory, while Russia retains the force to destroy Ukrainian cities and grind the Ukrainian military into dust.
Ukraine’s early successes have made it more likely that Russia will deploy its firepower. The decapitation strike failed, but that does not mean that Putin will accept defeat. Retreat would be an ultimate humiliation, and for all the Twitter jubilance over Ukraine’s success, the war is only six days old. Stepped-up Russian attacks could reverse Ukrainian fortunes quickly, leaving Ukraine’s best hope in a grinding, draining insurgency that would cause immense suffering to friend and foe alike.
We can and should stand in awe of Ukrainian courage, but we should also recognize that courage comes with a cost. Surrender is unthinkable, yet war is terrible. It’s hard to see Ukraine surviving this war intact, free, and independent.
What are the chances Putin’s regime collapses? Wouldn’t that mean Ukraine wins?
I don’t think anyone knows whether Putin will fall. Ukraine’s resistance puts pressure on his regime. So do western sanctions. But we’ve seen dictators face worse adversity and prevail even in the face of civil war. And putting pressure on Putin comes with risk. How dangerous will he be if he feels his grip on power start to slip?
And don’t think that regime change always leads to peace. Would Russia retreat entirely from Ukraine if Putin falls? It won’t leave Crimea. It’s doubtful it will leave the Donbas. Will it give up the territories it has conquered these last six days, or in the days to come? It’s impossible to say.
Twitter and TikTok were giving me hope. You’re taking it away. Are there any silver linings in your dark clouds?
Yes, there are silver linings. NATO is more united than it’s been in a generation. The western world is finally waking up to the danger of Russian aggression. Ukrainian courage has inspired countless millions. Even if Russia ultimately wins, the conflict is draining Russian combat power and crippling the Russian economy. For the moment, it appears that Putin’s decision to invade has made NATO stronger and Russia weaker—exactly the opposite of his intended effect.
But this all happens while Ukrainians bleed and die and lose more of their country every day. Our unity does benefit Ukraine. They’re receiving advanced western weapons, for example, that dramatically increase the power of Ukrainian infantry and the Ukrainian resistance. But it is still very hard to see a path for a Ukrainian military victory over the Russian invaders.
I hope I’m wrong. I want to be wrong. But as I’ve said many times before, evil often leaves virtue with few good options. The necessity of Ukrainian resistance is clear, as is the necessity of NATO support. But NATO intervention risks catastrophe. Even a “limited” no-fly zone would trigger direct military confrontation with the world’s largest nuclear power. The west can weaken Russia, but there is no realistic way for us to keep Ukraine from paying the steepest price of all.
One more thing …
We’re hosting another Dispatch Live tonight. Jonah, Sarah, Declan, and I will talk about Ukraine and the State of the Union address, and answer listener questions live. Join us at 8pm ET/5pm PT, and—as always—if you miss it, we’ll post the entire conversation on our website tomorrow.
One last thing …
This has been a grim newsletter, so let’s end with a bit of fun. Ja Morant, the most exciting player in basketball, scored 52 points last night, and he did it in the most Ja way possible. He was a human highlight reel. Be amazed:
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.
You are currently using a limited time guest pass and do not have access to commenting. Consider subscribing to join the conversation.
With your membership, you only have the ability to comment on The Morning Dispatch articles. Consider upgrading to join the conversation everywhere.