Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Julia Ioffe:

This is an existential war for Putin. I think he understands and we all understand that if he loses the war, he loses his hold on power. He’s done. He cannot lose this war.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Julia Ioffe. She’s a founding partner and Washington correspondent at Puck, a new media venture focused on reporting news at the intersection of Washington, Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. A native of Russia, Ioffe has long been considered among the most informed and respected voices on that nation and its president, Vladimir Putin. As the Kremlin’s offensive in Ukraine escalates, President Biden addressed the dire situation last week in an address to the United Nations.

Joe Biden:

This war is about extinguishing Ukraine’s right to exist as a state, plain and simple and Ukraine’s right to exist as a people. Whoever you are, wherever you live, whatever you believe, that should make your blood run cold.

Preet Bharara:

Ioffe and I discuss whether the US is doing enough to help Ukraine, Putin’s latest threat to use nuclear weapons and the unusual political impact of a Russian pop star. That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

Now, let’s get to your questions. This question comes in a tweet from listener Robin Wolaner who writes, “I support the New York AG suit because there was fraud. I’m just unable to answer my partner’s question, who was hurt financially by the fraud?” The banks knew they were dealing with a serial liar, and in recent years, I believe the loans were repaid. So I’m sorry if I sound like an absolutist about this, but the rule of law is the rule of law. And if someone violates the law and there’s sufficient evidence to prove that, then that is sufficient. It is not always the case that you have to show that someone was financially harmed by a particular fraud.

In this case, as a general matter, there are rules that are supposed to be applicable to everyone, not just ordinary citizens and average people, but also former presidents and members of their family. And if it’s the case that they violated the law, civil or criminal, there’s a consequence that has to be paid for that. As you said in your first sentence, “I support the New York AG suit because there was a fraud.” Now, it may be the case if they’re sympathetic individual, victimized people by the fraud, that makes it a case that has more jury appeal. Maybe that will affect what the level of sentence will be in a criminal case or what the level of fine will be, in the civil case. But in these circumstances, it is not necessary to show that there was particular harm to particular parties of a particular amount.

Now, as a general matter, if you allow such conduct to go without consequences that harms the rule of law, that harms the notion of fair play, that harms the notion of an even playing field because it suggests that someone is above the law. As for this issue of the loans being repaid, if you rob a bank and then give money back to the bank, that doesn’t exonerate you of liability, civil or criminal. Now, I suppose it’s also true that the banks were victims in this case. They were lied to. They were defrauded. Whether the level of financial harm that they suffered was great, small or somewhere in between, again, is not of legal consequence.

And by the way, remember in the law, I’m speaking about the criminal law for a moment, almost every kind of substantive crime can also be charged as an attempt or as a conspiracy. Meaning in those cases where someone attempts to rob a bank or attempts to engage in fraud, the mere fact of the attempt, even if not successful and even if not causing ultimate harm, financial or otherwise to anybody is still a violation of law. And that principle holds here.

Let me analogize this to something different that’s also in the news related to Donald Trump. The search for documents in Mar-a-Lago. Now of course, it’s a much more serious offense and a much more serious bit of conduct if it turns out that Donald Trump’s mishandling of sensitive and classified documents compromised national security, right, harmed national security either because sources and methods became known or he shared the information or expose the information to others who could take it and use it to get an advantage over the United States of America.

And that would make it more serious and that would probably affect the likelihood of prosecution and the likelihood of a substantial prison sentence if that can be shown. It would be more appealing, as I said before, to a jury who would take the conduct more seriously. But it does not matter because the statutes that are being looked at with respect to national security presume that mishandling of certain kinds of documents that affect the national defense or that are classified material, by definition were grave serious harm to the national security. So I understand these debates that people are having about the particularity of harm being done to particular victims, sympathetic or otherwise, but it’s not necessary. It’s not required in the law. And in many other contexts we don’t even talk about it.

This question comes in an email from Jake Crowley who writes, “As a political matter, what do you make of Democrats’ focus on Trump’s potential crimes and ongoing legal problems? I’m thinking specifically of the January 6th hearings and the round the clock coverage. If swing voters haven’t been convinced by now of his unfitness for office, what more could convince them? I appreciate the need for accountability, but do you think any of this actually helps Democrats keep Congress?”

So that’s an interesting, and in some ways profound question and I’ll answer it this way. Some things you do not for politics, some things you do out of duty. Some things you do not to protect your position in Congress or your political party’s position in the legislative branch, but because the law requires it, because your duty to your office and the constitution requires it.

And if there’s some other effect that you hope for politically as sort of a side effect of that accomplishing of duty, then that’s fine and good. But in the main, I think members of Congress who are focusing on the January 6th events are doing it because they have no choice, because it’s important for posterity, it’s important as you say, for accountability, and it’s important for the future to figure out a way for that not to happen again.

Now, one way for that not to happen again certainly is for Donald Trump never to hold the reins of power again. But I think in some ways that’s incidental to the fundamental purpose, which is to expose what happened, who did what, who knew what and when and why that should be condemned. One of the reasons that the January 6th Committee is as effective as it is because it’s not a purely Democratic spectacle among others.

In addition to Adam Kinzinger, as we’ve talked about in the show many times, Liz Cheney is a Republican. Liz Cheney is not trying to preserve the Democrats majority in the house. She is admirably, whatever you think of her politics and whatever you think of her political views, she is doing this out of a sense of duty to the country. And I think that’s admirable and I think that should be applauded.

I asked a version of this question during impeachment of Adam Schiff, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, and then run up to a prior election. I remember something that he said, and I think it is relevant to the question that you’ve asked today as well. Should the Democrats be focused so much on the Mueller report and on impeachment and things of that nature? He said something like this, “Look, there’s some people who have a certain responsibility to be looking at those things, investigating those things. That includes people on the Intelligence Committee, people on the Judiciary Committee, and they have a job to do. It’s part of their obligation, not just legislating, not just doing the other things that legislators do, but also focusing on accountability and misconduct on the part of the highest office holder in the land, Donald Trump.”

He agreed that that’s not the only thing that Democrats should be talking about and he said that’s not the only thing that he talks about. Democrats on the political side, because you’ve asked a political question, should absolutely be focused on and be talking about quality of living, reproductive rights, the economy, all sorts of things that are bread and butter issues for people who go to the polls. But as I think he said, members of Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And members of the public I think can also digest issues of accountability and investigations into the misconduct of the former president. At the same time that they can make assessments about who would be better for the economy, who would be better for liberty, who would be better for the middle class in this country. So it’s not one or the other. I think both pursuits need to be undertaken.

Look, you might ask this question in a different context. There’s a lot of clamoring on the part of people who think that not only should the January 6th Committee be investigating the former president and his conduct in and around January 6th, but that the Justice Department should charge him for that conduct. Now, I understand that the January 6th Committee is literally and definitionally made up of political actors. Although, I hope and believe that they’re not acting politically here, the Justice Department is certainly outside of politics.

I think we would all agree that if the Justice Department was going to make a decision after an investigation of the former president to make a charge that they should not be considering politics because there’s a lot of argument and analysis to support the idea that if a charge was brought that that would hurt Democrats politically. It might actually help Trump politically because he would unite a lot of people in his base. People would think it was overreach, whether it is or not. And it might have a damaging political consequence on the Democrats. Should that be considered by the Justice Department? I don’t think so.

And in the same way, although it’s different and their political actors, I think some of the same considerations of doing things for the right reasons and for posterity and for accountability are the reasons why in the purest sense the January 6th Committee’s work needs to be done and needs to be respected.

We’ll be right back with my conversation with Julia Ioffe.

It has been more than seven months since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. In recent days, he’s ordered 300,000 additional troops to the front lines and even suggested he may use nuclear weapons in an attempt to take back control of the conflict. Julia Ioffe is a veteran journalist and longtime expert on Russia and it’s embattled President.

Julia Ioffe, welcome to the show. It’s a pleasure to have you.

Julia Ioffe:

Thank you so much for having me.

Preet Bharara:

So you’re going to teach us a lot of things today. I should point out to folks who may not be aware that you were born in Russia. You fled when you were seven years old. You have spent time there since as an adult and you’ve been one of the most insightful observers about Russia and Ukraine over the last number of months. My first question to you before we get into the details of what’s going on currently is given your history and your place of birth, is this work, this reporting, this writing more personal to you than other things you write about?

Julia Ioffe:

Well, that’s very kind of you, I should say first. And I would say that it is very personal, but the stuff I write about America is also very personal. I feel like I have two places that were home. One is Russia, one is the US. I’ve spent most of my life in the US. And watching the slow erosion of American institutions in American democracy has also been extremely panic inducing. And it’s also very personal, not just because this is home, but because this was a chosen home. This was a home my parents chose because of where they were fleeing and because I think as I’m sure you know immigrants really buy into the whole American dream thing, hook line and sinker.

Preet Bharara:

Yes, we do. We do.

Julia Ioffe:

They really believe in it in some ways more purely, more intensely, more devotedly than Americans who are born here and have lived here for generations and generations.

Preet Bharara:

More naively too, you think.

Julia Ioffe:

More naively, absolutely, and I think more historically. So in some ways watching my parents who chose this place, watching them over the last few years has been kind of watching them watch what has happened to America has been very hard and heartbreaking. And also, watching myself watching what has happened to America over the last few years has been really hard because I know where this leads because of my… What I know about Russia isn’t just because I was born there. It didn’t come to me with my mother’s milk. I have…

Preet Bharara:

That would be-

Julia Ioffe:

Strange.

Preet Bharara:

That would be very impressive milk.

Julia Ioffe:

Yeah. I mean, shout-out to Olga Ioffe, but really it was, I studied it. In college, I reported on it. This is the product of 15, 16 years of working in this field and then seeing this come to the US and then telling everyone, “This is where this tends to lead because we’ve seen this in other places, in Russia, Germany, et cetera.” And then people being like, “Oh, you’re hysterical. You’re being alarmist. We have institutions. America is different, blah blah, blah.” And being roundly dismissed as biased and partisan and hysterical and all kinds of other derogatory things has also been… That has also been very difficult and personal. So it’s been a rough few years all around.

Preet Bharara:

Yes, it has. So we’re going to put the USA aside for a few minutes, take a break from this country’s troubles, but obviously other country’s troubles are bound up in ours. Talk about what has been some good news for, I think, right-minded people with respect to the Russia, Ukraine war. So I want to begin with what’s happened in the last few weeks. I should point out to folks that were recording this around lunchtime eastern time on Monday, September 26th.

I don’t know what will happen between now and the time that people hear this podcast because situations are fluid. But in the last few weeks, Ukraine mounted a counter offensive. I thought I would ask you to explain to folks and describe for folks how impressive that has been, what the scope of that has been and what you think the impact of that will be.

Julia Ioffe:

Well, the last couple of days have been some of the most frightening inside Russia that we’ve seen since February 24th when the war first started, when Putin first invaded Ukraine. And that is a direct result of the success that Ukraine has had on the battlefield in the counter offensive. That started in some sense in July and late July when Ukraine started pushing back in southeastern Ukraine around Kherson, attacking the bridge behind the Russian army, targeting the resupply lines and making moves that would hint that they were trying to take back that area of Ukraine.

Russia started moving its troops down there, some of its best troops to reinforce those lines. And then Ukraine launched and announced that it was launching a full out counteroffensive down there, which was very smart because it drew all the Russian forces down there. And then a couple weeks later, Ukraine launched a lightning counteroffensive up north around Kharkiv. And by that point, Russian troops were outnumbered eight to one in some places.

Preet Bharara:

Can we pause on that for a second?

Julia Ioffe:

Sure.

Preet Bharara:

How can it be in modern warfare with all the tools of intelligence and everything else for a country like Ukraine just to say, “Hey, we’re going to move in the south. Okay, let’s send everyone to the south.” And then it turns out it was something of a bluff. How did the Russians fall for that?

Julia Ioffe:

Well, it wasn’t totally a bluff. The Ukrainians are going for both the northeast and the southeast. I don’t know if you’ve noticed it all, but the Russians haven’t been very good in this war.

Preet Bharara:

No. That seems like a more basic error than some of the other errors. Am I wrong about that?

Julia Ioffe:

Some of the errors have been pretty damn basic. One of the most amazing things about watching Russia in this war is that Russia has been riddled with corruption. And the seat of the corruption in Russia is the FSB. They’re the mob. They’re the kind of Sopranos that run all of Russia. And I think some people could also tell that there was a feeling of like, “Okay. Well, everything else is kind of rotten to the core. But surely the army isn’t. And surely the army is still… And then it turns out-

Preet Bharara:

That was incorrect.

Julia Ioffe:

Yeah, incorrect. And it turns out the army is corrupt and the FSB is corrupt and was feeding incorrect intelligence up to the Kremlin. And it turns out the army is corrupted (censored) and the equipment wasn’t very good, and the soldiers don’t really want to fight because they don’t know what the hell they’re fighting for. And it turns out that [inaudible 00:17:40] really matters. And it also turns out that Western weaponry, Western equipment is a lot better than Russian equipment. And all of that grinding, fighting over the… I mean, there’s a lot of factors. All of that grinding, fighting over the summer that look like a kind of stalemate just ground down a lot of Russian men and material. I mean, they lost 50% of their tanks, for example.

Preet Bharara:

So one of the things that Putin has done, and this I’m very curious to get your reaction on, in the face of these losses, Putin announced a, I think the word is mobilization of up to 300,000 Russians. Now, could you explain to people, is that a conscription, is that a draft, or is that not quite a draft?

Julia Ioffe:

It’s a partial draft.

Preet Bharara:

What does that mean?

Julia Ioffe:

Well, here’s the thing is people don’t really know what it means. And there’s a lot of panic and chaos inside of Russia right now because by this point everybody knows that their government only lies to them and that nobody believes anything the Kremlin is saying to them. So last week the Kremlin announced that… They’re announcing what they called a partial mobilization, that they were calling up, they said 300,000 people who had served before.

So essentially, I guess reservists who were of a certain age and who had previous military experience and who were registered with the state as people who they know. They also know that they’re registered with the state as somebody who could be called up in this kind of situation. Right? Almost immediately we saw IT workers and bankers who had no previous military experience, people in their late 30s getting called up. These numbers were very clearly lies. It wasn’t 300,000. This was clearly pre-planned ages ago.

It has led to such chaos. People were being taken from their workplaces. People were showing up at… Not that they would be exempt from this, but people were showing up at white collar workplaces at banks and IT companies and just taking people from their offices to the military recruitment point. No stop at home, no time to say goodbye to loved ones, et cetera.

They were being told that they would get maybe two weeks of training. Last night, I heard that they were chefs from Michelin star restaurants in Moscow just getting pulled from the line.

Preet Bharara:

Troops got to eat.

Julia Ioffe:

Exactly. And because cooks are… I don’t know their English words for this anymore, but they’re on the government’s list. So people are being snatched from everywhere.

Preet Bharara:

I was of the mind not being an expert that this sudden looking partial mobilization was a sudden in the moment desperate reaction to losses from the counteroffensive. You said a minute ago, this was long planned. Why wouldn’t they have done this earlier given how the war has been going?

Julia Ioffe:

So I think because of what the reactions that you’re seeing inside Russia.

Preet Bharara:

That was anticipated to some degree, yeah.

Julia Ioffe:

I think you can see why they were kicking this can down the road. Until now, Putin has been able to maintain a level of normalcy inside most of Russia especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg and in the big wealthy cities. A kind of normalcy that we saw, for example, here in the US let’s say in New York, and DC, and LA, and San Francisco while the US was fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You wouldn’t be able to tell that the US was fighting two wars, say in 2005 if you went out, I don’t know, on the West Village in New York City in 2005.

I think that was very important for Putin in terms of maintaining domestic support for the war, or at least to passive support for the war. Or to put it another way, a lack of opposition to the war. But because of this counteroffensive, because they were rapidly losing territory. I mean, Russian troops were fleeing and leaving hundreds of tanks in perfect condition. They were losing territory so quickly that in six days Ukraine conquered more territory than Russia conquered in five months.

There was basically an understanding that Russia needed to stand to the bleeding because this is an existential war for Putin. I think he understands and we all understand that if he loses the war, he loses his hold on power. He’s done. He cannot lose this war. So do what Russian leaders of yore have done and throw can and fodder, throw bodies at the meat grinder until the meat grinder breaks.

And what you’re seeing now all weekend, you’re seeing people rising up and you’re seeing insane traffic jams at border crossings all over Russia. Border crossings to Kazakhstan and Mongolia. People crossing the border to Georgia on foot and on scooters. There’s no more airline tickets. Tickets that used to cost $300 now cost $10,000 if you can even get one to Turkey, to Kyrgyzstan. Hotels in Bishkek are sold out completely. And it’s all men fleeing the draft.

You have all over the north caucuses, which are some of the most loyal, kind of politically loyal regions of Russia which have sent some of the most soldiers to the Russian Army and therefore to Ukraine and have had the highest combat deaths. So Dagestan, Ingushetia, they’re rising up. The women are out brawling. These women in headscarves are out brawling with the cops because they’re done. They’re done sending their sons to their deaths.

You have women in Yakutia, these… Because what you’ve also seen in the war is that it’s ethnic minorities doing most of the fighting for Putin’s Pan-Slavic vision. And these ethnic minorities every day deal with such brutal, overt, disgusting racism in Russia. And then they’re the ones, not the Russian blonde, blue eyed boys that are being sent off to fight for Putin’s vision of Slavic nationalism.

There’s a sense of like, “This is enough.” There are protests all over Russia and these women, again, in these ethnic enclaves, there’s a real sense that they have nothing to lose anymore. They’re not scared of the cops. They’re like getting into it physically with riot police. It’s incredible.

Preet Bharara:

Could you talk about the statements of a Russian pop star who I had not heard of, but who is a big deal by everyone’s account? I think you referred to her as something like… And I might get the names of the singers wrong, like a combination of Barbara Streisand, Madonna, Beyonce, and a few more people combined. Could you tell us who she is and why her statements are a big deal and what those statements were?

Julia Ioffe:

Yeah. It’s Alla Pugacheva. I grew up singing her songs. I mean she is a multi-generational pop icon. So yeah, it’s like Barbara Streisand, Cher, Madonna, Beyonce, all rolled into one and multiplied by a thousand because it’s Russia and so you have one pop star.

Preet Bharara:

What did she say?

Julia Ioffe:

Well, her husband is living in exile and he has been vocally against the war. He was labeled a foreign agent. She said, “I would like to be labeled a foreign agent because he is not…” In speaking out against the war, he’s being a true patriot essentially. And I agree with him. She essentially said, “This war is dumb. I’m against a too.” And this is a woman who… This is not her core competency, let’s just say.

Preet Bharara:

But she’s a citizen and she cares about the country. And this is a serious question, does she need to worry that she’s going to fall out of a building?

Julia Ioffe:

Probably not. I think she’s a little bit too much of a sacred cow. That’s the thing is she has never gone against… She is also… She’s so big that she bridges the Soviet and post-Soviet eras. She, especially to somebody like Vladimir Putin, is an icon. She has never gone against Soviet power or Putin. And the fact that she has now come out and said something is a big (censored) deal.

Preet Bharara:

And she has more authority because she’s been towing the line for so long.

Julia Ioffe:

Exactly. And because she is popular among… Opposition people love her. Loyalists love her. Also, maybe like Dolly Parton who everybody kind of loves Dolly Parton.

Preet Bharara:

Who doesn’t love Dolly Parton? So we should not expect her to be in a cell with Alexei Navalny.

Julia Ioffe:

No. But I think that it also shows the fact that this is spinning out of the Kremlin’s control. They’re losing their grip on lots of different parts of Russian society, and I think that’s very telling.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with more of my conversation with Julia Ioffe after this. Can we go back to the mobilization for one second because there’s something else I wanted to ask you, but the efficacy of it. So we’ve been talking about, and we’ll talk more about the consequences for stability in Russia and protests and people turning against Putin. But just as a matter of warfare, my understanding is they don’t have enough weapons for the people who are already mobilized.

I’ve seen some footage of the newly mobilized people holding decades old rusted rifles. Do they even have weaponry enough to give to the newly mobilized folks?

Julia Ioffe:

Well, it depends what units they put them for. So they have lots of rifles. They have lots of Kalashnikovs. They may not have a ton of tanks, but the issue isn’t even that, it’s that throwing bodies at this thing to hold the line isn’t really going to be the thing that does it. And from my understanding from talking to military experts and people at the Pentagon is that this isn’t going to do anything. This isn’t going to make them win the war.

Preet Bharara:

And it’s also upsetting people at home. Was this another mistake?

Julia Ioffe:

Seems like it, yeah. Seems like a big, big mistake. So here’s the other thing. So the official number announced is 300,000, but then you’re getting reports that actually the Kremlin is going for 1.2 million. And both from inside the Kremlin you’re getting these reports that that’s what the Kremlin’s going for, but also Ukranian intelligence is also saying that that’s what they’re hearing. The Russian military is not built for that many people.

I mean, the New York subway is a perfect example. If you have that many people just show up where are you going to put them? Where are they going to sleep? How are you going to feed them? Do you have a million uniforms for them? Just very basically, do you have a million beds for them?

Preet Bharara:

Or food, yeah.

Julia Ioffe:

Yeah, right. Maybe you have a million guns for them, but seems like a bunch of them are rusty as we’ve seen on social media. Do you have a proportionate amount of officers to train them, to command them, to organize them? At the very basic level, military level, there’s an intake processing problem. Even if they took in a number, if they could bite off what they could chew, it still takes months and months for mobilization to have an effect on the battlefield.

Preet Bharara:

There’s a delay and winter is coming as they say.

Julia Ioffe:

Correct. So Ukraine mobilized late February, early March. Total mobilization. We’re seeing that really come into full effect now. August, September was when you really saw that the full effects of that. So six, seven months.

Preet Bharara:

Does this inflection point in the war mean that the West should double down and amp up its support or does it mean they can relax a little bit?

Julia Ioffe:

Absolutely not. I think the West has to double, triple, quadruple down. They have to send more stuff, more weapons, better weapons. Because this is clearly… At this point, even the Kremlin admits it’s winnable for the West. I think the other thing is that the West should prepare for Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon.

Preet Bharara:

I have a lot of questions about this. I’ve been talking to other experts like you off the record about what it means. My first question is when Putin mentioned that possibility in Ukraine, was that an expression of frustration or a deliberate statement of intent?

Julia Ioffe:

I think it was a threat and also of like, “We cannot lose, that this is an existential war, not for us, but for me. I cannot lose this and I will take down everybody with me.” It’s kind of Hitler.

Preet Bharara:

I ask this question of several people, and it’s an obnoxious question to ask, and an impossible question to answer, but people seem to want to answer it, at least off the record. The percentage likelihood of a nuclear weapon being used in this conflict according to one person who I respect a lot, and that person’s mind has gone from well under 1% to 5%. Someone else who follows Russia has said, and this was remarkable and bone chilling to me, thinks that it has gone to 25%. Do you want to answer that question? Do you have a view on the likelihood?

Julia Ioffe:

It’s not zero and it hasn’t been zero since February 24th. The likelihood has gone up since Russia started falling back around Kharkiv and Kherson earlier this month. And the worse the mobilizations going, the worse, the worst going, the higher that likelihood gets. He could also use a tactical nuke on a battlefield and wipe out a couple units of the Ukrainian army. A tactical nuke by the way is much smaller than what was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is something that would take out a few city blocks, kill a lot of people, but it would not take out a whole city, for example. He could use it literally on the battlefield and just destroy a part of the Ukrainian army.

Preet Bharara:

Is he doing this in part or talking about this in part pursuant to what some people call the madman theory so people will be scared and terrified and does he think that kind of threat will have what effect? Before using it, do you think he has a view that mentioning the threat of it will have any beneficial consequence to him at all?

Julia Ioffe:

Yes. I think a lot of it is to play on the fears in the West of the way we’ve been talking about it in the West since the very beginning of the fear of escalation, the fear of it’s spreading. Well, we can’t give the Ukrainians weapon X because Putin might escalate. And it’s like, “Okay, what’s he going to do? Invade Ukraine?” It’s kind of to get in our heads, like you said, it’s the madman theory. The Russian madman theory though is the way the Russians use it is like they’ll (censored) themselves up and be like, “This is what we do to our own people. Imagine what we’ll do to you.”

Preet Bharara:

Right.

Julia Ioffe:

I think that’s part of it. And to say that, “Look, we warned you.” But yeah, I don’t know. I’ve been saying it from the very beginning that this is existential for him and the worse this war is going for him, the more likely he is to use it. And given the domestic situation in Russia, given how quickly things are spiraling out from under control. Now there’s talk that he will close the border in the coming days and even if he doesn’t close the border, that’s everybody’s impression. And so there’s like massive panic inside Russia. It’s spinning out of control. And so I think that the less he feels that he controls the situation inside Russia, the less well he’s doing on the battlefield, the more desperate he gets, the more cornered he is. And again, if he loses this war, it’s over for him.

Preet Bharara:

Does there come a point where forces within Russia have the interest, courage, wherewithal, and decisiveness to take matters into their own hands with respect to Putin? You’ve said a few times in this conversation, if he loses the war he’s done. What does it look like for Putin to be done in real terms?

Julia Ioffe:

I think that it has to come from the elites inside Russia. They’re the only ones who can organize, who know where he is. And those are probably going to be the hardliners, the other people with guns. At some point I think they’re going to take him out because of the mismanagement of the war because he took them into the war to begin with, because he destroyed Russia by destroying Ukraine. He’s destroyed the economy, he’s destroyed the army. He has made it an international pariah. I mean even, Modi and Xi Jinping are-

Preet Bharara:

Oh, you have some great writing about that, which I’m going to get to as well. They’re snubbing him, right?

Julia Ioffe:

They’re snubbing him. As one political scientist noted, it’s as if Modi told him, “Dude, you have to keep your ethno-fascism inside the country. That way nobody cares.”

Preet Bharara:

Here’s what you said, just as you mentioned, you talk about a meeting last week, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization where Putin was set to meet Modi of India and Xi Jinping of China and you wrote quote, “It was impossible to mask the stench of weakness. All the other strong men at the conference could smell the unmistakable whiff of a wounded animal.” And then you also talk about the power play, the famous well-known power play Putin to make people wait. He made the Pope wait, he makes the Queen wait. At this meeting he was made to wait.

Julia Ioffe:

And he was chided in private by everybody. These are G7, G20 countries and he was relying on them because he was always saying like, “Okay, the West has turned against me, but most of the world where most of the population ones is not against me.” The countries where most of the world’s population lives is against the West too. They think the West has gone too far, is too imperialistic, et cetera. But now it turns out those countries are not down with him and they’re telling him, “Wrap this war up.”

Preet Bharara:

As you also write, I think this is exactly right, the meeting in Uzbekistan showed that strong men only want to back other strong men and then only when they’re riding high and can deliver on their promises. What is the point of backing a losing wounded leader sitting a top, a shrinking economy? And that’s as simple as that, isn’t it?

Julia Ioffe:

Nobody wants to back a loser, and he is losing. I think that’s why when everybody said, “Wrap this war up,” because they see he’s losing. He went back and said, “No, I can still win this thing.” And A, announced mobilization as soon as he got back from the summit and B, threatened the world with nuclear weapons, which to us looks insane. But for him is saying, “No, I can still win this thing.”

Preet Bharara:

I followed chess more than I used to because my youngest son has become really, really, really interested in chess. And what’s interesting is the psychology of resigning at some point, even somewhat sophisticated chess players understand that they can keep the game going for many, many more moves. My son has talked to me about how sometimes the opponent keeps playing even though realizing that they don’t have a chance to win because they’re down too many pieces. Is Putin the kind of chess player who will ever resign or wait to be checkmated at the end?

Julia Ioffe:

I don’t think he’ll ever resign. And I think that’s why what will probably happen is some kind of internal coup by some kind of hardliner junta by people who think he has badly mismanaged the war by people who think he has completely destroyed the Russian economy, which he has, who will decide for him that enough is enough.

Preet Bharara:

And what’s the timeline?

Julia Ioffe:

I think that-

Preet Bharara:

Can you give me a date?

Oh, I don’t know.

Julia Ioffe:

Oh, gosh. I’ve studied Russia for long enough to know that making predictions is a foolish, foolish thing. I don’t know, maybe it won’t be a junta. I don’t know. But I think that generally political change in Russia historically is the handy work of the elites. They are the ones who change the political regime. It happens at the top. The elites decide what happens. That’s how the tsar abdicated in February 1917. It’s how the Soviet Union ended in 1991. And I think that’s probably what will happen here. The question is who pushes him out and who takes power? And will they be able to hold onto power?

The provisional government who took over after the tsar abdicated in 1917 was not able to hold onto power because they decided to stay in World War I? That’s the example I keep thinking of. The tsar was pushed out off his throne in February of 1917 because he was so badly managing World War I because nobody wanted… Russian soldiers didn’t want to fight the war. They were deserting in mass… There was hunger and fuel shortages in Russia. There was mass discontent at home and it was the elites who pushed the tsar off his thrown and a provisional government came in and decided, “No, let’s stay in the war and let’s try to manage it.” They were not able to hold onto power.

That’s the example I keep thinking of is this a kind of Nicholas II World War I situation. Because if it is, then there’s a civil war that follows. I do worry that there is a lot of internal violence in Russia that comes after this because of all of the anger, all of the resentment that have piled up after 20 years of Putin inside Russia, especially in the kind of ethnic enclaves. I think it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better in Russia.

Preet Bharara:

So that raises the very important question. Ordinarily, the west and reasonable people will sometimes prefer a strong man or someone whose movements and actions can be predicted because there’s some stability there and they prefer that over complete confusion and instability. Have we reached the point where if the West could wave a magic wand or have some influence over Putin being taken out, would prefer the kind of instability you describe to Putin being in office?

Julia Ioffe:

Well, the thing is that he did that himself on February 24th. The Putin that we had before February 24th, poisoning his opponents poisoning people in Salisbury, England, that was still a Putin that the west could do business with that could squint and hold its nose and do business with. It was still stable enough for the West to deal with.

Preet Bharara:

So your answer to the question is it’s too unstable now. Putin himself is so unstable that the instability of a Putin removal would be preferred.

Julia Ioffe:

I don’t know about that. I mean, I think at this point, it’s like he already set that in motion on February 24th. He’s created so much instability in the world now in the region with refugee flows and energy prices and food shortages and a land war in Europe and the threat of nuclear weapons, and the chaos inside Russia. He has unleashed that instability. It’s already unstable, is what I’m saying and he did that.

Preet Bharara:

This may be an odd way to ask the question, but if Putin were taken out and removed from the scene, permanently removed from the scene by which, you know what I mean, will anyone cry? Does he have anybody who cares about him anymore?

Julia Ioffe:

Yeah, I think there are people who really, genuinely support him. I think those are people of an older generation who watch TV, who have been convinced that they do miss the Soviet Union who still have that Russian imperialistic view of the world. That was essentially the Soviet view of the world. There are a lot of people in Russia who do genuinely like him, and I think they will miss him.

Preet Bharara:

Now that Russia’s on its back foot, is Zelensky’s strategy in the Ukrainian and the Western strategy here not to compromise, to push Russians out of all territory, even to get Crimea back because that’s possible and on the horizon? Or is this an opportunity to figure out a way for everyone to put their arms down in a way that’s acceptable somewhat to both sides? I’m confused as to what the Ukrainian should be doing at this inflection point.

Julia Ioffe:

I don’t know what they should be doing.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, they don’t need to know yet. I mean, look, maybe the strategy is to press on and see how much-

Julia Ioffe:

I think that’s…

Preet Bharara:

… advancement you can get.

Julia Ioffe:

Exactly. I mean, it would be foolish when your opponent is on the back foot, when they’re losing control at home to say, “Should we negotiate?” You should keep fighting. Press your advantage while you have it. But I do think if I were Ukrainian, I’d be scared about this mobilization. Even if it doesn’t do anything, if it doesn’t really the lines of the front, it still might mean a lot more dead Ukrainian soldiers. It might mean a lot more destruction. These nuclear threats, I see them as nuclear threats to Ukraine. It’s terrifying. In that scenario also, why give up?

Preet Bharara:

You wrote a profile of the very famous Russian dissident, Alexei Navalny in 2011, when a lot of people didn’t know who he was. As most people know, he’s sitting in a jail because of Vladimir Putin and because of his outspokenness, Navalny’s outspokenness. Is there a world in which… And we’re getting way ahead of ourselves, but people like to dream. Is there a world in which Navalny has some role in the leadership of Russia? Should Putin make an exit?

Julia Ioffe:

Man, you’re killing me with these hypotheticals. It’s like you’re dealing with a country that can’t agree on its past and you’re asking all these questions about its-

Preet Bharara:

I want you to say something that we can dream is a good thing. That’s what I’m trying to get at.

Julia Ioffe:

Oh, I see. Okay. I mean hopefully, but I don’t know. I really don’t know.

Preet Bharara:

One of the most appropriate answers one can give, but nobody likes whether in cable television or elsewhere is, I don’t know. I respect the I don’t know.

Julia Ioffe:

Yeah, I mean, I think to all of this that’s what’s so scary and I think human beings are really scared of uncertainty. The ground is shifting beneath our feet really quickly right now, and there’s a lot of really terrifying threats being thrown around by some really terrifying people and people are looking for predictions and looking for some certainty, but unfortunately we don’t know. There’s a lot we don’t know and there’s a lot that’s out of our control. There’s not much to say, unfortunately, that I can say that will make you feel better. It’s just scary and that we don’t know. We’ll find out. You’ll find like the rest of us.

Preet Bharara:

Look, just so people understand. Part of why I ask about the predictions, we’re just two civilians on a podcast and we have the luxury of being able to say, I don’t know. As I said, I respect that answer. But in lots of conference rooms and secure calls in this country and around the world, Joe Biden and Jake Sullivan, and our defense secretary, and the intelligence community, and their counterparts in Europe, and in Asia, and in other places, literally are sitting down and asking these questions not for purposes of informing a lay public, but for deciding what they should do, and what course of action they should take.

So it’s interesting for us to talk about the hypotheticals, but those hypotheticals are front and center for actual decision-makers who have access to nuclear weapons and other weapons in the world. Right?

Julia Ioffe:

What I will say is that I am much more reassured by the fact that it is this administration in the White House and not a Trump administration. I think that this administration has handled this conflict and Putin extraordinarily well. I give them really high marks for how they’ve handled it. They’ve been absolutely clear eye on what they’re dealing with in Russia, but also in Ukraine.

At this point, I don’t know. I feel a bit better knowing that they’re the ones in those conference rooms. I’m generally not a kind of trust the government kind of person, but I do feel better that they’re the ones that controls on this side of the ocean.

Preet Bharara:

Before I let you go, can you tell us why you like working at Puck and how people can get your newsletter?

Julia Ioffe:

Oh, I love working at Puck so much.

Preet Bharara:

Because you said something just before you answer. You said something about working at sort of legacy places. That’s the term you use. Whenever I’ve worked at big legacy places, I’ve always had my wings clipped. Why would anybody want to clip your wings?

Julia Ioffe:

Oh, I’m a mouthy woman of a certain age and when I was in my 20s, the older white men who run these legacy places, and it is usually older white men, thought it was cute and feisty, and then you get into your late 30s and then it’s not cute and feisty, it’s difficult. I had one boss tell me that, “You think you’re in Pussy Riot.” I love working at Puck because I get to be myself and I’m told to be myself. And it is a place that is, we are all building this thing together really as a partnership.

It is small. We are all about the same age. We really are strategizing and building this thing together. I spend most of my time reporting and writing, but I’m also in the meetings thinking about how we build this thing out further. It is centered around the writers and we get a say in how this is built and how it’s created. There’s a respect and a validation that comes with that in an environment where you’re told that the industry is dying and whatever.

When you realize, when you’re working at a place like Puck, when you’re compensated in a way that you are at a place like Puck, you realize that it’s not the industry, it’s not journalism that’s dying, it’s the old model that’s dying. And it may not be a bad thing that the old way is dying, but that in fact people are hungry for information. They are hungry for good writing and that maybe just the format needs to be different, the delivery needs to be different.

And it’s just been a blast to build something new and different and to work with colleagues I like and respect and who like and respect me, and where everybody is just their unalloyed selves. It’s just been an unbelievable experience. It’s the best job I’ve ever had because it also doesn’t feel like a job.

Preet Bharara:

That was a great explanation, but I give it an A, not A plus because you haven’t told folks how they can read your writing. Your colleagues are going to be very upset if you don’t do that.

Julia Ioffe:

You go to puck.news/juliaioffe, I-O-F-F-E. And you can sign up there.

Preet Bharara:

Julia Ioffe, thanks for being on the show. Thanks for the conversation. I really appreciate it.

Julia Ioffe:

Thank you so much for having me.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Julia Ioffe continues for members of the CAFE Insider community. To try out the membership for just $1 for a month, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider.

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Julia Ioffe.

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics and justice. Tweet them to me at Preet Bharara with the #askpreet or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24-PREET, or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.

Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producers are Adam Waller and Matthew Billy. The CAFE team is David Kurlander, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, Nat Weiner, Jake Kaplan, Sean Walsh, Namita Shah, and Claudia Hernandez. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.