Zardnaar
Deity
Perhaps still be worse in Russia though. May and June should be interesting.
Russia's Future
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Perhaps still be worse in Russia though. May and June should be interesting.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,147
such defeatist talk . You would think Ukraine would be in general offensive in the Summer , invading Crimea even . Mopping up to take years ? That's pro Elon Musk . Whose supporters unhappy with his military laurels want Pentagon to buy more Starmink terminals so that they can post viral videos from WW ll to teach guerilla warfare to Ukranians . Along the lines of one to combat against Putin . Back in the days of "true" imperialism , those people who found wars too uncomfortable would at least go to Africa and shoot lions , if not lndia for tigers .
Zardnaar
Deity
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
can't believe anyone is saying Russia is winning when they lost lands around Kyiv and failed to capture it. sure they still control some lands around Ukraine BUT Ukraine is on defensive war while Russia is on offensive war. Dose people not know difference between offensive war and defensive war?
Zardnaar
Deity
Well they're still in Ukraine and still attacking.
They're not doing that well but Russia is still winning atm all things considered.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Western military commenters early on pointed out that the move around Kiev wasn't an offensive into the city - it lacked the logistics to do so. It was a feint.
I waited to see. The russians have whole support units to built railways fast, in order to extend that support - critical stuff like carrying huge quantities of ammo for artillery. They never bothered to deploy them. Neither did they bother to capture existing railways a little further east. So they were correct: the move around Kiev was probably intimidatory, and failed at that, but it wasn't a military offensive designed to capture and hold that land, much less the city. If it had been, railways would have been built to support it.
The whole point seems to have been to isolate and then destroy the western concentrations of ukraine's armed forces, while also wrecking any military logistics of Ukraine. But - and this is also symptomatic of possible aims -leaving bridges intact. Imo it has become very clear that the plan is to eliminate Ukraine's remaining army, now fixed in position and lacking even the ability to retreat orderly, and then to cross the don and take the west against weak resistance. War on the cheap, without having to use numerically superior forces. A rather novel demonstration of it, it usually can't be done between big armies. And Ukraine's army was big, in fact the biggest in Europe after Russia's. This is Europe's largest country doing quick work of disabling Europe's second largest country's ability to wage war while actually using fewer soldiers (but more weapons and technology) to achieve it. Commenting on this is "bad for morale", for the narrative actually, and military commenters have rather wisely for the current situation and future career paused their public comments, I've noticed. Privately the assessment is bleak both militarily and politically. If only the politicians had shut up rather than going all in, it could have been brushed aside. Now, the outcome cannot but draw attention.
Time will tell, as always. My guess is that Putin is coming out of this stronger even though Russia too,as the rest of Europe, will suffer economically from the disruption, and will suffer some tens of thousands of casualties to grab about 2/3 of Ukraine. Rump Ukraine will be lobbed as a kind of hand grenade for the EU to deal with. We'll get 10 million refugees from there, plus tens of million more from Africa fleeing hunger caused by the trade disruption resulting from the stupid sanctions.That will break Europe politically for years to come. Probably to the point of shooting to kill anyone crossing the Mediterranean.
The history parallel I feat the most is such a cultural turn right (disguised as something else, mind you) that we will see neocolonial adventures over North Africa to win some wars and "secure the southern border". Much easier to fight people who can't shoot advanced missiles back. Much like intensified colonial adventures were an outflow for the defeated french second republic after the second empire got mauled by the germans.
A lot was put at stake in Ukraine, stupidly. Deescalating and avoiding major problems for the "losing side"m whichever it is, is now hard. And the people who kept escalating haven't thought through the risks because they're evidently shortsighted.
A "western win" again Russia required "regime change" there, with anarchy on a country with the largest nuclear arsenal and this time no delusions of friendship from "the west", no fascination with it as it had had during the time of the dissolution of the USSR. The possibility of an end-of-civilization event is high. It's insane.
A "russian win" with the attendant humiliation of NATO and the EU politicians, government collapses, and the blowback from sanctions on third countries leading to migrations of millions of people on top of the millions caused by the war, with so destabilize Europe that Russia resuming mutually advantageous commercial relations is out of the picture. It gets a wrecked Ukraine to rebuild and a wrecked Europe to fight over for influence with the US, much as it had to deal with central Europe wrecked after WW2. It's a drain even if western Europe distracts itself with massacring africans. Russia breaks out from the thread of strategic encirclement but to deal with a harsher and more dangerous, chaotic world. It probably does not improve its security anyway, however much of a land buffer it acquires.
I waited to see. The russians have whole support units to built railways fast, in order to extend that support - critical stuff like carrying huge quantities of ammo for artillery. They never bothered to deploy them. Neither did they bother to capture existing railways a little further east. So they were correct: the move around Kiev was probably intimidatory, and failed at that, but it wasn't a military offensive designed to capture and hold that land, much less the city. If it had been, railways would have been built to support it.
The whole point seems to have been to isolate and then destroy the western concentrations of ukraine's armed forces, while also wrecking any military logistics of Ukraine. But - and this is also symptomatic of possible aims -leaving bridges intact. Imo it has become very clear that the plan is to eliminate Ukraine's remaining army, now fixed in position and lacking even the ability to retreat orderly, and then to cross the don and take the west against weak resistance. War on the cheap, without having to use numerically superior forces. A rather novel demonstration of it, it usually can't be done between big armies. And Ukraine's army was big, in fact the biggest in Europe after Russia's. This is Europe's largest country doing quick work of disabling Europe's second largest country's ability to wage war while actually using fewer soldiers (but more weapons and technology) to achieve it. Commenting on this is "bad for morale", for the narrative actually, and military commenters have rather wisely for the current situation and future career paused their public comments, I've noticed. Privately the assessment is bleak both militarily and politically. If only the politicians had shut up rather than going all in, it could have been brushed aside. Now, the outcome cannot but draw attention.
Time will tell, as always. My guess is that Putin is coming out of this stronger even though Russia too,as the rest of Europe, will suffer economically from the disruption, and will suffer some tens of thousands of casualties to grab about 2/3 of Ukraine. Rump Ukraine will be lobbed as a kind of hand grenade for the EU to deal with. We'll get 10 million refugees from there, plus tens of million more from Africa fleeing hunger caused by the trade disruption resulting from the stupid sanctions.That will break Europe politically for years to come. Probably to the point of shooting to kill anyone crossing the Mediterranean.
The history parallel I feat the most is such a cultural turn right (disguised as something else, mind you) that we will see neocolonial adventures over North Africa to win some wars and "secure the southern border". Much easier to fight people who can't shoot advanced missiles back. Much like intensified colonial adventures were an outflow for the defeated french second republic after the second empire got mauled by the germans.
A lot was put at stake in Ukraine, stupidly. Deescalating and avoiding major problems for the "losing side"m whichever it is, is now hard. And the people who kept escalating haven't thought through the risks because they're evidently shortsighted.
A "western win" again Russia required "regime change" there, with anarchy on a country with the largest nuclear arsenal and this time no delusions of friendship from "the west", no fascination with it as it had had during the time of the dissolution of the USSR. The possibility of an end-of-civilization event is high. It's insane.
A "russian win" with the attendant humiliation of NATO and the EU politicians, government collapses, and the blowback from sanctions on third countries leading to migrations of millions of people on top of the millions caused by the war, with so destabilize Europe that Russia resuming mutually advantageous commercial relations is out of the picture. It gets a wrecked Ukraine to rebuild and a wrecked Europe to fight over for influence with the US, much as it had to deal with central Europe wrecked after WW2. It's a drain even if western Europe distracts itself with massacring africans. Russia breaks out from the thread of strategic encirclement but to deal with a harsher and more dangerous, chaotic world. It probably does not improve its security anyway, however much of a land buffer it acquires.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
You don't use elite forces on a feint and get your VDV get slaughtered doing it
Along with the time of year invading later winter heading into mid season. You only do that if you expect a quick victory or are incompetent pick one or both.
Along with the time of year invading later winter heading into mid season. You only do that if you expect a quick victory or are incompetent pick one or both.
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,491
During WWI, Germany and A-H controlled foreign territory without having their own compromised for almost entire war, yet they lost. The parallel with Ukraine war is apt, as the deciding factor will be exhaustion of the will and ability to continue the war, just as it was in WWI.
Zardnaar
Deity
I don't think Russia can win in traditional sense they might win via holding dirt and saying "come at me bro".
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
Yeah like Germany was "winning" after their defeat in Stalingrad.
Zardnaar
Deity
Well Russia hasn't been smacked fiwn that hard yet.
I have my suspicions what's gonna happen.
Kupe Navigator
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,848
They have retreated back to donbass region. THAT is losing like Germany post Stalingrad. Contrary to popular belief Germany did NOT immediately retreated straight away after Stalingard.
Zardnaar
Deity
Germans lost an army at Stalingrad comparatively Russia got punched in the face.
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,491
That "dirt" is inhabited by Ukrainians who aren't fond of the occupation. Dealing with that and attacking Ukrainian military would be too much for them IMO.
Russia already lost more troops in Ukraine than they officially lost in those 10 years in Afghanistan, about 10% of troops that participated in the invasion from the beginning. The total numbers might be low, but proportionally, they effectively lost an army already.
U.S. Withholds Sanctions on a Very Close Putin Associate: His Reputed Girlfriend
Officials have a sanctions package ready, but they continue to weigh the potential backlash for blacklisting the 39-year-old former Olympic gymnast
Several weeks have passed since the U.S. and its allies first imposed sanctions on Russia’s biggest companies and its business and political leaders, all the way up to President Vladimir Putin.
Officials have a sanctions package ready, but they continue to weigh the potential backlash for blacklisting the 39-year-old former Olympic gymnast
Several weeks have passed since the U.S. and its allies first imposed sanctions on Russia’s biggest companies and its business and political leaders, all the way up to President Vladimir Putin.
Yet one person has been spared, in a last-minute decision: Alina Kabaeva, the woman the U.S. government believes to be Mr. Putin’s girlfriend and the mother of at least three of his children. Ms. Kabaeva, a former Olympic champion rhythmic gymnast known in the sport for her extreme flexibility and an international doping scandal, is suspected of playing a role in hiding Mr. Putin’s personal wealth overseas, U.S. officials said, and remains a potential sanctions target.
The belief among U.S. officials debating the move is that sanctioning Ms. Kabaeva would be deemed so personal a blow to Mr. Putin that it could further escalate tensions between Russia and the U.S. The 69-year-old Mr. Putin has never acknowledged a relationship with Ms. Kabaeva, a 39-year-old former cover model for Russian Vogue.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Alina Kabaeva during a meeting with the Russian Olympic team at the Kremlin on Nov. 4, 2004.PHOTO: ITAR-TASS/REUTERS
The U.S. Treasury Department, which according to U.S. officials prepared the sanctions package against Ms. Kabaeva, now on hold, declined to comment. U.S. officials said that the action against Ms. Kabaeva isn’t off the table. The Kremlin has long denied any relationship between Mr. Putin and Ms. Kabaeva. Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, didn’t respond to requests for comment. Ms. Kabaeva, who has denied a relationship with Mr. Putin, couldn't be reached for comment. In 2008, Mr. Putin said in response to newspaper reports of his alleged relationship with Ms. Kabaeva: “I have always disliked those who, with their snotty noses and erotic fantasies, break into other people’s private affairs.”
Mr. Putin lives a near-monastic lifestyle dedicated to public service and with almost no time for a personal life, according to portrayals of him in Russian state media. The Russian leader has two daughters from his past marriage to Ludmilla Shkrebneva—Katerina Tikhonova, 35, and Maria Vorontsova, 36. On Saturday, Ms. Kabaeva made a rare public appearance at Moscow’s VTB Arena to present a rhythmic gymnastics performance for the “Alina” festival, a gymnastics exhibition named for her. She stood in front of a billboard covered in “Z” logos, the symbol for support of Russia’s military operations in Ukraine.
“Every family has a war-related story, and we must pass these stories to next generations,” she said. Russian gymnastics would become stronger because of international isolation, she added: “We will only win from this.” The Alina festival is scheduled to be broadcast in May, part of celebrations to commemorate Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. Russian analysts have said Mr. Putin could use the celebration to proclaim a military victory in Ukraine. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Mr. Putin’s two adult daughters. Moving against Ms. Kabaeva, described by the U.S. government as Mr. Putin’s “mistress,” is among the actions deemed confrontational enough to further complicate efforts for a negotiated peace in Ukraine, officials said.
The Treasury and State departments typically work together to prepare sanctions packages, incorporating intelligence and other information. The National Security Council often has to sign off before a package is announced. In Ms. Kabaeva’s case, the Treasury department had prepared the sanctions against her, but the NSC made an 11th hour decision to pull her name from a list set to be announced.
“We have prepared sanctions on a number of people who haven’t yet been sanctioned, and we continue to think about when to impose those sanctions for maximum impact,” a U.S. official said in response to questions from The Wall Street Journal.
Ms. Kabaeva and her family have been enriched by connections to people in Mr. Putin’s inner circle, according to U.S. officials. A classified U.S. intelligence assessment during the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, names Ms. Kabaeva as a beneficiary of Mr. Putin’s wealth, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
Russian President Vladimir Putin greeting Olympic gymnast Alina Kabaeva. center, during a meeting in 2004.PHOTO: SERGEI CHIRIKOV/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
A representative of jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny urged U.S. lawmakers on April 6 to impose sanctions on Ms. Kabaeva, claiming she was allegedly helping to hide Mr. Putin’s personal wealth. The representative didn’t provide any evidence during her congressional testimony.
Western officials say they don’t know Ms. Kabaeva’s exact position in the Kremlin power structure. Debate over imposing sanctions on her reflects the view by many Western officials about Mr. Putin’s personal grip on power—that a former gymnast could be one of the country’s most influential figures because of her proximity to the Russian leader.
Ms. Kabaeva has stayed in Switzerland for long stretches of time, according to U.S. and European security officials. U.S. officials briefed on Ms. Kabaeva’s movements said she had lived in a high-walled mansion with a helipad in Cologny, near Geneva. A U.S. official said Mr. Putin’s associates conducted business there, arriving and leaving by helicopter. Ms. Kabaeva was rarely spotted in Cologny, a secluded spot for billionaires and sports stars in the hills above Lake Geneva, officials said.
The Ukraine government has stepped up calls on the West to pursue actions against her. Ukraine’s parliament this month wrote to the government of Switzerland demanding it ban Ms. Kabaeva from the country and seize any real estate she owns. The Swiss government said it had no indication she was in the country.
Related Video
Putin’s Family and Wealth: What We Do and Don’t Know
Putin’s Family and Wealth: What We Do and Don’t KnowPlay video: Putin’s Family and Wealth: What We Do and Don’t Know
The secrecy surrounding Vladimir Putin’s private life and wealth has made it a challenge for the West to sanction him. WSJ’s Ann Simmons explains what we do and don’t know about the Russian leader’s family and assets. Photo composite by Daniel Orton.
Signature move
Ms. Kabaeva was born in Uzbekistan and left high school early to pursue her sport. She was 21 when she won a gold medal in rhythmic gymnastics at the 2004 Olympics in Athens. She became a national star, known for a signature move, which was named the “Kabaeva” in the rhythmic gymnastics rulebook. That earned her the informal title of “Russia’s most flexible woman.” Some of the sport’s purists viewed her extreme contortions as a gimmick. Yet she won 21 European Championship medals, 14 World Championship medals and two Olympic medals, including a bronze at the 2000 Sydney Games.
In 2001, Ms. Kabaeva was stripped of her medals at the world championships in Madrid after testing positive for a banned diuretic. She claimed the substance came from tainted pills she bought at a nearby pharmacy. Ms. Kabaeva served a one-year ban and returned to win the following World Championships and the gold medal in Athens.
Russian gymnast Alina Kabaeva performing a signature move during her routine in the rhythmic gymnastic individual exercise competition at the 1998 Goodwill Games held in Uniondale, N.Y.PHOTO: TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Her name was first mentioned on the Kremlin website in 2001. Mr. Putin attended a sports show and was photographed with Ms. Kabaeva, who was 18. The Moskovsky Korrespondent, a Russian tabloid, reported in 2008 that Mr. Putin, who was married at the time, and Ms. Kabaeva were engaged. The daily newspaper was shut down days later by its owner, National Media Co. after Mr. Putin furiously denied the story. Around that time, Ms. Kabaeva retired from gymnastics and entered politics as a lawmaker for Mr. Putin’s ruling United Russia party. She received a salary of 11 million rubles, about $140,000.
Ms. Kabaeva left parliament in 2014 to become chairwoman of Russia’s New Media Group, which controls major pro-government TV, radio and news websites. She was appointed by NMG owner Yuri Kovalchuk, the largest shareholder in Rossiya Bank. U.S. officials have sanctioned Rossiya, alleging it was used by Mr. Putin’s close associates. Ms. Kabaeva’s annual salary in 2018 was the equivalent of around $12 million, according to leaked documents from Russia’s Federal Tax Service. NMG removed her name and picture from its website on April 6, shortly before the latest round of sanctions. NMG didn’t respond to requests for comment, and Ms. Kabaeva didn’t respond to questions submitted to the company.
Alina Kabaeva applauding the speech of Vladimir Putin to the United Russia Party on Nov., 27, 2011 in Moscow. Mr. Putin. prime minister at the time, was accepting the nomination to run again for president.PHOTO: SASHA MORDOVETS/GETTY IMAGES
Since around 2013, Ms. Kabaeva and her relatives have acquired six apartments, two houses and acres of land in four of Russia’s most exclusive regions, according to data from Russia’s land registry, Rosreestr.
Among those properties, Ms. Kabaeva’s 87-year old grandmother and Ms. Kabaeva’s mother and sister took title of luxury homes from businessmen close to Mr. Putin, including a 2,300 square-foot property in St. Petersburg, as well as luxury apartments on a high-end Moscow street and in the resort town of Sochi, according to the land registry. The family members didn’t respond to a request for comment emailed to Ms. Kabaeva’s company.
Carrying a torch
In 2013, Mr. Putin announced he had separated from Ms. Shkrebneva, his wife of 30 years and a former Aeroflot cabin crew member. “It was a joint decision,” he said. “We hardly see each other, each of us has our own life.” Their divorce was completed the following year. Ms. Kabaeva was interviewed on state television afterward and said she had met someone “whom I love very much.” She declined to share the person’s name.
Vladimir Putin and Ludmilla Shkrebneva, his wife at the time, during a service on May 7, 2012, to mark the start of his term as president.PHOTO: RIA NOVOSTI/REUTERS
Media reports of a romantic relationship flared when Ms. Kabaeva was selected as a torchbearer at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Mr. Putin, responding to media speculation that he had personally picked Ms. Kabaeva, told reporters he wouldn’t “interfere in the process.”
Swiss, U.S. and European officials said Ms. Kabaeva traveled to Switzerland and gave birth to Mr. Putin’s child in 2015. She stayed in one of Europe’s most expensive maternity clinics—the Sant’Anna—overlooking Lake Lugano. When Mr. Putin wasn’t seen in public for eight days around that time, his spokesman, Mr. Peskov, addressed rumors that the president was with Ms. Kabaeva: “Information about the birth of a baby fathered by Vladimir Putin doesn’t correspond to reality,” he said.
Following the birth, Ms. Kabaeva spent more of her time in Switzerland, at both a luxury residence in Lugano, overlooking the city’s mountain lake, and the high-walled compound in Cologny, U.S. and European officials said.
In 2019, Ms. Kabaeva gave birth to twins in Moscow, U.S. officials said, though it wasn’t officially reported. The website of newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets, owned by one of Mr. Putin’s closest friends, published a news item about the twins. The article, which didn’t name a father, was quickly removed. In the weeks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, media reports that Ms. Kabaeva had resided in Switzerland made big news in the historically neutral Alpine nation. The Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police released a statement saying, “We have no indication of the presence of this person in Switzerland.” It made no mention of Ms. Kabaeva by name.
In March, Switzerland announced it had frozen $6.17 billion worth of Russian assets covered by sanctions, a fraction of the approximately $213 billion worth of Russian wealth in the country, according to estimates by Switzerland’s banking lobby. The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the agency overseeing sanctions, has faced criticism from the U.S. and Ukraine for not being able to handle calls to do more to bottle up Russian assets there.
The challenge is guessing what impact, if any, would come from imposing sanctions on Ms. Kabaeva, U.S. officials said of the continuing government deliberations in the matter. They acknowledged the sanctions wouldn’t change the battlefield dynamics in Ukraine. There is also the chance, said an official from the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, that Mr. Putin would “respond in an aggressive way.”
Justin Scheck contributed to his article.
Write to Vivian Salama at vivian.salama@wsj.com, Joe Parkinson at joe.parkinson@wsj.com and Drew Hinshaw at drew.hinshaw@wsj.com
