Kiev Is Burning

[Roman Alymov]

14 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Those are way different kinds of 'left'. 

Yes, they are the sort of "left" (usually associated with Trotsky, but not only him) who have lost internal political struggle in  USSR in 1920th-1930th to more "state-minded" branch of "left". Still, they are very much "left".

17 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

 Besides, why would it be impossible for an anti-Western ideology to originate in the West? Plenty of retards like that even now, 'let's accept a gorillion people who hate our guts, no human being is illegal!!!1111one!!!' 

   The problem is, you are making typical mistakes of post-Soviets: to see West as some sort of strongly anti-Socialist (and anti-Russian), white racist power, while everything that is not matching is labeled "anti-Western". Meanwhile, real West is way more complex, and in addition to "West" you would like to see there are other trends present. Effectively, your version of West is quite matching Soviet propaganda version of West, with only difference you see in positive light the same features that were considered by Soviet propaganda as negative. 

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Yes, they are the sort of "left" (usually associated with Trotsky, but not only him) who have lost internal political struggle in  USSR in 1920th-1930th to more "state-minded" branch of "left". Still, they are very much "left".

   The problem is, you are making typical mistakes of post-Soviets: to see West as some sort of strongly anti-Socialist (and anti-Russian), white racist power, while everything that is not matching is labeled "anti-Western". Meanwhile, real West is way more complex, and in addition to "West" you would like to see there are other trends present. Effectively, your version of West is quite matching Soviet propaganda version of West, with only difference you see in positive light the same features that were considered by Soviet propaganda as negative. 

Or Alexandra Kollontai, the 'free love' bullshit and all. Still, Trostky wanted 'armies of labor' and a permanent revolution, including 'liberating Indians suffering from oppresion'. Luckily, the current crop of Western shitlibs are far more interested in virtue signaling than actually doing hard and difficult things. But yes, they do have some things in common, the more radical ones would 'abolish the family', such ideas were present in early Soviet Russia/USSR too. 

No, I do not see the West that way, I only acknowledge that it was like that at some point, it should be like that and possibly even could be like that in the future. Then again I'd prefer the 'right-wing' turn of the West that has maintained as much of global dominance as possible as opposed to the West that has conceded it.

[Stefan Kotsch]

16 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Photos from recent award ceremony (President Zelensky was giving decorations to 4th NatGuard brigade soldiers)

You want to sell us the coat of arms of the 4th Operational Battalion 'Power of Freedom' as the entire 44th Brigade and the entire Ukrainian Army?  A nice try. When one desperately seeks a sense of this senseless war for oneself.

 

15 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

communism is entirely West-born ideology.

And the Sovietunion have brought this ideology to bloody perfection. 

To stay with symbols. The flag of the Soviet Union has also been "flying" over Russian troops since February 2022, it sticks to the sleeves of uniforms. To motivate themselves to reverse the greatest catastrophe in Soviet history. The Collapse of the Soviet Union. As Putin said.

Edited November 9 by Stefan Kotsch

[old_goat]

17 hours ago, urbanoid said:

I'm talking about stopping the march of communism and other anti-Western filth as if it was a good thing, which it is. 

Thats because you do not understand how the world works. It is actually much harder to find communists than you would ever think. What you perceive to be "communists" are the globalist elite who dictate everything in the "western" world. Scum like the antifa, BLM, feminists, anarchists are basically misled, brainwashed, weak minded people, used by the above mentioned elite to "divide and conquer". "Liberals" and "Conservatives" are both playthings of the globalists, and neither side realizes this due to the extensive brainwashing campaign. There is no "evil left" and "good right" in the western world, only globalist capitalists. They are the real enemy, not the "communists". And its the most funny (and sad) thing that the woke leftists, who frequently call themselves "communitsts" are so stupid that they do not see that they are actually the most useful servants of global capitalism.

So yes, you are talking about "anti-western filth", and you do not realize that this group, the globalist capitalist elite is the most western thing ever invented. So much about your "correct western global order".

True communists realize the above* and they would never support movements like antifa, BLM, feminism and such. Actually I have talked to some of them, and asked their opinion about the "woke left". All said basically that they would immediately send these morons to Gulag. Inversely, if you would send a group of woke leftists back in time to a socialist country, they would think they arrived in nazi germany. 

* Nationalists (NOT conservatives!), like myself too

[urbanoid]

45 minutes ago, old_goat said:

Thats because you do not understand how the world works. It is actually much harder to find communists than you would ever think. What you perceive to be "communists" are the globalist elite who dictate everything in the "western" world. Scum like the antifa, BLM, feminists, anarchists are basically misled, brainwashed, weak minded people, used by the above mentioned elite to "divide and conquer". "Liberals" and "Conservatives" are both playthings of the globalists, and neither side realizes this due to the extensive brainwashing campaign. There is no "evil left" and "good right" in the western world, only globalist capitalists. They are the real enemy, not the "communists". And its the most funny (and sad) thing that the woke leftists, who frequently call themselves "communitsts" are so stupid that they do not see that they are actually the most useful servants of global capitalism.

So yes, you are talking about "anti-western filth", and you do not realize that this group, the globalist capitalist elite is the most western thing ever invented. So much about your "correct western global order".

True communists realize the above* and they would never support movements like antifa, BLM, feminism and such. Actually I have talked to some of them, and asked their opinion about the "woke left". All said basically that they would immediately send these morons to Gulag. Inversely, if you would send a group of woke leftists back in time to a socialist country, they would think they arrived in nazi germany. 

* Nationalists (NOT conservatives!), like myself too

And while the goal is to fix those issues, I'd rather have them fixed without giving up global western hegemony, simple as. 

[seahawk]

The problem is that those in power really do not care about east or west, left or right - normal people are just worker ants . They are replaceable and should be available for cheap. 

If you can buy a car of have enough money does not really matter when the vision is to move the human race into space. Which to be honest is not even wrong, as that is needed for the long term survival of the human race, the same is culling the herd on earth.  

Edited November 9 by seahawk

[JWB]

23 hours ago, mkenny said:

They had serious effects on the Autumn 1944 campaigns. 

No. Those negative effects were caused by ammo and fuel shortages. The Western Allies still outnumbered the axis by a large degree.

[JWB]

22 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

And why, on your opinion, "US packed and went home"?

It is not so much opinion as it is fact western military intelligence believed Hanoi was puppet of China. When this was proven wrong there was no reason to stay. Problem in Vietnam was not even Vietnam. It was Cambodia where Chinese puppet was Khmer Rouge. Even if USA had crushed N. Vietnam war would continue in the South because China would order KR to attack SVN. https://www.britannica.com/place/Cambodia/Vietnamese-intervention

[JWB]

On 11/8/2025 at 11:18 AM, mkenny said:

Even with a few token Allies the USA  was defeated in Vietnam. 

I wasn't aware Ford signed surrender document.

[mkenny]

7 minutes ago, JWB said:

I wasn't aware Ford signed surrender document.

Refusing to face reality does not change reality. 

[JWB]

Is putin trying to take all of Donetsk?

 

[JWB]

14 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Refusing to face reality does not change reality. 

The reality is that war ended when the President of that country lost his nerve and surrendered. That is on him not the USA.

[sunday]

Until WWII, British policy of balance of power means to support the 2nd. stronger European power against the strongest one.

Quote

 

To British statesmen, maintaining a balance of power was dogma. In 1938, Lord Londonderry, back from a meeting with Hitler, wrote Churchill, “I should like to get out of your mind what appears to be a strong anti-German obsession.”71 Churchill replied that Londonderry was “mistaken in supposing that I have an anti-German obsession,” and went on to explain:

British policy for four hundred years has been to oppose the strongest power in Europe by weaving together a combination of other countries strong enough to face the bully. Sometimes it is Spain, sometimes the French monarchy, sometimes the French Empire, sometimes Germany. I have no doubt about who it is now. But if France set up to claim the over-lordship of Europe, I should equally endeavour to oppose them. It is thus through the centuries we have kept our liberties and maintained our life and power.

TWICE THIS POLICY would bring Britain into war with Germany until, by 1945, Britain was too weak to play the role any longer. She would lose her empire because of what Lord Salisbury had said in 1877 was “the commonest error in politics … sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”

 

Buchanan, Patrick J.. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (English Edition) (p. 39). Crown

Perhaps to view current Russia as the old Soviet Russia could be a mistake. Even a fatal mistake.

Moreover, from the same book:

Quote

Moreover, the Kaiser failed to see the strategic crisis he had created. To reach the Atlantic, German warships would have to traverse the North Sea and pass through the Channel within sight of Dover, or sail around the Scottish coast near the naval base of the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow.

It was an irrevocable fact of geography that the British Isles cut athwart all German overseas routes.… Mahan in 1902 described the situation very clearly. “The dilemma of Great Britain is that she cannot help commanding the approaches to Germany by the very means essential to her own existence as a state of the first order.” Obviously Britain was not going to surrender the keys to her islands and empire.

Buchanan, Patrick J.. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (English Edition) (pp. 35-36). Crown.

Had the German Empire the right to build a strong fleet? Yes.

Had the British Empire reasons to worry about that fleet? Also yes.

Sometimes, in order to maintain peace, one should not acquire capabilities that make neighboring countries to fear for its existence.

Ukraine in NATO is a menace to the status of Russia, at least in the view of Russians.

Russophobes could see that as a good thing, should not care, and would talk about showing the country "her place in the world", or even forcing her into that place.

Problem with that is, one never should poke a bear one wants to kill, it is way more sensible to begin by shooting it, unless the corralled beast decides it is better to die in the act of killing its killers.

[Stefan Kotsch]

16 minutes ago, sunday said:

Ukraine in NATO is a menace to the status of Russia, at least in the view of Russians.

The point is that Ukraine is removed from political influence and the military threat of Russia in NATO. However, the Kremlin sees Ukraine as its property and as part of Russia.

The British (and the west) wanted to maintain the status quo. But Russia wants to change it with all (!) its might. It has been underestimated that Russia is ready to break all treaties and agreements that it has signed itself in order to achieve the goal. This is a completely different starting point than before the First World War.

[old_goat]

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

And while the goal is to fix those issues, I'd rather have them fixed without giving up global western hegemony, simple as. 

And that is why it will never succeed. Because as you said: "global western hegemony". This immediately makes the globalists the leaders again and we are back to step one. Alliances of a few countries (like the now dead V4) are okay, but when one superpower (USA) is dominating, then it will not work, because it will force its will on its vassals. 

[urbanoid]

12 minutes ago, old_goat said:

And that is why it will never succeed. Because as you said: "global western hegemony". This immediately makes the globalists the leaders again and we are back to step one. Alliances of a few countries (like the now dead V4) are okay, but when one superpower (USA) is dominating, then it will not work, because it will force its will on its vassals. 

Yes, 'global' as in 'the unipolar world', i.e. what we've had for the last 30+ years. 

There will still be two blocks (as de facto there are now already), but the other one should be kept in geopolitical cage (Central/Eastern Europe for Russia and China surrounded by the string of US allies and military bases as it is) and thus on a permanent defensive. 

The idea of a concert of powers and also the recently mentioned British idea of the balance of power are by far the worst, those are exactly the things that led to both World Wars. They are especially bad for small and medium countries on the edges of others' spheres of influences, as they can become 'currency' themselves. 

[mkenny]

2 hours ago, JWB said:

The reality is that war ended when the President of that country lost his nerve and surrendered. That is on him not the USA.

USA Lost. You have had long enough get over it. 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The point is that Ukraine is removed from political influence and the military threat of Russia in NATO.

That is most definitely not how Russia views the situation. It is important to understand Russia views NATO as a potentially offensive alliance, regardless of how crazy it would be to get that war by committee started. But on the flip side, there’s never going to be any security guarantees that actually make Ukraine feel safe exactly because Russia invaded with the intent to take the whole country.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, old_goat said:

And that is why it will never succeed. Because as you said: "global western hegemony". This immediately makes the globalists the leaders again and we are back to step one. Alliances of a few countries (like the now dead V4) are okay, but when one superpower (USA) is dominating, then it will not work, because it will force its will on its vassals. 

US hegemony will only be replaced with Chinese hegemony and a different set of oligarchs. If anything, oppression via information control becomes more acceptable, as the country that absolutely perfected it takes control of economic and data globally. There’s no break away from globalism going down that route, just an exchange of masters.

[Roman Alymov]

8 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

You want to sell us the coat of arms of the 4th Operational Battalion 'Power of Freedom' as the entire 44th Brigade and the entire Ukrainian Army?  A nice try. When one desperately seeks a sense of this senseless war for oneself.

No need for me to sell you anything - it is your Government who is taking money from you to pass to this nice people with nice symbols

8 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

To stay with symbols. The flag of the Soviet Union has also been "flying" over Russian troops since February 2022, it sticks to the sleeves of uniforms. 

  Actually much earlier, from Chechen Wars time  - since it was the symbol of de-facto rebelian against pro-Western comprador rule.

8 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

You want to sell us the coat of arms of the 4th Operational Battalion 'Power of Freedom' as the entire 44th Brigade and the entire Ukrainian Army?  A nice try. When one desperately seeks a sense of this senseless war for oneself.

 

And the Sovietunion have brought this ideology to bloody perfection. 

To stay with symbols. The flag of the Soviet Union has also been "flying" over Russian troops since February 2022, it sticks to the sleeves of uniforms. To motivate themselves to reverse the greatest catastrophe in Soviet history. The Collapse of the Soviet Union. As Putin said.

Nice to see you do not understand the meaning of Soviet Red Flag in contemporary Russian political culture, and the extent of changes return of this flag (as well as old Empire flag) is indicating. It means you (or, rather, your experts and media who are supposed to explain and communicate this knowlege to you) are even more incompetent then your politicians.

  Enjoy

[Roman Alymov]

FPV drones and, later, Tornado-S vs. pro-Ukr crossing over Oskol river https://t.me/milinfolive/160133

Note how small is the damage done by drones compared to one caused by Tornado

Previously, improvised crossing made of soil and steel pipes was there, but it was also destroyed

[seahawk]

12 hours ago, sunday said:

Until WWII, British policy of balance of power means to support the 2nd. stronger European power against the strongest one.

Buchanan, Patrick J.. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (English Edition) (p. 39). Crown

Perhaps to view current Russia as the old Soviet Russia could be a mistake. Even a fatal mistake.

Moreover, from the same book:

Buchanan, Patrick J.. Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (English Edition) (pp. 35-36). Crown.

Had the German Empire the right to build a strong fleet? Yes.

Had the British Empire reasons to worry about that fleet? Also yes.

Sometimes, in order to maintain peace, one should not acquire capabilities that make neighboring countries to fear for its existence.

Ukraine in NATO is a menace to the status of Russia, at least in the view of Russians.

Russophobes could see that as a good thing, should not care, and would talk about showing the country "her place in the world", or even forcing her into that place.

Problem with that is, one never should poke a bear one wants to kill, it is way more sensible to begin by shooting it, unless the corralled beast decides it is better to die in the act of killing its killers.

That analysis of British - German relations sadly ignores the French and Russian fleets. 

By 1914 Germany had 15 dreadnoughts ready and 5 in construction, France had 4 ready and 8 in construction, Russia had 7 in construction. Which means at the end of the construction cycle, Germany would be at 20, France and Russia combined at 19.  If you look at pre-dreadnoughts and cruisers it looks even worse for the Germans. 

https://warandsecurity.com/2014/08/04/the-naval-balance-of-power-in-1914/

And if you say the British control the channel, so do the French and the Russian fleet can also at least close the Baltic for Germany. 

[Stefan Kotsch]

10 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Nice to see you do not understand the meaning of Soviet Red Flag in contemporary Russian political culture

Oh yes. We have understood that. It is not about the Soviet Union system as it was then. It is about what in your eyes the Soviet Union represented in the world in terms of greatness and power. The enormous size of Russia is not enough for you.

And the flag of the Soviet Union is a symbol of your imperial phantom pains.
 

[Stuart Galbraith]

46 minutes ago, seahawk said:

That analysis of British - German relations sadly ignores the French and Russian fleets. 

By 1914 Germany had 15 dreadnoughts ready and 5 in construction, France had 4 ready and 8 in construction, Russia had 7 in construction. Which means at the end of the construction cycle, Germany would be at 20, France and Russia combined at 19.  If you look at pre-dreadnoughts and cruisers it looks even worse for the Germans. 

https://warandsecurity.com/2014/08/04/the-naval-balance-of-power-in-1914/

And if you say the British control the channel, so do the French and the Russian fleet can also at least close the Baltic for Germany. 

Before or after it calls for a Tug Boat?

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 11/8/2025 at 8:29 PM, mkenny said:

 

I have a friend who sustained a serious head injury who  has now gone 'full Gammon'. He now talks constantly about 2 subjects and 2 subjects only. One is an issue around rubber boats and the other access to public toilets. A few years back he started  to spout the same crazy 'Russia is on the brink of catastrophic  defeat because (insert latest Ukrainian  press release)' as you. One of his 'killer facts' was him loudly  telling all and sundry how 'Russia' could not even beat plucky little Finland in 1940. No matter how many times I explained reality to him he kept on saying it and still says it today.

You and he share the same blinkered myopic mindset. 

Still not denying it, for all your flouncing.

How does it work in your mind, you think Russia wins, we end up with a multipolar world, and suddenly its world peace? You must hate America very much to suspend disbelief so much.

I have to say, I dont disrespect people that want Russia to win. Its their own opinion, and like arseholes, everyone should have one. OTOH, for me, I find it akin to those well meaning but misguided souls that wanted to throw Czechoslovakia under the bus so they could live their entitled lives for a few years longer. 

Once is a terrible mistake, but perhaps understandable perhaps under the circumstances. Doing so again, to me looks like wilfulness.