And I expect there will be strikes coming.
We talked a long time ago about bridges across the Dnieper. Something like this should probably exist.
- 0 Posts
- 62 Comments
Joined 16 days ago
Cake day: May 15th, 2026
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Yes, I agree with you. I was just emotional… )))
Yes, it was probably Ukrainian electronic warfare that deflected the Russian drone, or it was a Ukrainian provocation to draw NATO into the war. Ukraine is also provoking Belarus to join the war. This is all part of Zelenskyy’s strategy.
What you and I predicted has begun: a frenzied wave of propaganda has recently erupted in the Ukrainian media. Every morning I open the news and it’s filled with headlines like: Russia has almost lost Crimea, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have broken through at the front, Russia is panicking, Putin is almost dead, etc. I haven’t seen such a wave in a long time. People are talking about the 1991 borders again.
It’s been suspiciously quiet here lately. Not even the sirens are wailing.
Kyiv has finally been affected. People are heading down to the metro at night. Everyone’s waiting for that blow.
By the way, look, this is Yakutsk, where socialism still reigns… )))
It’s as if time stood still there.
It has begun—the very thing you and I discussed long ago… The thing I was banned for for 10 days—it has happened.
https://www.bbc.com/russian/articles/cx21rjge20po
Here is the move by Russia that could produce the intended effect.
I spoke about this earlier.
It must be said that Gorbachev comparing the destruction of socialism and adoption of mass liberalization is not the same as the NEP.
The legalization of cooperatives during the era of M.S. Gorbachev represented an attempt to salvage the USSR’s deficit-ridden economy. The leadership drew upon the Leninist experience of the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s, permitting market elements while preserving the fundamental principles of socialism.
Gorbachev did not, initially, intend for the collapse of the USSR or a transition to capitalism! The entire initiative was conceived along the lines of the NEP!
https://csruso.ru/publicistika/njep-i-gorbachevshhina/
to change our own countries to socialism.
That is a utopia, Comrade—in the near future.
Seems to me that it’s most likely Russia is going to ramp things up in the near future.
Yes, without this, there won’t be any meaning at all…
And the focus will be on deep strikes on command centres and industry. Lavrov made it pretty clear that gloves are coming off.
As for industrial facilities—strikes against them will no longer make any serious impression.
As for decision-making centers—that depends on how effective Russia’s intelligence capabilities are. Russia possesses nothing even remotely comparable to the intelligence assets held by the United States and Israel. I do not believe Russia is capable of executing strikes with such precision. During their recent “retaliatory strike” against Kyiv, they attempted to achieve something, but the result was nil—including in terms of intimidating the civilian population.
Seems like after Russians went to China they agreed that Ukraine needs to get wrapped up, and that dialogue with Americans is impossible.
I am skeptical about this. It seems to me that China will not risk a severe escalation with the United States. China will continue to play a waiting game.
Meanwhile, in Russia—on state-run channels—everyone keeps talking about the “Spirit of Anchorage.” I was reading about it there again just yesterday.
At this moment, the situation remains uncertain. The Russians have realized that Trump is unable to bring the war to an end. Now, everyone is waiting to see what further actions Russia will take.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xVVyS7NtB5k
As the saying goes: the only good CIA agent is a dead CIA agent… )))) However, I think he got his facts mixed up.
In 1689, the Treaty of Nerchinsk was signed—the first agreement between Russia and China (the Qing Empire). The Russian Tsardom: It lost a significant portion of the Amur region as well as lands along the upper Amur River. Russia was forced to dismantle the fortress of Albazin and liquidate the Russian settlements located there; the border was established along the Argun and Gorbitsa rivers.
For Russia, this was a humiliating outcome—not the other way around. The second guy was right: China was the one that suffered territorial losses under the Treaty of Aigun, during the reign of Alexander II.
Comrade, I listened to his take on the conflict over Damansky Island, and it hit me… ))) It turns out that the Soviets were the ones planning to attack China.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYHGeLyuH5O/
Well, just think about it yourself: China lays claim to Soviet territory—territory that Nicholas II supposedly annexed illegally—yet, despite all this, the USSR is supposedly the one planning to attack China. Does that remind you of anything?.. ))))
Back then, China had a idée fixe: to tear up the Treaties of Aigun and Peking.
The Treaties of Aigun and Peking (1858 and 1860) were key interstate agreements between the Russian Empire and the Manchu Qing Empire. They secured vast territories in the Far East for Russia and established the modern border with China.
At that time, China massed two divisions—15,000 troops—along its border with the USSR and was preparing to launch a major military operation.
And don’t forget that just a year after the Damansky incident, the Chinese launched another attack—this time along the Kazakh border. Kazakhstan was not covered by the Treaty of Aigun. Kazakhstan has never belonged to China.
You’ll notice once again that the moment the conversation turns to China, contradictions immediately crop up between us. On every single issue.
People here keep telling me that I need to “think dialectically” in order to understand it all… ))) But I don’t understand a damn thing…
I’ve known since childhood that it was China that wanted to attack—not the other way around. I remember that Brezhnev was deeply alarmed by the concentration of forces along the border, yet he issued orders not to succumb to provocations; consequently, the Chinese were met solely by border guards, who held the line against an overwhelming enemy force until the regular army could be brought up. These border guards were subsequently hailed as heroes throughout the USSR, though many of them perished.
As for the current relations between Russia and China, I would very much like to see what he says come true…
The situation here is somewhat more serious.
This company has secured a contract from the Pentagon to manufacture American-made Shahed-style drones equipped with AI. New models are being tested in Ukraine under combat conditions—something we are witnessing right now.
Currently, Russia and the U.S. are essentially competing in technology. I believe that the U.S. holds the advantage in the use of AI.
Perhaps China, too, might want to test something of its own… ))
However, China has no desire to escalate tensions with the U.S., so it is highly unlikely to do so.
Right now, everyone is anticipating strikes on Kyiv. If this turns out to be yet another “final Chinese warning” from Russia, it will start looking a lot like Trump’s style. The Russians need to take action—but at this moment, I simply cannot imagine what that action could be that would actually take everyone by surprise. Putin currently finds himself in a difficult situation. The Europeans are becoming increasingly brazen; they have refused to evacuate their embassies from Kyiv, thereby demonstrating that they have absolutely no fear of Putin.
Ukraine’s strategy is clear, and they have staked everything on it: to destabilize Russia internally as much as possible—and as intensely as possible—before the Russian elections this autumn. Their objective is to hold the front lines against any major breakthroughs, while simultaneously inflicting maximum damage through strikes deep inside Russian territory.
What countermeasures Russia will be able to deploy against this—and whether it will be adequately prepared to do so—remains to be seen.
Yes, that is exactly what I was talking about!
Yes, I did speak about different contexts as well. But the result is the same—regardless of which “NEP” it happens to be, and no matter what it is called: Perestroika, Glasnost, or “Pepsi and McDonald’s.” The Shock Doctrine is what it is called now; back then, Gorbachev dubbed it the New NEP.
A chasm is forming between the classes—one that widens with every passing year. What we are currently witnessing in China is the consequence of the NEP.
You claim that the process in China is now reversing. Okay—I won’t dispute that; I will simply observe.
I will reply to your other posts later.
The NEP did achieve its desired effect of socializing the means of production and centralizing them.
I already told you that I completely agree with this. If it hadn’t been for the NEP, civil war would have broken out again. The factories were then partially returned to the hands of their former owners. And what’s most interesting is that many of these owners, after the NEP was abolished, remained at the factories, not as owners, but as directors. Many small entrepreneurs emerged, and the workers were pacified.
As for the peasants, problems began immediately. Peasants in the USSR at that time were divided into three categories: “poor peasants,” “middle peasants,” and “kulaks.” The kulaks immediately seized the initiative, began exploiting the poor, and engaged in usury. They felt like local princes in the villages. The poor were their farmhands, the middle peasants their debtors. “Kulak” in English means fist. This person holds the entire peasant community in his fist. This term emerged after Stolypin’s reforms.
Kulaks and middle peasants refused to sell grain to the state because the market price was much higher than the state price. Italian barges were docked in Crimea, transporting grain to Europe.
I observed something similar during perestroika, when the market price was several times higher than the state price. When store shelves were empty, but the market was a paradise of abundance.
You probably remember those students who robbed the NEPmen in the 1920s. You’re talking to one of them now, but I’m from the 1990s, when, as a university student, I was underfed, starving, and didn’t even always have enough money for public transportation. I didn’t have decent clothes. For the first time in my life, I understood what hunger was.
Every morning, looking out the tram window at the luxurious boutique windows and expensive cars, I was filled with hatred for these people! Fierce hatred!!! I turned to crime. That fucking NEP ruined my entire life, because it all ended with me going to prison. And you can’t imagine how many millions of lives like mine have been ruined! Just like that, in an instant!
Just like in the 1920s and 1990s in the USSR, both NEPs smoothly transitioned from the intelligentsia into criminals, and from traders and speculators into the ruling class, so now we’re smoothly transitioning from dialectics to Freudian psychoanalysis. For me, the NEP isn’t the New Economic Policy; for me, the NEP is childhood trauma.
Yes, this is a subjective opinion, of course. It’s my opinion and that of many millions of others like me. Those who rebelled against injustice. Rebelled in a strange way, but rebelled! Probably because I was hungry.
We are now talking about the dark side of the NEP, no matter what the NEP is, red, white or green, the side effect of the NEP is the same everywhere.
I sent my last post to the wrong place.
I’m not talking about the whole world; I’m talking about Russia. Here, people simply don’t trust Americans—especially in such a murky affair.
But I won’t be able to prove anything to you… and you won’t be able to prove anything to me, either.
You’ve probably read the interview with Stalin conducted by the “Tucker Carlson of his day,” haven’t you? … )))
In 1934, Herbert Wells traveled to Moscow and interviewed Stalin. This was a time when Stalin was personally orchestrating the genocide of the Ukrainian people; he barely had time to wash his hands—they were perpetually stained with blood… ))))
And what did Wells have to say after that interview?
“I confess that I approached Stalin with a certain degree of suspicion and prejudice. In my mind, I had constructed an image of a very cautious, inwardly focused fanatic—a despot, envious and suspicious, a monopolizer of power. I expected to encounter a ruthless, cruel doctrinaire and a self-satisfied Georgian highlander whose spirit had never fully escaped the confines of his native mountain valleys… All the vague rumors, all the suspicions—for me, they ceased to exist forever after I had spoken with him for just a few minutes. I have never met a man more sincere, decent, and honest; there is nothing dark or sinister about him, and it is precisely these qualities that explain his immense power in Russia. Before our meeting, I assumed he held his position most likely because he was feared; now, however, I understand that he is not feared—he is trusted.”
H.G. Wells
1934
Can you imagine just how cunning and insidious one would have to be to so thoroughly pull the wool over Wells’s eyes?.. )))))
And this is all the more remarkable given that Wells actually disagreed with Stalin on many points.
Wells also met with Lenin, though he wasn’t particularly fond of him.
Perhaps that was because, at that time, the results of the socialist revolution were not yet visible—only the revolution itself… the grain requisitioning and “War Communism.” Whereas by the time he met with Stalin, there were already concrete results…
even if the Moon landing
This is far from being just my opinion here.
I don’t think there is any reason to doubt his data. If he were distorting the facts, it would have come to light long ago—he has been publishing on this subject since 1995.
He is currently the most authoritative and widely recognized expert in Russia regarding the Stalin era—and beyond—at least within certain progressive circles. In these circles, everything has long since been double-checked.
I appreciate the recommendation, comrade, though unfortunately I can’t find it in English (yet).
Specifically for our conversation, I would like to briefly introduce you—in outline form—to the contents of Yuri Nikolayevich Zhukov’s book, The Flip Side of NEP (Обратная Сторона НЭПа):
Crisis Phenomena: According to the researcher, the partial return to market mechanisms did not lead to the long-awaited economic boom; instead, it triggered a protracted economic crisis.
Political Struggle: The transition to the NEP (New Economic Policy) exacerbated latent conflicts within the USSR’s party elite (during the 1923–1925 period), resulting in a fierce struggle for power.
Social Stratification: Economic liberalization led to the rapid enrichment of a narrow social stratum—the “NEPmen”—a situation that stood in stark contrast to the dire plight of the majority of workers and peasants.
As you can see, there exists a radically different perspective on the events of that era. Zhukov is an archivist; his work relies primarily on archival documents. In his books, every claim is substantiated by the figures and statistical indicators of those years, which form the core of the economic analysis within his work. The political struggle is evidenced in the minutes of party meetings, while social stratification is clearly visible in criminal police reports. One such report, for instance, describes the formation of a student gang in Moscow that specialized in robbing NEPmen. A great number of such motley gangs sprang up, triggering a rampant surge in crime.
Indeed, we know that between 1919 and 1921, “War Communism” was implemented at the behest of Trotsky. Both Trotsky and Lenin indulged in fantasies of a global revolution; they fully expected that a wave of socialist revolutions would erupt across Europe at any moment, and that the Red Army would immediately rush to their aid. Consequently, the army was effectively transformed into a “labor army.”
It was a truly terrible time for the workers and peasants. Soldiers were not demobilized from the army; instead, they remained under barracks conditions, working in factories and receiving no wages—only food and clothing. Yet, even these basic necessities the state was unable to provide in sufficient quantities. As the situation deteriorated, unrest and strikes began to erupt in the factories; workers refused to work. Measures had to be taken. To breathe some fresh life into the economy, War Communism was abolished and the NEP was introduced; however, as it turned out, this dawn was short-lived. As for the notion that the NEP was actually effective in the USSR—that was a myth later inflated by Gorbachev in order to push through his own hare-brained ideas.
I can’t see how going back to the status quo after 4 years of war would be possible politically in Russia.
The Kill Zone—it is constantly expanding. This has fundamentally altered the nature of warfare. Victory now belongs to whoever exercises superior control over the Kill Zone. In this context, defense is far easier, as infantry is rendered virtually obsolete.
To seize the strategic initiative, one must establish absolute dominance within the Kill Zone.
We are currently engaged in a war of technology—not a war of men or tanks. You have likely heard about the recent visit from an American entrepreneur who owns a company contracted by the Pentagon to develop and manufacture AI technologies for the defense industry. The Pentagon’s cutting-edge innovations are currently being field-tested in Ukraine. Russia is finding it difficult to keep pace.
And it is precisely this factor that will play the decisive role in the upcoming summer campaign.
One can surmise the plans Ukraine is currently formulating for the coming months.
Disregarding casualties, the objective is to nullify all Russian offensive efforts while—in one specific sector (Zaporizhzhia)—breaching Russian defenses, again without regard for losses. We observe that, of late, systematic strikes are being launched against the logistical artery running from Russia southward toward the Zaporizhzhia region. That entire road is already littered with burnt-out military hardware, which is hampering supply lines to the Zaporizhzhia front.
Furthermore, there is the systematic delivery of painful strikes deep within Russian territory.
All of this is aimed at ratcheting up the domestic political tension in Russia—and public discontent regarding the war—by the time of the autumn parliamentary elections. Against the backdrop of current events, this is a very real possibility.
No, Russia is not simply waiting; Russia has no time to spare. It needs to demonstrate tangible results and victories by autumn so that its people can at least understand why they are forced to endure daily Ukrainian drone attacks.
At this moment, the outcomes of the summer campaign are of critical importance to Russia—real results. And the crisis in Europe, which is expected to unfold in a few months, cannot in any way alter the course of events.
By piecing all the facts together, we can now understand the true significance of the “Spirit of Anchorage”—and exactly what Putin and Trump agreed upon there.
The Ukrainians would be required to withdraw their troops from the Donbas and then sit down at the negotiating table, where issues such as the size of Ukraine’s armed forces, language policy, religious matters, and the like would be discussed.
However, it seems to me that had Zelenskyy agreed to withdraw troops from the Donbas, he would not have survived long enough to reach the negotiating stage; he would have been ousted by disgruntled Ukrainians. The moment the Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCK) are disbanded, the public will react aggressively; likewise, the AFU soldiers returning from the front lines would tear Zelenskyy apart. I have spoken with people who are fighting over there. They all hate Zelenskyy! Both the “Bucha-fied” troops and the regular ones—of whom not many remain. They will not forgive him for the “meat grinder” assaults. They are already expressing deep outrage over what is unfolding in the Zaporizhzhia sector. The Russians simply cannot fight in such a suicidal manner; that is why they are currently retreating there.
Therefore, a withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the Donbas would amount to a death sentence for Zelenskyy. That is why Trump was unable to force Zelenskyy’s hand—and why Trump once again deceived Putin, having promised him that he would persuade Zelenskyy to do so. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy has once again caught his stride; he looks remarkably energetic and has resumed hurling insults at Putin. And the “Mindich Tapes” are of no consequence to him; as far as he is concerned, everything is just fine.
Putin has now vowed to launch systematic strikes against Kyiv, but I suspect this is merely a tactic to frighten the populace—assuming, that is, that these strikes unfold just as they have in the past. What is needed is a tangible result. Indiscriminate, ineffective strikes serve only to play into Zelenskyy’s hands, providing him with fodder for public relations campaigns in Europe.
All of this suggests that Stalin was open to criticism—that it was possible to argue with him.
According to the memoirs of a certain Marshal—I’ve forgotten exactly which one—during the war, when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow, Stalin and Georgy Zhukov got into such a heated argument during a meeting in the Kremlin that they ended up screaming at one another. This occurred precisely when a fateful decision had to be made.
In light of this, how can Stalin possibly be considered a dictator?
Sholokhov, in essence, blackmailed Stalin. He told Stalin that if he did not take action, he would describe everything that was taking place in the collective farms at the local level in his future book.
Do you think Trump will make a deal with Iran?
I think Trump has no other choice.
China is also dependent on Russia—that’s undeniable. Putin recently visited Kazakhstan, where he agreed with the Kazakh president to increase energy supplies to China.
The partnership will certainly develop, but moderately and cautiously, in the Chinese style.
Yes, a major leap in industrialization is not expected in Russia yet. Russia’s industrial sector is not doing well.
The oligarchs, who have been holding back industrial development in Russia since the 1990s, exert too much influence on the state. The oligarchs act like invaders, sucking resources out of the country and exploiting the Russian people. They instill false ideals in the people.
There’s this oligarch named Malafeyev in Russia, a monarchist and religious obscurantist.
https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2015/02/150211_malofeyev_interview
He financed that lousy film.
And note that this film was blessed by some Elijah.
https://youtu.be/NgZ1SUekJUc
They want to remove Lenin’s mausoleum so they can put God there with the Tsar.
This is an atavism.