Mao, being a true adherent of Socialism in One Country, knew: there can only be one.

the new user has sent a nonsense, probably accidental report on a post! All gather in the town square for the public execution

That's the point. "Unrealistic" demands that everyone agrees with yet which cannot be achieved under capitalism are good and should be made more often.

Also The Moscow Times despite claiming to be Russian is online published from the Netherlands. Yeah that is about as legitimate as Putin launching a Russian version of NYT lol.

Here is a Russian source if that is a problem, saying more or less the same thing: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6480674

quit job as gulag supervisor to become pit supervisor

first day on the job, go down to the pit

it's a gulag

casually making up a "trotskyist" to get mad at

they always cry about "red fascism"

No, in fact Trotsky condemned the abuse of the term "fascism" (see: "social fascism")

and are staunchly anti authoritarianism

Trotskyists have read Engels.

This is an interesting case because it seems it will be sold 100% to the city of St. Petersburg, I guess the local government?

Which begs the question of why the formality was necessary. I predict the local government-owned shares are eventually going to be quietly sold off.

Meanwhile, the largest thermal power provider in St Petersburg (currently valued at 60 billion rubles) has been set to be privatized in 2024: https://www.dp.ru/a/2023/09/20/zaks-peterburga-prinjal-zakon

They did quite well in WW1.

Speaking of that, was the Entente was completely justified in sending millions to die in the war? After all, previously you said:

I'm sorry, but when it involves one imperialist bloc invading a smaller country, then it does matter.

Not even one, but two smaller countries! Think of little Belgium and Serbia!

No, just as it would be unable to resist NATO in being turned into a far-right paramilitary-led banana republic if Russia were to suddenly withdraw without any decrease in NATO involvement.

But the beauty of the neat little trick above is that if the working classes of both sides correctly oppose their respective ruling classes' interests, we can end up with a scenario where both sides lose - objectively the best outcome for the Ukrainian people, as well as everyone else.

The Russian anti-war activists are clearly holding up their end of the bargain. Why are you not holding up yours?

I literally said that

Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.

Are you aware that it's possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

You can even make sure you are consistent with both things in action 100% of the time - it's a neat little trick called "opposing the position of your own government".

Russian pacifists want Russia to stop invading Ukraine.

Western "pacifists" want to send NATO tanks to Ukraine.

They are not the same.

Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.

But an important consideration should be whether one's actions actually contribute to Russia withdrawing sooner, or if they instead help justify further, equally self-interested NATO involvement in the war.

Unless you are Russian, it's most likely the latter.

There are two imperialist blocs involved in the conflict, and it doesn't matter which one of them technically started it.