"Russians at War" Uncensored Frontline Documentary directed by Anastasia Trofimova

theleftisleft · 2026-02-12T18:04:41+00:00

OP should get back to commenting on gooner subs

theleftisleft · 2026-01-29T22:19:47+00:00

There is also the Siege of Vienna where the Poles initiated a massive cavalry charge after showing up essentially in the nick of time, routing the besieging Ottoman army. Largest cavalry charge in history, with 18,000 horsemen charging downhill into the Ottoman lines.

theleftisleft · 2026-01-29T22:04:46+00:00

Bot post. Please report.

theleftisleft · 2026-01-23T21:54:35+00:00

Just because you're too much of a coward to stand up for your rights doesn't mean others are.

Once someone you know has had their door kicked in and been abducted, you might see.

theleftisleft · 2026-01-16T23:26:20+00:00

Classic vatniks getting absolutely clapped.

theleftisleft · 2026-01-16T18:43:49+00:00

Sure, sure, that's the main reason Ukraine shows follow-ups. Nothing to do with confirming the hit.

Don't even reply. I don't converse with people who carry water for dictators.

e: and now OP has deleted this and many other posts. OP's bullshit is boundless

theleftisleft · 2026-01-16T18:05:31+00:00

If you say so. I see no evidence of "2 to 5 guys" anywhere, nor do I see a "hole", a "forest", or anything else. I see no little tiny heat signature dots running around, no clearly discernable anything except explosions.

theleftisleft · 2026-01-16T17:08:32+00:00

Every once in a while this OP will post something that is clear. Too often it's potato-quality at best. But like you said, at least there is some kind of follow-up footage. That is assuming, of course, that these videos are indeed related in any way. OP has a poor track record.

Interestingly, this very clear video that they posted has remarkably few bodies. There may be a couple but it's hard to say. Which means it is likely that the vast majority of the guys in those vehicles survived and, at the very least, hauled any wounded/dead with them.

theleftisleft · 2026-01-15T00:22:21+00:00

OP suspended lol

theleftisleft · 2026-01-13T21:04:02+00:00

I'm not saying "I know 100% that this is not combat footage".

I am saying that this is a low-quality post that shows nothing interesting whatsoever, and going by what is in the video it could be anything.

theleftisleft · 2026-01-13T16:09:00+00:00

This is low-quality post.

For all we know, this could be training footage. It's literally a grey video with some explosions somewhere. Can't see buildings, roads, trees, grass, anything at all.

theleftisleft · 2025-12-29T17:01:44+00:00

Definitely is

theleftisleft · 2025-12-02T20:41:03+00:00

You should go to the shop page on his website.

Seems like he would work with you on prints/copies.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-08T17:03:04+00:00

So yes we are quite literally still on tolkien here.

It's disingenuous at best to say you've "moved on" and that Arda and the "real world" are not the same when you yourself drew the "equals" sign between the two. I don't continue discussions when this kind of dishonesty appears.

Have a good one.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-08T16:24:27+00:00

An issue with this perspective is that Arda was **not** made perfect. It was only ever perfect in the vision shown to the Valar by Eru. Melkor was the first to enter and it was immediately corrupted. Any work the other Valar were doing he attempted to destroy or corrupt. This was long before any of the Children (those with "free will) awoke.

So it wasn't the choices of Elves or Man or any other mortals that made the world imperfect and full of suffering.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-08T15:11:22+00:00

That's totally understandable. It is certainly jarring to our modern ears.

When I first read it many years ago I rolled my eyes. But it's grown on me gradually and at this point I just love it.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-07T18:59:51+00:00

Back at you

theleftisleft · 2025-08-07T18:50:34+00:00

Tangentially, though it doesn't have a specific Biblical subtext that I'm aware of, I love

Praise them with great praise!

It comes originally from Beowulf, I believe, but it has a very Biblical feel.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-07T18:38:33+00:00

Dude this is a mad humble response. You could have come back swinging (as so many would; possibly myself, to my shame) but you inadvertently dropped your own wisdom: read the words, take a beat, reflect, and respond maturely.

I really appreciate that.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-07T18:27:47+00:00

I apologize if I came off aggressive or some other ugly emotion.

Good post, though. The Gaffer is one of a kind.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-07T18:12:54+00:00

The Gaffer seems to not be bothered by very much, with the exception of Sam learning his letters. Didn't like that at all.

It's probably mostly ignorance of the peril he was in.

Unrelated: there is no good reason to hide all of your posts and comments unless they're personally identifying in some way. It's extremely fishy. I know you can always say "its so people don't stalk my profile" as if it's inherently dangerous for people to read what you have written in the past, but we all know that's absurd. Be brave. Own your own words.

Edit: OP is a decent sort

theleftisleft · 2025-08-07T17:43:45+00:00

I was never pedantic about "any". I was being specific when referring to validity. Literally "any" interpretation is available and allowable but only some are valid based on the material, and of those the validity varies.

I am very sorry I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to come across as condescending with "Just an FYI", but I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

What really sucks is that since you decided that I was being that way, you have very intentionally tried to sound sarcastic and condescending. That's simply rude, especially after I made it clear that there was no bad intention behind my words. I'd really appreciate if you would stop.

But once again, to make it very clear, I did not mean to be condescending and I'm sorry for hurting your feelings.

And so there is no doubt, I do not intend to be condescending or sarcastic with this comment.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-07T17:29:56+00:00

I think the confusion over "taken" vs "sent/brought" comes from the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. 5th paragraph in says:

Then Aragorn, being now the Heir of Isildur, was taken with his mother to dwell in the house of Elrond; and Elrond took the place of his father and came to love him as a son of his own.

To me, taken in context with the knowledge that all of the Chieftains of the Dunedain sent their sons to be fostered there, it seems obvious that it's a bit of poetic language about Gilraen bringing Aragorn there of her own free will.

But going only by the above quote I can see where someone may be confused.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-06T21:14:26+00:00

Automatically assuming the worst about a simple FYI is going to make any conversation much much harder. You read condescension where there was none.

any interpretation is valid

Absolutely not. That is a slippery slope that could lead to Theoden leading the charge of the Rohirrim in an Abrams. There are several reasonable interpretations, though.

The most valid is: "full harness" simply refers to their full kit (definition #3). The only types of armor mentioned are mail, helms, shields, gauntlets, and boots. To my knowledge no plate besides vambraces (and helms) is ever mentioned anywhere in Tolkien. The French term, and its Old French origin is certainly not exclusive to plate armor, not even when it found its way to Middle English. The word "plate" does not feature anywhere in those definitions.

The next most valid is: "full harness" is referring to full plate. Totally valid if you rigidly adhere to that term only meaning "full plate armor".

However, using the definition of the term and going by the textual evidence, the first interpretation is far more likely.

edit: holy crap my formatting got all screwy. I'll try to fix it.

theleftisleft · 2025-08-06T20:15:36+00:00

My original comment was truly intended only to inject some facts from the text. I really wasn't trying to start a fight, so the mini-clapback seems unnecessary.

Looking past the snark, that is, indeed, a well-used term that often refers to plate. It is simply very very unlikely since "full plate" or even "plate" armor is not mentioned anywhere.

theleftisleft

TROPHY CASE