Do I want to avoid using the same word in a sentence? "...nice bite-sized starters, light bites..." Here is something I would like to ask. Does the repetition make the phrase sound awkward, or even confusing, especially given the fact that the first "bite" refers to the act of biting, and the second one, to a small-sized meal? So, does such phrasing read well, or should I consider revising my sentence?

Does this sound natural? Russia is losing around one million people of working age yearly, which stands to put Russia's economy in harm's way. I would like someone to tell me if the "which stands to" part makes sense here. Or does "stand to" work well only with such verbs as "to gain" and "to lose?"

Which is the best word for describing a ship in an informal context? The ship is small but... - maneuverable - agile - nimble - quick (in this case, does it come across that not only is the ship fast but also manageable?) Or suggest your own option.

A Rock Album Review [part 2] [NOTE. All names are changed] (continuation) Whitney’s progress as a singer is nothing short of incredible. On the first album, this would-be metal queen was nothing but a second-team pawn. Her technique lacked finesse, her voice would fizzle out within a couple of minutes into the song, and whenever she made an attempt at singing in the high register, it would sound more like a toddler throwing a tantrum. To make matters worse, the budget recording did a poor job of hiding her imperfections. Yet her talent shone through even back then, which made me stick around and keep an eye on her career. The band’s second effort, while hardly very spectacular vocally as well, was definitely a step in the right direction. But now Whitney Destroyes totally lives up to her snappy moniker. She was able to expand her range, to build up her strength and stamina, and now she can easily belt out powerful anthems for hours on end, to her fans' rapturous applause. Jack Black and Rick Fowler, while somewhat overshadowed by a shooting star of the frontlady, never fail to provide their dazzling solos in due time. Almost all songs are well thought-out, building up to their climaxes effectively, which keeps the listener engaged all the way to the last chord. Track 7, called “The Hellhound’s Procrastination,” was a bit of a letdown though. It just didn’t do it for me. According to the band, they like putting together one of the songs on each album in the studio from scratch in just a couple of hours to capture the moment. Well, not the best songwriting strategy, I would say. Too often does an off-the-cuff approach result in a scatterbrained concoction! This song aside, you’ll be hard-pressed to find an underdog on the record. Bottom line. Utterly enjoyable. Definitely the best album in the Reveal the Steel canon as of this review. Recommended.

A Rock Album Review [part 1] [NOTE. All names, except for those of Dio and Iron Maiden, are changed] It doesn’t take long for Reveal the Steel’s brand new offering to establish itself as a world-class record. Brimming with hard-hitting riffs and catchy melodies, the long play stands to make even the most finicky music lover grin from ear to ear. The album kicks off with a brief piano intro, followed by up-tempo “Dragons of the Wasteland.” It is right out of the gate that a certain change in style becomes apparent. Reveal the Steel’s first effort saw them as a melodic death metal act through and through, with Jack Black’s harsh vocals taking almost as much spotlight as Whitney Destroyes’s clean ones, and its follow-up was more or less in that vein, too. However, now they are gearing toward more traditional heavy metal. The reason for that boils down to just one thing. Shortly after Reveal the Steel put out their sophomore album, Rob Sanders, the lead guitarist and incidentally the biggest fan of death metal among his bandmates, unexpectedly stepped down for Rick Fowler to take over. The newcomer’s preferences, however, lie with the likes of Dio and Iron Maiden, and so the lineup change was quick to have an effect on the band’s overall sound. Now the vocals repose almost exclusively in Whitney Destroyes’s hands, with all “cookie monster” stuff relegated to bridges, if present at all. Truth be told, I can’t shake off the feeling that the growling vocals were meant to pander to the band’s followers of long standing, and I believe Reveal the Steel would be better off leaving them out altogether. (to be continued)

Why WWII is called the Great Patriotic War in Russia [part 2] (continuation) This brings us to this question: Can we approach the events at the outset of WWII in this fashion, in the face of all the devastation and plight that would happen later on? No, we can't. That would be immoral. So we don't. One could say that we keep the revered memory of our grandfathers clear of all questions that are hard to answer. Russian history scholars argue that Stalin resorted to striking the pact with Germany because he had come to think it futile to go on trying to talk allies into working out a collective plan to deter Hitler. To Stalin, they say, the pact served as a last-ditch effort to push back the start of a looming Germany-USSR war. The Soviet expansion in 1939-1940 is thus viewed to have been a series of unrelated events, which did a good job of making it harder for Germany to reach the Soviet Union's central regions. But, as I said, these pages of history are contentious. After all, you can't bring Stalin back and ask him like, hey Mr. Stalin, what was your game back then? Neither can we tell how things would have played out should Hitler have chosen, say, Great Britain as his next victim in 1941, not the Soviet Union. I've laid out the viewpoint as presented in our history classes, but you can see that the subject is open to speculation and even propaganda on part of any party involved. And some people do see these events in a different light. For instance, our media often tell us that Poland and the Baltic states have a way of trying to question the results of WWII, and also that Russian minority based in the Baltic states is locked out of the elections, etc. But here's the thing: Judging by what I said, they can see themselves as the Soviet Union's victims, as much as Germany's. And their case is strong, if you would ask me.

Why WWII is called the Great Patriotic War in Russia [part 1] Actually, there is a reason for Russian scholars to differentiate between WWII and the Great Patriotic War. The Great Patriotic War is deemed one of the central episodes in Russian history. It is held up as an example of the country's military prowess, and it was also the springboard that secured the status of superpower for the Soviet Union for many years to come. But most importantly, it was a tragedy each and every one can relate to. The war claimed the lives of 28 million Soviet people, which made up more than 10% of the Soviet Union's population. All the other countries' war casualties, while staggering if you consider them separately, seem dwarfed by that figure. There wasn't one household unaffected by the calamities brought about by the war, and survivors' stories are still passed down to new generations. This is a very sensitive topic for us, and failing to acknowledge that is likely to come off as disrespect. That other countries appear to be growing oblivious of this part of our history (at least, that's the impression one can get watching our media) makes us feel somewhat robbed of it, which in turn gives rise to the feeling of resentment. All in all, everything about the war - the enemy, the effects of the war, the outcome - is self-explanatory. The events that took place on the eve of the war are not so much, though. In fact, they are very controversial. Hitler took the offensive against Poland on September 1, 1939. Prior to that, on August 23, Germany and the Soviet Union had signed the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which defined a way to divide Europe between the two countries. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union began to carry out its end of the deal. On September 14, Soviet troops entered the devastated Poland, and annexed some of its territories (now Ukraine's and Belarus's Western regions). The Soviet Union went on to declare war on Finland, and then in 1940 it also annexed the Baltic States. All of which technically makes it Hitler's ally. (to be continued)