So you’re really going to pretend that the Warsaw Pact wasn’t imperialism? Even though you claim NATO is?

NATO is carrying out a genocide and enforces relations of severe unequal exchange, unlike Warsaw Pact which literally acted against all that.

What is your issue with the Warsaw Pact?

Not for lack of trying. If you don’t think invading Georgia and Ukraine count as attempts at colonization

Apart from you not understanding what colonisation is, there are also the following issues:

1. Georgia was the one to attack the peacekeepers in South Ossetia, as well as South Ossetians. Not sure what you think Russia should have done differently.
2. Ukraine had a NATO coup d’etat, and immediately attempted to become a glorified NATO military base (while also selling off its wealth to NATO capitalists in unpopular moves). That is an unambiguous act of aggression, and I am again not sure what you think Russia should have done differently.

There is essentially fuck-all difference between Russia under Putin and the US under Trump

Apart from the fact that, for all its massive faults, contemporary Russia hasn’t been the aggressor in military conflicts (no, reaction to NATO’s aggression via Ukraine is not itself aggression), and has militarily helped various countries fighting against your colonial subjugation of them.

Also, why are you singling out the US and Trump, and not all of the other invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan?

I understand what you think you’re going to accomplish by supporting Russia, but all you would actually accomplish is trading out one imperialist capitalist oppressor for another.

Let’s say you were correct. Why wouldn’t one trade NATO for a much more manageable foe?

There are plenty of capitalist nations providing favorable conditions to people having children, most of them in Europe. It doesn’t work because people don’t have a dozen children if they don’t need them as a retirement plan.

Evidently not, especially if we don’t disregard the fact that those states never provided good living standards for the people they colonised.

Children are becoming much more of an economic burden, and people are being provided fewer and fewer resources to raise them.

The problem behind homelessness in Finland, a nation that actually wants to do something about it, is the same as the problem behind retirement ages rising across Europe, etc.

If retirement age was the sole barrier to providing guaranteed housing under capitalism, we would have witnessed capitalist guaranteed housing before. We didn’t.

You’re talking about a nation that taxes the wealthy quite dearly.

And yet, it still maintains a class of people whose existence is based on making the rest of society poorer.

A planned economy shuffles things around, but it doesn’t make these workers appear out of thin air.

And yet, planned economies have always featured long-term guaranteed housing, while no capitalist economies seem to have.

No economic system fixes the fact that with every passing year, there are more people whose upkeep needs to be provided by yet fewer people.

Are you saying that, for example, 200 years ago, there were more working-class people that were able to work than there are now? Or are low birth-rates something that can be avoided?

I do not find them trustworthy, no.

Okay, what agreements did they break, and/or what countries did they invade this century, then?

I don’t like you putting words in my mouth

What words did I put in your mouth?

nor do I like you assuming where my information comes from

There are claims (and opinions) that you are making that have very few sources and those sources are the same where one would get stuff like Iraq having WMDs, so you definitely do need to engage in some reflection.

especially when you’re not even informed about the straight up WMF-level financial colonialism going on in the Congo

Considering that all of the claims about the PRC supposedly engaging in financial entrapment of other governments have been false, I have a good reason to disbelieve this claim unless I see a trustworthy source. (No, Adrian Zenz is not one, and neither is RFA.)

along with many other recipients of Belt and Road funding

Ah, so, it is just Zenz/RFA stuff, again.

To answer your questions: yes, yes, and set up defensive measures.

Defensive measures like what?

Let me remind you that the problem in question was homelessness. Planned economy solve that problem by making it so that all economic agents (in this case we only care about one - the state) are interested in providing guaranteed housing.

As for running out of working-age people, planned economies have been able to provide favorable conditions to people having children and universal healthcare and guaranteed housing so that people don’t die simply because that would make some rich guy even richer.

So, you do find those governments trustworthy, and you do understand why the rest of the world does, as well, you just have criticism of some of their policies (in some cases, it is understandable, but, in other cases, it’s just old pieces of your empire’s propaganda that you’re leadership doesn’t even bother with trying to substantiate anymore - I recommend you reevaluate what the people that previously sold you on Iraq’s WMDs say about their enemies instead of blindly believing them). Not sure what you mean about the PRC doing something bad to Congo.

Also, considering that you seem to find Belarus and the DPRK’s help to Russia, I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Do you, in that case, condemn Ukraine helping NATO invade Iraq, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere?
2. Do you concern NATO self-admittedly pushing for war with Russia (including prior to 2022)?
3. What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world - NATO - starts amassing troops on that state’s border?

What are your arguments for Iran, the PRC, the DPRK, and Belarus being untrustworthy?
What agreements did they betray and what invasions did they participate in this century?

When?

If you mean that the USSR militarily intervened in your invasion of Afghanistan at the request of the government of Afghanistan (reluctantly - after several such requests), then you are just being silly.

Considering that the living standards in (among many other places) Ukraine fell massively as a result of the fall of the USSR, and that the other states that you mentioned are invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of relevant complaints are serious.

If somebody hates the USSR but not, for example, the current Hungary and Poland, that somebody supports things like colonialism and worse.

That’s a rather silly claim, considering that plenty of people’s lives did get worse after the undemocratic dismantlement of the USSR (which most of these supposed USSR-haters voted against), and the rest are now beneficiaries of things like invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s not really surprising that people who join gangs of robbers, murderers and torturers hate not being beneficiaries of such and will claim that they were oppressed even when their living standards were demonstrably some of the best in the world.

Also, you do understand that the USSR was one of the most significant forces behind the decolonization of Africa and Asia, and that it helped liberation movements there, right? And you do understand what that means with regards to what sort of people would hate it, don’t you?

Really not sure what you could disagree with in my comment in good faith.

Considering that those governments are now puppet governments of the US, it does seem fair to talk about occupation, given that you consider the USSR’s liberation of that part of Europe from the original nazis to be ‘occupation’.

Also, if you want to talk about how people ‘democratically’ chose to join the most prolific invader in the world (, you do have to admit that they should bear responsibility for invasions of Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places.

Ah, I misread what you meant, in that case.

Liquid assets

Incorrect. Most of Eurasia is fine with Russia, including most of its neighbours.

You must be thinking of the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan as not trusting Russia.

Also, it is telling that you recognise that the vast majority of the countries that share planet with said invaders do not trust them. Must have something to do with the constant invasions and other atrocities.

You are either claiming that the USSR’s liberation of Europe both was and wasn’t occupation, or you are claiming that the USSR preventing fascists from coming into power on those countries was ‘occupation’, while the US putting fascists into power there and also doing things like what has been done to Greece and Ukraine is somehow not such.

Then you are contradicting yourself.

Do you think we support either part of the USian uniparty in general?

If you want to claim that the USSR liberating Europe from the original nazis and stopping the Lebensraum and the Holocaust was “occupation”, you have to also concede that those parts of Europe are currently occupied by NATO.

Nobody can trust Russia.

You are implying that somebody can trust the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, most of the world very much does seem to be able to trust Russia just fine.

The elephant in the room are the military expenses to protect against Russia.

Probably shouldn’t have been invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere, and shouldn’t have been pushing for war with Russia all these decades, then.

So, what you are saying is that it is not possible, under capitalism, to provide a solution for the problem that planned economy solves, and that, under capitalism, people will necessarily be tortured by being denied basic necessities like that. If so, I would argue that you are, indeed, correct.