immuredanchorite

I have been looking into cryptpad, but I don't know if it is really secure/private, but it appears to be a privacy-oriented, self-host able google doc alternative: https://cryptpad.org

When the US was founded it excluded about 94% of the people from within its borders from participating. Slavery existed on a mass scale throughout the world's early, liberal (so-called) democracies, or often their economy was subsidized by slave labor abroad in their colonies. So if slavery didn't exist within their immediate borders, it existed for the people their political & economic system subjugated. The idea that industrialization or "democracy" (not even sure how you are defining it, really) came into existence suddenly isn't accurate, although there are revolutionary periods where social change came suddenly or breakthroughs in technology that occurred that reshaped social production. Those didn't ever occur in a vacuum, and those discoveries were only able to affect the social system in so far as the social system was developed in such a way that they could be utilized.. Often those big revolutionary changes in the social system were due to contradictions (compounding antagonistic relationships) within the social system itself becoming untenable. Trying to shoe-horn a somewhat obscure military "law" isn't really going to explain how those changes occurred in a realistic way, because human society is much more complicated than that. You seem to want to reinvent the wheel here, you should try reading Marx, you might find it quite satisfying.

On your last point, the French Revolution was crushed ultimately, although the new social order retained changes that were beneficial to its new ruling class. But weapons themselves aren't necessarily going to singularly shape the way in which social conflict resolves. Military technology is important to these developments, but ultimately a part of the larger social system that is always changing to either maintain itself or undergoing revolutionary change.

On your first point: Russia's argument for why they have gone back on the security exchange for Ukraine's nuclear disarmament is one of the very same arguments NATO uses when claiming that they never promised russia that they wouldn't expand NATO east of Germany... The US either lies, and denies making the promise (they did) or they say that they promised the soviet union, which is not the same thing as Russia. Ukraine had a discontinuity in government in 2014: this is something they and the EU acknowledged officially during Ukraine's application to join the EU... So idk if the government of Ukraine today is a distinct entity from the political formation in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, but that is what Ukraine and the EU have said as much.

Your first point in your second paragraph is something that could be said of Ukraine/NATO just as well. If anything, Ukraine has completely expended its reserve of weapons and now relies on a dwindling supply of old weapons from NATO... it may have just gone through a 3rd army in this last offensive... if anything a peace agreement would give NATO more time to arm Ukraine for another time when they decide to break the peace agreement... This isn't based on speculation or a belief that Ukrainians are dishonest (unlike most speculation about Russia) because this is exactly what Angela Merkle said Minsk I & II were for: to use a peace deal to give NATO time to arm Ukraine for war... In order for peace to be achieved, both sides are going to have to accept some sort of good faith. If that can't be done then more people will continue to have their lives thrown away.

idk, i think you missed the point of the things i linked. Two of them were the president of the US knowingly endorsing Yeltsin’s extralegal seizure of power (the second was his approval of Yeltsin and support after Yeltsin shelled Russian parliament for “going communist” … Those lost two article weren’t just to show the crimes of the USA, it was to show that the United States doesn’t give a fuck about democracy or russia, they gave more evidence of the US purposefully interfering in Soviet/Russian affairs in order to harm the Soviet/Russian people. Russia exists as it does today as a consequence of US foreign policy.

I still stand by what I said. The Soviet Union/Russia and the PRC have never come anywhere close to crimes of the US government. In my lifetime, the US has invaded and committed war crimes, or undermined democracy, in dozens of countries… The same cannot be said of any other country in the same timeframe

nope. sorry, but your motherland hasn't been responsible for nearly as much death and destruction as the USA. You think that having a different president means that there is some sort of functional democratic process that represents the people of the US? That is farcical. Sure, it might suck to be in russia and you could go to jail for the things you have said, but Russia is what it is today because of the US's antagonism towards the soviet union and russia in particular. Russia as it exists now is a consequence of US involvement.. The US ruling-class doesn't care about democracy or freedom in Russia. The soviet union had its contradictions and problems, but a lot of the soviet union's problems were the direct result of US meddling. The US has been quite open about that, from its invasion in 1918 to its arming of right-wing extremists with the goal of killing as many soviets as possible. But working people in the US never really decided any of that, because the US government does not have either the form or the function of a governance body that represents working-peoples interests.

Just because you live in the US now, and your life might be better now, doesn't mean that the US government isn't the worlds villain... It is no matter how nice you have it there. You can check in with the millions of dead in southeast asia, or the millions dead and displaced in the middle east.

But wasn't Pakistan also thoroughly a US puppet at this point?

Its cool that you admitted you just didn't want anyone from hexbear to be right. That takes a lot of insight. You should consider opening your mind now to the possibility that you could be wrong about much more. You reflexive distaste for hexbear probably has more to do with your own cognitive dissonance than whether our opinions are wrong. Most of the people (bots) on hexbear were (are) libs too, but at some point opened their minds and began to approach history, political-economy, and current events with a more critical eye.

checkmate! it can’t be called a war if we simply lob misiles at a country and arm every lunatic we find, completely destroying it in the process

please, enlighten me, what is this utopia with which you speak of?

Under your definition, nearly every person is living under fascism. That is why it is meaningless