Zuzak

What theory would that be, lol?

Here is my source do you have a source that disputes that? Or is your belief based entirely on unfalsifiable faith?

Also curious if you think Chinese life expectancy is still like 35 or what lmao

You may also be interested in what the World Bank, that infamous communist propaganda rag, has to say:

Over the past 40 years, the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day – the International Poverty Line as defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty– has fallen by close to 800 million. With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty.

I'm celebrating the increase in life expectancy from 35 to higher than that of the US, actually, which is the win I think it is.

The point is not the immediate increase in that specific 5 year period, the point is the clear trend of rapid, long term increases after a long period of stagnation, with the pivitol turning point being exactly when the CPC came to power. You're supposed to look at the whole graph.

I don't think you understand how this works. You cited Wikipedia asking me to accept it as a source. That means that you accept it as a source, and I may or may not accept it as a source. Given that Wikipedia says that your claims of genocide are disputed, you have to accept that. I don't have to accept Wikipedia as authoritative, because I never claimed it was, I'm just saying that if you accept it, then you have to accept that all your claims are disputed. That's just how citing sources works.

Or I could... not base my views on history entirely off of Wikipedia articles?

The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should've clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.

I'll note that your own source says in the introduction:

While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute

Likewise, the article on the Kazakh famine:

Some historians describe the famine as legally recognizable as a genocide perpetrated by the Soviet state, under the definition outlined by the United Nations; however, some argue otherwise.

And

The de-Cossackization is sometimes described as a genocide of the Cossacks, although this view is disputed, with some historians asserting that this label is an exaggeration.

The last one I didn't see any mention of genocide though it might be buried deeper in the article, it's pretty long.

Famines are not genocides lol. Though I suppose you could make the case that the embargo on the USSR caused a lot of excess deaths. Famines were extremely common before the USSR took power because it was a pre-industrial society, the USSR ended that. Also, the USSR is a completely different government from the Russian Federation.

TIL. Apparently what it actually said was "The Gallant People of Afghanistan," but the point is largely the same.

Of course you do, that's my point.

Great argument.

They do, but the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

Of course they're not, and I don't consider them as such. They are, however, the enemy of my enemy. Ideally, once the US is dealt with, Putin can get the wall next.

They have a long history of erasing East European cultures (i.e. Russification), and genocide. So I do not trust them when it comes to Eastern European affairs, and neither do native people from those countries

The US has a much worse historical record with genociding native people, so maybe Russia should support some landback movements in the US. Afaik they never did anything to the Native Americans.

I'm not sure what genocide you're referring to in any case. But I'm sure you can dig up some skeletons in the closets of any two historical neighbors if you go far enough back. What's funny about your argument is that you seem to be suggesting that people thousands of miles away are better suited to govern a region, since they likely don't have a similar record.

(I wonder how they got there).

Are we just going to ignore the part where the USSR expanded Ukraine's borders to include the disputed regions?

I disagree that the previous government was a puppet government.

My political aims go against the interests of the US, so generally groups that are aligned with my aims oppose and are opposed by the US. I don't believe in judging every conflict as a disinterested third party with no consideration of past events or present conditions. The US has a long history of installing far-right governments, has an atrocious record of human rights, and violates sovereignty left and right, and that is relevant to who I support.

I do believe in giving critical support to just about anyone who's willing to disrupt the unipolar world order in which the US has license to act as a rogue state. I want everyone involved in starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to face a war crimes tribunal and be shot or hanged, and I support things that bring us closer to that goal. You, on the other hand, want to keep blindly trusting those same people to tell us who our enemies are. The only way to put any check on the US's rampant militarism and aggression is through a multipolar world order.

I support both the Vietnamese fighting against the South Vietnam puppet government and the Ukranians in the DPR fighting against the current Ukrainian puppet government, yes (though my support for the latter is more critical since they're not communists)

The Vietnam War? You mean the one where a rebel faction backed by Russia rose up against a smaller, recently established pro-Western government, and the US came to the defense of that government, because if they lost the enemy would surely keep expanding more and more across the entire region, and all the peace advocates were dismissed as supporting appeasement? That Vietnam war?

Yes, we take a similar position on that as we do to this, do you?