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.

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.

People who say what you say have fundamental misunderstandings about how governments work and about how private companies (“businesses”) work.

Please point back to the part of my conversation where I advocated for war in any capacity. Literally quite the opposite unlike yourself here.

You said here that the aggrieved state should put its own troops to where the most prolific invaders tries to amass their own:

Get your own troops there and chill.

Which is what Russia has been doing.

If you meant that they should place their troops somewhere else, then you should explain how that is supposed to stop the most prolific invader in the world from acting to harm said state.

Also, your suggestion evidently fails miserably in the cases of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

I think having troops ready, especially when the west is involved. Great. Smart even. As soon you’re using them to start wars and attempt to take land from another country and their people, sorry, it’s wrong.

The war was started by NATO.
I am still waiting for a serious suggestion for what a state should do in the face of aggression from the most prolific invader in the world. Notably, not doing anything and just letting the most prolific invader in the world do whatever it wants is not a serious suggestion.

So, you renege on saying that a state should put its troops where NATO starts amassing them in order to prevent the latter? If you do, what do you think such a state should do instead?

Also, NATO had been pushing for war with Russia, not the other way around. So, you got what you wanted. Not sure what you are upset about (other than having your ass kicked).