They avoid going fully nuclear, fully anti-American and to this day seek compromise and off-ramps.
Another way of looking at this is that what Russia wants is not what "we want", not what is good for the Proletariat of the world, but what Russia is being "forced" to do by the US not giving them a chance at peace and reconiciliation is...
That would be nice.
Doing some math here even an aluminium (if this material is fine) foil 1 nanometer thick (if this thickness is fine) with one tenth the radius of the Earth (1% of the area of the Earth) would require enough almost 3 thousand tons. That's should be doable with current tech within a few years to a couple of decades even if you need a few times this mass to carry orbit keeping equipment although it would be a huge project unless some lighter material could be used.
But if the foil needed to be any thicker/heavier than this then it might be easier to do with asteroid mining/in space production.
Tripwire soldiers or just training, I wonder...
and will only serve to further empower the coalition rising up to defend themselves from western terrorism and exploitation.
As of now a lot of the world population still buys the idea that the US/west are good and things like that. Even with what is happening in Palestine that hasn't drastically changed yet. But as you say, each country they bomb is a new country that gets to see the US for what they are, and the same would be somewhat true for the neighbours of these countries and the rest of the world, and who knows, they might be one country being bombed by them away from this mass reaching a critical mass.
For example, if Niger gets bombed by them then Niger's neighbours at first and then the rest of Africa might come to better understand the situation and try to help Niger as they can and that would likely reverbarate globally, through images and impacts to the global economy, pushing more and more to the same anti-imperialist side.
If it works fine and it's really retroactive they can always retroactively do that too.
Either way, It's a nice solution that people might not even talk much about because it always looks impossible but hopefully they do something like this to show the world it can be done and hopefully they continue it with things like 100% taxes for billionaries and lower the minimum threshold of wealth with time as well.
Edit for clarification.
Yes. But at the same time is night and day the difference of what a right wing government and what one that at least cares at little about the people will do to destroy the country, as the last decade has shown anyone who lives in Brazil.
He does at least have some policies to help poor people but he has been giving a lot of concessions to capital indeed. Not that it's easy to go against them considering we have the most right leaning congress ever, but he could at least try to get people on the streets in support of good policies and see what can be done but he hasn't done anything of the like.
I hope I can vote for him in the second round next election though because I really doubt there will be anyone even remotelly close to be as good as him. lol
I haven't heard much about this immunity thing, but if someone does something bad at the orders of their regime's leader do they also don't suffer anything or does the leader need to give them a pardon for the illegal things they were told to do?
It depends on how the game was done. A game about revolutionaries taking down the governement and doing this would absolutelly be pulled, but a funny game which just does this or something like that would probably be allowed as one of the jobs of western leaders is to be a simbol for the exploited to hate so they don't hate the governement and much less the system or the bourgeoisie.
as I would have to pay hefty taxes. Letting it stand empty does not make sense.
You can always rent it for a while and think better about your situation. Just selling it and putting the money in the bank just means the bank will be using your money to possibly cause way more damage than you could anyway. Buying shares, at least if you don't even work in the company is bad too, so holding on to the apartment is not the worst thing you could do and if you sold it it's possible the new owner would just rent it too.
If you rent you could always see if the person living there would like to buy it from you and so you can even give them a discount based on how long they lived there if you think it's better too.
and I’m planning to sell it in about 5 years when we’re gonna be looking for a new place with my parents.
If you already know when you need the money you can alway do the math and see what is the best option for you. Let the money stay in the bank, keep the apartment until them... And also check the risks, as in my country, as an example, the goverment has taken peoples savings about thirty years ago when the inflation was bad so who knows if they will do it again. So if you were in my country puting the money in savings would have an extra risk, while perhaps there might be countries where the goverment has made housing cheaper before and could do so again, meaning holding on to the house might not be the best idea either.
Becoming a landlord isn't really that different from becoming an investor, for example, as to become one you need a certain ammount of capital and under capitalism no matter where you put that capital you will be exploiting others. And as we live in a system full of crises unless you have "a few million" very diversified anyone could be losing everything in the next crises or when a new goverment comes around, specially if through a coup, and changes the rules. So it's kinda hard to ask people to give their safety net away when the vast majority are at most a few problems away of losing it all.
So I would say your question makes more sense if we are talking about how much capital a person has, rather than what they do with it (unless they are doing some even worse things with it). So someone with a second house can be a communist no problem, but someone with ten should at the very least be using some of that money to further the cause, not only by giving it to a communist party and the like but also by giving free housing to some who need it, if they consider themselves communists. If they could sell a few houses and use the money to further the cause that's fine too, although in some countries even that many houses might not be enough to pay for something like a cancer treatment, so it's hard to say exactly.
The same would be valid if the person had shares or companies or whatever, although if the person directly owns companies the person should definitely give everyone a good salary and let the worker unionize and try to spread it to more people too.
More comments here should be worded this way instead of pretending the institutions like those of the west has any actual legitimacy instead of only having a monopoly of power.
To me I just consider it the fascists internal politics which, basically, the only use in understanding it is to be able to divide and sow discord amongs their rank.
Although if you want an idea of why people defend any imperialist/comprador/fascist politician is simply because they wanted to be like that. They want the power to oppres others for their own gains or amusement and if they can't be that person they will join any who are. That's what fascists are after all, a bunch of twigs that assemble to not break as easily. a bunch of twigs does burn easily though, so I wonder how that could be applied in dealing with the fascists/bunch of twigs comparison.