Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

  1. 30
  2. 18
  3. 15
  4. 11
  5. 10
  6. 8
  7. 8
  8.  @zharkoo  The Chile example, USSR supported its Cuban proxy which in turn supported Marxist Salvador Allende. Marxist Salvador Allende clashed with the right-wing parties that controlled Congress and with the judiciary. On 11 September 1973, the military moved to oust Allende in a coup d'état. Marxist Salvador Allende's presidential branch effectively declared war on the judiciary and right-wing majority-governed Congress branches. During the 1970 Chilean presidential election, both the United States and the Soviet Union poured money into this election through their intelligence agencies and other sources. 💰KGB money was more precisely targeted. Allende made a personal request for Soviet money through his personal contact, KGB officer Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who urgently came to Chile from Mexico City to help Allende. The original allocation of money for these elections through the KGB was $400,000, and an additional personal subsidy of $50,000 directly to Allende.[8] It is believed that help from KGB was a decisive factor, because Allende won by a narrow margin of 39,000 votes of a total of the 3 million cast. After the elections, the KGB director Yuri Andropov obtained permission for additional money and other resources from the Central Committee of the CPSU to ensure Allende victory in Congress. In his request on 24 October, he stated that KGB "will carry out measures designed to promote the consolidation of Allende's victory and his election to the post of President of the country". In your argument's summary, the USSR-supported regime change intervention is okay while the US intervention is bad. Your argument is hypocritical. USSR's proxy attempted to remove Chile's check-and-balance Congress system. USSR's proxy attempted to concentrate political power into a single entity (individual and political party). The US has no problems with the Swedish-style nanny market led-socialism that is practiced in the CANZUK and Nordic groups. Look in the mirror.
    7
  9. 6
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30.  @zharkoo  Before Euromaidan, Russia started a trade war against Ukraine, forcing Yanukovych to sign a base rental extension agreement that breached Ukraine Constitution 1996, Article 17 disallows foreign military bases after 2017. You missed the small detail in Ukraine's Constitution 1996, Article 17 which disallows foreign military bases after 2017. Read the Ukraine Constitution 1996, Article 17 which disallows foreign military bases after 2017. CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 28 June 1996 Article 17 The location of foreign military bases shall not be permitted on the territory of Ukraine. Yanukovych breached the Ukraine Constitution 1996, Article 17. After 2017, Ukraine's constitution is incompatible with foreign military bases hosting either NATO or CSTO. If Yanukovych didn't sign the military base rental extension, Russia would be kicked out of Crimea. Putin's narrative is FALSE. 1. 1863–1864 January uprising, Russian Empire crushed Polish, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian insurgents uprising. 2. Soviet–Ukrainian War occurred between 1917 to 1921, a war between the Ukrainian People's Republic vs the Bolsheviks i.e. Ukrainian Soviet Republic and Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (modern-day Russian Federation). 3. 2014, Russo-Ukrainian War. March 1, 2014, the Federation Council of the Russian Federation unanimously adopted a resolution to petition Russian President Vladimir Putin to use military force in Ukraine. These "old world" issues existed before the US being a superpower. Both China and Russia are the two surviving "old world" imperial empires that largely preserved their imperial land territories. China and Russia think that communism clean slate of their imperialist colonial past. You can't handle the truth.
    1
  31.  @zharkoo  CPC's land reform is fake since it did NOT transfer land titles to families. Land Reform in Postwar Japan As part of the democratization of Japan after World War II, Japanese leaders and Occupation authorities worked together to carry out land reform. It is regarded as one of the most successful of the Occupation-era reforms, and has become the model for land reform in other countries. The purpose of land reform was to reduce the wide gap between absentee landlords who owned agricultural land but did not farm it themselves, and tenant farmers who rented the land in exchange for giving the landlord a high proportion of the crop. The land reform laws were intended to limit the amount of farm land one household could own to about the amount of land that one family could farm themselves, without outside labor. The government forced absentee landlords to sell all their land to the government. Farmers were allowed to own a small amount of farm land that they could rent out to others ( 2.5 acres or one hectare in most parts of Japan, and 10 acres or 4 hectares in Hokkaido), and had to sell any excess to the government. The government then sold this land, usually to the tenant who had been farming it. The result greatly improved the living conditions of farmers. Idealogical basis: The West has its own idealogy on land reform based on the family unit and private ownership as its core idealogy. This is Douglas Macarthur's land reform with private land title transfers. VS Marxist = land reform transfer to the state, no private land title transfer to the workers. Marxist socialism is fake since it doesn't transfer ownership to families.
    1
  32.  @anuvisraa5786  FALSE. The Chile example, USSR has supported its Cuban proxy that in turn supported Marxist Salvador Allende. You're a hypocrite. Marxist Salvador Allende clashed with the right-wing parties that controlled Congress and with the judiciary. On 11 September 1973, the military moved to oust Allende in a coup d'état. Marxist Salvador Allende's presidential branch effectively declared war on the judiciary and right-wing majority-governed Congress branches. During the 1970 Chilean presidential election, both the United States and the Soviet Union poured money into this election through their intelligence agencies and other sources. 💰KGB money was more precisely targeted. Allende made a personal request for Soviet money through his personal contact, KGB officer Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who urgently came to Chile from Mexico City to help Allende. The original allocation of money for these elections through the KGB was $400,000, and an additional personal subsidy of $50,000 directly to Allende.[8] It is believed that help from KGB was a decisive factor, because Allende won by a narrow margin of 39,000 votes of a total of the 3 million cast. After the elections, the KGB director Yuri Andropov obtained permission for additional money and other resources from the Central Committee of the CPSU to ensure Allende victory in Congress. In his request on 24 October, he stated that KGB "will carry out measures designed to promote the consolidation of Allende's victory and his election to the post of President of the country". --------------- In your argument's summary, the USSR-supported regime change intervention is okay while the US intervention is bad. Your argument is hypocritical. USSR's proxy attempted to remove Chile's check-and-balance Congress system. USSR's proxy attempted to concentrate political power into a single entity (individual and political party). The US has no problems with the Swedish-style nanny market led-socialism that is practiced in the CANZUK and Nordic countries.
    1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44.  @jliang70  Lowyinstitute's debunking-myth-china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy article didn't factor in Sri Lankan' new government is investigating a Chinese firm on suspicion of offering a bribe to Mahinda Rajapaksa'. History: In the mid-2000s, Colombo (the commercial capital of Sri Lanka) agreed to let Beijing build a new port from scratch in the town of Hambantota, in the south of the island. It wasn’t yet thought of as part of a new Silk Road -- that programme was conceptualizsed by Xi Jinping in 2012 -- but all the ingredients were there. "Chinese funds and engineers are mobilised to build infrastructure outside China, as part of a partnership that was meant to be win-win: this is the very definition of the rationale of the Silk Road," said Jean-François Dufour, economist and director of DCA China-Analysis. The Chinese president integrated the Sri Lankan project into his Silk Road initiative in 2013. But in 2015, financial clouds began gathering over the future of Hambantota’s port, which cost $1.1 billion. Sri Lanka was crumbling under the debt, and was unable to repay the more than $8 billion in loans it had taken from China for several infrastructure projects in the country. Furious, Beijing turned up the heat and threatened to cut off financial support to the island nation if it didn’t quickly find a solution. In December, 2017, after two years of negotiations, Colombo finally agreed to turn over the port to China for 99 years in exchange for the cancellation of its debt. The concession was humiliating for Sri Lanka, while "the opponents of China, like India, painted the entire operation as a deliberate plan to acquire strategic positions in the region," Dufour said. China was suspected of intentionally strangling Colombo with loans at a 6 percent interest rate, which was much higher than the other lenders - such as the World Bank – from which Colombo had previously borrowed.
    1
  45.  @jliang70  Did you assume I wasn't aware Lowy and specifically, the author of Debunking the myth of China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” article is Shahar Hameiri from the University of Queensland? Peter_Høj joined Hanban (Council of Confucius Institute Headquarter) as an unpaid senior consultant in 2013 and was later appointed a member of the governing council of Confucius Institute Headquarters in 2017. He stood down in late 2018 from his position due to legal advice surrounding his required signing of Australia's new Foreign Interference Transparency Scheme. Høj’s involvement with the Institute was seen as controversial after a Four Corners investigation by the ABC found that the Chinese government and the UQ Confucius Institute had co-funded four University of Queensland courses. Furthermore a separate investigation by Four Corner’s highlighted that the Confucius Institute had been involved with honorary staff appointments and curriculum development at the University of Queensland. In May 2019 the UQ senate ceased accepting funding from the Confucius Institute. When interviewed about the situation Høj explained, "having courses concerning China is totally appropriate". He further said "It's very appropriate for universities such as ours to educate our students about Chinese politics, Chinese economics because we live in a region where China will be the largest economy in the world very soon, the largest trading partner for Australia". When questioned on the institute's involvement he said,"Is it appropriate that a Confucius Institute devises courses? No, it's not, but they don't. They're not involved in the design of the course. They're not involved in the delivery.”. The investigation interviewed Ross Babbage, senior security adviser to the federal government, and Clive Hamilton, an academic who focuses primarily on the interference of the Chinese Communist Party at Australian universities, both suggested a review into the universities' relationship with the institute. Furthermore Høj, when asked if he was influenced by the Chinese Communist party during his time at the Confucius Institute, said, "I'm very confident that I haven't been influenced."[12]
    1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1