I'll chalk it all up to textual miscommunication then. I could've said "selection bias?" and meant more or less the same thing but with a different expression of ideas. There were at least 100 more words in that comment, but perhaps those weren't as immediately thought-provoking as I generally try for. I'm a bit drunk as well so I can't really tell what's going to be what.

As far as Ukraine and Venezuela, the number of words I've written on both (moreso the former) in the last month or two on hubski would make a good-size though not good-read book so I don't want to see my opinion whittled down to 'this is dumb' because of one defeatist comment. I guess I earned it but it's a shame. And I stand by what I said: a leader who reacts to his citizens uniting in the streets by making it illegal to unite in the streets is in for a bad time and should know it. It's not really about money, or even about power. The leaders in question already had both. It's about an inexplicably bad decision that backfired. I am, again, "baffled"; I have no explanation for that strange decision. Crackdowns don't work in the age of the internet.

Regarding Putin, eh. I don't think it's, I don't know, some sort of moral issue to posit that the world might be a better place if someone or another had never come to power, was dead, etc. It's more of a poli sci hypothetical exercise. Putin is a selfish bastard with too much power and no good ideas -- there are many such leaders -- if they all died we'd have chaos not roses. Obviously. Doesn't mean I can't hate him and express my hate flippantly every once in a while.

Oh inre: selection bias before I forget; makes at least a bit of sense, right? It takes a certain person to become interested in the subject of Napoleons and Alexanders, one naturally more inclined to ape them. It's a distinct possibility.