USSR is mostly to blame for the entire situation

USSR literally freed the Korean peninsula from Imperial Japanese occupation before the US even considered joining. Only when the US realized this may lead to communism in the region did they join in from the south to prevent total soviet liberation of Korea. The US then proceeded to bomb North Korea into hell, killing literal millions of people and leveling the entire country. How any of that is USSRs fault is beyond me.

I don't particularly love the Juche ideology, it's marked by very strong nationalism, but if you're incapable of understanding why the government is so quirky, think about this: one terrorist attack in the USA, 9/11, led to mass hysteria, oppressive laws regarding freedom of movement, widespread islamophobia, mass state surveillance, and it's one of the biggest scars of the country in recent history. If you don't think that the leveling of 90% OF BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRY and the MURDER OF 15% OF THE POPULATION through bombs for the sin of being communist may have long-lasting consequences in the government and population, I encourage you to rethink that.

I wasn't condemning Ukraine for not holding elections during a war, I was seriously arguing about the difficulty of holding elections when you're under severe economic and political duress because of consequences of mass-bombing of your country by the US (which is important and you failed to mention in your comment) and economic blockade.

I call it blockade not because it's exerted militarily, but because it doesn't consist of unilateral sanctions by the US, it consists of a prohibition of companies from trading in the largest economy in the world if they trade previously with North Korea, as is the case of the blockade of Cuba. In this manner, if a Chinese company wants to do any trade in the US, it cannot do trade in North Korea too. A sanction is applied only within your own jurisdiction in my opinion, as for example what the EU is doing to Russia.

As for the study I promised, in the findings it says these words:

We estimated that unilateral sanctions were associated with an annual toll of 564 258 deaths (95% CI 367 838–760 677), similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict

This is why I don't bother making a distinction between pressure to elections from military violence as from economic violence, both are equally harmful even in number of deaths, and both represent a similar strain on the institutions and the trust of people in the government. As I quoted in my previous comment, the US itself admits this, by talking of "bringing about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of government". I don't bring up the frozen Korean war because as of today it doesn't produce the amount of deaths and suffering that the American economic blockade does by any materialist metric. My point is not to argue about technicisms of whether a country is technically at war hence no elections, but rather about the measurable, material impact of western pressure, whatever form it may take.

Ok I thought I was talking to someone with basic political literacy. Yes, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens were/are against rise of retirement age and against defunding of public healthcare and education.

Greece was threatened with a default because EU states with Euro as their currency gave up their monetary sovereignty to the European Central Bank. England, the US or Japan have their own currencies so the state cannot default by definition, because the state can literally create an unlimited amount of the money it borrows through debt. Greece had a DEMOCRATIC REFERENDUM to revise its sovereign debt and the idea won by a long shot, and then the country was not allowed to exercise its democratic will under threat of cutting Euro supply by the ECB, i.e. default.

Every poll in the USA comes to some result close to 70% of USians supporting the idea of implementing universal healthcare because essentially every Democrat wants this and many Republicans want it too. It's not done because the US isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

I'm actually done talking with you. You pretend to be a leftist but you have literally 0 support to offer to the working class, you have the narrowest understanding of politics as defined by whatever western outlets you consume, and you're a smug debatelord who doesn't care to inform themselves in the slightest, you haven't picked up a single book about politics in your entire life and it shows. You constantly replicate lies and don't care to admit it, you constantly miss information and you don't care to admit it, and you think you're the smartest person in the universe. Go waste someone else's time.

Ok, now apply that beautiful logic of yours to North Korea.

North Korea was bombed to the stone age in 1955 by the glorious and democratic USA (without consulting its people), to the point that 15% of North Koreans were murdered and 90% of all buildings were leveled. Afterwards, the most thorough and long-lasting economic blockade in history was imposed by the USA, which left the economy in shambles and made it very hard for the country to recover. It was recovering when, in 1991, its greatest commercial partner during blockade, the USSR, was dissolved, which left food insecurity in a country that wasnt allowed to import grain and whose cold climate and mountainous geography make agriculture quite complicated. For reference, a recent study showed that US economic blockades murder 500.000 people a year, quite a bit more than death rates from war in Ukraine.

US could end the criminal blockade of North Korea right now if he simply chose to, but no, the US doesn't want to stop murdering people through economic violence. As the Office of the Historian of the USA holds in its database:

every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.

Hmmm, I wonder why they dont celebrate free elections in such critical conditions...

If you're unwilling to as much as listen, be honest to me and to yourself and stop waging our time

You're being purposefully obtuse. Did Bush obey the popular will when he invaded Iraq?

The only and best measure of democracy is the existence of multiple parties?

I'm trying to have an actual conversation with you, dont be a dick

Again, way to ignore 90% of my comment.

Democracy isn't when there's three parties, it's when people generally get what they want. People in the entirety of Europe have been consistently overwhelmingly against Austerity Policy since 2008 and that's all we've gotten, regardless of party in government or country in question, and when one country (Greece) decided to ignore austerity, it was literally threatened with a default by the European Central Bank and wasn't allowed to do so. Plenty of parties and free vote in Europe, it all means nothing at the end of the day. If you're USian instead, you're probably aware that the overwhelming majority of USians want universal healthcare for decades and that's systematically ignored by either party in government. What's democracy then?

Again: why would an antidemocratic dictatorship of an owning class create free universal healthcare, free education to the highest degree, guaranteed housing and work, public services, thoughtful urban planning and walkable neighborhoods, quality public transit for the period, subsidies of basic foodstuffs, sports centres aplenty, paid holidays for everyone, high workplace safety, etc? Maybe, possibly, because it was more democratic than you've made out to think? Again, I've given you plenty of sources mate, and you're just ignoring 90% of the comments I'm writing. Are you even a leftist at all? I wouldn't have this patience with a rightoid

I provided three sourced quotes from contemporary western sources corroborating that the given reason for invading Finland was to put extra Soviet-controlled territory between the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Additional source, from Wikipedia's article of the Winter War:

"In April 1938, NKVD agent Boris Yartsev contacted Finnish Foreign Minister Rudolf Holsti and Finnish Prime Minister Aimo Cajander, stating that the Soviets did not trust Germany and that war was considered possible between the two countries. The Red Army would not wait passively behind the border but would rather "advance to meet the enemy". Finnish representatives assured Yartsev that Finland was committed to a policy of neutrality and that the country would resist any armed incursion. Yartsev suggested that Finland cede or lease some islands in the Gulf of Finland along the seaward approaches to Leningrad, but Finland refused"

Your and Soviet gut feelings about Finns collabbing with Nazis, however right they ended up being afterwards, weren't the official reason to invade Finland's south, the reason was simply putting extra land on the way, as explicitly said by Soviet officials during negotiations to try and peacefully get that land, and as proven by the fact that the Soviets stopped the war when they got these territories.

My point is you don't need to assume inclination to allying with the Nazis. I personally believe it too, but the motives for the invasion were ultimately different, as explained by the sources I've given you.

People needing to line up for basic goods

This is, as you say, the Soviet Union close to its dissolution. These are the post-1985 times of Perestroika, in which unsuccessful liberal reforms were implemented to Soviet industry in a radical manner, such as overnight replacing 50% of resource allocation by planning committee to markets that didnt exist, and general chaos ensued. It was a big mistake that led to issues such as bread lines, but it's specific to the late 80s. You and I have lived the lack of stock of basic goods in supermarkets such as toilet paper and sunflower oil or eggs from particular historical events. Bread lines just did not happen in the USSR from the postwar recovery to the perestroika, and focusing on a few years of turmoil due to war or to bad policy towards the end isnt accurate of the experience of the rest of the time.

Based on the personal accounts of a relative

Then do your reading, mate, I'm sorry. I have relatives who have personal accounts of the streets being dangerous just because they're racist pieces of shit and saw a black person. Look at the crime rates of my area and they're at historic low, despite what personal accounts say. If you want personal accounts, go ask an old soviet person, most old people in Russia want the USSR back, and it was the case in Ukraine too until 10 years ago. Go ask old people in former Yugoslavia whether life was better under Tito or on what ensued. Or, be materialist, and don't "listen to one personal account": do your reading of actually researched studies. I gave you plenty of sources for my information regarding foodstuffs, access to housing and work, access to public transit, urban planning, infrastructure and the rural exodus since 1990, education, healthcare, sports... The information is there, and these books use sources that you can check by yourself. So please, don't tell me "but I heard a relative say something different".

My thesis mostly hinges on the Soviet Union not being democratic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union.

Exactly, your material and historical analysis of the Soviet Union is based off of NATOpedia.

In short: Wikipedia is primarily edited by white young males of english-speaking countries, so it features the bias or young males of English a speaking countries. This is well-known and even has Wikipedia articles dedicated to it. In particular, source selection on English Wikipedia is mostly taken from western news sources, so it reflects the bias of western news sources. Western news sources present systematic pro-western bias in geopolitically sensitive issues, you may recall the behaviour of western news sources regarding Palestine up to a few years ago, with no media talking of genocide and presenting the occupation of Palestine as a "both sides issue". Other, possibly more egregious cases you may or not remember are Nayirah's Testimony or the media flip on coverage of Russia in European countries, where up to 2022 Putin was said to be a "great governor and Russian patriot" (e.g. Francisco Marhuenda), which is now unthinkable. If you're interested in this issue with Wikipedia, I wrote this detailed post about it some time ago.

I hope you, a self-declared socialist from what I've seen on your post history, will reflect on using mainstream western sources to analyze topics that are sensitive to western geopolitics as is the case for communism, we're well aware of what the red scare in the US entailed and the lies that have been spread about socialism in general (not just the Soviet project) by the US state propaganda apparatus over the past century.

I encourage you to do some reading of my sources, especially Albert Szymanski's "Human Rights in the Soviet Union", which dispells a ton of western-manufactured myths about the USSR using mostly western academic sources.

And why does Russia's life expectancy spike upwards right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed?

On the graph you can see Russia's life expectancy peaked in 1990, then fell for one and a half decades coinciding with the dismantling of the USSR, and then in 2005 it starts to rise back, but doesnt reach pre-1990 levels until about 2015, so life expectancy didnt recover from capitalism until 25 years of technological advances passed. Regarding Brazil, yes, Brazil surpassed life expectancy in Russia during the crisis of the dismantling, I do think this supports my thesis that the dismantling murdered millions (by Paul Cockshott's calculations, about 5-10 million in Russia alone).

Still leaves the question as to why the Soviet Union just collapsed?

If there were a class of owners strongly gripping to power in order to keep exploiting the majority of workers, you would expect very violent revolutions being needed to dismantle the system and remove them from power, but the transition to capitalism in the Eastern Block was overwhelmingly peaceful, which again supports my thesis that there wasn't an owning class enjoying the fruits of others' labour. As to why the USSR was dismantled this is a long topic, and if you're interested in some materialist historical analysis, I recommend "Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union" by Robert Keeran and Thomas Kenny. It gives a good historical outlook on how it's possible that the USSR survived something as impossibly difficult as WW2 and the murder of 25 million Soviet citizens (13% of the population) by Nazis, but it was dismantled in half a decade since the start of the perestroika in 1985.

Please, you're patently showing that the reading you've done of the topic of the USSR is superficial and based off primarily western anticommunist sources. I encourage you to keep an open mind and read more about the project that uplifted 150 million peasants in the Russian Empire from extreme poverty to being the second most powerful nation on Earth, guaranteeing healthcare, education, housing, work, not performing unequal exchange or economic imperialism with any sort of colony unlike US and Europe with Africa and Latin America, and helping emancipatory movements such as that of Vietnam or Cuba.

Stop looking for excuses with on-the-spot reading of graphs or moving the goalposts (first wealth and de-jure ownership, then income not mattering, then radio silence about widespread access to social services and essential goods).

The reason to invade Finland wasn't sue to Nazi collaborationism, Finland still wasn't allied with the Nazis. The reason was the need for the USSR to put additional territory between themselves and the Nazis due to the geography of the region, i.e. the Great European Plain, a vast flatland without natural defenses that is very hard to protect from Nazi blitzkrieg. USSR attempted negotiations with Finland to gain terrains to have control over lands further from Moscow, Leningrad and the oil fields at the south of Russia, and only when those negotiations failed did the Soviets invade. This isn't just explicitly what the Soviets were saying at the time of negotiations, it was openly said so by all western leaders at the time of the Molotov Ribbentrop truce:

“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement