UNESCO doesn't bear any authority, so the answer would be "none at all" or something like that, I guess...
always_have_been_astronaut.jpg
Like I mentioned in my other comment, I think that both leaders can and should be criticized independently, a comparison between the two is not useful.
Neither leader is socialist, so in my opinion, neither truly has the best interest of their country's working class at heart. There could be some observation and speculation about how the possible outcomes of the conflict could promote socialist aims, but that is still independent of both guy themselves.
I'd thought that even the most liberal people on nü-Lemmy had at least read some Chomsky (or even watched the documentaries based on his work), but I guess we aren't even there yet.
I'm not exactly with the other guy, but it's extremely important to realize that ALL sources are biased. The Washington post and the New York Times both function as propaganda. They often serve as the mouthpiece of the United States Department of State or Defense, and are happy to cultivate public support for military conflicts that are in the interest of the American ruling class.
This is well documented in the book Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. You can also listen to the podcast Citations Needed to gain a better understanding about how this works in the modern day.
An example you may be readily familiar with is the Iraq War, in which US government officials repeatedly lied to the public and started a meaningless war, without any real journalistic pushback. This lead to an atrocity affecting millions.
I mean, that's not strictly necessary either. Chinal allows a good many billionaires to exist, but they are hitting their emissions targets ahead of schedule, cause they don't let the billionaires run the entire show like they do in the USA.
You think that all of them do it out of knowledge? Remember that if they weren't born before 1980, they've really only experienced the effects of capitalism on their countries. I've heard it happen before, that some 20-25 year old who immigrated with their parents in the mid-2000s is going off about how "communism ruined my country and that's why we had to leave", or something.
In 1991 the referendum to dissolve the USSR was voted against by the population (of course it happened anyway).
I don't mean to suggest that the political or economic systems implemented under communist governments were perfect, or even that great, but in the English-speaking world there is a tendency to assume that everyone (or even a majority of people) who lived there were against their own government, when it's much more complex than that.
A modern example I noticed recently was in this video, where the people living in the warzone in Eastern Ukraine are generally supportive of Russia, and miss the USSR (I mean, if anything, the current conflict never would have happened). Of course these two people don't represent their whole community, but it's more complex than is commonly portrayed (all I'm trying to say).
Watch from around 3:15 till about 20 minutes in when the old guy in the shirt is done talking (or just watch the whole thing idc): https://youtu.be/drhgjxSJG6M?t=197
You're right, but there's nothing humanitarian about a military conflict.
Everyone else just lived in pretty poor, if stable, conditions.
That's the thing, they lived in a poor country. Not strictly because of their political system (as many flaws as it had), but because of global economics, and trade hostility from the USA that intentionally hampered growth. It's not like they were purposely kept poor for funsies or cause the government were big meanies (sure, they were meanies in other ways). The wealth inequality between modern political leaders and funding sources (where the real power comes from) and the average citizen (particularly in the USA) is far greater than it ever was in the USSR.
Things are better for some and worse for many since then in Russia, but in other places like Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova everyone lost except for the rich guys who pillaged all the private infrastructure.
People might not like it, but you can watch a couple of people who are living in Eastern Ukraine (yes, the literal warzone) in this video talk about how shit was better until 1991. Cause, you know, they wouldn't be living in a warzone for one thing. Watch from 03:15 till about 20 minutes in, if you'd like:
Ok come on, my friend. I know a bible burning won't get you the death penalty, but many many many people have been killed and imprisoned for not living to Christian values, especially in the United States. It's "just a few crazies" or whatever, but it really isn't since these actions happen in an environment of indirect public support.