>

Banning people from owning a home is authoritarian.  It might be a good way to run a country but it's still authoritarian, compared to a country that has no laws about ownership.
I'm curious of the economic impact of this, is it as much as $1million? There's only 9 million residents, and looks like their median income is about $500 a month, so they probably weren't consuming that much legally in the first place. >

That's really going to help with foreign investment and trade. Companies like it when you play hard ball and ignore intellectual property norms. >

You laugh but Google has an office in Moscow, for some reason. So a country can be a complete dumpster but major companies might still invest. >

It's so funny how dumb the government and supporters of Belarus are.
"You aren't our friend so we're taking your movies and going home."
Really thought provoking foreign policy lol. It's like grade school politicking >


It's like grade school politicking

You can't expect more from Authoritarians. >

Describing politicans as "authoritarians" is, ironically, also grade school politicking. >

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
/əˌTHôrəˈterēən/
adjective
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
​
How is that not the realm of politicians? >

Because it applies to every single country on the planet to a pretty much identical degree? And is only ever used as a buzzword by nations against unfriendly nations to antagonize them? It doesn't describe any country or politicians in a significant way.