They didn't though. I did admittedly have to Google about the velvet revolution but that instantly turned into the velvet divorce which was an interesting read in itself but doesn't seem to be very great.

The other resulted in Ukraine's economy basically crashing and the people's power revolution opened up the Philippines to mass corruption and handed wealth into the hands of elites.

Look my entire point is revolutions are good for society but it's a joke to think they are peaceful and leave a place totally better off. They genuinely just cause a coin flip that usually results in a similar or worse situation, typically placing wealth in the hands of already wealthy or reaffirming a social hierarchy that was the core of the problem in the first place.

My point in responding to the above comment is how everyone views the concept of revolution through rose tinted glasses even though it never ends the way they're asserting it does. Anarchists did not have an egalitarian society where everyone held hands, liberals did not create a free society they enslaved people, socialists did not make a fair economy that caused everyone's needs to be met. In every instance the poor are usually still poor, fighting continues or gets worse or the revolution instigates more fighting, factions shatter once they're in the seat of power and their ideals bleed away because that's all they were ideals

Yes everywhere will always have issues but truthfully the better process is a slow democratic focused reform, educating the masses so the next generation has the brain to do so and aiming for non-violence. Drastic changes cause drastic issues.

So no those weren't magical successful revolutions they brought further problems for the people in many ways, some were justified but it's a complete lie to assert that.

I say all of this because the entire world is expecting America to grab guns and kill the bad guys and save something but it won't unfold like that, you'll end up just creating a worse situation.