nope. sorry, but your motherland hasn’t been responsible for nearly as much death and destruction as the USA. You think that having a different president means that there is some sort of functional democratic process that represents the people of the US? That is farcical. Sure, it might suck to be in russia and you could go to jail for the things you have said, but Russia is what it is today because of the US’s antagonism towards the soviet union and russia in particular. Russia as it exists now is a consequence of US involvement.. The US ruling-class doesn’t care about democracy or freedom in Russia. The soviet union had its contradictions and problems, but a lot of the soviet union’s problems were the direct result of US meddling. The US has been quite open about that, from its invasion in 1918 to its arming of right-wing extremists with the goal of killing as many soviets as possible. But working people in the US never really decided any of that, because the US government does not have either the form or the function of a governance body that represents working-peoples interests.
Just because you live in the US now, and your life might be better now, doesn’t mean that the US government isn’t the worlds villain… It is no matter how nice you have it there. You can check in with the millions of dead in southeast asia, or the millions dead and displaced in the middle east.
When the US was founded it excluded about 94% of the people from within its borders from participating. Slavery existed on a mass scale throughout the world’s early, liberal (so-called) democracies, or often their economy was subsidized by slave labor abroad in their colonies. So if slavery didn’t exist within their immediate borders, it existed for the people their political & economic system subjugated. The idea that industrialization or “democracy” (not even sure how you are defining it, really) came into existence suddenly isn’t accurate, although there are revolutionary periods where social change came suddenly or breakthroughs in technology that occurred that reshaped social production. Those didn’t ever occur in a vacuum, and those discoveries were only able to affect the social system in so far as the social system was developed in such a way that they could be utilized… Often those big revolutionary changes in the social system were due to contradictions (compounding antagonistic relationships) within the social system itself becoming untenable. Trying to shoe-horn a somewhat obscure military “law” isn’t really going to explain how those changes occurred in a realistic way, because human society is much more complicated than that. You seem to want to reinvent the wheel here, you should try reading Marx, you might find it quite satisfying.
On your last point, the French Revolution was crushed ultimately, although the new social order retained changes that were beneficial to its new ruling class. But weapons themselves aren’t necessarily going to singularly shape the way in which social conflict resolves. Military technology is important to these developments, but ultimately a part of the larger social system that is always changing to either maintain itself or undergoing revolutionary change.