You must log in or register to comment.
Putin having correct international stances is telling us two things. The first is that the national interests of Russian capital are not aligned with the interests of western capital. The second is that Putin is not an irrational madman and effectively defends the national bourgeois interests of his country.
It says nothing about Putin being ideologically correct, it doesn't say anything about him being reactionary and his nationalism being romantic and idealistic.
im just please begging for a meme telling me which man is the great man good guy
Joe Biden also supported genocide in Donbas, don't forget who was VP back then.
It’s clearly just polemical image portraying Putin as a good guy. I don’t think it’s wrong, but it embellishes Putin unnecessarily
What's the Donbass genocide part about? Is this something related to the Euromaidan?
I agree with the others here. The Putin administration is certainly better than Biden’s (except on LGBT+ issues, which Biden’s régime isn’t great with either), but that is a low bar to pass.
They're both terrible.
Maybe biden is more so, but this tries to make putin look good which is cringe
This succeeds in making Putin look good, with genuine truths no less. And you know what? He has his serious issues, but he is undeniably good where it matters- anti-imperialism, bringing Russia out of the excesses of the oligarchs and now into a new era of revitalization (liberal still, yes, but still a world of difference from the horrors of shock therapy and the opinions of anyone pretending otherwise are automatically invalid), being a major leader in the push for multipolarity, etc...
Sure, he says mean conservative things about the LGBT community and trans folk in general, and panders to the Orthodox base. As someone who is trans- frankly, while my take on that is not "so what?" at the same time the fact is that his very real, tangible actions have left a undeniably positive mark across the world, far beyond whatever negatives he brings.
I would say that Putin is- though a fair bit of it is due to circumstances he didn't ask for- one of the greatest heroes living, and one of those with the most positive impact worldwide in recent decades so far- all this, despite the fact he's still a conservative chud and a liberal.
calling Putin a 'hero' is going way, way over the mark. Putin has two aspects worthy of critical support: He's slightly more moral than the US, and he opposes US hegemony over the world.Russia's government is much like the US was in WWII, shitty but contemporarily useful against worse enemies. He's a useful bourgois pissant - definitively not a hero.
Russia’s government is much like the US was in WWII
Is it even comparable to that, though? WW2-era USA was still borne off of stolen land, genocide, and slavery; it practiced neo-slavery upon its black Americans (still does, but far less so) right up till the war, where it stopped for PR purposes. It was an expansive empire no different from any of the European ones, just that it had spread across North America and the Pacific instead, and otherwise flexed its muscles through similar indirect means (banana republics across Latin America, regime changes, etc). This same USA, was the one which had been killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos that same decade and decades prior, which had stolen the independence of Hawai'i and countless other states, which had been waging "wars" (read: genocidal pogroms) of its native populations up until the mid-1920s, which was growing fat off of the exploitation of trade in Asia and Latin America and had engaged in atrocities like its interventions in the Boxer Rebellion, and which had played a part in the global effort to try to destroy the Russian bolsheviks during the Russian civil war.
And to top it all off, the US during WW2 was, even then, actively working to preserve Nazism and other fascist ideologies (the various ideologies that American actions had been the primary inspiration for- such as Lebensraum, Aryan supremacy and racial purity, etc) so they could use it just as they have since- throughout the cold war and right till this very day as seen in Ukraine, across post-Warsaw pact Europe, in Japan, South Korea, and rogue Taiwan, in Israel, etc...
I'd say Russia's government is nothing alike to the US in WWII. It's like comparing Hitler with a boy scout.
Comparing Hitler with a boy scout who stopped Hitler, no less
I’m not disagreeing with you, but there’s a reason things like this exist across the Global South:
Harden your heart, Putin (Palestinian song) (CW: misogyny)
Not my first time hearing it, but it brings a smile to my face every time. There's a reason indeed, and even if there is mild misogyny (there is) I'd certainly die on the hill of defending it in this context.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Communists shouldn't be talking about Putin as if he's a "good guy" or "hero" in the first place. These are lib-rot, idealist descriptors of a head of a periphery state. I know we're just memeing here, but if we're gonna have a serious discussion about contemporary Russia or any other country (even the Marxist ones) we should be weary of romanticizing them. This ain't the MCU. States have interests, which their leaders and the ruling parties that back them pursue, and Russia is anti-imperialist due to circumstance, not out of benevolence. Reminder that in the beginning, post-Soviet Russia under Putin tried to join the Western imperialist club.
Considering the liberalness of modern day Russia, I do wonder what it would be like if they were a bigger power and if imperialism was actually possible foe them, would they do it?
I mean it sounds nice to say the right things when you don't really have a choice in the opposite. Sure, tell everybody that you're anti-imperialistic, but that's only because you're fighting the imperialist as much as anybody else is. But as soon as Russia gets power, would they not potentially use it the way that every other liberal democracy would?
It's still theoretical, so I'm not going to blame anybody for actions they haven't taken. But as we've all seen, Putin isn't a good guy. He's just a bad guy who's aligned with good guys because it makes sense for them in the meantime.
I dunno, just my recent thoughts on the matter.
If nothing else- I'd say that Putin's actions have shown he is charting a different course for Russia than that of western capital (as an understatement). Russia's material realities and geopolitical constraints also mean that- similar to China (which the west has spent no small amount of effort trying to smear as doing... the same things the west does on a regular basis) Russia is not going to be supplanting the west as a global, imperialist hegemon.
Russia doesn't need to follow the course of Anglo-European history for the past 500 years, it isn't doing so, it can't, and it is building itself up upon a entirely different model based on its own domestic industries and production, and as part of Eurasian integration than colonial plunder. That enough is more than good enough for me tbh.
Hell, I don't think I'd even go so far as to say Putin is a "bad guy." No one is pure pearly white, sure (purity culture/ultra-ism and all that is tired anyways) but domestically, overwhelmingly his impact is positive despite his boomer attitudes and liberalism on many things. Internationally I'd call his impact near wholly perfect as well, so even better yet. Describing him as a "bad guy aligned with the good guys" makes him sound like a (WW2 era) Churchill, de Gaulle, Eisenhower, or CKS, or perhaps even Abe Lincoln... except that none of their varying imperialist crimes and attitudes, or their plethora of glaring issues in CKS' case, can be pinned on Putin. Is he a chud and a lib? Sure, definitely. But as far as I'm concerned he doesn't even belong in the aforementioned crowd.
Interesting thoughts comrade. I'll have to chew on that for a while. Thank you for your insight.
I understand your general sentiment, but I think calling Putin not a "bad guy" is overselling it. He's still a brutal dictator and a bourgeois scumbag, he just happens to be on the Global South's side for now. My support for him begins and ends at anti-imperialism. I'm not saying he's the devil incarnate, and he has done alot of good for Russia, but I can't not call him a useful necessary evil.
He’s still a brutal dictator
Is he, though? I certainly don't think so- as much as people like to characterize him as such, if anything, he rules with far more "democratic" a mandate (still liberal though- so not truly democratic where it matters, but that's a given for most of the world) than any of his peers in the west do.
What makes him "brutal?" His military actions (interventions in Ukraine, anti-ISIS actions in support of the Assad govt. in Syria, past actions cracking down on terrorism in Chechnya), which have all been not only justified, but incomparable to the modus operandi of the western "free world?"
What makes him specifically labeled a "dictator?" That he panders to popular conservative Orthodox views in the country, and thus to anti-LGBT sentiment and censorship? If so, half of EU member states may as well be called dictatorships- and the "wholesome LGBT-loving western countries" are neither without their pandering to reactionaries, nor their crackdowns on other minority religious and ethnic groups, dissenting voices and ideologies, etc... as someone who is trans myself I can realize that I'd rather live in the west than Russia (for now, frankly I can definitely see the not-so-unlikely possibility of these things changing for various reasons) but let's not kid ourselves, for the majority- whose rule is unpopular? Which countries have more accountability nowadays, and which ones are working for the betterment of (most of) their citizens? Which country actually has considerable self-autonomy for its constituent ethnic minorities, and is enacting generally popular legislation, economic reforms, etc?
If we're to call Putin a "brutal dictator," then why shouldn't we use the same title- for Biden, Trudeau, Sunak, Macron, Scholz, and so on? Hell, why don't we use the same title for the schmucks in Sweden and the other Nordic countries who are trying to strongarm their citizens into joining NATO despite popular sentiment being against it? Why don't we judge the actions of the "free world" just as harshly?
(edit) of course, however, I agree that he's a bourgeois scumbag.
I'm speaking more towards about how Putin views/uses the Communist Party as controlled opposition, but he also is aware that they are his likely successors if/when something were to happen to him.
Also how Putin simultaneously pays lip service to aspects of the USSR, and then turns around and praises White Army officers.
This might be a neoliberal-ish criticism, but the amount of wealth and power and control he and his oligarchs hold over all of Russia. That isn't to say that western capitalist countries don't have it worse in this aspect, of course they do. I know that Putin pretends to like aspects of socialism and that he isn't a marxist-leninist, but he is still a manipulative scumbag that seems to dangle the living standards and continual improvement over the common population while he is too tolerant of the oligarchs. Yes, Putin does have a fine leash on them, but he is still part of their class.
I agree that Russia seems to generally take care of it's people far better than the U.S. does, and even the United Nations admits that the semi-independent ethnic republics of Russia do have lots of autonomy and relative freedom.
I also agree that Trudeau, Biden, Macron are all dictators. I'm talking about how Putin has opposition killed.
Now, I'm not against Putin and the FSB assassinating targets out of a neoliberal misguided sense of morality, it's almost impossible to have a functioning security state without some equivalent of secret police. My criticism is that even though most of Putin's targets are neoliberal idealogues endangering the Russian state, I wouldn't be surprised if he uses it to suppress legitimate opposition.
Now, I’m not against Putin and the FSB assassinating targets out of a neoliberal misguided sense of morality, it’s almost impossible to have a functioning security state without some equivalent of secret police. My criticism is that even though most of Putin’s targets are neoliberal idealogues endangering the Russian state, I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses it to suppress legitimate opposition.
I wouldn't be surprised either, sure. But these are just assumptions- neither of us are crying for Nazi Navalny (who remains alive and well also, not that he necessarily should be- no doubt neither of us think of him as legitimate opposition), and Russia if anything- as we both agree- is more democratic (albeit still liberal and thus insufficiently, inherently so) and with both a widely popular government that is relatively competent at meeting its citizens' needs and demands, actually features meaningful semi-autonomy for its minorities, and even a large (controlled) communist opposition.
None of these things can even be said, for the western dictators (those of the Anglosphere and EU). It's for these many substantial differences, and more, that I hesitate and even object to some extent to calling Putin a "dictator," particularly when it's a word with such... baggage.
Look if you don't
for Putin then you're basically voting for biden.
Putin didn't destroy ISIS in Syria.
That was a success of a broad coalition and the main force were the people living there on the ground, often organized by Peschmerga / YPJ / YPG / etc.
I know it is a meme, still a different framing would be good to strengthen our comrades in Rojava and the rest of Syria.
WTF. Rojava is a US proxy, same as ISIS just they can admit to using Rojava while they have to deny helping ISIS.
Assad helped destroy ISIS and Putin assisted Assad and the Syrian nation. Those anarcho-CIA-ists you mentioned helped leave the country ripe for ISIS to exist and be a problem in the first place.
Fuck them. They're no comrades of anyone opposed to US hegemony which is the world proletariat.
Fucking western leftists, a few shots of aesthetics with nice slogans on posters in English and they go right along with cheering for US proxies while sneering at liberals for doing the same with liberal color revolution movements.
Putin didn't destroy ISIS in Syria
Correct
That was a success of a broad coalition
Partly correct. ISIS has not yet been completely destroyed in Syria, but it has been strategically defeated. And yes, this was not achieved by Russia alone.
and the main force were the people living there on the ground
The main force were the Syrian people and their government.
often organized by Peschmerga / YPJ / YPG / etc.
False. The main actors leading the resistance to ISIS in Syria are the Syrian government of Bashar al-Asaad as well as its allies in the region. The coalition that defeated ISIS was primarily formed of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) aided by Russia, and Iranian backed and organized militias led by general Soleimani whom the US murdered for his role in defeating ISIS and spoiling their plan for Syria.
would be good to strengthen our comrades in Rojava
"Rojava" unfortunately has acted in a very duplicitous manner. They have defended their own territory, yes, but at the same time they have been consistently playing the role of a proxy of the US to keep Syria destabilized and prevent the Syrian government from re-establishing control of its sovereign territory.
In doing this they have sided with ISIS, which is a proxy of the US and the Zionist entity and which time and time again proves that it is working toward the same regional goals as the US imperialists and the neocolony.
In doing this they have sided with ISIS, which is a proxy of the US and the Zionist entity and which time and time again proves that it is working toward the same regional goals as the US imperialists and the neocolony.
Assad did deliver weapons to the de-facto government of Rojava and thus the YPG. Is Assad an US proxy against himself?
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Syrian_civil_war.png
This shows well the front line that was relevant. The conflict against ISIL was only part of the civil war, for years, so a long time, Assad and allies did focus on controlling parts in the West and doing operations against rebel forces, including some parts of Islamist forces. The operations in the east were at a latter point. However I do understand that your read of the situation is basically the Hisbollah position. Not a lot to discuss between us.
Rojava are the ones working with the US and ISIS to literally starve out Syria (occupying the prime agricultural and oil-producing regions). With that in mind there is no pity in my heart for them, they deserve what they get for working with the great Satan (as an atheist- when Iran calls AmeriKKKa satan, when people from the Caribbean call it Babylon, they are if anything making a massive understatement). With "comrades" like them, who needs enemies?
Isn't rojava kind of a US proxy at this point? I'm not very well versed on the topic so input would be much appreciated.
Assad did deliver weapons to AANES, is he a proxy against himself?
The analysis if actions and operations align and if an entity is a proxy can't stop with labeling something as proxy or not to mean good or bad. Was China delivering weapons in conflicts on the side of US forces during the last 70 years a US proxy? Is ISIL a Turkish proxy? Is Syria and is Hizbollah (and as such Lebanon) just an Iranian proxy? No.
AANES got its own goals, to say "it is an US proxy" is absolutely reductive. Much of what happens there is cause of the relations they are in, even without any US influence. The Syrian Civil war is very complex and you actually need to parse through 10-15 years of material to get a grasp of it. Russia did lobby for the UNO to include Rojava as partner in talks related to Syrian peace talks, Russia has an office of Rojava in Moscow.
AANES is in conflict with Turkey. AANES is in need of partners and it enjoys high support within the territories it controls. It is a typical thing to neglect Kurdish, Jesidic, Arabic struggles. Kurdish women who did actually hold talks in my city and conferences, women who fought, who tell you about Jineologie and about emancipatory societies are labeled as "pathetic Western leftists" here. Anti-Imperialism can be emancipatory and progressive.
https://rojavainformationcenter.org/2023/12/aanes-social-contract-2023-edition/
Bombings by Turkey make it more likely for ISIL prisoners to escape. Is Turkey furthering ISIL?
https://npasyria.com/en/110254/
Putin didn't really opposed the war in Iraq post-911. As a matter of fact, he proposed to the US to host fighter planes in Russian Airbase for airstrikes in addition to air support for the infantry.
Russia never really have a concrete position until it goes against their own geopolitical interests.
