Let me refer you to the classic case of past allies turned enemies of the US: Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.
What do these three men (including Putin) have in common? They made deals with the US/NATO powers generally to gain/stay in power and when they eventually stopped playing the little games that the US demanded they play they were unceremoniously denounced and eventually taken down. Well, Putin still remains mostly because (imo) he inherited the old USSR military assets including nukes which de facto made him untouchable in several ways.
Putin was helped into power because the west expected him to bend over and gut his own country (former USSR industries) for the profits of the west (mostly). In return, Putin expected to be treated as an equal to any western nation. Perhaps like an eastern Germany.
Unfortunately for him, Russians, and the world now, the western leaders never had any intention of treating a Russian as an equal. They just wanted their industries, their oil and gas, and for Putin to facilitate all of it. Eventually be caught on to the fact that many in the US gov would never accept his new capitalist Russia no matter how much he bent for them and conceded to them, so he stopped playing their games. He's been demonized by the state, and thus the media as its mouthpiece, since.
Eventually be caught on to the fact that many in the US gov would never accept his new capitalist Russia no matter how much he bent for them and conceded to them,
It would be cool if he would take this knowledge and stop having a reactionary, queerphobic capitalist state. Maybe build a lil tiny percentage of communism?
That would be cool
But unfortunately Putin was also chosen because he's a reactionary and obviously favors capitalism. And that's especially never gonna change now that he has acquired so much personal wealth.
Basically he doesn't disagree with most reactionary views that those in the West hold. They just refuse to accept him for partly racist, partly material reasons. The chances of him rebuilding any sort of communism in Russia is basically below zero though. I wish it weren't true, but that's reality.
Guy who is on the receiving end of western capitalist hedgemony's wrath, and decides to continue being reactionary. Sadly, many such cases
Libs get mad about the things they support all the time. Go ask libs in the 80s how they felt about our brave Mujahideen fighters for instance. Ask libs in 20 years how they feel about all the nazis in Ukraine they've spent the last couple of years arming to the teeth. When you live in idealism rather than materialism your viewpoints change with the wind
Liberals don't do historical analysis, they just chase after the shiny red dot wherever the state department points the laser pointer. These people have blind faith that US-backed regime change can solve every problem and simply ignore all the times it's failed or created new problems. Deeply unserious people.
The average Westerner is mad at Putin because the TV man told them to be that way. If Navalny had somehow managed to unseat him but, still piss off the West for whatever reason, the TV man would do a 180 and tell everybody in America to be mad at Navalny.
"No, not like that."
Serious answer:
- Putin and, under him, Russia don't seem to be getting on board with the neoliberal hegemony of capitalism.
- Russia is large enough, that by not getting on board, it is a threat to that hegemony.
- Russia has been a scapegoat for so long that I don't think it ever can't be. These prejudices become institutionalized and the enemies and victims never really become laundered of the roles they've been assigned.
They thought he'd let them keep plundering Russia as a neocolony. He didn't.
You expect them to remember something which was in the news over a decade ago? Neoliberals do t have a past or a future, just an eternal now like a fish
"hand picked"
I know it's a bit, but ppl really do be saying this lol
I mean, he was hand picked by the guy the west had hand picked. You could say he was second hand picked.
And considering Russia was a client state of the US at the time, Bill Clinton was 100% involved and signed off on all of it.
