Putin's real position

[rupol2000]

Putin is the most mysterious politician. His coming to power was associated with left-wing politics, United Russia was formed during the Clinton era as an opposition to Yeltsin, who was originally right-wing. Berezovsky, a left-wing oligarch, claimed he brought him to power. But he soon fell into disgrace, and this was on the eve of the arrival of Bush Jr. Most likely he removed him and his friends. The Bush era was accompanied by the success of Putin, these are the years of his popularity.
Then a left trend began in the Russian Federation, which became especially noticeable after the 14th.

However, Putin never declared and still does not declare support for the communists.

In general, it is absolutely not clear which side is actually on, that's the problem.

Or he's just a puppet.

He recently stated that today he is not a power but simply a function.

 

[White 6]

Putin is the most mysterious politician. His coming to power was associated with left-wing politics, United Russia was formed during the Clinton era as an opposition to Yeltsin, who was originally right-wing. Berezovsky, a left-wing oligarch, claimed he brought him to power. But he soon fell into disgrace, and this was on the eve of the arrival of Bush Jr. Most likely he removed him and his friends. The Bush era was accompanied by the success of Putin, these are the years of his popularity.
Then a left trend began in the Russian Federation, which became especially noticeable after the 14th.

However, Putin never declared and still does not declare support for the communists.

In general, it is absolutely not clear which side is actually on, that's the problem.

Or he's just a puppet.

He recently stated that today he is not a power but simply a function.

Totalitarian Imperialist to say the very least, wanting to restore the empire, in my opinion. Not necessary for me to establish left or right ideology, if I can immediately see actions in his national leadership, reprehensible to my world view and a danger to regional stability of recognized free state neighbors, especially in proximity to NATO allies.

 

[rupol2000]

Totalitarian Imperialist to say the very least, wanting to restore the empire, in my opinion. Not necessary for me to establish left or right ideology, if I can immediately see actions in his national leadership, reprehensible to my world view and a danger to regional stability of recognized free state neighbors, especially in proximity to NATO allies.

In that case, why didn't Bush get rid of him, why didn't he support communism, why did he speak positively of Yeltsin and Gorbachev(they are considered the culprits of the collapse of the USSR), why did he cooperate with Yanukovych, who was republican-minded.

Nothing fits here.

 

[White 6]

In that case, why didn't Bush get rid of him, why didn't he support communism, why did he speak positively of Yeltsin and Gorbachev(they are considered the culprits of the collapse of the USSR), why did he cooperate with Yanukovych, who was republican-minded.

Nothing fits here.

What fits is independence in 1990 (a year before the Soviet Union was dissolved) and NATO admission in 2004.

 

[dblack]

Putin is the most mysterious politician. His coming to power was associated with left-wing politics, United Russia was formed during the Clinton era as an opposition to Yeltsin, who was originally right-wing. Berezovsky, a left-wing oligarch, claimed he brought him to power. But he soon fell into disgrace, and this was on the eve of the arrival of Bush Jr. Most likely he removed him and his friends. The Bush era was accompanied by the success of Putin, these are the years of his popularity.
Then a left trend began in the Russian Federation, which became especially noticeable after the 14th.

However, Putin never declared and still does not declare support for the communists.

In general, it is absolutely not clear which side is actually on, that's the problem.

Or he's just a puppet.

He recently stated that today he is not a power but simply a function.

I like your whacky invention threads better.

 

[Donald H]

Totalitarian Imperialist to say the very least, wanting to restore the empire, in my opinion.

That's not an unpopular opinion, but is it based on any evidence?

Not necessary for me to establish left or right ideology, if I can immediately see actions in his national leadership,

There's nothing in any claims of Putin being 'right or left', other than the observer's own politics, and so it should be ignored.

reprehensible to my world view and a danger to regional stability of recognized free state neighbors, especially in proximity to NATO allies.

To the topic. The debate is over whether Russia (led by Putin among others) is intent on wanting to restore the S.U., or is only intent on defending its borders from US aggression in the name of Nato.

You're a moderator and so presumably you could exercise the power to prevent spamming and that sort of typical behaviour from destroying the topic on this thread. Will you do that?

 

[White 6]

That's not an unpopular opinion, but is it based on any evidence?

There's nothing in any claims of Putin being 'right or left', other than the observer's own politics, and so it should be ignored.

To the topic. The debate is over whether Russia (led by Putin among others) is intent on wanting to restore the S.U., or is only intent on defending its borders from US aggression in the name of Nato.

You're a moderator and so presumably you could exercise the power to prevent spamming and that sort of typical behaviour from destroying the topic on this thread. Will you do that?

Based on my personal opinion as having observed Russia and the old Soviet Union, back to the Cold War Days and in light of other Russian aggression in the news lately. It was enough for me to form MY opinion. Not concerned if you disagree.
I stated, I had no need to determine right of left. So we are agreed.
Have not seen the complaint.

 

[rupol2000]

NATO admission in 2004

Nato is some kind of farce. If the Russian Federation could resist NATO, it would pulverize Ukraine in 1 day.
At the same time, Europe also does not play any role there in a military sense. For the United States, all this is only a burden, they could benefit from this only if they had the right to deploy military bases in Europe, but on the contrary, they were thrown out of there.

 

[Donald H]

Based on my personal opinion as having observed Russia and the old Soviet Union, back to the Cold War Days and in light of other Russian aggression in the news lately. It was enough for me to form MY opinion. Not concerned if you disagree.

I didn't expect you would.

I stated, I had no need to determine right of left. So we are agreed.

Right.

Have not seen the complaint.

??

I like your whacky invention threads better.

 

[rupol2000]

back to the Cold War Days

There was no cold war, these are fairy tales for idiots. And there was never one and the same USSR. Under Stalinism and Rooseveltism, the US and the USSR were under the British boot, then under Eisenhower and Khrushchev, they both took the other side, and so on. There was only a Caribbean crisis, but after it there was a coup in the USSR again and the left came, as in the USA. Everything was in parallel.

 

[White 6]

Nato is some kind of farce. If the Russian Federation could resist NATO, it would pulverize Ukraine in 1 day.
At the same time, Europe also does not play any role there in a military sense. For the United States, all this is only a burden, they could benefit from this only if they had the right to deploy military bases in Europe, but on the contrary, they were thrown out of there.

But it can't resist NATO, so it should give up any latent dreams of restoring to empire and control over it's neighbors, including the ones that broke away two generations ago. My views have not changed since my cold war days in Europe, and won't now.

 

[White 6]

There was no cold war, these are fairy tales for idiots. And there was never one and the same USSR. Under Stalinism and Rooseveltism, the US and the USSR were under the British boot, then under Eisenhower and Khrushchev, they both took the other side, and so on. There was only a Caribbean crisis, but after it there was a coup in the USSR again and the left came, as in the USA. Everything was in parallel.

Interesting take, understandable of a Russian if you believe it yourself from the inside. I have no reason to change my views from the outside.