Yes Putin had a choice: either to do what he did or to allow Russia to be destroyed. Of course we know that Westoids fantasize about Russia having another Gorbachev-Yeltsin like leader who would let the West ravage (and i would have used a stronger word here but out of respect for the sensibilities of my comrades here i am choosing less coarse language) and dismantle their country while they do nothing but get drunk and star in Pizza Hut commercials. The most regrettable thing about the situation - other than that it had to come to this brother war at all - is that it was not done by a communist government but by the liberal reactionary Putin, and that is also ultimately of the West’s making as they pursued their usual playbook in Russia in the 90s of empowering the right wing to prevent socialists from taking power again.
Are you absolutely certain that is the definition of liberalism? I am potentially under the misconception of what the definition is. I have been assuming for a long time that liberal meant an advocate for liberal democracy such as Norway, France, USA, or Mexico. For example, a Fascist like Mussolini would not be a liberal despite supporting both Capitalism and Oligarchs. If Putin is a Liberal, then why is Mussolini not a Liberal, or is he one?
liberal meant an advocate for liberal democracy such as Norway, France, USA, or Mexico.
Think about it, for a sec, that liberalism, more or less, generally describes the current ideology of capitalism, even while it changes and diverges between different groups…
For example, the same people, shown to be the forerunners of liberalism, the classical liberals, such as Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke, clearly only agreed on property relations, democracy and class interests, but on the latter half which they focused on, they diverge, due to differing local class interests…
Edmund Burke, though pro-liberal representative democracy and anti-slavery, condemned the French Revolution, despite its progressive liberal and bourgeois stance, due to its anti-aristocratic and anti-monarchial nature that might indirectly lead to the destruction of such propertied interests (the old riches, so to speak)
Whereas Thomas Jefferson condoned, if not supported the French Revolution, due to its same progressive liberal bourgeois stance and republicanism, and its opposition to British interests that threatened both U.S and Revolutionary France (though the former would later outshadow UK in its atrocities)
You can say similarly between Russia and U.S.A, though I presume Russia to be more influenced by its Soviet past to not easily let go of any essential publicly-owned oil and military assets…
However, the emphasis on property relations isn’t necessarily on land and industry anymore, as much as it is on industry-based Russia vs finance-based American and Europe… though the two things (industry and finance) aren’t mutually exclusive
Yes Putin had a choice: either to do what he did or to allow Russia to be destroyed. Of course we know that Westoids fantasize about Russia having another Gorbachev-Yeltsin like leader who would let the West ravage (and i would have used a stronger word here but out of respect for the sensibilities of my comrades here i am choosing less coarse language) and dismantle their country while they do nothing but get drunk and star in Pizza Hut commercials. The most regrettable thing about the situation - other than that it had to come to this brother war at all - is that it was not done by a communist government but by the liberal reactionary Putin, and that is also ultimately of the West’s making as they pursued their usual playbook in Russia in the 90s of empowering the right wing to prevent socialists from taking power again.
Is Putin a liberal? I thought he was a reactionarry who was anti liberal democracy?
He’s liberal in that he’s pro-capitalist and pro-oligarch (as long as they don’t joust with him directly)…
Are you absolutely certain that is the definition of liberalism? I am potentially under the misconception of what the definition is. I have been assuming for a long time that liberal meant an advocate for liberal democracy such as Norway, France, USA, or Mexico. For example, a Fascist like Mussolini would not be a liberal despite supporting both Capitalism and Oligarchs. If Putin is a Liberal, then why is Mussolini not a Liberal, or is he one?
Think about it, for a sec, that liberalism, more or less, generally describes the current ideology of capitalism, even while it changes and diverges between different groups…
For example, the same people, shown to be the forerunners of liberalism, the classical liberals, such as Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke, clearly only agreed on property relations, democracy and class interests, but on the latter half which they focused on, they diverge, due to differing local class interests…
Edmund Burke, though pro-liberal representative democracy and anti-slavery, condemned the French Revolution, despite its progressive liberal and bourgeois stance, due to its anti-aristocratic and anti-monarchial nature that might indirectly lead to the destruction of such propertied interests (the old riches, so to speak)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#Representative_democracy
Whereas Thomas Jefferson condoned, if not supported the French Revolution, due to its same progressive liberal bourgeois stance and republicanism, and its opposition to British interests that threatened both U.S and Revolutionary France (though the former would later outshadow UK in its atrocities)
You can say similarly between Russia and U.S.A, though I presume Russia to be more influenced by its Soviet past to not easily let go of any essential publicly-owned oil and military assets…
However, the emphasis on property relations isn’t necessarily on land and industry anymore, as much as it is on industry-based Russia vs finance-based American and Europe… though the two things (industry and finance) aren’t mutually exclusive