Discussion»Questions»History» When history books and literature is written, what category of characters do you think Putin will be listed along with as a state leader?
Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Trump tried but lacked the fortitude to follow through, he's a coward. Pol Pot and Leopold II of Belgium were actually worse. Putin is ex-KGB. High ranking at that. He wants to be "Tsar of all the Russias", delusions of grandeur.
Bear in mind, however, that Ukraine has been in the grip of civil war for eight years - and that was sparked by a neo-nazi coup d'etat that ousted a democratically elected leader (the Uzov Brigade has openly expresssed admiration for Ukrainian Nazi sympathisers in WW2 and even suggested building statues to them), and has been unstable ever since. It doesn't do to display that kind of weakness when your next-door neighbour is led by a megalomaniac. Also, where was the outrage when the US invaded Iraq? Or at continued Saudi air strikes in Yemen?
First of all, I see this as two separate questions. What category Putin would be in and then what other state leaders would also be in that category. Perhaps it is your reading comprehension skills that need work.
Secondly, on a platform such as answerMug, individual writing styles add interest and character and insight into the writer's personality. If you were reading a novel, would you expect every character to speak exactly the same?
And reading something so cumbersome is annoying to me. Guess that makes us even, and my reading comprehension is fine. Your personal attack is uncalled for and arguably a violation of site rules. Sorry to bother you with my opinion.
Well since Hitler was already taken I am going to say Vlad the Impaler. because like Putin he was a brutal, sadistic leader famous for torturing his foes. Putin will probably be compared to Kim (the leader of North Korea). Donald Trump will get a mention with them for being a wanabe dictator that sent Putin and Kim love letters. Cheers!
I think it's crazy that people are likening him to Hitler. Even if we're unwilling to consider NATO's role in this debacle, can we at least respect the victims of the Holocaust? There is just no comparison.
In my view, Putin is probably more akin to Reagan.
Reckoned that might be the case - it's all right :)
I mostly mean that if Reagan (who, I think it's fair to say, was quite aggressive in foreign policies) represents some good old values to sections of the American people, the same could apply over there.
This post was edited by Danilo_G at March 2, 2022 4:19 AM MST
Hitler isn't just the Holocaust. If you look at Hitler's military actions leading up to WW2 - it's pretty comparible. Even more so, if you look at how Hitler and Putin both got "elected".
I see - he's Adolf without the millions upon millions of civilian deaths in a methodical extermination. Perhaps Obama and Bush Jr. were too. Or did the U.S. never invade other countries?
Look at how both Hitler and Putin gained control over their countries. (both had political views shaped by being on the losing end of a war against western powers) (both were elected, then seized dictatorial power by persecuting their opponents)
Look at Hitler and Putin's explanation to the world community of why it was necessary for them to invade. (they both said it was to reclaim lost territory, to support their people in those lands, and then to provide a buffer against foreign invasion)
Putin has indeed done things that very much run contrary to democracy (that abstract ideal which, as it happens, I can't seem to find anywhere in the world). Anyone can draw parallels as they please, but I simply feel the comparison is out of order.
Can we, however, have a look at NATO's involvement? Creeping ever-closer to Moscow, making their usual promises, then leaving the locals with nothing but prayers and weapons with which to kill or be killed; and making one sole guy the villain in this entire mess. That is the proper Western methodology.
The democratic thing would have been for Putin to do nothing but make allowances for all those American missiles on his border, correct?
This post was edited by Danilo_G at March 2, 2022 8:13 PM MST
Funny - but if the nations who joined NATO were dissatisfied with it, they could leave at any time. That they didn't is evidence they believe they are better off as a member.
Putin's reason for wanting Ukraine to not join NATO is understandable - but tied to the past. The plains of Ukraine are no longer needed for an invasion from the west - and the mountains are not an obstacle to such. Like the Marginot Line, technology has bypassed them. Even if they were relevant, that doesn't give him reasonable cause to invade a sovereign nation.
Yes, he must "make allowances" for another nation to do what it wants within its own borders. (And yes, I've said the same thing about America in the past.)
It's modern imperialism versus a more outdated kind. Those who trust in the West are let down once again - but always by others, of course. I just feel sorry for the people there. Caught between two brutal sides who do not and will not care for them. Only, one of them is more honest about it.
Slartibartfast 