Putin traits poll

[DakotaHale]

Saw a poll that showed that around 2/3rds of Americans view Putin as a "strong leader." Before the Ukranian invasion the percentage was in the mid 70s (though his American approval rating was in the 20s I believe, and lower now). Wanted to poll here as well.

[Rezi]

Putin is "strong" in the traditional sense, but he's not very smart and is easily blinded by his emotions and ego.

[DakotaHale]

1. I consider Putin a strong leader in the sense that he has extreme control over the government and his people, but I don't consider him as strong as he was in 2014 for example.

2. I do think Putin is a very cunning and clever man, but I think his mental state has degraded somehow to consider him intelligent. This isn't endorsing his behavior - I'm just saying that I understand his rationale. I would be pissed at Ukraine and the NATO too in his shoes.

3. Clearly unfavorable. Maybe he would have been "indifferent" at some point (probably the beginning of his 'presidency') but never near approval.

4. Yes. But only because I think this invasion has revealed a potential illness/mental deterioration/depression/misanthropy or whatever tf is going on about him on his part more than the actual war itself.

[Hestia]

Clarity - my views on Putin haven't changed necessarily (always thought he was an awful person), but my view on his mental state, his adeptness as a leader has changed. 

[vcczar]

1. I don't equate being a strong leader with being a great leader. Generally, the stronger the leader the more authoritarian their grip is, and the more authoritarian the grip, generally the worse the leader. 

2. I think he's got the same kind of intelligence as Trump, except unlike Trump, Putin is actually not an idiot. I don't think he has theoretical, emotional, or intelligence in the sense that Lincoln, Jefferson, or JQ Adams are intelligent. He's got a Stalin-like intelligence. That said, I think he blundered with this Ukraine invasion. As far as mental degrading. I think he's degraded only in the sense that he may have self-delusion--same way Trump is self-delusional. I don't think Putin is mentally unstable. I think the oligarchs would force him out if they felt Putin was endangering their bank accounts or safety, which would be more likely if Putin was unhinged. 

3. I think the only time I had a favorable view of Putin was once Yeltsin stepped down and I didn't really know who Putin was. He seemed quiet, unassuming in 2000. 

4. I think my view of Putin has been about as low as you can go for a foreign leader. He's been at this level for me since 2014. He's been near this level since changing the constitution to stay in power. I think that was in 2008. I think from 2000-2008 was the only time I didn't have an unfavorable view of him. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Previously, I viewed Putin as a mastermind.

The invasion of Ukraine has opened my eyes to the fact that he is actually much more Trump-like.

Theres a level of strength and intelligence in commanding power — but then the things he does with that power are so impotent and stupid.

[DakotaHale]

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

This comparison is interesting, because Stalin never failed in any military, political, diplomatic, or technological endeavour (economic, yes, I'll concede, he had several disasters, but not in the other categories) he ever engaged in as a Soviet leader in a broad sense.

That epic moment when that epic moment when you lose 15% of your population in a single war, lose to Finland, get embargoed by every Democratic country, cause a famine/purge that killed more Russians than WW2 did, and your successors lose the space race to the USA but it’s ok bc you never failed in military, economics, diplomacy or technology 😀👍

[Edouard]

Putin rose to political top by bringing the dream of great Russia of the past, the Russia of tsar, the Russia which was an empire and this political dream coupled with orthodox restauration helped giving him a strong base in Russia.

Excepted that imperialism glory of past centuries is completely out of date in nowadays' society, we're no longer at a time where a country can raise national armies and send these to attack their neighbors without consequences. And the process of international promotion of the statutquo does not exist only since WW2, it has been growing up since the last past 2 centuries.

The issue with Putin is that I wonder if part of him is not currently living in Peter the Great's time.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Edouard

[WVProgressive]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

@WVProgressive If I may ask, what aspect of this rundown do you disagree with, and why? How am I incorrect with my analysis?

I disagree with your assessment of Israel as some kind of product of European imperialism. I believe that Israel is the sacred homeland of the Jewish people, gifted to them by the God described in the Torah. I also believe that, since it was derived through divine intervention, the Jewish right to Israel still has validity despite being thousands of years old, and contradicting the current claim to the region by the Arabs.

[WVProgressive]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

First, there was never a statement in Scripture that the Promised Land in Exodus, and fulfilled in Joshua, was anything more than a, "one-time deal."

But it's also never stated that it is a one-time deal, so I'm not sure why you bring this up.

14 minutes ago, Patine said:

God routinely used foreign conquerors and scattering the Jewish People to the winds to punish them for transgressing his Laws in Scriptures (which they seemed to do often).

Yes, in ancient times the Jewish people did, at times, worship Gods other than the God of Israel, and because of this they were conquered by the Assyrians. However since the vast majority of Jews (rightly, or wrongly) do not believe that the other Gods even exist, I would argue that the divine reason for the diaspora has ended, and that the Jews have more than earned the right to come home.

38 minutes ago, Patine said:

And, I do not believe this Ancient (and highly debatable in still standing in the form delivered to Moses) Covenant gives the right to strip the Arabs in the area of all dignities of self-determination, citizenship, and basic legal status - being reduced to stateless people in the lands their ancestors have inhabited for centuries - and seizing their land and driving them into horrible settlements

I would counter this by pointing out the fact that the Arabs currently occupying Israel have plenty of countries that they can go to, (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabi, just to name a few), while the Jews only have 2 options, 1. Reclaim their ancestral homeland of Israel; or 2. Maintain the Diaspora, which has left Jews vulnerable to countless anti-Semitic attacks, from both citizens, and from gentile controlled states.

39 minutes ago, Patine said:

like Canadians, Australians, and Americans did to their indigenous people, often also using religious pretense.

From my point of view, this comparison is backwards, the Arabs, and Assyrians are more akin to the colonizers, than the Jews are. The indigenous Americans*, and aboriginal Australians were gifted the right to their various ancestral homelands by their Gods, just as the Jews were gifted the right to Israel by Yahweh, just as the Norse people were gifted the Nordic countries by their Gods, and so on, and so forth for all of the truly spiritual peoples on Earth. Meanwhile the Christian-European powers colonized the 'pagan' peoples of America, and Australia, just as the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate colonized Israel. 

You probably shouldn't make an argument like this, especially since earlier in this conversation you argued that the Jewish claim to Israel was invalid because too much time had passed. Using that logic, I could argue "So many generations have passed since the genocide of the indigenous Americans, so it really doesn't matter, and they don't have a right to this land anymore." You acknowledge the immorality of the Christian-European colonization of America, and Australia, yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact that a series of Islamic empires forcefully conquered, converted, and colonized the Middle East, and North Africa.

*For clericity, I am referring to all indigenous peoples in the American continents, rather than just indigenous peoples who live(d) in the territories of the current United States.

[jvikings1]

3 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

I disagree with your assessment of Israel as some kind of product of European imperialism. I believe that Israel is the sacred homeland of the Jewish people, gifted to them by the God described in the Torah. I also believe that, since it was derived through divine intervention, the Jewish right to Israel still has validity despite being thousands of years old, and contradicting the current claim to the region by the Arabs.

It is also worth mentioning that Israel has been subject to both military and economic warfare by its neighbors, leading it to taking the approach it has.