Anonymous #1 8w

Are you slow?

9

Anonymous #1 8w

Great Man Theory only refers to people in positions of power, it makes no judgment on their moral character. It is “great” in the sense of “big” or “important”, not “good”. It is also one of the most prominent features of far right (conservative) and center right (liberal) politics

10

Anonymous OP 8w

Honestly here’s the thing. The war could absolutely end if this piece of shit wanted it to. It’s not as complicated as you make it out to be, even tho you have a good point

0

Anonymous #1 8w

If he wanted it to is the operative term. However, consider the situation Russia is in. It is politically and geographically isolated, its population is on the decline, and despite its landmass, it has very few year-round ports for shipping. Nato, the alliance formed purely to contain its predecessor (the USSR), is at its doorstep. All of these are factors of history outside of Putin’s control, and they all influence his decision making. Let me be clear, I am NOT defending Russia (cont.)

6

Anonymous OP 8w

But it is important to ground our analysis in material reality rather than chalking it up to “bad men do bad things and good men do good things”. As with any country, there are concrete motivations behind Russia’s actions, even if those motivations lead to innocent deaths and other abuses of human life

4

Anonymous OP 8w

I’d argue it’s more nuanced and the great man theory very much has some level of influence in geopolitics. The main goal of dictators is to stay in power and to seem strong, and a lot of historical and outside factors influence that individual desire for one to stay in power as well I’d argue

0

Anonymous #4 8w

An individual dictator will want to stay in power, true. But dictators do not act alone, nor do they come to power alone. In order to preserve its economic interests, the US will frequently installed and support dictatorships in the global south. Our economic system encourages business leaders to interface with politicians, these politicians then decide foreign policy, and this foreign policy then props up dictators. They do not act alone, but are rather born out of systems. For example…(1/?)

8

Anonymous OP 8w

…Putin was chosen by Boris Yeltsin as his successor. It was an individual choice, but let’s take the situation into account. The USSR had dissolved and Russia had just come out of an economic crisis. Yeltsin was cozy with the oligarchs who were busy plundering the country (as oligarchs do). Reading the situation of the country, Yeltsin was understandably nervous that the next president would prosecute him…(2/?)

8

Anonymous OP 8w

In addition, both he and the oligarchs wanted someone who would protect their interests and who was not associated with Yeltsin. Putin fit the bill, and he’s been in power ever since. So, what seems at first an individual decision is actually connected to the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent turmoil in Russia as well as Yeltsin’s interests. (3/3)

5

Anonymous OP 8w

So in summary, yea individual decisions and history interact, but history’s role in political situations is much more important than any individual or their individual decisions.

6