Usually, I believe the underlying reasoning is that they think someone is not pro-war enough, or anti-the guy enough, when they accuse someone of being pro the guy. Like secret supporters or something. Because actual pro the guy seem extremely rare.

My dad praises Putin as a good leader. He sees Putin as someone who is merely capitalizing on the weakness of Biden, and that Putin was scared of Trump. In his mind, Putin invading Ukraine is the fault of everyone who voted for Biden. It's stupid an illogical, but it is his legitimate opinion on the matter.

He's not even a fringe case either, just your standard old dude who parrots whatever crap Fox News is spewing.

Your dad doesn't actively support Putin or Russia. Nor does he think that Putin is the savior of the West.

That seems to me like a classic no true scotman argument.

This 100%, I have a similar experience.

Your average MAGA is a conservative who cares about things like low taxes and gun rights but who is also protectionist on trade and immigration. This is a change from the older Bush and Reagan conservatives who tended to be neoliberal. They may or may not care much about culture war stuff. Some do and some don’t.

I’m talking about ideologues and movement people. I have run into a few of these people in the wild, mostly neoreactionaries, trads, and neo-racists who use terms like “race realism.” I haven’t personally run into really hard core neo-Nazi types in my circles but those exist too.

A lot of the above either admire Putin directly or at least see him as an example of the kind of strong man ruler they think we should have.

It’s not clear to me whether the ideological affinity is mutual though. Putin’s Carlson interview seemed dismissive but Putin has dog whistled to these crowds. Maybe he’s just doing it for propaganda reasons and could personally care less.

There’s also a big claim about Putin being heavily influenced by Alexandr Dugin but I’ve heard others claim this is hugely overblown.