That’s an oxymoron.
I would think that was more because they were far left than because they were liberal.
Americans have their own terms for things. “Liberal”, to them, means leftist - nothing more, nothing less.
I doubt any but the most RW-partisan Americans think Lenin or Stalin or Castro were “liberals”. And the far-left is to the left of those.
It’s not that they have their own definition of “liberal”, it’s that they seem to have no idea what “far-left” actually means.
Have to agree with MrDibble here Alessan.
Some, for sure. Mostly those on the right. But the hardcore leftists I knew once upon a time despised “liberals” as do-nothing wimps who were only as left as was comfortable 
. This old Phil Ochs song (or Jello Biafra’s update among many covers) about sums it up.
I’m going to buck the trend here as I think there may be something to it, but indirectly. Dictators like a society to be as they see it should be, with people following rules that lead to a controlled society that falls within certain guidelines that the dictator agrees with.
Further religion is powerful and when decoupled from state control challenges the state authority. This aspect is who gets to set the rules, the state or the state and the church.
So while I don’t think it’s a overwhelming reason I do think it’s a factor as the church supporting greater freedom then then state wants to allow will detract from Putin’s power and is a move towards greater freedom.
The terms “liberal” “left” and “socialist” now simply mean:
“A thing that I don’t understand in the slightest, but I have been told it is terrible so I hate it.”
That’s not how American liberals, leftists, or progressives use the words. I agree that “socialism” is such a bastardized word in the US as to have little meaning.