Are we looking for Reality the way it is, or the way we want it to be in order to satisfy our pre-conditions?

I think that now many of the speak Russian. In fact, for years they called themselves Russians. Been doing that for 30 or 40 years. But that was because they were in the Russian Empire. Then they got freed, but not really.

Unfortunately yes. When we buy from China, we are supporting that totalitarian government.

I do not say this is really relevant, but I am curious: what language do they speak in Ukraine? Is it Russian? Or do they have their own Ukrainian language?
Americans had a revolution against Great Britain, but we both speak English. Germany and Austrian both speak German, I believe.That is not relevant to the rightness or wrongness of the war, of course, I am simply curious.

There are instruments by which one can see or perceive things that cannot be seen by the naked eye: e.g. microscopes, telescopes,etc. but, eventually, the natural (at least one or more of the five senses) have to be involved. Something that actually contradicts the five senses could not exist. There could not be a realm where "his assertions, which are false on earth, become true..." (Ayn Rand,Atlas Shrugged).

If it is made in China, isn't China a Communist state? Doesn't it claim to own everything the citizens produce? Doesn't that government get the money that comes in from people in other countries buying the products made there?

Facts to be considered-

The Belgrade Agreement of 1991 to ensure Ukrainian neutrality
The Ukrainian President has repeatedly sought to join NATO in violation of the 1991 independence agreement

The Minsk Agreement of 2014 to give the largely Russian regions, Donbas, etc a vote for independence
These regions have been treated appallingly by the Ukrainian governments since then, the promised vote has been refused, result, an eight year war with about 14,000 deaths.
75.000 refugees have fled to Russia.
The Ukrainian President has consciously not upheld the Minsk agreement.

Crimea received its fresh water from a river that flows through Ukraine.
After the 2014 Minsk protocol was signed, Ukraine built a dam to stop the flow of fresh water to Crimea.

Ukrainian President Zelensky supports the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion
When a Clown moves into the Palace, he does not become a King.
The Palace becomes a Circus. – Turkish Proverb
The existence of the Azov Battalion has been denied tho' many photos of it exist.
This group has openly targeted and attacked culturally Russian Ukrainian citizens and minorities such as Roma. Zelensky claims a Jewish mother with the illogical implication that he is not and cannot support nazis, however, there was his gratuitous insult to the negotiator from the Israeli government.
The government circus has as its prime function payoffs to US crime families by paying commissions on US government aid.

Many statements from NATO that it would not expand to the east
NATO has made several significant expansions east. Russia has repeatedly requested that Ukraine not install NATO medium range missile launchers.

Senior politicians around the world have repeatedly created discord
eg US Vice President Kamala Harris supported NATO expansion just prior to Putin's action.

The bio-labs, now confirmed by the US State Department
There are about 46 of them, some close to the border. These are US staffed, controlled and paid for by the US military, and have functional links to people and companies with ties to the Wuhan lab in China. Think 'Gain of Function'.

Outside military intervention
These are: free-lance fascistic fanatics fighting with the Azovs, NATO, and government military.
French intelligence sources claim that British SAS and American Delta Team special forces are in a secret war in Ukraine, and a French reporter recently returned from Ukraine said: “Americans are directly in charge of the war on the ground”. Against Russia? Yes, and before that against the eastern regions since 2014. Canadian government denials of training the Azovs will have to be withdrawn as photos are emerging.

A free country with democratic government and agreed borders (sic)
Actually a US client state. The borders are subject to an election which one side does not allow. The government was installed after uprisings orchestrated by Soros coordinating with NATO and US. After another artificial uprising, The Clown was installed as president.

Summing up. Thanks to commentators for good contributions and thought, my question on Putin got a good discussion. In forming an opinion I was influenced by responses on this post, other posts here, and other places not listed (this is an opinion piece not an academic paper).

The question relates to the Russian military intervention and incursion in The Ukraine so I will not consider here the history or character of Putin unrelated to that.

Over the past decade, Western Main.Stream.Media has been very critical of Ukraine: the serious corruption, the Azov nazi activities, the discord and violence in the east, but when Russia started troop movements, they reversed to make a hero of the Ukrainian President and a villain of the Russian leader. Examples- NYTimes, Guardian.

MSM are now lavish in reporting claimed atrocities by Russia. However, private commentators observe resemblances to pics from Iraq, Serbia, etc. Vids, such as of the so-called Bucha atrocity where 'dead' bodies stand up and walk away when they thought the camera had passed, show major use of fake evidence. This, 3-4 days after the mayor inspected and said, 'the Russians have gone'.


A simple explanation for the extreme antagonism is that Putin is one of the few world leaders resisting The Great Reset, and the green dream of the World Economic Forum.


Conclusion

Rather than evil, the situation confronting Putin made his decision inevitable, perhaps even righteous. He was and still is certainly under provocation by the gang ruling the 'West' from their actions over years, and from The Clown still 'president' of The Ukraine.
The term evil can be better applied to that whole gang who caused the violence and have been so destructive of the nations and populations that they pretend to lead and serve.


A list of considerations follows.

Given that its apparent that Ukraine is pretty crooked all around, its looking like both Zelinsky AND Putin want to get whatever riches are in Ukraine for their own (and their friends) benefit- regardless of what happens to the people of Ukraine.

I do think that essentially none of the people WANT to be run by Russia, but a lot dont want to be run by Ukraine either. I dont like the idea of Russia bombing the hell out of another country and invading it, so I would be against Russia winning this "war". Maybe the best solution would be for Ukraine to have its own civil war and just figure it out themselves- leaving Russia out of it. Probably not going to happen though. Russia is into taking over whatever it can get, as they have always done.

"One can argue this is for mother Russia, but I think it is for his cabal of subordinate oligarchs. "

And it can be both, as well for they are not mutually exclusive.

"so why doesnt putin stop invading, and zelenski hold elections and let the different areas be independent or be part of ukraine or part of russia. "

Possibly because Zelenski was literally given that option and refused. And because, as I've been saying from the jump, Putin isn't trying to conquer Ukraine. Zelenski was also offered, in concert with Germany and the US, a way out before the invasion: publicly they'd "leave the door open" to NATO admission but Zelenski wouldn't pursue it and would agree in private that NATO would never let them join. He refused the deal.

"why fight over this if the people there dont want it."

Ask Zelensky. While he inherited the Ukraine/Donbas war, he kept waging it and still does to this day. A little over a year ago the shelling of Donbass cities and villages ramped up, even targeting places the international aid conveys were to go through - thus blocking aid to the people. The people of the Donbass want independence from both Russia and Ukraine's government.

Yet Zelensky won't let them have it.

Neither side of that war is anywhere near "pristine" in their prosecution of it. Both sides are hiding in civilian populations, both sides target civilian areas, both sides are committing "war crimes." This really isn't surprising when you consider they both descend from the same military ideology.

Much of the current escalation over Donbas can be traced to 2018 when Ukraine passed a law mandating they regain control over the two declared independent states that basically make up Donbas (yes, there are two of them). That aspect is a key factor glossed over in this crapshoot: the two declared independent states have insisted on remaining independent - NOT being integrated into Russia.

Over 13k have died in that war, and over a million displaced - with over half a million seeking refuge in Russia. He also made it a crime to disagree with official line on Donbas. Starting at around the same time last year he and his administration started banning stations that were even slightly perceived as "pro-Russian" - under the guise of (wait for it) misinformation, propaganda, and national security.

The somewhat ironic part of Zelenski refusing to hold referendums in Donbas on the subject is that most polling indicates a majority (small to moderate depending on poll and timing) want to remain part of Ukraine. While I don't put much stock in polls overall, and especially in such a contested zone, it begs the question as to why not hold it if the polls indicate it would go your way?

So ask all of your questions on that of Zelenski as well. I'd almost expect that is the more interesting question. Perhaps because an attempt at doing so was made, and it went in favor of self-governance. Every government that favored the outcome accepted it, and those that did not rejected it as invalid.

Then in Misk II, these regions would reintegrate into Ukraine after Ukraine and Ukraine would let them mostly self-govern. then it gets stickier with both sides holding votes and elections and claiming them to be for Minsk II and the other side rejecting them.

Frankly, I don't think anything resembling elections or referendums or even votes would have, or would now, make a difference. The history of it there just doesn't support it. With both sides essentially being rather despotic governments hell-bent on criminalizing dissent, is that particularly surprising? Not to me.

I will add this: I think some people take the notion of the word supernatural too far and equate it to something which is un_natural. I do not believe this to be an appropriate use of the word _supernatural. The Greek prefix "super" or "uper" (similar to German uber as in ubermensch) was used to indicate something transcendant; of superiority or excellence to that of a common order of things. A better word for something which doesn't fit in our version of Reality would be alien - a word pigeon-holed through use in science fiction but which truly means "something incomprehensible."

If one starts with what is "natural" as being that which can be detected by the first five senses, then something which can not be detected by those senses would be "supernatural," i.e. still being a part of Reality just beyond the grasp of those five senses. I think the examples I gave are sufficient to illustrate clear examples where the five "natural" senses are wholly inadequate to explain such phenomenae and thus the need to look for an answer beyond the bounds of the "natural" senses. Please note that I am not saying any such are immune to reason, including the Law of Identity, only that the understanding of such can not be achieved solely using input from the "natural" senses.

I will have to comment that I buy things that are labeled "made in china", but I buy those things from chinese PEOPLE and companies- not from the chinese communist government. I would draw the line and NOT buy from the chinese communist government itself. In my experience, the chinese peoples' treatment of me has been ok. They all seem hard working and honest for what thats worth.

I typed a reply, but accidentally deleted it. No time left to put it back in, but maybe another day.

I do not think there is anything supernatural. There are things invisible with the naked eye, but that is not the same http://thing.As I think was explained by Objectivist writers, man does have free will (the freedom to focus his mind or not; this is so because if he did not, he would not even be able to question any of his own conclusions, and nobody could really know anything. Now what free will would look like in substance, I don't know; I don't know that it could ever be seen with the naked eye, but if it is an electric charge, or something like that. But there could not be something true that really contradicted physical reality, by which 2+2 would not equal 4, or something that contradicted the Law of Identity.

I don't think I need necessarily to just "buy American", but I do believe it is wrong to buy totalitarian.( reply to Thoritsu; I don't know why these messages don't go to the place on the screen where the sender types them.)

so why doesnt putin stop invading, and zelenski hold elections and let the different areas be independent or be part of ukraine or part of russia. why fight over this if the people there dont want it.
Politicians are all evil, with hidden agendas for power and wealth. Sorry, but its the way I think about them. Putin is certainly no better. He just wants power and money too, and will use the russian military to get it for him. I dont know much about zelinski, other than he looks a bit too slick to be real. I mean from the pictures, how could you NOT like him. He should allow free elections. NATO denied him admission anyway, so thats not an issue.

There is no credible evidence that supports the assertion that Zelensky is why russia hasn't "stolen" Ukraine, and some to indicate he may be a big reason why this is currently going on.

While many don't want to admit it, because Putin says it, NATO is a big part of this. The other big part is that, since the mid-90s, the US has been bent on establish a "liberal world order." We've fomented and supported "revolutions" in that part of the world for "the sake of democracy" to that end. Anyone paying attention can see it - you don't need to accept Putin's assertion of it. Hell, even one of Biden's recent "gaffes" references it.

Like him or not, Putin has reason to be concerned that more west-dependent "democracies" on his border the more the odds we go after him. And look at the reaction we've had in the last few weeks - essentially proving his point. The U.S. created the situation in Ukraine, we started it in 2014 or so. Now we're using to call-but-not-call-for regime change in Russia. Exactly what Putin talked about over the past many years - and exactly what Russia going back to Soviet Union era was concerned about.

The Donbass region has been seeking autonomy, Zelensky refuses to allow it, and has continued the use of military force in that many-years old war. So what if they are "backed" by Russia? The America Revolution had us getting backing from France.

I've seen footage, from people I trust, of Ukrainian military forces embedding themselves among civilians, essentially trying to use them as human shields. Some might call that evil.

The first thing is we'd need to agree on what constitutes evil. I believe that one has to be careful in defining it because of what it means to identify someone as evil - namely that virtually everything done to counter it becomes acceptable. Evil is a strong word, and the ramifications are severe, thus in using it we need to respect that.


So for me, I waver a bit but generally go with evil being the intentional infliction of suffering for the sake of the suffering. To clarify the distinction:

A physical therapist will usually wind up inflicting some level of pain and suffering. But there is a beneficial goal the suffering is by-product of. Hence, while there is the infliction of suffering, it is not evil. However, someone torturing someone just to watch them suffer would qualify - even if they didn't do it for personal pleasure.

From that perspective, I'd have to say no, as there is no evidence he is doing this just to make people suffer.

Now where many may dislike that definition is that it excludes a lot of things we generally consider evil. For example, I want to consider collectivism evil given the damage it requires and inflicts on individuals. However, it doesn't meet that criteria. But then I wonder if that is actually a good thing.

See, another thing about "evil" is that it tends to be viewed as inherent. We see this in not only the level of extremes undertaken to destroy evil, but with the immediate cessation of any dialogue and attempts to persuade. If Putin is evil, can there be negotiation and discussion with him? After all, many would argue that to permit evil is an act of evil.

One of the problems I see in today's society is the rush to extreme labels - often as an excuse to avoid any discussion or non-extermination resolutions. In the light, I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we did less labelling of "evil" and more use of more accurate terminology that doesn't have such a visceral connection.

It isn't that different from the word "hate" - which is in my view also heavily overused. Years ago I noticed I and my family glibly used "I hate X", when really it was something that we just disliked or found annoying or inconvenient. So I set us out to always question it when any of us used it - asking "do you really hate it?" - which caused us to reconsider and dramatically reduce the usage. Now when we say we hate something, we all know we mean it and give it the gravitas it deserves.

I suspect we, as a society, would be better off doing that not just with hate, but with terms like "evil", "nazi", "racist", etc.. They tend to be used to shutdown people and specifically avoid critical thought about them or their statements or policies.

Whether one agrees with them or not, Putin has put forth his reasons. None of them indicate "evil" in the sense above. We can decide if we think those reasons justify the actions taken or not, but on their face I would not qualify them as evil, or whether we believe them to be his actual reasons.

To me, that is a big deal. When you dig into all the major "evil dictators" in history, they all believed and represented themselves, as the good guys. I've been unable to find one that didn't have rational (which does not mean correct or good!) reasons that on their face are beneficial one. And that is the problem as I see it: we are on the lookout for the stereotypical evil villain and instead they always slip in because they are essentially not evil. Their outcomes are not born of malicious or evil intent; they are merely unescapable ones born of the ideology and policies. Hence, not evil by my criteria above.

I think we as a race of beings would be able to better protect against people who commit such atrocities if we accept at a fundamental level that one doesn't need to be evil to commit those atrocities, and that it is never the "path of evil" that takes us there, but instead the "path of good intent" - much like the proverbial road to hell and intentions.

(So for me I resolve it as the identifier we need to avoid being the combination of believing they know better with the willingness, or even eagerness, to use government force to get their "superior" way. That way we don't have to worry about intent or if something is evil or not.)

But I sure do want to call them evil, and I used to. Once upon a time, not long ago, I did define collectivism as inherently evil. More specifically I defined the attempt, or desire, to oppression of the individual in favor of a collective as evil. And I thought I had a good definition.

However, I don't think anyone has ever had their minds changed by calling them evil. I found that by dropping "evil" I was able to reach more people.

Perhaps the more appropriate route is something akin the "sin" - as the Christians have "love the sinner, hate the sin" which is essentially saying the sinner isn't evil - but is still not doing good. That said, I don't think "sin" is the appropriate term, just closer conceptually.

It would have been better if we didnt have deficit spending and money printing. We never would have had the balance of trade issues. we wouldnt have inflation like we do now. we would still be making stuff here, because the chinese stuff would have not been relatively cheaper. The usa got to think it was richer than it was for years now. Now the chickens come home to roost, and we have to live with the reality of being less wealthy. Things will even out in a few years IF we stop money printing- wages will rise, prices will level off, and the dollar wont buy as much from china as it does now.

The longer we print money, the harder it is to get over its effects.

So true.

Not looking forward to that, unless it also collapses the Reserve banking System.

qw buy from china because the us dollar is the reserve currency and we can print them, send them over to china, and they send us goods. Once the reserve currency switches to some other one, us dollar will crash to where it should be and chinese stuff wont be as cheap any more.

This will fix the trade imbalance and bring mfg back tot he usa

Unfortunately, what you say is pretty much right on. We cant trust any of the politicians really. They have hidden agendas that benefit themselves.
Biden wants to destroy the USA. Unfortunately he has no clue how it got as great as it is

always the hidden agenda today...