Truthfully, he isn't good. However, yo have to give credit when its due, he is 100% working toward the interest of his nation and his nation alone. That said, while respectable, it can be very bad to leaders trying to build a consensus for a NWO using social and financial coercion.

Governing Evil, to me, is any system which takes free will and self determination away from the individual.

The full court press by world powers and their propaganda outlets tells me Putin isn't evil, he's just not on the acceptable same page.

Perhaps what we are seeing is 'Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya' I have more toys than you do. I think Pelosi is a case of arrested development, Schumer is just stupid, Biden never matured, and I could go on and on.

the basic problem we all face right now is "who do you believe?"

we have been lied to for at least 5 years, about Trump, about covid, about the 2020 election, to name 3 things

we have been lied to about other things for much, much longer

what is clear it hat the average people of Ukraine , just like us, had little say in their corrupt government, are suffering for reasons beyond their control and some people on both sides seem determined to keep the war going

the risk is that the government of the United States is being run by clueless children that cannot see beyond they own personal desire for more and more power

I’ll take a Putin over a Biden.
When you peel off all the layers of propaganda, is Biden evil?
Mhubb hits the nail on the head. And drives it clear through 2x4s.
Perspective....
There’s a whole other side to this conflict that is being suppressed.

When allowed to, Putin thinks only of his own power, and seemingly will do anything to preserve it. He kills, maims, and in Ukraine is willing to kill any and all people he doesnt even know just so he can look good as a powerful leader, and steal whatever riches there are in ukraine- even if there are no people left there that he can lord over.

I would call the bastard definitely EVIL, and pretty much on the same level as Hitler. There is a scale of evil-ness, and I think all of us fall somewhere on the scale. Putin is way towards the totally evil end. I woudl say that Xi is pretty much towards that end also, as if Rocket Man in N Korea.

Some one should develop an EVIL scale, and rate people on it so its easier to see where people are at.

Vlad: love or hate him, he is NOT one of Klaus Schwab's puppets.

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.

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.

Hopefully a summation: From AR via JG perhaps RH. Good vs Evil? Those who initiate force against another surrender their rights.
The initiation of force or threat of initiation is the onset of evil. Do not attempt to force a citizen; you may forfeit your life, citizen's choice!

The problem with defining good and evil is that it necessarily depends upon a viewpoint which many will call religious: that is that it depends on more than just this life. If you take the nihilistic view, there is no such thing as either good or evil: everything exists for the moment because there is nothing beyond that of any lasting import.

So in taking on the challenge of "good vs evil" one must necessarily presuppose a certain inviolability of the soul, ie that our being does not dissolve into nothingness upon death. As such, ongoing existence is presupposed. The question then becomes, what kind of existence is there beyond death? What kind of sociality exists and on what conditions is such defined? The only logical conclusion is that it will be defined in large measure by the type of person we become in this life: the pursuits of this life will similarly become the pursuits of the next. To think that simply shedding these mortal shells of ours will suddenly change our very natures and personalities is to attribute those natures and personalities to our bodies rather than to our minds. And what would be left of such minds? Nothing.

Therefore, the only course left is to assume that the next stage of existence is very likely to be shaped by our actions in this one. And in one form or another, it is the description of this speculation regarding the next plane(s) of existence where science simply has no information and only religion provides even speculation. Here you have everything from reincarnation (Hindu) to some sort of judgement (Ancient Egypt, Judeo-Christianity, Islam, and many others.) What is interesting, however, is that many of these systems gravitate toward declaring many of the same behaviors positive and others negative. What seems to vary greatly is the level of individual power/autonomy in these various systems. Viking lore placed emphasis on martial skill in the eternal battles there. Islam places everyone as subservient to Allah and the most faithful as being those afforded what others call "carnal pleasures." Some Christian religions teach of a vast judgment comprised of "damnation" for the sinner and "salvation" for the righteous based on nothing more than a professed statement of belief.

I believe that life on this earth is not so different than life on the next. I believe that we have the choice here to build within ourselves the capacity for self-governance and the acquisition of knowledge. Once one learns through training and experience how to harness one's own innate abilities, one will find the ability to then go on to affect the universe. Because of the difficulty of this road, however, there will be few which don't instead turn off onto the various exits to pursue those things that they pursued in this life, thus limiting themselves indefinitely.

Now, you asked if Putin was evil. The answer there depends on what one calls "good." In simplistic terms, that which is "good" is that which advances us toward some paragon or epitome of virtue. Some ideal. That may be slightly different depending on whom you talk to, but as one prominent philosopher taught, much revolves around treating others the way you want to be treated. Thus kindness, forgiveness, tolerance, hard work, honesty, integrity, and others are all considered positive virtues. Thus one so infused with these values will tend to be a "good" person - or at least a person headed in a positive direction - vs someone who is not. I will make one clarification, however, and that is that many think that "evil" is the opposite of good. I do not hold this to be the case. Darkness is merely the absence of light - not an opposing force such as anti-matter. Such with evil: it is an absence of good or a tendency away from that which is good. There is no question that Putin has committed acts against others which violated "good" principles such as those previously mentioned. The acts were evil: they violated the virtuous ideals. So therefore the question then becomes: do the acts make the man? I think it is safe to say, yes, since what a man (or woman) does becomes the way they will continue to act. The only "saving grace" would be if a man stops doing infernal things and begins doing virtuous things.

Of course the other question is if there is a way to make up for one's previous infernal actions. That is specifically a religious subject and delves into the notion of a redeeming figure such as a Jesus Christ, etc. Whether or not such exists is beyond the scope of this topic.

Putin:
1. is working to maintain economic relevance for his oligarchy
2. cares nothing about the nation of Russia, except its service to his oligarchy.
3. has oppressed his own people
4. has attacked another country and killed thousands for his own gain.
5. is disconnected from reality now, thinking Russians would celebrate in the streets for the attack, and sitting at one end of a 40' table.

However, the US et al set him up to fail by placing a puppet government in the Ukraine, and doing who knows what there. Now he is responding like a challenged animal.

Putin is evil, because oppressing a people for one's own gain is evil, and further attacking another people for one's personal gain is also evil. He could have just as easily followed Gorbachev and moved Russia west, but then he would have just had wealth, not massive power.

We are also evil.

Forcing people is evil. It is a part of Ayn's very definition of evil.

ANY member of the old KGB is pure evil. Just because he's the head oligarch now means nothing.

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.

Intention might make a difference in the case of an accident--though even then, it would make a difference
if there was negligence, and/or a callous dis-
regard of possible consequences. But,by the time a person is old enough to be mature (that is, old enough to be accountable for his actions--which, in some cases may mean voting age) he is responsible to know the difference between right and wrong. In the Objectivist philosophy, one has free will, that is the power to focus his mind honestly on the facts before him, or not. And, therefore, an adult should know what the rights of man are: that is, the right to live his life according to his own judgement, without using force against anyone else (fraud being a kind of force). And, if he crosses that line, by violating those rights (which, in someone else, are the same as his own) , his whining that he meant good by it, (such as instituting a collectivist welfare state in order to "benefit the people"), should not constitute a valid excuse.
I don't think that there is much room for questioning that Phewtin is evil.

A very simplistic approach, if Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, et al is against him then perhaps he is not as evil as they are. How many foreign excursions has our government involved itself with spilling the blood of Americans in the name of "national security"? Good or evil when governments get involved in the lives of it's or other peoples, it is ALWAYS the people that bear the brunt of this and suffer.

The list would be a lot shorter if you had asked what well-known names in the media aren't evil.

I agree with mhubb that Putin is a Patriot, even though he has stolen billions from his people; still he likes Russia and Russians. Our politicians feel that we are dumb, useless idiots, even though we have made them rich. Hopefully, their hatred for us will be their unravelling.

No evil is the girl my grandson married. Who in the hell slaps a 2 year old in the face. They are keeping me away from her because I promised to slap her to sleep when I get the opportunity.

A Father spanks his child... Is he evil?

We cannot know the facts.
We cannot know the minds of others, except for what they say.

Let's ask a simpler question...

Is George Soros Evil? (Hell Yes).

he has a STATED goal of destroying the United States and controlling the world. And his actions are in alignment with those "evil" goals.

Evil to whom? if he is Evil to the Globalists... And I think he is... I am all for it!

I do not think him evil, he is a communist, and he is what I expect from that those of that ilk.
Evil is sneaky, evil is when you pretend to be so kind and helpful, and then stab people in the back.
Bidden is evil, Hunter is a parasitic opportunist, close to evil.
The question is, if one preteands to be doing theings for the climate and for he people, but is self serving and knows he is killing people by designg, that is evil. If one says, I am coming for you, evacuated, and you put children at the front to be slaughtered, is not Zeeliinskyy bordering on evil more than Putin We all know Soros is pure evil, he uses his money to buy more evil.

To understand what Putin is trying to accomplish, this Caspian Report video gives a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkrLU...

Perspective involves historic paranoia among the Russian people, who've been overrun numerous times. Putin believes he is seeking to save his people from a future calamity and the collapse of the Russian heartland. We can, from our subjective view, declare his actions as "evil," from the many lives lost in pursuit of his goals, but objectively we can understand his thinking, and why it's a risk he's willing to take to save his people.