Well he is 100% correct and i agree with him.
@gambit Bro do you see what i was saying. Even your own colonel agrees with me. Ukraine as a buffer state is win win for both AMERICA and RUSSIA.
This is no different than that joke about economist: put 10 economists in a room and you will get 11 different answers.
Do you think that you are guilty of 'confirmation bias', meaning you seek out only evidence to confirm your hypothesis and nothing else?
I will deviate a bit to make a moral point: slavery in America.
The abolitionist movement pretty much started in England with William Wilberforce. Slavery was eventually abolished in England. But the abolitionists were not satisfied. They saw slavery in America and they felt a higher moral call which is to abolish slavery in the world. Their critics responded: That is America's business.
According to the Ukrainians, Kyiv was a metropolitan city when Moscow was still a tribal village. Am not going into details of that claim. The point here is that Ukrainians believes and feels they are not Russians. What
YOU are saying now is that the subjugation of a distinct people and culture is Russia's business, and because Russia is more powerful it is no longer Ukraine's business. According to
YOU, an entire country and people must suffer for your comfort in Norway just because an American colonel say so.
The problem for your Norway, and the rest of Europe for that matter, is that if we allow Ukraine to be sacrificed to Russia, Europeans condemned Ukrainians %100 to a life of misery under Russian domination, but at the same time, Europeans have at best 50/50 odds of being free. Even if Russia sign an agreement to leave Europe free, how are the Euros to enforce what Russia promised? They enforce their freedoms by deterrence, which is a polite word for threat. But the moral problem remains, that the Euros sacrificed an entire country to %100 servitude for %50 odds of being free, and free only at Russia's pleasure. The reason you have at best a 50/50 odds of being free in the future is because history shown that expansionist tyrants do not stop.
Now let us return to slavery in America and English abolitionists. If
YOU feel that what the abolitionists did was morally correct, then why are you content with letting an entire people live subjugated? Poutine have been in power since 2000. That is 20 yrs where Poutine could have lead Russia to a modernized present. Instead, Poutine acted exactly as what Russia have consistently produced: a kleptocrat. Poutine got wealthier and wealthier while the Russian people got nowhere. Russia is an argument that some societies can only produce one Putin after another. So instead of working to contain such powers,
YOU are willing to submit to their demands, plural, because after this demand, you will submit to another, and another, until the threat is right up to Norway's doorstep.
