 Sorry, Christy's tall, isn't he? But actually, it might not be only about all students of both states. They have some theoretical insights about the evidence of who are going down, and also some historical reflections on how to deal with those goods. Of course, the political aspect is quite interesting between this theoretical and practical aspect, but I will provide some part of the movement with these two things. I would say that the difference of course has contributed to a lot of different topics related to this. Like succession or insulation, or political competition, or the essence and differences of modern state, and work data, imperialism, and civil topics, and of course private production of defense, and civil thinking, but of course not always applying its principles today. It's very easy. It doesn't always satisfy the needs of all those people who are living in small communities, and I think that's one of the differences that we know in the means of national defense, which is here, where a lot of questions are answered. And for example, one of those questions is the question of defending countries with respect to a small country, because often on the issue, you may see that all of these countries do live in big states, and not live in the United States. And it's not surprising that they probably are just out of those small percentage of the political activities of our big states. For example, as Robert says, during my lifetime, a lot of our political activities has always turned a position to an American force, a force of American force, and that's here in this country. But the question is that of course many people do not live in big states, but live in small states, and they have to have something, something that has to do with them. And in case of small states, there is no privilege for people of those states to discuss about imperialism, and civil conflict, it is usually not small states who act as first ones, it's usually big states who start some kind of conflict of war, and it is only the reaction of the left of the small states. And those concepts are usually not necessarily much. What actually war is in small states is how all kinds of strategy would be more critical to defending countries. And of course, the opinions have absolute discretion, partly because there is a part that many communities, one that was free as they feel better and so on. But in case of, let's say, some projects for free countries of big states, I think that, or in general discussing the issue, I think there are two other mistakes, but then there are many. One is when people try to draft the practical other constitution more towards the world of problems, and sometimes they are probably wrong in actually proposing the kind of immutable states, when you're not in a real state, whether to defend a country, whether to defend the front, or whether to always defend practically is when we discuss theoretical aspects of prior political defense, but we see that our reality, the real political reality and also the genesis of general public do not allow this principle to be implemented. And also some theoretical questions remain. For example, as the question about this, that centralization is simply progressive, and then the whole process, they're often better progressed, but in practical, it's very difficult to distinguish what kind of centralization is progressable and what kind of centralization is the question of improving facts. And of course we have to answer these questions every day when we need some kind of conflict. And of course, sometimes you raise a question that the state is never to defend a country because states such as the one there and then maybe even if the state has an army, it doesn't have to defend a country in the case of conflict. But in this case, I want to cite the wrong book again and he said that in some of these kind of discussions, it said that the period should stay in effect with the state. All rights, uses, but as long as you exist, at least in part you are given the area which you are normalize. It actually means that progress again is in favor of if the state is already existing and the army is already existing, it would be more the army in the case of war. It's so much more political moving. Everyone has an image of a moving. Of course, I am also one of them. Of course, I think the material is moving in our state or in our government and that's also true but of course we have some image of foreign moving as well but very often, especially being from a smaller state it's not really such a case in the United States but it's definitely a case in central Europe. But of course the more interesting question is how we define a moving because it's not always an easy question and outside of the definition of moving it through it's going to be different but it reflects the outer and putting in both desire and courage platform action of power and balance of typical repetition and just use of power and every moment by aggressor and a sense of being aggressed and part of the mix. So these are the general institutions of moving which is in part moving which is also our work as well. But when we turn to practicality of this national policy it's very difficult as I said to distinguish what is going on. I think some examples just saying for example for example on the other side one of the consensual who is good who is not or US who is against country against some country of course it's very difficult to define who is good and what is not for example the Kurdistan question and for Iraq and Turkey question we had some reflections on this yesterday who is good and we saw examples of everyone who says who is good or for example Russia and Jordan who is good he is a sessionist state or is it this kind of reflection of Russian good or Israel Palestine or Israel Arab World conflict what is that and again that's one of the senses that we are always the difficulty in solving the real areas of any particular work when both sides are iron cans when there are many foundations secret genius deals and frontier incidents the question of moving the actual starter or let alone who is wrong it's a careful research of human history and of course I have to admit also that it should be put inside the country and this is a nasty picture this one is from Romania that's quite difficult for many countries about how the government is exploring people and killing them and calling for about 172 million people were killed by the government and according to other nations there are 262 2 million people killed by the government in 20th century but let me tell you another question it's really always wrong and sometimes there was a case 2 years ago concerning Russia in Ukraine conflict concerning gas gas fire it was treated as an eye-opener case for western world showing how Russia uses energy to know that's geopolitical but I think that's a good front because actually what happened there was the negotiation between price and Russia was to charge market price because but of course it's not an official to people of Russia to use energy to know that's buying other neighbors but of course it's not moving or let's take another example we see them back there and there's recent discussion about 3 years already it's a project gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and actually they still are very much opposing gas pipeline because they are going through new countries and of course it means that all those countries will have instruments to address Russia in some case of instance and actually if you look carefully to some aspects of there's some pressure between Poland and all of almost all countries and that's what Russia was using as a tool against Russia and what is that it's not moving it's more than a free state against big countries and free states in some cases so really that guy is not going to run or or we say that all states are moving around if they want to help us and let me talk to the strategist of how to deal with the moving and of course there are some strategies like fighting war resistance alliance having a strong friend obeying or buying out or collaborating or the last one which is quite difficult just being open to foreign investment which I think is very essential but before going to details let me again speak about some strategist concerning this one is that it's usually cheap and small it's always weak but in fact it's not true and for the history also it's starting with the fact that small nations and the fact that small nations too we survive and actually that's what the business points out there is usually help coming from abroad for small states because of different reasons and small states are not necessarily so bad in contrary to what is popular and in this case small states another notion I think it's really free I guess it's a little particular if we have a prosperous country it means that it has very little centralized power and if you look at it this country may be occupied because there is no army business but in fact it's not true because in Brazil it's more like this when strong really it's weak but it's just different from the older authors they argue that small states are strong and sometimes even dangerous to other states but small and free states are strong and sometimes dangerous to other states and it pops up that three nations and that's where they are they are a little stable and that's part of the truth there is kind of among their citizens that's making them better soldiers and this country and people of opinion and free competition and that's of course the efficiency in free states and the high standard of living enjoyed by three nations in the recent situation in the state and the opposite argument which I think but of course these are historical arguments and you may have very different situations and in fact when historian Charles said actually it works and of course sometimes it's a good strategy at the same time in the case of against business people and one more interesting thing is that historical analysis also show that the correlation in capital between the genesis of states and wars and all successful business wars it may be a correlation in the first place which is like capital and then there is strong real opportunity for capital first which actually finances some some goods in order to together and that's part of that in fact there is not much to talk about but it doesn't matter because in historical we see that they from the conquerors when it is being used to the left of France and it is being used or it is on Monday so the general strategies of this are in the past so therefore it is not a pessimist policy which also is a pessimist and something like that so we can say here but I think that the this and the the the the the the the the the the the the the and for this but when it is the war. And it was easily afterwards. But despite the huge number of Russian civilians, all members, there were four or four times more soldiers. And it gives Russia two times more tanks, and three times more aircrafts. And still Russia didn't win the war. And then in the war, the Germans, of course, started to collaborate with Germany, and part of the military. Of course, the military was also a defend again, but not so difficult to defend again. Popular participation in the army changed the militia structures and the artificial intelligence of the militia, popular militia was the case in the first sense, and people are again very patriotic, and the fact is that the popular uprising which got things going to get independence from Russia in 1980, but the fact remains that in most countries, the resistance from power is doing World War II. For example, in both states, the resistance for our church, the resistance for the German army giving some military experience and the church got stronger movement than the Germans. But the story is not as simple as it can be. It was actually a cheap, because in fact, the Finns didn't win the war. They lost about 10% of their trade, they lost thousands of lives. And of course, it was quite a big size of Finland, but afterwards they didn't get some national funds, money from the West and so on. But actually, what could you have now in that process decided anyway? And in the case of non-resisting countries like Lithuania, for example, we didn't lose any soldier during that death period, but afterwards we lost about one quarter of the population, and we lost everything economically. And looking from a non-resisting perspective, it looks like the resistance then was a better solution than non-resist. But on the other hand, let me also show some insight of the good status of Lithuanians against Soviet Union, of how it worked. But first of all, let me say the statement that we're not people, of the Lithuanian, Lithuanian army before World War II. It's not very, but it doesn't put me to strong. But anyway, in case of Lithuania, it was like a prestige of the Lithuanian army to Soviet army and how it was patently financed. But during World War II, of course, all the bounties received by Russians and used against Lithuanian example. But the next picture is the Lithuanian concept of guerrilla, the pilot of the past World War II. And of course, guns are completely different than those that were financed in the taxpayers money before World War II. These were guns that were kept on as a militia group, so it seized from an enemy, but these were different guns. It didn't help at all. But the thing about the real success of Lithuania, first of all, is that this justification process, which was also the new use of the new world history, in Lithuania we have about 10% of people immigrated from Soviet Union in Lithuania, about 35%. And in Latvia we have about 45%. The difference is quite huge. And Lithuania had, even in substantial situations, presented as the best, almost one cent of Lithuania's territory was depopulated after World War II, because Lithuania got back in from another big power column after World War II. And Dupont, I think, and the Jews were killed and then reports left this territory. And he got a political or a regional region, which again, Lithuania and some Germans actually left the country and these were depopulated areas. So it looked like a community from Ukraine was just a government and so forth. But actually, there were strategies which worked in this case. First one was a very intensive development, which was even more intensive in Lithuania than in Latvia and Estonia. And there were, again, some accidents which created an atmosphere of an image that is very unsafe for Soviets, for all of the Soviet men to go to Lithuania because there was a group that would be killed. But that's it. So in small cities and villages, there was a lot of possibility for newcomers to come because there were so many systems. And there were systems of numbers for resistance. In one year, like in 1945, there were about 70,000 to 100,000 of Lithuanian fighters in the forest and its forest dwellers. And actually, it was reported that, you know, sometimes the chiefs of the units actually sent soldiers home as a reserve because they were not fighters. So it was an actual validation of what was fighting against such an invasion, especially in the right part of the World War II. And then another strategy concerning the system in Lithuania was different. It was the cooperation of Lithuanians with Russians because the participation of Lithuanians in Lithuanian communist parties was much, much higher than the participation of Latvians or Estonians in their communist parties. And it meant that they had stronger power and they had the ability to manipulate or manipulate this. And in the case of industrialization, it was able to send it to the Indian presence to the results of your industry, but not to the violence in other countries. So this is quite a brilliant achievement if you compare. And this offers, again, some of these two tactics how to deal in such a difficult situation. Of course, there is a suit that has some trend in the life. And I think it's very important. And for example, in the case of Kuwait, it works really well, because Kuwaitans were free riders and U.S. soldiers fought for the independence. And that was great for Kuwait people. It was not even so great for U.S. taxpayers. It was great for Kuwait people. So why not put the free ride and have this strong alive? And with one of the interests of small free neighbors was also important. For example, in the case of Lithuania, it was so much like the question-secret sources were paying Lithuania national ruling by them before World War II in order to keep the conflicts between Lithuania and Poland alive. Because they didn't want Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Soviet to make an alliance against possible threats from Russia and was successful. And if we had this kind of alliance, the outcome of this would be quite different. Of course, obey the body, obey the body. It's, again, quite a practice and a gist of the example of Kurds who were kind of excited to defend them. And in fact, this was quite a modern example in the ancient times. And for example, there's no record of the actions of other citizens who actually were choosing defenders and there's very often a system quite often. And sometimes, sometimes I'm not a conqueror because citizens of all those cities where Poland and Poland are helping the people who occupy them. And sometimes it's a viable solution if you want to, if it's possible to win, of course you have some problems to deal with this problem. And during the World War II, in the Middle Ages, somehow you also managed to deal with the actions of aggressive and in counter-terrorism, how it's impacted before. It means if it's landed before, before in the seat of the city, so everything was left as it was. If it's landed before the city, so since we're going to go out of the city where they can carry on. And if they were fighting in the end, all of them were killed. So that was in the Middle Ages, so of course you have to calculate the data. Of course it creates, it creates some sort of nuclear arms if you feel that everyone is helping. But anyway, this is quite a much. And already the nuclear war, exploiting the nuclear war also, in the case of Ukraine and Russia, this gas, the conflict, receiving the cheaper gas, it's quite a good deal. You saw something, but you also did something. The goods are interested quite soon in exploiting the oil and sending some subsistence to abroad in order to fly out, you know, like, ventures from those countries. One more thing about distress is openness to investment. In most of the problems there is there is a future to speak about how investment forces economic problems. That's something to add. But in the case of some investment from Ukraine and Russia, it seems to be more complicated. It's like in the UK or the country before, like investment from such companies as gas farm, it is usually that it is small. Why would we have to accept this investment from this country because they would make an influence on us? And that's quite reasonable information, but in fact, it is completely true. Because if we go back from the economics of this, you may see that usually small free countries is better placed to make and use large money in the case of managers of states and huge companies. And in fact, managers of such companies often actually do so. It is very beneficial for them to invest and to show profits and to take profits away somehow. And then, of course, abundance of investment, of investment in different countries creates mechanisms of checks and balances. You can do it from different investment groups. And then, if, all free country has investment from building a neighborhood, of course, building a neighborhood has investment centers for a tiger country or to use money for care against the country because first and foremost, it comes to its investments. For example, energy is the first example. If you let all the energy and components brought out by, let's say, Russian companies, in this case, Russia will not be interested in money for care. They will not sell energy to this country. So this country will be doing it. And one more thing is, what will be done in case of small country? And what will be done is, of course, we will not put it into markets into the actions of people because first and foremost, it will be possible to provide care for the distribution of arms as is and it will be possible to adapt to the changing situation. This management and actually, costs of confidence are personalized and in the absence of internalization, there is no need for every citizen to think about how to adapt to the situation and how to deal with it. In this case, I mean, I mean, nearby. And one more thing very important one is, oh, that is the conversation I can see in Ukraine. And what they say is natural gas is what we pay for neither. And actually, it's dry, but this is a trade-off. This is this wrong soldier in the Soviet which was moved away from the place and then the riots and everything. And some people call it a social security, some people call it a monument of enormous power. And people can go full-time. I can't feel this. But let me elaborate a little bit about state. If all places or territories in New Estonia would be private ones and all efforts would be private ones. So for this monument would be in place of some in California. And it meant that moving out this monument was a good decision. And of course it would always be more easy to move around if you have someone similar across the board if you have some other political power. And of course if you simply move out you might have someone to move in if you know that many, many instances are very, very convinced that there's always privatization very good to monitor or bully. And especially in the case of this new fashionable gas or industrial oil works or energy as geopolitical tool. In case of private energy companies there's no politicians involved in the process. And there's no specific supply. Or case for example in the same reconciliation work states there are less Russian people less Russian students are willing to attend Russian schools now and there are decisions to close of Russian schools. But of course as schools are under government of course it's political decision and as it's political decisions but if we have inspiration of all schools of pilots you have roles in this sector so it means that there are Russian government who have a different situation. And one more argument is what to do or some observers in the function of the regime in the country it means that you say that tries everything in person people just are being learned. And actually for ordinary people it's not a big deal whether you are a one government or another government while in case of free nation it is in the essence in a lot of people that you work against against the goal that you want and just to conclude I would say that is in case of government they often strategists stand against strong building in creating strong power to run decentralized in order to be successful and sometimes shorter and the other aspect is that when neutralized in finance when this was a great but it's not a strategy it's not the existing existing power but that's reflections on this is great but it's not the existing power but it's the existing power to change and to change and to change and to change and do we do how do we do how we do